Agenda packet — Redlands City Council, May 7, 2024 (part 2 of 4)

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 471 of 1013

4.3 – Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

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?
□ □ □
An Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated June 2023 (See Appendix A). The report estimates the potential air quality emissions for the proposed project and evaluates project emissions against applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds for construction and operation. a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based on regional growth projections developed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the AQMP is affirmed if the project:

1. is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP.

2. would not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation
Consistency Criterion 1 refers to the growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the AQMP. Projects that are consistent with the AQMP growth assumptions would not interfere with attainment of air quality standards, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. The proposed project would generate approximately 333 new residents, which would be well within the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth projections for the City of Redlands (i.e., 11,300 residents Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 472 of 1013
between 2016 and 2045).7 Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions contained in the AQMP.

Consistency Criterion 2 refers to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable.8 As described below in Section 4.3.b, the proposed project would not generate construction or operational emissions in excess of SCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds.

Based on the consistency analysis presented above, the proposed project would be consistent with the regional AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The U.S. EPA, CARB, and the SCAQMD assess the air quality of an area by measuring and monitoring the amount of pollutants in the ambient air and comparing pollutant levels against NAAQS and CAAQS. Based on these comparisons, regions are classified into one of the following categories:
• Attainment. A region is “in attainment” if monitoring shows ambient concentrations of a specific pollutant are less than or equal to NAAQS or CAAQS. In addition, an area that has been redesignated from nonattainment to attainment is classified as a “maintenance area” for 10 years to ensure that the air quality improvements are sustained. • Nonattainment. If the NAAQS or CAAQS are exceeded for a pollutant, the region is designated as nonattainment for that pollutant. It is important to note that some NAAQS and CAAQS require multiple exceedances of the standard in order for a region to be classified as nonattainment.

Federal and state laws require nonattainment areas to develop strategies, plans, and control measures to reduce pollutant concentrations to levels that meet, or attain, standards. • Unclassified. An area is unclassified if the ambient air monitoring data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment.

Table 3 (Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status) summarizes the Basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants. The Basin is currently in nonattainment for state and federal ozone, state PM10, and state and federal PM2.5 standards. Pollution problems in the Basin are caused by emissions within the area and the specific meteorology that promotes pollutant concentrations.

Emissions sources vary widely from smaller sources such as individual residential water heaters and short-term grading activities to extensive operational sources including long-term operation of electrical power plants and other intense industrial use. Pollutants in the Basin are blown inward from coastal areas by sea breezes from the Pacific Ocean and are prevented from horizontally dispersing due to the surrounding mountains. This is further complicated by atmospheric temperature inversions that create inversion layers. The inversion layer in Southern California refers to the warm layer of air that lies over the cooler air from the Pacific Ocean. This is strongest in the summer and prevents ozone and other pollutants from dispersing upward. A ground-level surface inversion commonly occurs during winter nights and traps carbon monoxide emitted during the morning rush hour.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 473 of 1013
Table 3
Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status Pollutant
Averaging
Time(B)
California Standards(A) National Standards(A)
Standard(C)
Attainment
Status(D) Standard(C)
Attainment
Status(D)
Ozone
1-Hour (1979) -- -- 240 µg/m3 Nonattainment
1-Hour (Current) 180 µg/m3 Nonattainment -- --
8-Hour (1997) -- -- 160 µg/m3 Nonattainment
8-Hour (2008) -- -- 147 µg/m3 Nonattainment
8-Hour (Current) 137 µg/m3 Nonattainment 137 µg/m3 Nonattainment PM10
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Attainment
Annual Average 20 µg/m3 Nonattainment -- --
PM2.5
24-Hour -- -- 35 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Annual Average
(1997) -- -- 15 µg/m3 Attainment
Annual Average
(Current) 12 µg/m3 Nonattainment 12 µg/m3 Nonattainment Carbon
Monoxide
1-Hour 23,000 µg/m3 Attainment 40,000 µg/m3 Attainment
8-Hour 10,000 µg/m3 Attainment 10,000 µg/m3 Attainment
Nitrogen
Dioxide
1-Hour 339 µg/m3 Attainment 188 µg/m3 Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Annual Average 57 µg/m3 Attainment 100 µg/m3 Attainment Sulfur
Dioxide
1-Hour 655 µg/m3 Attainment 196 µg/m3 Attainment
24-Hour 105 µg/m3 -- 367 µg/m3 Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Annual Average -- -- 79 µg/m3 Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Lead 3-Months Rolling -- -- 0.15 µg/m3 Nonattainment
(Partial)
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-Hour 42 µg/m3 Attainment --
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment --
Vinyl
Chloride 24-Hour 26 µg/m3 Attainment --
Source: SCAQMD 2018b, modified by MIG.
(A) This table summarizes the CAAQS and NAAQS and the Basin’s attainments status. This table does not prevent comprehensive information regarding the CAAQS and NAAQS. Each CAAQS and NAAQS has its own averaging time, standard unit of measurement, measurement method, and statistical test for determining if a specific standard has been exceeded. Standards are not presented for visibility reducing particles, which are not concentration-based. The Basin is unclassified for visibility reducing particles.
(B) Ambient air standards have changed over time. This table presents information on the standards previously used by the U.S. EPA for which the Basin does not meet attainment. (C) All standards are shown in terms of micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) rounded to the nearest whole number for comparison purposes (with the exception of lead, which has a standard less than 1 µg/m3). The actual CAAQS and NAAQS standards specify units for each pollutant measurement. (D) A= Attainment, N= Nonattainment, U=Unclassifiable.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 474 of 1013
The SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and incremental increases in health risk are shown in Table 4 (SCAQMD-Recommended CEQA Thresholds).

Table 4
SCAQMD-Recommended CEQA Thresholds
Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Operation
NOX 100 55
VOC/ROG 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
TACs
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Source: SCAQMD, 2019b
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate equipment exhaust and dust emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities, as well as worker and vendor vehicle trips. The proposed project’s potential construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1. The project’s construction activities, duration, and typical equipment used during construction are shown in Table 5 (Construction, Activity, Duration, and Typical Equipment). The construction phases, duration, and the type and amount of equipment used during construction was generated using CalEEMod default assumptions, and modified to reflect the following project-specific characteristics:
• Demolition: The Demolition phase was removed to reflect the fact that the project site is undeveloped.
• Fugitive Dust Abatement During Construction: The model was updated to reflect compliance with the watering requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403 during construction activities. o Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any grading activity, storage pile, or other disturbed surface area if it crosses the project property line or if emissions caused by vehicle movement cause substantial impairment of visibility (defined as exceeding 20 percent capacity in the air). Rule 403 requires the implementation of Best Available Control Measures and includes additional provisions for projects disturbing more than five acres and those disturbing more than fifty acres. • Electricity Use: A 25 kilowatt (kW) generator was added to the model and assumed to operate 11-hours daily during construction to account for electricity consumption from the potential operation of a construction trailer on-site.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 475 of 1013
Table 5
Construction, Activity, Duration, and Typical Equipment Construction Activity Duration (Days)(A) Typical Equipment Used(B) Site Preparation 10 Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe
Grading 20 Excavator, Grader, Dozer, Backhoe
Building Construction 230 Crane, Forklift, Backhoe, Generator, Welder Paving 20 Paver, Roller, Paving Equipment
Architectural Coating 20 Air Compressor
Source: MIG, 2023 (See Appendix A).
(A) Days refers to total active workdays in the construction phase, not calendar days. (B) The typical equipment list does not reflect all equipment that would be used during the construction phase. Not all equipment would operate eight hours per day each workday.

The proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated construction emissions are shown in Table 6 (Unmitigated Construction Emissions Estimates). The construction emissions estimates incorporate measures to control and reduce fugitive dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s regional pollutant thresholds for all pollutants. Thus, the proposed project would not generate construction-related emissions that exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds.

Table 6
Unmitigated Construction Emissions Estimates
Season
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2024 1.4 11.7 15.7 <0.1 0.9 0.6
Winter 2024 3.7 36.0 33.8 0.1 9.4 5.5
Winter 2025 68.2 7.5 10.7 <0.1 0.5 0.4
SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: MIG, 2023 (see Appendix A) and SCAQMD 2019b.

As shown in Table 6, construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed the SCAQMD maximum daily emission thresholds. In addition to the construction period thresholds of significance, the project is required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short‐term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. This would further reduce generation of dust, and the potential to exceed daily emission thresholds. Construction of the proposed project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with construction‐related air quality, and as such, impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 476 of 1013
Operational Emissions
Once operational, the proposed project would generate emission from the following sources:
• Small “area” sources including landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products such as paints, cleaners, and fertilizers that result in the evaporation of chemicals to the atmosphere during product use.
• Energy use in the form of natural gas combustion for building water and space heating needs. • Mobile sources including trips made to and from the site by new residents and visitors.

Similar to construction emissions, criteria air pollutant emissions from operational activities were estimated in CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1 based on default model assumptions, with the following modifications made to reflect project-specific characteristics:
• Area Sources: Woodstoves and fireplaces were removed pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 445. The quantity of wood-burning fireplaces assumed by CalEEMod were added to natural-gas powered fireplaces.
• Mobile Sources: The default, weekday trip generation rate for the proposed land use was updated to reflect the trip generation rate provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Ganddini Group (Appendix I).

The proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated operational emissions, as estimated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1 are shown in Table 7 (Unmitigated Operational Emissions Estimates (Year 2025)). The emissions presented are for the proposed project’s first year of operation, which is presumed to be 2025.

Table 7
Unmitigated Operational Emissions Estimates (Year 2025) Source
Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (Pounds Per Day)(A)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 5.6 1.6 6.5 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Energy 0.1 0.8 0.4 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Mobile 3.6 3.4 29.3 0.1 2.3 0.5
Total Project Emissions(B) 9.3 5.8 36.2 0.1 2.5 0.7
SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: MIG, 2023 (See Appendix A) and SCAQMD, 2019b.
(A) Maximum daily ROG, CO, SOX emissions occur during the summer. Maximum daily NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions occur during the winter. See Appendix A. (B) Totals may not equal due to rounding.

As shown in Table 7, the proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s regional pollutant thresholds for all pollutants. Impacts related to the operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable.9 As described above the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria air pollutants, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 477 of 1013
c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Some people are more affected by air pollution than others. Sensitive air quality receptors include specific subsets of the general population that are susceptible to poor air quality and the potential adverse health effects associated with poor air quality. Both CARB and the SCAQMD consider residences, schools, parks and playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes to be sensitive air quality land uses and receptors (SCAQMD, 2017a; CARB, 2005).10 The sensitive air quality receptors in proximity of the proposed project include:
• Single-family residences north of the site along Mendocino Way, south of the site along Orchard Drive, and west of the site as part of the Redlands Ranch neighborhood. • Individuals at the Crafton Park, approximately 350 feet south of the project site. • Students at the Crafton Elementary School, approximately 960 feet south of the project site.

The existing sensitive air quality receptors located adjacent or in close proximity to the project site, are exposed to air pollution associated with motor vehicles operating on the roadways (e.g., Wabash Avenue, Colton Avenue), industrial facilities in proximity of the site, and overhead aircraft.

CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. While CalEnviroScreen was originally developed as part of Senate Bill (SB) 535 and used to identify disadvantaged communities for the purposes of allocating funding from the State’s Cap-and-Trade regulation, its application and scope have expanded over the years. The tool uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state.

Percentiles are assigned to each census tract based on the census tract’s score in relation to the rest of the state. An area with a high percentile is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores. For example, if a census tract has an indicator in the 40th percentile, it means that indicator’s percentile is higher than 40 percent of the census tracts in the state. CalEnviroScreen also provides a total (or cumulative) score, which helps contextualize how multiple contaminants from multiple sources affect people, while considering their living conditions (e.g., nonchemical factors such as socioeconomic and health status). Communities that are within the top 25th percentile for total CalEnviroScreen scores are considered disadvantaged communities pursuant to SB 535. 11 According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Map, the proposed project is in the census tract north of East Citrus Avenue, between Wabash Avenue and Judson Street (census tract: 6071008402). This census tract includes student receptors at Crafton Elementary School and Crafton Park, and shows an average pollution indicator percentile of 41% based on the CalEnviroScreen indicators (e.g., exposure, environmental effects, population characteristics, socioeconomic factors) (Appendix A). Table 8 summarizes the CalEnviroScreen indicators for census tract 6071008402.

As shown in Table 8 (CalEnviroScreen Health Risk Information), census tract 6071008402 is within the bottom 50% of total CalEnviroScreen percentiles throughout the State. Though it is not substantially burdened by exposure to most pollution and socioeconomic factors as described in Table 8, this census tract was at the highest 100% score for air quality ozone exposure, which puts this community in the highest percentile for exposure to ozone levels compared with the rest of California. However, since this census tract is not within the top 25% in total scoring, according to the CalEnviroScreen methodology, it is not considered a disadvantaged community pursuant to SB 535.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 478 of 1013
Table 8
CalEnviroScreen Health Risk Information
Indicator
Census Tract Indicator Values
Tract 6071008402
Exposure Indicators
Air Quality: Ozone 100
Air Quality: PM2.5 55
Children’s Lead Risk from Housing 12
Diesel Particulate Matter 39
Drinking Water Contamination 61
Pesticide Use 78
Toxic Releases from Facilities 42
Traffic Density 9
Environmental Effect Indicators
Cleanup Sites 0
Groundwater Threats 0
Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities 17
Impaired Water Bodies 0
Solid Waste Sites and Facilities 0
Sensitive Population Indicators
Asthma 61
Cardiovascular Disease 57
Low Birth Weight Infants 84
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
Educational Attainment 30
Housing Burden 14
Linguistic Isolation 22
Poverty 30
Unemployment 67
Cumulative Percentiles
Pollution Burden Percentile 27
Population Characteristics Percentile 50
CalEnviroScreen Percentile (Total) 41
SB 535 Disadvantaged Community? No
Source: MIG, 2023 (See Appendix A)
Individual Cancer Risk from Exposure to DPM
The predicted locations of the annual, unmitigated point of maximum impact (PMI), the maximally exposed individual resident receptor (MEIR), and maximally exposed student receptor (MESR) for DPM exposure during construction are shown Exhibit 8 (Construction: Modeled Annual Average DPM Concentrations), along with contours of pollutant concentrations in proximity of the project site. The predicted PMI is located east of the project site, in Wabash Avenue. Since the PMI for DPM exposure Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 479 of 1013
is located on land that is not occupied by a receptor on a permanent basis, lifetime excess cancer risks and chronic non-cancer health hazards, which are based on exposure to annual average pollutant concentrations, were not estimated for the modeled PMI location.

Accordingly, health risks were assessed at the modeled residential MEIR location, which is located north of the Project site at 1774 Mendocino Way. The HRA for residential receptors evaluated worstcase carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to child (3rd trimester, 0-2 years, and 2-16 years) and adult (16-30 years and 30-70 years) receptors. Potential health risks were also assessed for student receptors near Redlands East Valley High School, east of the project site. The worst-case individual cancer risk from exposure to DPM during construction is summarized in Table 9 (Unmitigated Cancer Risk at PMI, MEIR, and MESR). The worst-case risk is based on a receptor that is in the 3rd trimester at the start of construction activities.

Table 9
Unmitigated Cancer Risk at PMI, MEIR, and MESR
Receptor
UTM Location
Annual Average DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
(A)
Excess Cancer Risk
(per million population)
Easting Northing
Construction
Year 1
Construction
Year 2
Construction
Year 1
Construction
Year 2 Total
PMI(A) 487175.45 3769241.18 0.21381 0.00941 -- -- --
MEIR 487075.45 3769341.18 0.14218 0.00625 21.5 0.9 22.4 MESR 487675.45 3769091.18 0.00567 0.00025 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Source: MIG, 2023 (see Appendix A)
(A) The PMI is located along Wabash Avenue, which is not occupied by a long-term sensitive receptor.

As shown in Table 9, the maximum construction unmitigated health risk for the MEIR location would be approximately 22.4 excess cancers in a million, which would exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in a million. Therefore, the proposed project would include the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 to reduce construction-related DPM emissions and associated adverse health risks.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce PM10 exhaust emissions by approximately 79.4%, as accounted for in the CalEEMod emissions modeling (see Appendix A). Table 10 (Mitigated Cancer Risk at PMI, MEIR, and MESR) summarizes potential cancerogenic health risks after the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. As shown in Table 10, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, potential excess cancer risk from project activities at the MEIR location would be reduced to approximately 4.7 excess cancers in a million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in a million.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 480 of 1013
Exhibit 8
Construction: Modeled Annual Average DPM Concentrations Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 481 of 1013
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 482 of 1013
Table 10
Mitigated Cancer Risk at PMI, MEIR, and MESR
Receptor
UTM Location
Annual Average DPM
Concentration (µg/m3)
(A)
Excess Cancer Risk
(per million population)
Easting Northing
Construction
Year 1
Construction
Year 2
Construction
Year 1
Construction
Year 2 Total(B)
PMI(C) 487175.45 3769241.18 0.04423 0.00335 -- -- --
MEIR 487075.45 3769341.18 0.02936 0.00222 4.4 0.3 4.7
MESR 487675.45 3769091.18 0.00117 9.00E-5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Source: MIG, 2023 (see Appendix A)
(A) The annual average DPM concentration for construction is based on the first year of construction. (B) Totals may not equal due to rounding.
(C) The PMI is located along Wabash Avenue, which is not occupied by a long-term sensitive receptor.

The average cancer risk based on the lifetime exposure scenario (70 years), when taking into account Mitigation Measure AIR-1 to address construction risks, is 1.34E-06 (approximately 1.34 cases per million people). The product of cancer risk and the estimated population (1,066) is 0.001429 and does not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 0.5 excess cancer cases. The maximum annual average DPM concentration at any receptor location under unmitigated conditions would be approximately 0.14218 μg/m3
, which would occur at the MEIR location. Based on the chronic inhalation REL for DPM (5 μg/m3), the calculated chronic hazard quotient during the maximum exposure to DPM concentration would be

0.0284, which is below the SCAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold value of 1.0. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, potential exposure of pollutants to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). The proposed project does not include such sources but would result in the construction of new single-family homes and parking area that could generate odors related to vehicle parking and refuse collection (e.g., oils, lubricants, fuel vapors, short-term waste odors). These activities would not generate sustained odors that would affect substantial numbers of people, and as such, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
AIR-1: To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated with PM10 exhaust emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated during project construction activities, the City shall require the applicant and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel to comply with the following construction equipment restriction for the project:
• All construction equipment with a rated power-output of 50 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Interim Emission Standards. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV Interim emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB-verified diesel emission control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM10 emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 483 of 1013
As an alternative to using equipment that meets Tier IV Interim Emissions Standards for off-road equipment with a rated power-output of 50 horsepower or greater, the applicant may prepare and submit a refined construction health risk assessment to the City once additional Project-specific construction information is known (e.g., specific construction equipment type, quantity, engine tier, and runtime by phase). The refined health risk assessment shall demonstrate and identify any measures necessary such that the proposed Project’s incremental cancerogenic health risk at nearby sensitive receptor locations is below the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 10 cancers in a million.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 484 of 1013

4.4 - 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 Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ □
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
□ □ □
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
□ □ □
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
□ □ □
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
□ □ □
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 485 of 1013
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
□ □ □
A Biological Technical Report was prepared for the proposed project by Ecorp Consulting Inc., dated June 2022 (See Appendix B). The report analyzes the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project to biological resources. The information presented below is condensed from the memo prepared by Ecorp and is attached as Appendix B. a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is a previously disturbed, undeveloped, vacant parcel of land. The site is within a developed environment, repeatedly disturbed by human activities; such disturbances identified include vehicle tracks and trash scattered on site.

Vegetation identified at the project site was identified as disturbed ruderal grassland, with native vegetation being sparse. The Biological Technical Report identified 72 special-status plant species and 47 special status wildlife species that could occur on or near the project site. However, as described above, due to the level of human disturbance present at the project site and lack of habitat for special-status plants and wildlife, these special-status species are presumed absent from the site.

Considering the highly developed and disturbed nature of the project site the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to sensitive species or their habitats.

Special-Status Plants
No special-status plant species are expected to be present on the project site due to the extent of human disturbance and subsequent lack of suitable habitat; therefore, no impacts to special-status plants are anticipated as a result of project implementation.

Special Status Wildlife Species
Special-status wildlife species include those species listed as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); candidates for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS & CDFW respectively); and species of special concern to the CDFW; and birds protected by the CDFW under California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3503 and 3513.

The Biological Technical Report identified 47 special-status wildlife species that have been reported in other studies in the vicinity of the project site. Given the site’s history of disturbances through previous agricultural uses (discing, mowing) and proximity to residential, industrial, and commercial developments make the site likely undesirable for habitation by any special-status wildlife species.

Of the 47 identified special-status species, 46 were presumed absent and not expected to be present on the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat and constant human disturbance. One species was determined to have a low potential to occur on site; the burrowing owl.

Burrowing Owls
The burrowing owl typically inhabits open flat landscapes, such as grasslands and deserts, using abandoned ground squirrel or other small mammal burrows for roosting and nesting cover. The project site in its current state is marginally suitable to support burrowing owls’ nests. The combination of low growing vegetation and soil type, presence of existing burrows, and mobility of the bird species, lend to the possibility for burrowing owl to be move into the site. No owls were observed on site however, and a historic record taken for the Biological Technical Report identified Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 486 of 1013
the species occurring within five miles of the project site in 1983. Based on the evidence outlined in the Biological Technical Report, it was determined that the burrowing owl has a low potential of occurring on site. If, however, burrowing owls are found on the project site prior to construction, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, habitat loss, and mortality would be direct impacts to the birds, as well as indirect impacts such as construction noise and vibrations. Construction of the project site and operation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on burrowing owls with implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1 and Bio-2.

Nesting Birds
The oak tree located on the project site as well as the trees immediately adjacent to the project site could provide nesting habitat for nesting birds and raptors protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. Furthermore, the project site could provide nesting habitat for ground-nesting bird species. If construction of the proposed project occurs during the bird breeding season (typically February 1 through August 31), ground-disturbing construction activities could directly affect birds protected by the MBTA and their nests through the removal of habitat on the project site, and indirectly through increased noise, vibrations, and increased human activity.

However, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
b) No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area of Redlands, and no riparian vegetation or other sensitive natural habitats are present on the project site as indicated in the City’s General Plan12 and in the Biological Technical Report. No impacts would occur. c) No Impact. No state or federally protected wetlands or similar waterways are present on the project site. No wetlands were identified by the National Wetlands Inventory, or the City’s General Plan at or near the project site.13 Therefore; there would be no impacts related to wetlands. d) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by human development (e.g., residential, industrial, and commercial development and paved roads). There is insufficient vegetation cover on site to facilitate wildlife movement through the project site, and is isolated away from larger contiguous portions of wildlife habitats. According to the Biological Technical Report, no migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites were identified within the project site. As such, no impacts to these resources are expected to occur. e) Less than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. During construction operations, trees and other plant varieties would need to be removed to accommodate current building designs and construction. The removal of trees and plants during construction activities would not interfere with Redlands’ Tree Protection Guidelines as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code.14 The Guidelines are applicable to “Native or Specimen trees, Landmark trees, and Public Trees” as defined by the City. Trees on the project site have not been designated as native or specimen by the City, are not of any historic significance that would warrant a landmark designation, and trees on the project site are not located on public land, and do not qualify as public trees. Impacts would be less than significant. f) No Impact. The City of Redlands is an active participant in the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan (the Wash Plan).15 The project site is located southeast of the plan, outside of its boundaries. The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 487 of 1013
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys: Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted. The surveys shall follow the methods described in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2012). Two surveys shall be conducted, with the first survey being scheduled between 30 and 14 days before initial ground disturbance (grading, grubbing, and construction), and the second survey being conducted no more than 24 hours prior to initial ground disturbance. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrowing owl burrows are identified on the project site during the survey, the Project shall consult with CDFW and follow the methods listed in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for avoidance and/or passive relocation. If burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified on the project site during the survey, these features must be completely avoided. If impacts to those features are unavoidable then the project proponent must also develop an owl mitigation plan in consultation with CDFW. Mitigation methods may include passive relocation conducted outside of the owl breeding season (between September 1 and February 28). If an active owl burrow is identified, and construction is to proceed, then a qualified biologist (with two or more years of burrowing owl experience) can establish an appropriate disturbance-limit buffer around the burrow using flagging or staking.

Construction activities shall not occur within any buffer zones until the burrow is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist.

BIO-2: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: If construction or other project activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist to ensure that active bird nests shall not be disturbed or destroyed. The survey shall be completed no more than three days prior to initial ground disturbance. The nesting bird survey shall include the project site and adjacent areas where project activities have the potential to affect active nests, either directly or indirectly, due to construction activity, noise, human activity, or ground disturbance. If an active nest is identified, a qualified avian biologist shall establish an appropriately sized non-disturbance buffer around the nest using flagging or staking. Construction activities shall not occur within any nondisturbance buffer zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified avian biologist.

If initial ground-disturbing activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season, then a biological monitor shall be present during all vegetation removal activities to ensure no impacts to nesting birds occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 488 of 1013

4.5 – 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
dedicated cemeteries? □ □ □
A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report was prepared by Ecorp Consulting Inc., dated July 2022 (Revised September 2023), to assess possible cultural and historical impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project (see Appendix C). a) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Resources of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). CEQA Guidelines state the term “historical resources” applies to resources that meet any of the following criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) 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. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)).

A field survey and records search conducted for the Cultural Report of this project identified two historicperiod concrete standpipes located at the project site, which was once an agricultural field. According to the Report, the standpipes evaluated are not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or for local designation, and neither structure qualifies as a “historical resource.” While the City has several historic landmarks and sites listed under its historic preservation program as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), the proposed project site is completely undeveloped and there are no buildings, structures, or features on the site that could be listed as a “historical resource.” The project site was formerly used for agricultural purposes and is not known to be associated with an important historical period or important persons from the past. The project would not have any physical impacts outside the designated project area boundary. Therefore, the project would not result in any Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 489 of 1013
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.

No impact would occur.
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Given that the project site has been disturbed with agricultural uses over time, any archaeological resources that may exist likely have been previously unearthed, disturbed, or left in place. As such, significant surficial and subsurface archaeological resources are unlikely to occur on the project site or be encountered during earthwork activities. However, in the unlikely event that archeological materials are uncovered during grounddisturbing activities, and at the request of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8 have been incorporated. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8, impacts would be less than significant as a result of construction of the proposed project.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No known human remains are anticipated to be located on or beneath the project site. However, these findings do not preclude the existence of previously unknown human remains located below the ground surface, which may be encountered during construction excavations associated with the project, and it is possible to encounter buried human remains during construction. In addition, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians requested incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8 to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered human remains. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8, impacts would be less than significant as a result of construction of the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-1: Native American Treatment Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for the project. The Tribal Monitor shall be on-site during all grounddisturbing activities (including, but not limited 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.

CUL-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 will 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 will 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.

CUL-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 address the details, Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 490 of 1013
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.

CUL-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.

CUL-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 consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

CUL-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.

The archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery.

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)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 491 of 1013
CUL-7: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians 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., 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 reburial will 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 will be determined by the Tribe’s Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the landowner, and the City Planning Department.

CUL-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 Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] for review and comment. After approval of all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe[s].

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 492 of 1013

4.6 – 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 or energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency? □ □ □
An Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analysis Memo was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated May 2023 (See Appendix D) to evaluate the potential energy and greenhouse gas impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. The information presented below is condensed from the memo prepared by MIG and is attached as Appendix D. a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of 103 new single-family residential home. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require the use of heavy-duty, off-road equipment and construction-related vehicle trips that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. Heavy-duty construction equipment would be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) airborne toxic control measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. It is estimated that construction activities would consume approximately 28,031 gallons of diesel fuel and 14 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity to power on-site, off-road heavy-duty construction equipment. Worker, vendor, and haul truck trips during construction activities are anticipated to consume 5,017 gallons of gasoline, 5,279 gallons of diesel, and 943 kWh of electricity. Once operational, the proposed project would consume energy for vehicle trips and electricity usage. Operational vehicle trips are anticipated to consume approximately 105,772 gallons of gasoline, 26,881 gallons of diesel, and 38,286 kWh of electricity on an annual basis, upon its first year of operation. As estimated using CalEEMod, the proposed project would consume approximately 784 megawatt-hours (mWh) of electricity and 3,223 million British Thermal Units (BTU) of natural gas per year. Electricity, natural gas, and gasoline fuel consumption are energy sources necessary to operate and maintain the proposed project in a safe manner. Lighting is essential for safety and security and natural gas consumption is needed for heating and other temperature-controlled activities. The proposed project would not cause a substantial environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption or energy resources, during project construction or operation.

As such, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Redlands CAP, as discussed below in Section 4.7.b, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct any other state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency because no other plans are in place in the project area.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 493 of 1013

4.7 – 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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
□ □ □
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1997),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
□ □ □
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 494 of 1013
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
□ □ □
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature? □ □ □
A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the proposed project by TGR Geotechnical Inc., dated April 8th, 2022 (See Appendix E) to evaluate the potential seismic, soil, and other geotechnical-related impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. The information presented below is condensed from the report prepared by TGR and is attached as Appendix E.
a.i) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Redlands, and the Southern California region, is considered a seismically active region. The project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone according to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. There are no active or potentially active faults within or adjacent to the project site. The Redlands Fault is the closest fault-line and is located approximately 0.7 southeast of the project site. Other faults near the site include the Reservoir Canyon fault approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the site, the Crafton Hills fault approximately 2.9 miles southeast of the site, and both the Western Heights and South Branch San Andres faults are located

3.1 miles southeast and northeast of the project site respectively. According to the City General Plan, development should be restricted within and near Alquist-Priolo designated fault zones.16 Furthermore, structures should incorporate design standards recommended by the most current California Building Code (CBC). The project is not located on or near a Alquist-Priolo fault zone, and would adhere to design and repair requirements adopted in the current City of Redlands Code of Ordinances from the 2019 CBC.17 Design requirements adopted by the city would be sufficient in mitigating seismic hazards to the proposed project, and as such, impacts are determined to be less than significant. a.ii) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is subject to ground shaking given its proximity to fault zones and Southern California location. Per the City’s General Plan, the potential for ground shaking and seismic-related damages are also dependent on the underlying soil composition.18 The City is built on alluvium materials that can intensify ground shaking. The project site is of no greater risk to ground shaking than another area of Redlands, and while a structure may be damaged during an earthquake, adherence to design requirements adopted from the CBC would minimize damage to property within the structure, as they are designed to not collapse. The CBC is intended to provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. Impacts due to ground shaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a form of ground failure that occurs when soil transforms from a solid state to liquefied condition due to intense seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction typically occurs in loose granular materials, such as alluvium-type soils. Saturated soils or areas located near waterways and areas with a high groundwater level are also susceptible to such ground failure.

Parts of the City of Redlands are susceptible to liquefaction and ground failure from seismically induced ground shaking. However, the City’s General Plan indicates that the project site is not located in an area considered susceptible to liquefaction.19 Impacts related to seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 495 of 1013
a.iv) No Impact. The City’s General Plan outlines areas in Redlands susceptible to landslides.

According to the Healthy Community Element of the Redlands General Plan, the project site is not located in an area with high susceptibility, or even low to medium susceptibility, to landslide or ground subsidence.20 Therefore, no impacts related to landslides would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and microorganisms. The project site is located in an already developed area of Redlands, although there is the potential to expose surface soils to wind and water erosion during demolition and construction activities. However, wind erosion would be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. 21 Stormwater related erosion would further be prevented through control practices outlined in the Redlands NPDES program. 22 Following project construction,
much of the site would consist of impervious surfaces consisting mainly of houses and roadways. Once completed, the project site would feature pervious surfaces with substantial landscaping; front yards, back yards, community park, and accent landscaping around the perimeter of the development. Trees, shrubbery, palm trees, and other vegetation would keep in place topsoil, and reduce any potential risk of soil erosion. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with the implementation of existing regulations.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to a combination of gravity and ground shaking. Lateral spreading has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (i.e., retaining wall, slope, or channel) and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope.

As outlined in Sections 4.6.a.iii and 4.6.a.iv above, the project site is not located in an area susceptible to landslides or liquefaction. As the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction, there is a low potential for lateral spreading to occur on the project site. The project is required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC, and keeping in compliance with existing CBC regulations would limit hazard impacts arising from unstable soils to less than significant levels. d) No Impact. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, onsite soils tested had an expansion index of 0, equating to a “very low” expansion potential. The proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, and as such, no impacts would occur. e) No Impact. The project proposes to install new onsite water and sewer lines that would connect to the existing municipal sewer infrastructure in the surrounding streets. The proposed project would connect to this system and would not require the use of septic tanks. No impact would occur. f) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the proposed project would require site preparation, grading, and construction operations. Given that the proposed project site has been previously disturbed, it is considered unlikely that paleontological resources (fossil evidence of life from past geologic time frames) would be found. However, in the event that paleontological materials are uncovered, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that uncovered resources are evaluated and curated as recommended by a qualified paleontologist. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
GEO-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources. If paleontological materials are uncovered during grading or other earth moving activities, the contractor shall be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find, and to retain a professional paleontologist to examine the materials to determine whether it is a significant Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 496 of 1013
paleontological resource. If this determination is positive, the resource shall be left in place, if determined feasible by the project paleontologist. Otherwise, the scientifically consequential information shall be fully recovered by the paleontologist. Work may continue outside of the area of the find; however, no further work shall occur in the immediate location of the find until all information recovery has been completed and a report concerning it filed with the Development Services Director. The applicant shall bear the cost of implementing this mitigation.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 497 of 1013

4.8 – 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?
□ □ □
A Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analysis Memo was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated May 2023 (See Appendix D) to evaluate the potential energy and greenhouse gas impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. The information presented below is condensed from the memo prepared by MIG and is attached as Appendix D. a) Less than Significant Impact. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as GHGs. GHG that contribute to climate change are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous air pollutants because climate change is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects. Some GHG are emitted to the atmosphere naturally by biological and geological processes such as evaporation (water vapor), aerobic respiration (carbon dioxide), and offgassing from low oxygen environments such as swamps or exposed permafrost (methane); however, GHG emissions from human activities such as fuel combustion (e.g., carbon dioxide) and refrigerants use (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons) significantly contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, climate regulation, and global climate change.

The 1997 United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol international treaty set targets for reductions in emissions of four specific GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride – and two groups of gases – hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. These GHG are the primary GHG emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. The six most common GHG’s are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

This analysis uses the SCAQMD’s interim Tier 3 GHG threshold to evaluate the proposed project’s GHG emissions levels. Tier 3 consists of using screening values at the discretion of the Lead Agency; however, the Lead Agency should be consistent for all projects within its jurisdiction. The following thresholds were proposed for consideration:
o 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types; or
o 3,500 MTCO2e per year for residential; 1,400 MTCO2e per year for commercial; 3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed use projects.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 498 of 1013
This analysis also uses an 1,800 MTCO2e project-specific goal for the purposes of helping evaluate the project’s GHG emissions levels.i
The 1,800 MTCO2e per year project-specific goal takes into account post 2020 GHG emissions targets the state is currently working towards.

The proposed project would generate GHG emission from both short-term construction and long-term operational activities. Construction activities would generate GHG emissions primarily from equipment fuel combustion as well as worker, vendor, and haul trips to and from the project site during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction activities would cease to emit GHG upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year until the project is decommissioned. The SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction GHG emissions over a 30-year period and including them with operational emissions estimates. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions and compared to appropriate thresholds, plans, etc. Once operational, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area, stationary, mobile, water/wastewater, refrigerant, and solid waste sources.

The proposed project’s potential GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version (V.) 2022.1.1. Project emissions were generated using CalEEMod default assumptions and modified as necessary to reflect the following Project-specific context, information, and details:
• The type and length of construction phases for each site, as well as the equipment used in each phase and the number of worker trips per day, were modified per information provided by the project applicant.
• The default, weekday trip generation rate, average vehicle miles travelled (VMT) distance, and fleet mix were updated to reflect the information provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Ganddini Group 2023).

The proposed project’s total GHG emissions are shown in Table 11 (Unmitigated Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions).
i The 1,800 MTCO2e per year goal was developed by taking the SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, which was the threshold to reduce emissions back to 1990 levels and reducing it by 40 percent (3,000 MTCO2e/yr * (1 - 0.6) = 1,800 MTCO2e/yr). This reduction is consistent with the GHG reductions required by year 2025 to meet GHG reductions required under SB 32 (to reduce GHG emissions to levels 40% below 1990 levels by 2030). This linear reduction approach oversimplifies the threshold development process. MIG is not proposing the City of Redlands adopt or use 1,800 MTCO2e Project-specific goal as a CEQA GHG threshold for general use; rather, it is only intended for to provide additional context and information on the magnitude of the proposed Project’s GHG emissions for this project.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 499 of 1013
Table 11
Unmitigated Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions Source
GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e Per Year)
Operations
Mobile 1,119
Area 24
Energy 361
Water 15
Waste 31
Refrigerants <1
Vegetation 4
Subtotal(A) 1,555
Construction
Total Construction Emissions 423
Average Annual Emissions (30 Year Lifetime)(B) 14
Total Project Emissions(A) 1,569
SCAQMD Tier 3 Screening Threshold 3,000
SCAQMD Tier 3 Threshold Exceeded? No
Project-specific 2030 GHG Emissions Goal 1,800
Project-specific GHG Emissions Goal Exceeded? No
Source: MIG 2023 (See Appendix D).
(A) Totals may not equal due to rounding.
(B) Construction emissions value has been averaged over a 30-year assumed project lifetime.

As shown in Table 11, the proposed project’s potential increase in GHG emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s recommended GHG emissions thresholds. Furthermore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would also be below an adjusted project-specific GHG emissions goal of 1,800 MTCO2e per year, which takes into account post 2020 GHG emissions targets the state is currently working towards.

The proposed project, therefore, would not generate GHG emissions that exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. As such, impacts to the environment would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan) and Redland’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan is CARB’s primary document used to ensure statewide GHG reduction goals are met. The 2022 Scoping Plan’s primary objective is to identify the measures needed to achieve the 2030 reduction target established under SB 32 and have the state achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, as codified by AB 1279. Appendix D to CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update identifies potential actions that could be undertaken at a local level to support the State’s climate goals. In addition to providing guidance to local lead agencies on long-term climate planning (e.g., developing a qualified climate action plan), this appendix also provides a list of key GHG reducing attributes for residential and mixeduse developments, such as providing electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, VMT reductions, and prohibiting natural gas infrastructure, that would support achievement of the State long-term GHG reduction goals. The proposed project would not result in significant VMT impacts (see above) but is not proposing to prohibit natural gas hookups or install additional voluntary EV charging infrastructure Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 500 of 1013
beyond that required by the current CalGREEN code; however, the proposed project’s potential use of natural gas and installation of standard EV infrastructure would not conflict with the State’s 2030 GHG reduction goal or impede achievement of carbon neutrality by 2045 because the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP.

City of Redlands Climate Action Plan
The CAP, adopted in December 2017, presents the City’s GHG inventories, identifies regulatory measures at the state-level that would have benefits at reducing local GHG emissions and quantifies those reductions, and identifies local measures the City would implement to achieve its identified GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2035. As identified in Table 3-1 of the CAP, community-wide GHG emissions would need to reach an efficiency goal of 6.0 MTCO2e per capita per year and 5.0 MTCO2e per capita per year, to reach its 2030 and 2035 goals, respectively. As identified in Table 11, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,569 MTCO2e upon its first year of operation in 2025. Based on an estimated project population of 273 people, the proposed project would have a GHG efficiency of approximately 5.75 MTCO2e per capita per year, which is below the City’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction goal. The proposed project, therefore, would be consistent with the Redlands CAP, which is intended to reduce community-wide GHG emissions consistent with State’s GHG reduction goals, and the 2022 Scoping Plan’s primary objective (achieve the State’s 2030 GHG reduction target).

As described above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions, as such, impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 501 of 1013

4.9 – 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, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
□ □ □
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 502 of 1013
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated May 25th, 2023, was prepared for the project by Hazard Management Consulting (HMC) (see Appendix F). The ESA was performed at the northwest corner of east Colton Avenue & Wabash Avenue, on the project site. The information in this section relates to hazards and hazardous wastes and is based on the information and analysis provided in the Phase I ESA.
a) Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project could create significant hazards as a result of the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction of the proposed project and subsequent operation of the project.

Short-term Activities (Construction)
Project construction activities would involve the temporary use and transport of fuels, equipment, earth and building materials, among other potentially hazardous materials. The contractor would be required to develop and adhere to a Health and Safety Plan, which pursuant to California state Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95, Division 20 (§§ 25500-25532), would minimize potentially hazardous effects of handling potentially hazardous materials during construction.23 The project would be in the jurisdiction of, and in compliance with, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and County of San Bernardino, which manage the inspection, regulation, transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in Redlands. With adherence to local, state, and federal regulations, and implementation of the above measure, potential impacts to the surrounding area from the disposal or transport of onsite hazardous materials or waste would be less than significant.

Long-term Activities (Operation)
With regard to project operation, the site is zoned as Single-Family Residential; however, the project proposes a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials is not associated with or expected with this project because such materials are not utilized by residential land uses. The project would generate limited amounts of Household Hazard Waste (HHW), wastes prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District operates a Household Hazardous Waste Program, with 14 permanent HHW collection facilities. These facilities would allow easy disposal of any HHW generated from future residents of the site. Through adherence to local regulations, the use of common household hazardous materials, created waste, and their disposal do not present a substantial health risk to the community. Impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The results of the Phase I ESA found no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (cRECs) or Historical RECs (hRECs), which would represent the presence or likely presence of hazardous substance at the property. According to the State Water Resources Control Board and the ESA report prepared, there are no open cases of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) on site (see section

4.10.d below). There is a LUST site located approximately 2,207 feet north of the project site, however the status of the site is “Completed – Case Closed” according to the State Water Resources Board, and would not impact the project site. A Southern California Edison transformer vault was identified near the southeast corner of the project site, and was observed to be in good condition with no stains or leaks.

Stained or shallow contaminated soils should be disposed of if encountered with regard to local requirements. There are no structures on site, and it is unlikely that asbestos containing materials are present on site. The project site was once used for agricultural purposes from the early 1900s to the late 1990s; however, there was is low likelihood of pesticides occurring on site. Therefore, impacts to the public through the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 503 of 1013
c) Less than Significant Impact. Crafton Elementary School is located approximately 0.18 miles south of the project site. The proposed project involves the development of 103 single-family dwelling units, in addition to a community park and streets. Daily operation of the proposed project would not involve the use of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. The project would therefore not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school. Impacts would be less than significant. d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses.24 Based upon review of the Cortese List, the project site is not:
 listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),25
 listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),26
 listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,27  currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB,28 or
 developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.29 Based on the above review of the Cortese List, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur. e) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 1.3 miles south of the Redlands Municipal Airport. Noise from overhead flights was observed during the ambient noise monitoring conducted for the project (See Appendix H); however, the predominant source of noise was traffic noise from Wabash Avenue and Colton Avenue. As noted in the City’s General Plan, aircraft noise is a relatively minor contribution to the City’s overall noise environment. 30 The project site is
located outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour for the Redlands Municipal Airport and is not located within any other airport planning boundary.31 The proposed project, therefore, would not expose people living at the site to excessive airport-related noise levels, and as such, impacts would be less than significant.
f) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not interfere with access for emergency personnel or the evacuation of onsite staff. During construction, access to the project site would come from Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue. After construction is completed, three streets would intersect the site and provide access in and out of the development for residents (tentatively named A, B, and C). Construction operations conducted at the project site would not significantly impede the flow of traffic on major evacuation routes in and around the City of Redlands, which include Interstates 10, 15, 210, and 215, and State Highways 30, 60, 66, 71, and 83. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. Construction work in the street associated with the project would be limited to a nominal potential traffic diversion. Project impacts would be less than significant.
g) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a State Responsibility Areas (SRA), and the nearest SRA is approximately one mile east of the project site in Crafton. However, there are no wildland conditions in the urbanized area where the project site is located. 32 As such, any
potential impacts related to wildland fire would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 504 of 1013

4.10 – 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 ground water quality?
□ □ □
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
□ □ □
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
□ □ □
i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ □
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
□ □ □
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
□ □ □
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation? □ □ □
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
□ □ □
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 505 of 1013
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared for the proposed project by CA Engineering Inc., dated October 4th, 2022 to evaluate the potential water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project (See Appendix G). The information presented below is condensed from the memo prepared by MIG and is attached as Appendix G. a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1), meant for low density residential housing. The project proposes an amendment to change the zoning to Multiple Family Residential (R-2). This zoning designation allows for a higher density of dwelling units within the area, and allows for a mixture of single, duplex, or multi-family residences. The project site is located in an urbanized area; however, the site is currently undeveloped, but was previously used as agricultural land. The proposed project includes the construction of 103 single family homes, interior streets, sidewalks, and a community park located at the center of the new development. The new streets, sidewalks, and structures on the project site would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces, and flows into storm drains. Landscape coverage in and around the site would provide relief for this. Construction and use of the proposed houses would be required to comply with federal, state and local water guidelines and requirements.

According to the City’s General Plan, Redlands belongs to the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM), a plan with the objective of improving water supply reliability, flood management, stormwater recharge, water quality, and habitats/open space.

Development of the proposed project would be required to adhere to benchmarks outlined in the San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP). Additionally, landscaping associated with the development of the proposed project would be in compliance with Chapter 15-54 of the Redlands Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape Requirements. Compliance with such requirements include following irrigation schedules, water efficiency audits, and non-potable irrigation systems among other guidelines. Furthermore, the project would be required to adhere to all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) permitting requirements for construction and NPDES standards for stormwater runoff, as well as adhere to City ordinances requiring the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the release of potential pollutants entering storm drain systems.33 Such BMPs include, but are not limited to, routine street sweeping, routine storm drain and catch basin cleaning, regular pavement repair/maintenance, spill prevention practices, etc. Nonstructural and structural source control BMPs are included in the preliminary WQMP (Appendix G) and shall be implemented into the project as well. With adherence to SARWQCB permitting requirements, NPDES standards, City guidelines, and implementation of BMPs, impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed housing development, internal streets and sidewalks, and associated parking has the potential to interfere with groundwater recharge and can potentially deplete supplies. The nearest well is located approximately 1.7 miles north of the project site, adjacent to the Redlands Sports Park and near the Redlands Municipal Airport. The well has a depth of 595 feet, and as of the writing of this document, the latest measurement recorded was a depth to water of 260.7 feet taken March 3rd, 2023.34 The low water table recorded indicates the project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies. The proposed project includes the development of a new residential development, consisting of some 103 single-family units, totaling approximately 216,567 square feet of gross building space. The project would include 206 garage parking stalls and 63 guest parking stalls; 269 total parking stalls. Approximately 20,100 square feet of the site would be impervious surface for sidewalks. The paving of previously undeveloped land and the increase in building surface area would increase impervious surface coverage on the site, thereby potentially reducing the total amount of infiltration onsite.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 506 of 1013
However, approximately 65,470 square feet of the site would be landscaped, including a 0.63 acre community park which would be centrally located within the neighborhood. The project would install new onsite water and sewer lines that would connect to the existing infrastructure in the surrounding streets. Two drainage areas would be installed, the first comprising the majority area of the site, the second being smaller, located at the southwest corner of the site. Stormwater would be captured and infiltrated on site through two subsurface infiltration facilities. The project site is not utilized for groundwater recharge and would include landscaping and drainage improvements that would contribute to infiltration. The development of the project site would have a less than significant impact on the groundwater table level.
c.i) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Redlands is located in and around several regional watersheds. The City’s existing water system is reliant on the Mill Creek and Santa Ana Watersheds.

No rivers or streams intersect the project site. The project would not result in the alteration of drainage and drainage patterns, as the project would install new onsite water and sewer lines that would connect to the existing infrastructure in the surrounding streets. Drainage facilities on-site would be regularly maintained. Development of the proposed project would include construction activities such as site preparation, grading, paving, and construction of housing. According to the City, all grading plans within the city require a standalone Erosion Control Plan.35 Adherence to the City’s erosion plan guidelines during construction of the project and proper maintenance of drainage facilities would decrease the likelihood of erosion of sensitive stream habitats, and as such any impacts to streams or rivers near the project site would be less than significant.
c.ii) Less than Significant Impact. No rivers or streams traverse the project site; thus, the project would not result in the alteration of any stream course. During construction, the project applicant would be required to comply with drainage and runoff guidelines pursuant to Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 15.54.200.
36 With regard to project operation, construction of the project would increase the net area of impermeable surfaces on the site; therefore, increased discharges to the City’s existing storm drain system may occur. The proposed drainage for the easterly portion of the site would drain via area drains and access driveways that convey the runoff to two proposed streets that run from the east to the west (Streets “B“ and “C”). The runoff would be collected into catch basins at the westerly ends of the streets that would deposit the runoff into an infiltration facility located just westerly of the community park. Most of the westerly portion of the site would drain to a street that runs from north to the south (“A” Street). The street would collect the runoff and convey the flows to a storm drain system that would also connect to said infiltration facility. The remaining small portion of the site located at the southwest corner would surface flow to a drainage channel that would convey the flows to an existing concrete V-gutter that is connected to Colton Avenue via a parkway culvert. This channel would have an inlet that would collect the low flows and direct them to a smaller infiltration facility located at the southwest corner of the development. Surface runoff would be conveyed to the City’s storm drainage system, and all drainage plans are subject to City review and approval. Construction of the proposed project would be required to adhere to all SARWQCB permitting requirements and NPDES standards for stormwater runoff, as well as adhere to City ordinances requiring the use of BMPs to control the release of potential pollutants entering storm drain systems as indicated in the City’s General Plan.

Compliance with local drainage guidelines and implementation of pollutant-related BMPs would make potential impacts less than significant.
c.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would increase the net area of impermeable surfaces on the site. As discussed in sections 4.9.c.ii, construction of the proposed project would install new onsite water and sewer lines connecting to the existing infrastructure in the surrounding streets. The proposed project would have two drainage areas, one making up the majority of the site, with the smaller other one located at the southwest corner of the site. Stormwater captured would be infiltrated on site through two subsurface infiltration facilities. Flows would be collected by Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 507 of 1013
catch basins and conveyed via storm drain to an underground infiltration facility. All drainage plans are subject to City review and approval. As discussed in sections 4.9.a and 4.9.c.ii, BMPs would be required to be incorporated to protect water quality. With proper maintenance of drainage facilities and adherence to BMPs, impacts would be less than significant. c.iv) Less than Significant Impact. According to flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Hydro Report prepared for this project, the project site is located in an area designated as Flood Zone “X” or Zone “D”. Zone X represents areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance, Zone “D” Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. The project site is currently undeveloped, vacant land. Construction operations including grading, site preparation, and construction of the proposed housing, internal streets and parking, and landscaping would not impede or redirect flood flows. In addition, the proposed project would comply with City of Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 15.32 (Flood Damage Protection), which would ensure flood flows would not be impeded. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The City is not exposed to tsunami hazards due to its inland location.

In addition, according to the California Department of Water Resources, the project site is not located in a dam inundation area.37 There are no impacts related to tsunami or dam inundation. The project site is located in Flood Zone X, representing an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance, and Zone “D”, an area where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. Adherence to City ordinances requiring the use of BMPs to control the release of potential pollutants would reduce the potential for the release of pollutants in the event of inundation by a flood. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SARWQCB) Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Development of the proposed project would be required to adhere to requirements of the Basin Plan. This includes the incorporation of BMPs to protect water quality during construction and operational periods. Development of the project site would be subject to all existing water quality regulations and programs, including all applicable construction permits. Existing General Plan policies related to groundwater quality are applicable to the project. The Sustainable Community Element includes policies that aim to limit potential water quality impacts and to promote groundwater conservation. Implementation of General Plan policies and the Regional Basin Plan would ensure that water quality impacts related to the proposed project would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 508 of 1013

4.11 – 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) No Impact. The project site is comprised of one undeveloped, 9.01-acre parcel and is surrounded by residential, industrial, and commercial uses. The project as proposed would not include the reconfiguration of existing roadways or streets. There are residential uses to the north, south, and west of the project site; however, the project would not divide an established community and, as such, no impacts would occur.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The project proposes to amend the existing General Plan land use designation on the project site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The Medium Density Residential land use designation allows up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The intent of this land use category is to provide areas for the development of attached, detached, and/or mixed residential uses with a range of densities and housing types. While the development does require a land use change for the project site, the proposed development would be subject to all land use and planning policies in the General Plan.

A specific plan is proposed as part of the project to establish the Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan.

The proposed single-family homes and related infrastructure would be subject to development standards established by the Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan, including design guidelines to define the community and visual character. The proposed project would be consistent with both the General Plan and new Specific Plan. Furthermore, the project-level review of the project includes a site design review to ensure compliance with site-specific development standards, as outlined in the City’s Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances. With compliance with the above plans and policies, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 509 of 1013

4.12 – 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) Less Than Significant Impact. The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) identifies and protects mineral resources within the State of California. It establishes several Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ), divisions of land containing within them various amounts of known or unknown mineral resources. The MRZ’s are defined as follows: MRZ-1 are areas where no significant minerals are considered to be present, MRZ-2 are areas where mineral resources have been identified, MRZ-3 are areas of undetermined mineral resource significance, and MRZ-4 areas are of unknown mineral resource potential. According to the City’s General Plan, the eastern side of the project site slightly enters an MRZ-2 area, the designation suggesting that significant mineral resources may be present.38 However, Figure 6-4 of the Vital Environment Element in the General Plan indicates that the project site is not located in an area designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as having regionally significant PCC-grade aggregate resources. 39 The project site is located in an urbanized area of Redlands, with residential, industrial, and commercial uses surrounding the property. The development of the site would not constitute a loss of aggregate mineral as its location in an urbanized area is incompatible with mining operations and would negatively impact neighboring businesses and residents. Furthermore, the majority of the project site is located in an area with undetermined mineral resource occurrences. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Mineral resources found in Redlands have been deemed significant to the region and the State; however, such mineral resources identified have not been designated as locally significant to the City of Redlands. The eastern edge of the project site enters an MRZ-2 area, of which significant mineral deposits are likely to be present. However, the project site is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1), meant for the development of low density, single family housing. The area is urbanized and is surrounded by residential, industrial, and commercial uses that would not support the development of mining operations and the subsequent increase in mining related pollution.

The development of the project does not constitute a loss of mineral resources as the surrounding land uses do not support the development of mining operations. Potential impacts to locally important mineral resources would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 510 of 1013

4.13 – Noise
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
□ □ □
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? □ □ □
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
□ □ □
A Noise and Vibration Analysis Memo was prepared by MIG (July, 2023) to evaluate and document noise levels associated with construction and operation of the proposed project (See Appendix H). The information in this section is taken from the Noise and Vibration Analysis Memo for the proposed project.

Additional detail regarding how noise is defined and measured can be found in Appendix H. a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Existing ambient noise levels in the project area were monitored on May 30, 2023 (MIG, 2023; see Attachment 3). Four (4) short-term measurements were conducted to determine typical ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project area, provide direct observations of existing noise sources at and in the vicinity of the project area, and evaluate project noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. The four monitoring locations are described below and shown in Exhibit 9 (Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations). • Location ST-1 was at the northeast corner of the project site, approximately 28 feet west of the centerline of the outermost lane of Wabash Avenue.
• Location ST-2 was at the southeast corner of the project site, at the intersection of Wabash Avenue and Colton Avenue. The meter was approximately 35 feet east of the centerline of the outermost lane of Wabash Avenue and approximately 30 feet north of the centerline of the outermost lane of Colton Avenue.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 511 of 1013
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 512 of 1013
Exhibit 9
Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 513 of 1013
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 514 of 1013
• Location ST-3 was at the southwest corner of the project site, approximately 65 feet north of the centerline of the outermost lane of Colton Avenue.
• Location ST-4 was at the northwest corner of the project site, approximately 680 feet north and west of the centerline of the outermost lanes of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue, respectively.

Based on observations made during the ambient noise monitoring, the existing noise environment in the project vicinity consists primarily of vehicles on Wabash Avenue and Colton Avenue and overhead air traffic. Table 12 (Measured Short-Term Ambient Noise Levels (dBA)) summarizes the results of the ambient noise monitoring.

Table 12
Measured Short-Term Ambient Noise Levels (dBA)
Monitor Duration
Measured Noise Level
Leq Lmin Lmax
ST-1 1 hour 64.3 41.9 83.7
ST-2 1 hour 65.3 46.1 83.1
ST-3 1 hour 59.3 42.7 80.3
ST-4 4 hours 47.6 34.4 76.1
Source: MIG, 2023
As shown in Table 12, measured ambient noise levels were highest along Wabash Avenue (ST-1) and at the intersection of Wabash Avenue and Colton Avenue (ST-2). Noise levels along Colton Avenue (ST-3) were lower than along Wabash Avenue. Noise levels on the interior of the site (ST-4) were much lower than noise levels along Wabash Avenue and Colton Avenue and indicates traffic noise levels attenuation at rate of approximately 4.5 decibels per doubling of distance from the roadway centerline.

Construction Noise Impact Analysis
The proposed project involves construction activities including site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating on an undeveloped parcel in an existing residential area of the City. Construction activities are anticipated to begin early 2024 and may last approximately 14 months in total.

In general, construction activities would involve the use of worker vehicles, delivery trucks, dump trucks, and heavy-duty construction equipment such as (but not limited to) backhoes, tractors, loaders, graders, excavators, rollers, cranes, material lifts, generators, and air compressors. These types of construction activities would generate noise and vibration from the following sources:
• Heavy equipment operations at different work areas. Some heavy equipment would consist of mobile equipment such as a loader and excavator that would move around work areas; other equipment would consist of stationary equipment (e.g., cranes or material hoists/lifts) that would generally operate in a fixed location until work activities are complete. Heavy equipment generates noise from engine operation, mechanical systems, and components (e.g., fans, gears, propulsion of wheels or tracks), and other sources such as back-up alarms. Mobile equipment generally operates at different loads, or power outputs, and produces higher or lower noise levels depending on the operating load. Stationary equipment generally operates at a steady power output that produces a constant noise level. • Vehicle trips, including worker, vendor, and haul truck trips. These trips are likely to primarily occur on Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 515 of 1013
Typical construction equipment noise levels at different distances are shown in Table 13 (Potential Project Construction Equipment Noise Levels).

Table 13
Potential Project Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Typical
Equipment
Noise
Level at
50 feet
(Lmax)
(A)
Percent
Usage
Factor(B)
Predicted Equipment Noise Levels (Leq)
(C)
50 Feet
75 Feet
100
Feet
150
Feet
200
Feet
250
Feet
300
Feet
Air Compressor 80 40 76 72 70 66 64 62 56
Bulldozer 85 40 81 77 75 71 69 67 65
Backhoe 80 40 76 72 70 66 64 62 56
Compact Roller 80 20 73 69 67 63 61 59 57
Concrete mixer 85 40 81 77 75 71 69 67 65
Crane 85 16 77 74 71 67 65 63 61
Excavator 85 40 81 77 75 71 69 67 65
Grader 85 40 81 77 75 71 69 67 65
Generator 82 50 79 75 73 69 67 65 66
Paver 85 50 82 78 76 72 70 68 66
Pneumatic tools 85 50 82 78 76 72 70 68 66
Scraper 85 40 81 77 75 71 69 67 65
Welder 73 40 69 65 63 59 57 55 53
Sources: Caltrans, 2013 and FHWA, 2010.
(A) Lmax noise levels based on manufacturer’s specifications. (B) Usage factor refers to the amount (percent) of time the equipment produces noise over the time period (C) Estimate does not account for any atmospheric or ground attenuation factors. Calculated noise levels based on Caltrans, 2013: Leq (hourly) = Lmax at 50 feet – 20log (D/50) + 10log (UF), where: Lmax = reference Lmax from manufacturer or other source; D = distance of interest; UF = usage fraction or fraction of time period of interest equipment is in use.

With regard to construction noise, site preparation and grading phases typically result in the highest temporary noise levels due to the use of heavy-duty equipment such as dozers, excavators, graders, loaders, and trucks. Construction noise impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, during noise sensitive times of the day, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would last approximately 14 months. Construction activities would, at times, occur directly adjacent to existing residential properties to the north and west.

As shown in Table 13, estimated worst case hourly Leq and Lmax construction equipment noise levels are predicted to be approximately 82 and 85 dBA, respectively, at 50 feet; however, the magnitude of the project’s temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels would depend on the nature of the construction activity (i.e., grading, building construction, paving) and the distance between the construction activity and sensitive receptors/outdoor use areas. Sensitive residential receptors would be within 25 feet of work areas for specific but limited times (e.g., site grading along the property line), Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 516 of 1013
at which distance construction equipment may generate noise levels up to 88 dBA Leq. project construction in the middle of the site would be approximately 300 feet from sensitive receptors to the north and west. At a distance of 300 feet, construction equipment could generate noise levels of 66 dBA Leq at sensitive receptor locations The concurrent operation of two or more pieces of equipment could, depending on the equipment being operated, increase estimated noise levels by 2 dBA to 4 dBA Leq.

There is an existing, approximately three- to six-foot-tall concrete wall on the western boundary of the project site that may provide up to 5 dBA of shielding and construction noise attenuation for residences bordering the project site to the west; however, not all residences would receive shielding, as the concrete wall changes height over the length of the site boundary. Specifically, the residences adjacent to the southwest corner of the project site would be exposed to higher noise levels than residences adjacent to the northwest corner of the project site because of the difference in height of the existing concrete wall.

The City’s Municipal Code (Section 8.06.120(G)) limits construction activities to the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM on Monday through Saturday; however, neither the City’s General Plan nor Municipal Code establish a specific numeric noise standard (e.g., 90 dBA Leq) for construction noise levels. As discussed above, the project’s potential exterior construction noise levels would range from approximately 66 dBA Leq to 88 dBA Leq depending on the specific equipment in use and the distance between the equipment and adjacent residential properties. These noise levels would be approximately 1 dB to 40 dB above the existing ambient noise levels measured at the project site (see Table 12). Although the City does not maintain a specific construction noise level standard, the temporary increase in noise levels associated with the proposed construction activities could, at times, be substantial and have the potential to annoy adjacent residential receptors and/or interfere with the receptors normal use and enjoyment of their property.

Although the proposed project’s construction activities may result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, they are not anticipated to result in physical harm (e.g., temporary or permanent hearing loss or damage) to any adjacent sensitive residential noise receptor for several reasons. First, the construction phases using the most large equipment - site preparation and grading - are anticipated to occur for no more than 30 total days (not necessarily consecutive) out of the anticipated 14-month construction schedule. In addition, the estimated worst-case noise levels would only occur when equipment operations occur directly adjacent to a receptor. As equipment moves along the property line and throughout the site, noise levels would decrease at one receptor and increase at a different receptor. Worst-case conditions (i.e., equipment operating directly adjacent to a specific receptor), are estimated to occur up to four (4) hours per day for no more than several days. Thus, any individual receptor would not be continuously exposed to estimated worst-case noise levels (i.e., noise levels would lower when equipment moves away and return to ambient conditions when construction ceases for the day). Finally, the estimated construction noise level values presented in Table 13 are exterior noise levels, whereas receptors would be likely to be inside residential buildings. Interior noise levels associated with the project’s construction at nearby sensitive receptors would be approximately 12 dBA to 30 dBA lower depending on the presence of existing barriers, setback distances, façade construction type, and whether windows or doors were open or closed. Physiological effects occur when the human ear is subjected to either very high noise levels (e.g., 110 dB or more) for a short period or prolonged exposure to high noise environments. For example, to protect workers from noise-induced hearing loss, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits worker noise exposure to 90 dBA as averaged over an 8-hour time period (29 CFR 1910.95). Similarly, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends workers limit noise exposure to no more than 85 dBA over an 8-hour period to protect against noise-induced hearing loss (NIOSH, 1998). Although hourly construction noise levels may approach approximately 88 dBA Leq, such noise levels would not be sustained over an 8-hour period (due to movement of equipment and changes in operations that Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 517 of 1013
occur during daily construction activities). Therefore, at worst-case, noise from construction activities may pose a temporary interference or annoyance effect on nearby sensitive receptors but would not result in adverse physiological effects on human receptors in the surrounding area.

To reduce the potential for the proposed project’s construction activities to result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site that could annoy adjacent residential receptors and/or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of residential properties, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be incorporated into the project.

The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA to 10 dBA at individual receptor locations during the daytime. Based on the estimated worst-case scenario (88 dBA Leq), exterior noise levels at individual receptors could reach 78 dBA Leq to 83 dBA Leq for limited periods of time with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Such noise levels would be similar to the maximum measured daytime noise levels in the project vicinity, but noticeably louder (approximately 20 dBA to 30 dBA) than the typical measured daytime noise levels. Although worst-case noise levels could be noticeably louder than typical hourly daytime noise levels, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require the applicant to provide advance warning of the proposed project’s potentially noisy construction activities, restrict work hours to periods when humans are less sensitive to elevated noise levels in accordance with Municipal Code requirements, implement equipment noise control measures, install a temporary noise barrier between work areas and affected receptors, and prepare and plan for potential unanticipated or unexpected construction noise issues. By providing advanced notice of loud construction activities and implementing equipment control measures and temporary noise barriers, the potential for sensitive residential receptors to be surprised or annoyed by loud exterior noises would be substantially reduced.

In addition, daytime noise levels inside potential residential buildings would be approximately 12 dBA to 30 dBA lower, depending on whether windows and doors were open or closed. Thus, interior noise levels at individual receptors locations could potentially reach 58 dBA Leq to 71 dBA Leq during daytime hours, when humans are less sensitive to higher noise levels. At no time would the proposed project’s exterior or interior construction noise be loud enough to result in physical harm to adjacent residential receptors.

Finally, although worst-case construction noise levels could be noticeably louder than typical conditions, this impact would occur intermittently (anticipated to be up to four (4) hours per day) for several days during the project’s anticipated 30-day site preparation and grading phases), which would not constitute sustained or prolonged exposure to substantially temporary noise increases. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would lower overall project construction noise levels, reduce the potential for project construction noise levels to surprise or annoy residential receptors, and reduce the potential for project construction noise levels to interfere with normal use of residential properties. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would, therefore, render the proposed project’s potential construction noise levels less than significant.

Operational Noise Impact Analysis
The existing residential land uses near the project site generate noise from vehicle parking activities, garbage collection activities, landscaping activities, stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and other residential activities (e.g., building maintenance). The proposed project would have a similar density as the existing land uses surrounding the project site and involve similar noise generating sources and activities. Although the proposed project could increase the amount of noise sources and noise-generating activities compared to existing conditions, the project would have a limited potential to generate significant on-site noise levels or substantially change overall noise levels in the vicinity of the project. In general, single-family residential land uses are not a substantial noiseRedlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 518 of 1013 generating land use type because they do not involve substantial noise-generating activities, buildings and equipment are usually setback from shared property lines, and properties are usually screened from public view by landscaping, fences, or walls and, therefore, shielded from adjacent property lines.

For example, the short-term noise levels measured the interior of the site, away from Wabash Avenue and Colton Avenue, were less than 50 dBA Leq (see Table 12), which is indicative of the fact that most residential land uses do not generate significant noise levels.

Once constructed, the proposed project’s primary on-site noise generating activities would include traffic on the new interior circulation roads, human activity from use of the small community park, and mechanical equipment such as garage doors and HVAC equipment; however, the project includes several design features that limit the potential for project noise sources to impact adjacent residential receptors. First, the proposed project design includes a six-foot high, four-inch thick concrete wall along its entire northern and western perimeter, which would provide shielding between rear yards and adjacent residential uses. Second, the proposed project layout generally places the housing units around the perimeter of the site, which would further shield potential noise originating from the interior of the project from adjacent residences. Finally, the project would be subject to Municipal Code provisions that generally govern the use of noise-generating equipment on residential properties, such as Municipal Code Section 8.06.090, which prohibits the use of domestic power tools and machinery (e.g., powered saws, lawn and garden tools) during nighttime hours if they create a noise disturbance.

The only stationary noise generating equipment at the project site would be the proposed HVAC units, which would be located at ground-level, in the backyard area of each residential building. Although the exact make and model of the HVAC units are unknown at this time, the type of HVAC unit anticipated to be installed is a small fan-type residential unit capable of generating noise levels between 70 and 76 dBA at a distance of three feet, depending on the type of model installed.

The site plan indicates that the project’s residential buildings would be set back a minimum of 25 feet from existing residences to the north and west. With distance, the typical residential HVAC unit would generate a noise level between 51.6 dBA Leq and 57.6 dBA Leq at adjoining property lines, which is above the City’s 50 dBA Leq nighttime noise standard for residential land uses. The proposed project design also includes a six (6)-foot tall concrete masonry unit perimeter wall that would provide between approximately five (5) and 10 dB of attenuation in the rear yards of adjacent property lines. The difference in barrier attenuation is due to differences in receiver, source (i.e., HVAC), and top of barrier elevations along the site’s northern and western property lines. In general, receptors adjacent to the western property line are situated below the project grade and the differences in elevations between the receptor, HVAC unit, and top of barrier height are greater. In contrast, receptors adjacent to the northern property line are situated closer to (on the west) or above (on the east) the project grade, and the differences in elevations between the receptor, HVAC unit, and top of barrier height are less pronounced. The proposed project’s estimated HVAC unit noise levels with distance and barrier attenuation are provided in Table 14 (Potential HVAC System Noise Levels).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 519 of 1013
Table 14
Potential HVAC System Noise Levels
HVAC System Variable
Property Line Receptor(A)
West North
HVAC Unit Noise Level 71 to 76 dBA 71 to 76
Distance to Receptor 25 feet 25 feet
Noise Level at 25 Feet 51.6 dBA Leq to 57.6 dBA Leq 51.6 dBA Leq to 57.6 dBA Leq Perimeter Barrier Attenuation -9.0 dBA to -10.4 dBA -5.2 dBA to -7.5 dBA Resulting HVAC Noise Level 41.2 dBA Leq to 48.6 dBA Leq 44.1 dBA Leq to 52.4 dBA Leq City Municipal Code Standard 60 dBA Leq (7 AM – 10 PM)
50 dBA Leq (10 PM – 7 AM)
60 dBA Leq (7 AM – 10 PM)
50 dBA Leq (10 PM – 7 AM)
Additional Attenuation Needed 0 dBA Up to 2.4 dBA (10 PM – 7 AM) Source: MIG (see Attachment 04 of Appendix H)
(A) The data presented are the worst-case prediction along the property line. Refer to Appendix XYZ for detailed information on HVAC noise level estimates.

As shown in Table 14, HVAC units that generate higher noise levels (74.6 dBA or higher) would require additional attenuation to ensure potential HVAC units do not exceed the City’s nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA Leq. To reduce the potential for the proposed project’s operational HVAC noise levels to generate noise levels above the City’s exterior standards for residential properties, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be incorporated into the project.

The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would provide a minimum of 2.5 dBA of additional HVAC noise attenuation at existing residential receptors along the shared northern property line and ensure that HVAC noise levels would not exceed the City’s 50 dBA Leq exterior nighttime noise standard, nor any other exterior noise standard (e.g., the City’s 60 dBA Leq daytime standard for residential properties).

The project also would not have the potential to result in noise levels that exceed the City’s maximum permissible interior noise limit of 45 dBA Leq for residential properties. Noise levels inside existing residential buildings would be approximately 12 dBA to 30 dBA lower than estimated exterior noise levels, depending on whether windows and doors were open or closed. Thus, potential HVAC-related interior noise levels at existing residential receptors adjacent to the project would be less than 40 dBA Leq even with windows open, which is less than the City’s 45 dBA Leq interior noise standard.

Finally, it is noted that HVAC equipment does not operate continuously and would not affect ambient noise levels when the equipment is not in use. For these reasons, potential HVAC equipment would not generate noise levels that have the potential to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard established by General Plan Policy 9.0s. Furthermore, with Mitigation Measure NOI-2, potential HVAC noise is estimated to be less than 50.0 dBA Leq when in operation, which would be approximately 2.4 dBA above measured ambient noise levels on the interior of the site. Since HVAC equipment would not operate continuously, the net change in 24-hour noise exposure levels at adjacent residential properties would be less than 2.4 dBA. The proposed project, therefore, does not have the potential to result in incompatible noise levels at adjacent residences or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project (considered by General Plan Policy 9.0v to be 4 dBA if a land use compatibility threshold is exceeded or 6 dBA in any situation).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 520 of 1013
As described above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of City standards with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

Operational Noise Impact Analysis (Off-Site Vehicle Trip Noises) The Transportation Study Screening Analysis prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix I) indicates the project would result in a net increase of 918 daily vehicle trips. Currently, there are approximately 7,400 vehicles per day on Wabash Avenue north of Colton Avenue, 5,800 vehicles per day on Wabash Avenue south of Colton Avenue, 4,100 vehicles per day on Colton Avenue east of Wabash Avenue, and 5,400 vehicles per day on Colton Avenue between Wabash Avenue and Dearborn Street. In general, it takes a doubling of traffic to increase traffic noise volumes by 3 dBA, which is considered an audible increase for exterior noise environments by the City’s General Plan. The addition of 918 passenger cars to the roadway system would not result in a doubling of traffic on any roadway segment at or in the vicinity of the project site and, therefore, would result in a less than 3 dBA increase in noise levels on local roads used to access the project site. The proposed project would not result in a substantial, permanent increase in noise levels along the roadways used to access the proposed project as compared to existing or future conditions. This impact would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, impacts related to project construction and operation would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction vibration impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in close proximity to buildings and vibration-sensitive areas, during evening or nighttime hours, or when construction activities last extended periods of time. The potential for groundborne vibration is typically greatest when vibratory or large equipment such as rollers or bulldozers are in operation. For the proposed project, these types of equipment would primarily operate during the site preparation, grading, and paving phases. Site preparation and grading would occur over a total of approximately 30 days at the beginning of construction and paving would occur over approximately 20 days near the end of construction. During site preparation and grading activities, large equipment could, at worst-case, operate adjacent to the site’s property lines and within approximately 25 feet of the nearest residential buildings (to the north and west), although most operations would generally take place further from receptor locations. For example, equipment operating in the middle of the site could be 300 feet from receptors, and equipment operating along the southern and eastern perimeters could be approximately 600 feet from receptors.

Paving operations would generally take place near the interior of the site, usually at least 50 feet from any adjacent residential building. The groundborne vibration levels generated by the type of equipment that would be used to construct the proposed project are shown in Table 15 (Potential Project Construction Vibration Levels).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 521 of 1013
Table 15
Potential Project Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment
Estimated Peak Particle Velocity at Distance (in/sec) (A),(B) 25 feet
50 feet
100
feet
200
feet
250
feet
300
feet
350
feet
400
feet
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 Large bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.019 0.015 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.006 Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.098 0.046 0.034 0.029 0.021 0.017 0.010 Sources: MIG (see Attachment 05 of Appendix H)’ Caltrans, 2020; and FTA, 2018. (A) Estimated PPV calculated as: PPV(D)=PPV(ref)*(25/D)^1.1 where PPV(D)= Estimated PPV at distance; PPVref= Reference PPV at 25 ft; D= Distance from equipment to receiver; and n= ground attenuation rate (1.1 for dense, compacted hard soils). All distances are lateral distances and do not consider changes in topography.
(B) Italicized values indicate the estimated vibration level exceeds the vibration perception threshold of

0.01 in/sec established by City Municipal Code Section 8.06.090(G).

As shown in Table 15, specific vibration levels associated with typical construction equipment are highly dependent on the type of equipment used. The use of typical equipment during construction activities (e.g., bulldozer, jack hammer) is estimated to produce vibration levels above the City’s vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec PPV when operated within 250 feet of a residential building façade.

For specific vibration-inducing equipment, such as a vibratory roller, it is estimated vibration levels may be above the City’s vibration perception threshold when operated within 400 feet of a residential building façade. It is noted that the vibration estimates shown in Table 15 do not take into account differences in grade or other subsurface conditions that may limit vibration transmission. In addition, the vibration estimated shown in Table 15 do not consider any loss of vibratory energy associated with the transfer of vibrations across different medium (e.g., from the soil to a concrete foundation to a floor or wall assembly). The vibration estimates shown in Table 15, therefore, are likely to overestimate potential vibration levels associated with construction equipment.

As shown in Table 15, the proposed project’s potential construction activities would have the potential to exceed the City’s vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec PPV; however, the vibration levels that could be generated by potential construction activities would not be considered excessive for several reasons. First, potential worst-case construction vibrations would be intermittent, lasting only a few hours each day at any individual receptor. Second, potential worst-case construction vibrations would occur only when equipment operates directly adjacent to a receptor, which is not anticipated to last more than several days in total. Third, all construction activity would occur during the daytime, when human beings are less sensitive to vibrations, and would not interfere with evening or knighting use of residences. Finally, potential construction vibrations would not result in physical damage to any building or structure because estimated worst-case vibration levels would be below Caltrans’ guidelines for damage to sensitive residential structures.

While potential construction vibrations would not be considered excessive, the potential exists for construction equipment to generate vibration levels above the City’s vibration perception threshold of

0.01 in/sec PPV. To reduce the proposed project’s potential to temporarily exceed the City’s vibration standard, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would be incorporated into the project.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 522 of 1013
The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would prohibit or limit the use of construction equipment with the greatest potential to exceed the City’s vibration perception threshold. In addition, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require the Applicant to provide advance warning to adjacent residents of the proposed project’s construction activities, restrict work hours to daytime periods, and use the smallest equipment capable of safely completing work activities. By prohibiting and limiting the use of vibration inducing equipment, providing advanced notice of construction activities, and implementing equipment control measures, the potential for sensitive residential receptors to be exposed to disturbing or excessive perceptible vibrations would be substantially reduced. Thus, with Mitigation Measure NOI-3, the proposed project’s potential construction vibration levels would be rendered a less than significant impact. Once operational, the proposed project would not have any large equipment that would generate vibration. This impact would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 1.3 miles south of the Redlands Municipal Airport. Noise from overhead flights was observed during the ambient noise monitoring conducted for the project; however, the predominant source of noise was traffic noise from Wabash Avenue and Colton Avenue. As noted in the City’s General Plan, aircraft noise is a relatively minor contribution to the City’s overall noise environment.40 The project site is located outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour for the Redlands Municipal Airport and is not located within any other airport planning boundary. The proposed project, therefore, would not expose people living at the site to excessive airport-related noise levels, and as such, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 Reduce Potential Project Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from project construction activities, the applicant shall:
1) Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the applicant/project representative and the City of Redlands responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per action #5 below). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of residential dwelling units that border the Project site to the north and west and that are directly across Colton Avenue from the Project site. 2) Restrict Work Hours: All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section

Shielding may consist of a three-or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation. e. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities.
f. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust.
g. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
4) Install Construction Noise Barrier: The following measures shall apply to Project construction activities:
a. Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the north, south, and western site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements.

The noise barrier shall extend to a height of six (6) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to:
i. A plywood or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB.
ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB.
iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities.
iv. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site).

The noise barrier shall not be required if the perimeter concrete masonry unit wall included in the project’s site plan is fully constructed prior to the start of substantial site preparation and grading activities at the site (i.e., only clearing and grubbing and grading necessary to access the site and install the perimeter wall may occur). 5) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan: The applicant shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 524 of 1013
a. Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated Project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues.
b. Includes procedures describing how the designated Project representative shall receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. c. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.

NOI-2 Reduce Potential Project HVAC Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Project heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, the City shall prohibit the installation of HVAC systems that generate a noise level greater than 76 dBA at three (3) feet. In addition, for HVAC systems located in the rear or side yards of residential units along the Project’s northern property line, the applicant shall, prior to the release of the grading or building permit that authorizes the construction of any such unit, submit evidence of one the following:
1) The HVAC units to be installed shall be located at least 25 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment) and shall not generate a noise level in excess of 74.6 dBA at three (3) feet from the unit. The City may accept a manufacturer’s specifications or other information, such as actual empirical noise measurements, as evidence of the noise levels that may be generated by the final proposed HVAC system(s). 2) If the HVAC units to be installed generate a noise level between 74.6 dBA and 76 dBA at three feet they shall be located a minimum of 34 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment).
3) If the HVAC units to be installed generate a noise level between 74.6 dBA and 76 dBA at three feet and they are located closer than 34 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment), then the height of the planned northern perimeter concrete masonry unit wall shall be increased from six feet to eight feet in height above the planned finished surface elevation.

NOI-3 Prohibit Vibratory Construction Equipment. To reduce potential vibration levels associated with construction of the proposed project, the applicant and/or its designated contractor, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall use tamper and drum/wheel style rollers during project construction. The use of large vibratory rollers or other vibratory equipment shall be prohibited during construction unless geotechnical evaluations indicate the use of this equipment is specifically required to address compaction or other building requirements, in which case the use of vibratory rollers and equipment shall be limited to the area/conditions specified in the geotechnical report.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 525 of 1013

4.14 – Population and Housing
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
□ □ □
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
□ □ □
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project would directly induce population growth in the area with the development of new single-family housing. According to “Table 4-4: Residential Buildout (2035)” of the Livable Community Element of the Redlands General Plan, potential buildout of single family residential within the City, outside of the Transit Village, is projected at 1,900 units by 2035.41 This number does not include housing projects that were under construction, entitled, or in the planning stage when the General Plan was written. The table additionally estimates a population growth from total future buildout, including multi-family residential, of 10,964 people. Under the existing SingleFamily Residential (R-1) zoning for the site, the maximum allowable density is 6 du/ac, or a maximum of 54 dwelling units on the 9.01-acre site. Using an average of 3.23 persons per dwelling unit, the site under existing zoning would have capacity to house up to 174 persons in the 54 allowable dwelling units.

As described in Section 2 (Project Description), the proposed project includes a Zone Change from Low-Density Residential (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential (R-2), which would increase the maximum allowable density of the site to 15 du/ac, or a maximum of 135 dwelling units. This would result in a maximum capacity to house up to 436 persons in the 135 allowable dwelling units. The proposed project would include development of 103 new single-family homes, which would result in a density of 11.43 du/ac and up to 333 new persons on the site. As such, the proposed project would result in 49 additional dwelling units and a potential net increase of capacity to house up to 159 additional persons on the site when compared to existing zoning. While this increase in units and potential population growth has not been planned for by the City, the increase of 49 dwelling units and up to 159 additional persons on the site would not represent substantial unplanned population growth that cannot be handled by the City’s existing utilities and service providers. As discussed in Section 4.18 (Public Services), payment of development impact fees by the proposed project would offset incremental increases in demand for services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public services such as libraries. In addition, there are existing private utilities (gas, electric, telecommunications, etc.) located in Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue in which the project would connect to laterally, and no new infrastructure would be required to serve the proposed residential development that could have an effect on the environment. Finally, the potential increase in capacity to house up to 159 additional persons on the site would be well within the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 526 of 1013
projections for the City of Redlands (i.e., an increase of 11,300 residents between 2016 and 2045).

Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed regional growth assumptions. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped. No housing would be displaced as a result of project development and as such there would be no impacts.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 527 of 1013

4.15 – 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
a) Fire protection? □ □ □
b) Police protection? □ □ □
c) Schools? □ □ □
d) Parks? □ □ □
e) Other public facilities? □ □ □
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project is located in the service area of the City of Redlands Fire Department. The Fire Department responds to medical emergencies, hazardous materials incidents, rescue calls, and motor-related accidents, in addition to regular fire suppression services. There are four stations in Redlands42:
• Fire Station 261: 525 E Citrus Ave.
• Fire Station 262: 1690 Garden St.
• Fire Station 263: 10 W Pennsylvania Ave.
• Fire Station 264: 1270 W Park Ave.

The nearest fire station to the project site is Station 261, located approximately 2.6 miles to the west.

The project may create an incremental increase in demand for fire services. However, development impact fees that are collected at the time of building permit issuance for approved projects would offset any incremental in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. Fees would be charged at a current rate of $577.08 per single family dwelling unit and would go towards fire facilities and staffing.
43 Impacts related to expansion of fire protection services would be less than significant with payment of fees.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The project area is served by the Redlands Police Department. The Police Department and Patrol building is located at 1270 W Park Ave, Building C, Redlands, CA 92373.

The station is approximately 4 miles west of the project site. Development of the project may generate an incremental increase in the need for police protection in the project area. However, this incremental increase is consistent with the buildout of the City’s General Plan. The Police Department reviews its needs on a yearly basis and adjusts service levels as needed to maintain an adequate level of public protection. Additionally, development impact fees collected at the time of building permit issuance would offset incremental impacts of development on demand for services. Fees would be charged at a current Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 528 of 1013
rate of $30.11 per single family dwelling unit and would go towards law enforcement facilities and staffing.
44 Therefore, a less than significant impact to police services would occur. c) Less than Significant Impact. The project includes construction of 103 single family dwelling units, and, as such, would directly lead to population growth in the area of up to 333 persons, and an associated growth within the Redlands Unified School District of up to 33 students. Payment of development impact fees required under State law would offset the cost of increased demand for school district facilities in the future. The Redlands Unified School District has established a school fee and charge a current rate of $4.79 per square foot of “assessable space” (space within the perimeter of a residential structure) within new residential construction. 45 Any project impacts on school facilities would
be less than significant with payment of school fees.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Development of the project could have the potential to impact demand on parks and recreation facilities if it induced substantial population growth in the area.

However, as described in Section 4.13 above, the proposed project is within the region’s anticipated buildout. In addition, development impact fees collected at the time of building permit issuance would offset any incremental impacts of development on the utilization of local park services. The City has established Open Space and Parks Fees going to those facilities and the project would be charged at a current rate of $3,959.94 per single family dwelling. 46 Less than significant impacts would occur with
payment of fees.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The project is expected to result in an increase in residents, that may generate an additional demand for public facilities such as libraries. However, the development of the proposed dwelling units is in line with the region’s future growth and buildout. Payment of required development impact fees determined by the City of Redlands would offset the cost of increased demand for such facilities in the future. Fees for public facilities would be charged at a current rate of $686.45 per single family residential dwelling unit.
47 Potential impacts to public facilities in Redlands would be less than significant with payment of fees.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 529 of 1013

4.16 – Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
□ □ □
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
□ □ □
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project involves the development of 103 single family residential dwelling units at the northwestern corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue. Crafton Park is an irregularly shaped public park located 350 feet south of the project site, across Colton Avenue. The 7.5 acre park includes a playground, picnic tables and grills, parking, restrooms, and a soccer field. 48 Additionally, the Orange Blossom Trailhead is located adjacent to the park, just 80 feet south of the project site. The proposed project may lead to an increased use of both Crafton Park and the Orange Blossom Trail with the associated increase in the local population of the area. However, the project proposes the development of an approximately 0.63-acre on-site community park (See Exhibit 7). The park would be located off of “A Street” in the center of the proposed community, and would include an area for children with recreational “climb and slide” equipment, an enclosed dog park, open turf, and a sitting area with shaded benches and two outdoor grills. Ease of access to and the new amenities as part of the proposed community park would limit any over exposure to Crafton Park and the Orange Blossom Trailhead, limiting any substantial deterioration of those facilities over time. Additionally, as described above in Section 4.13, the proposed project is in line with the region’s anticipated future buildout. Finally, Development Impact Fees collected at the time of building permit issuance would help to offset any incremental impacts of development on the utilization of local park services. The City has established Open Space and Parks Fees going to those facilities and the project would be charged at a current rate of $3,959.94 per single family dwelling. As such, the increase in population would not induce unforeseen stress on the City’s local or regional parks. The proposed project would not increase the use of local recreational resources to such a substantial amount that would lead to their accelerated physical deterioration. Impacts would be less than significant with payment of fees. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project involves the development of 103 single family dwelling units, as well as an approximately 0.63-acre community park. The park would be located off of “A Street” in the center of the proposed community, and would include an area for children with recreational “climb and slide” equipment, an enclosed dog park, open turf, and a sitting area with shaded benches and two outdoor grills. Newly planted trees would also encircle the community park. Construction and operation of the proposed community park is required to be in compliance of Chapter 12.44 “Parks” of the City of Redlands Code of Ordinances.49 The proposed park is not anticipated to have an adverse physical impact on the environment, and any impacts would be reduced with compliance to local regulations. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 530 of 1013

4.17 – 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) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ □
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
□ □ □
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? □ □ □
A Traffic Impact Analysis and a VMT Screening Analysis were prepared for the proposed project by Ganddini Group, Inc., dated May 3rd and April 7th, 2023, respectively (See Appendix I). The information presented below is provided from the aforementioned evaluations. a) Less than Significant Impact. The Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared to calculate the project’s trip generation and evaluate the potential for transportation impacts resulting from the development of the proposed project in the context of the City of Redlands’s discretionary authority for conformance with locally established operational standards – specifically Measure U policies (which are largely based on Level of Service (LOS) standards that measure traffic congestion). The VMT Screening Analysis was prepared to determine whether the proposed project meets the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) requirements for the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Guidelines and screens out from needing to conduct a detailed VMT analysis. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(A) states that VMT is the most appropriate measure for transportation impacts, and LOS shall not be considered an environmental impact and “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact” (for CEQA purposes).

Project Trip Generation
Table 16 (Proposed Project Trip Generation) shows the estimated trip generation for the proposed project based on trip generation rates collected from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). As shown in Table 16, the proposed project is forecast to generate a total of approximately 918 new daily trips, including 67 trips during the AM peak hour and 88 trips during the PM peak hour.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 531 of 1013
Table 16
Proposed Project Trip Generation
Land Use Source Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Single-Family Detached Housing ITE 210 79 DU 14 41 55 47 27 74 745 Single-Family Attached Housing ITE 215 24 DU 4 8 12 8 6 14 173 Total Project Trips 18 49 67 55 33 88 918
Source: Ganddini, 2023.

Notes: ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021); DU = Dwelling Unit
Conflicts with Redlands Measure U
Measure U was an initiative approved by the voters of Redlands in 1997 to enact several principles of managed development within the City of Redlands. The principles in Measure U have been incorporated throughout the new 2035 General Plan, as well as several sections of the Redlands Municipal Code. The Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated the project using the applicable Measure U Policies identified in the Connected City Element of the City of Redlands 2035 General Plan as well as the County of San Bernardino Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (TIS Guidelines). The Measure U Policies are largely based on Level of Service (LOS) standards that measure traffic congestion. A detailed LOS evaluation is included in the Traffic Impact Analysis (See Appendix I) in order to demonstrate project compliance with Measure U. Each Measure U policy is provided below followed by a brief explanation of how the project complies with the policy.

Policy 5.20a: Maintain LOS C or better as the standard at all intersections presently at LOS C or better.

As shown in Table 1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis, all study intersections currently operate at LOS (C or better) except for the intersection of Judson Street at Colton Avenue during the peak hours. The addition of project traffic would not cause any location to deteriorate from LOS C to worse than LOS C.

Policy 5.20b: Within the area identified in GP Figure 5-1, including that unincorporated County area identified on GP Figure 5-1 as the “donut hole”, maintain LOS C or better; however, accept a reduced LOS on a case-by-case basis upon approval by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the total authorized membership of the City Council.

Measure U Policy 5.20b does not apply to the project since the project site is not within the area identified in GP Figure 5-1.

Policy 5.20c: Where the current level of service at a location within the City of Redlands is below the Level of Service (LOS) C standard, no development project shall be approved that cannot be mitigated so that it does not reduce the existing level of service at that location except as provided in Section 5.20b.

As shown in Table 3 of the Traffic Impact Analysis, the intersection of Judson Street and Colton Avenue would operate at LOS D during the peak hours, and the addition of project traffic would not change the delay or LOS at the intersection. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary as the project does not reduce the existing level of service at the intersection.

As discussed above, the project does not result in a drop in LOS at any intersection and therefore would not cause the LOS to drop below the referenced standards. The proposed project’s study area Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 532 of 1013
intersections were evaluated with and without project trips to comply with the City’s Measure U policies by determining if the project would cause any LOS deficiencies. As previously noted, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(A) states that VMT is the most appropriate measure for transportation impacts, and LOS shall not be considered an environmental impact and “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact” (for CEQA purposes). As shown in the Traffic Impact Analysis, all study area intersections would operate at satisfactory LOS in the Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions except for the intersection of Judson Street and Colton Avenue which would continue to operate at an LOS D with or without the project. As such, the project would not result in any unsatisfactory LOS; therefore, the project would be in compliance with Measure U, no improvements would be required, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the updated CEQA Guidelines package. The amended CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15064.3, recommend the use of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the primary metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts, under CEQA, associated with land use and transportation projects. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region. All agencies and projects State-wide are required to utilize the updated CEQA guidelines recommending the use of VMT for evaluating transportation impacts as of July 1, 2020.

CEQA Guidelines allow for lead agency discretion in establishing methodologies and thresholds provided there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the established procedures promote the intended goals of the legislation.

The City of Redlands’ CEQA Assessment VMT Analysis Guidelines provides guidelines for analysis of transportation impacts under CEQA. The guidelines also provide three types of screening that can be applied to determine if a project is exempt from project-level VMT analysis. The project was screened using the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool. If a project meets one of the following criteria, then the VMT impact of the project is considered less-than significant and no further analysis of VMT would be required:

1. The project is located within a Transit Priority Area.

2. The project is located in a low VMT screening area.

3. The project is considered a local serving use or would generate less than 3,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (3,000 MT CO2e) per year.

Below are the results of the screening criteria for the project:

Screening Criteria 1 –Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening Projects located within a TPA, defined as within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor, may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not apply, however, if the project:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75.

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking)

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the jurisdiction with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization): or

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 533 of 1013
Based on a review of the San Bernardino County Transpiration Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the proposed project is not located within a TPA; therefore, the project does not satisfy the TPA screening criteria.

Screening Criteria 2 – Low VMT Screening Area
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. In addition, other employmentrelated and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population (residential plus employment) that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.

As prescribed in the City VMT Guidelines, the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool was used to assess low VMT area screening for the project. The SBCTA VMT Screening Tool utilizes county travel forecasting models to measure VMT performance for individual jurisdiction and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ) within the SBCTA region. TAZs are geographic polygons similar to census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. Total daily VMT per service population was estimated for each TAZ. The proposed project is consistent with the existing land uses in the project TAZ. Per the VMT Screening Analysis, the baseline year (2023) origin-destination average daily VMT per service population for the project TAZ is equal to 24.0, which is less than 15 percent (15%) below the County baseline (28.4 VMT per service population). Therefore, the proposed project satisfies the City of Redlands established screening criteria for projects located in a low VMT area, and the project can be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Screening Criteria 3 – Project Type Screening
Some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less than significant impact as they are local serving by nature, or they are small enough to not warrant assessment. Local serving retail projects with stores less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. In addition to local serving retail, the following uses can also be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature:
• Local-serving K-12 schools
• Local Parks
• Day care centers
• Local-serving gas stations
• Local-serving banks
• Local-serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels)
• Student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus • Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations) • Community institutions (public libraries, fires stations, local government) • Local-serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the

RTP/SCS
• Affordable or supportive housing
• Assisted living facilities
• Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
• Projects which generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year can be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. Projects which generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year5 include the following:
o Single-family residential – 167 dwelling units or fewer Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 534 of 1013
o Multi-family residential (1-2 stories) – 232 dwelling units or fewer o Multi-family residential (3+ stories) – 299 dwelling units or fewer o Office – 59,100 square feet or less
o Local-serving retail center – 112,400 square feet or less (no stores larger than 50,000 square feet)
o Warehousing – 463,400 square feet or less
o Light industrial – 74,600 square feet or less
As previously shown in Table 16, the proposed project consists of less than 167 single-family dwelling units; therefore, the proposed project satisfies the City-established project type screening criteria and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, the proposed project is determined to have a less than significant impact on VMT since it satisfies one of more of the VMT screening criteria established by the City of Redlands CEQA Assessment VMT Analysis Guidelines. The project’s VMT impact is considered less than significant and no additional VMT analysis is required. c) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially increased an existing hazardous design feature or introduced incompatible uses to the existing traffic pattern. Access to the site would be provided via three new streets connecting to Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue. The streets are referred to as streets “A, B, and C”. A Street would be 32 feet wide and run in a north – south direction, with an inlet off of Colton Avenue. B and C Streets would be 36 feet wide and operate in an east – west direction, both providing service off of Wabash Avenue. B Street would be south of C Street, located closer to the intersection of Colton and Wabash. These streets would provide vehicle access in and out of the project site. From these streets, there would be aisles, akin to a driveway. Each aisle would provide access to multiple houses on either side, as well as the attached garages. Street parking is available on all three of the proposed streets. The project does not involve any changes to the alignment or uses of existing roadways, and the proposed project is consistent with City of Redlands driveway spacing and design requirements. Construction operations occurring on site would comply with the California Building Code adopted in the City of Redlands Municipal Code.50 The proposed project would not result in a traffic safety hazard due to any design features, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the design of the proposed project would not satisfy emergency access requirements of the City of Redlands Fire Department or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the project site or adjacent uses. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. As previously discussed above, access to the project site would be provided via three proposed streets running through the neighborhood; two streets accessible from Wabash Avenue, and the other from Colton Avenue. A Street off of Colton Avenue would 32 feet wide, and B and C Streets off of Wabash Avenue would both be 36 feet in width. The streets width is sufficient to provide access to fire and emergency vehicles and is consistent with California Fire Code requirements. All access features are subject to and must satisfy the City of Redlands design requirements, including the Fire Department’s requirements. This project would therefore not result in adverse impacts with regard to emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 535 of 1013

4.18 – Tribal 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 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 Cultural Native American tribe, and
that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
□ □ □
ii) 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.i) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Resources of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). A field survey and records search conducted for the Cultural Report of this project identified two historic-period concrete standpipes located at the project site, which was once an agricultural field. According to the Report, the standpipes evaluated are not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or for local designation, and neither structure qualifies as a “historical resource.” While the City has several historic landmarks and sites listed under its historic preservation program as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), the proposed project site is completely undeveloped and there are no buildings, structures, or features on the site that could be listed as a “historical resource.” The project site was formerly used for agricultural purposes and is not Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 536 of 1013
known to be associated with an important historical period or important persons from the past. The project would not have any physical impacts outside the designated project area boundary. Therefore, the project would not result in any adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). No impact would occur. a.ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Government Code §§ 65352.3 and 65562.5 (SB 18); and Public Resources Code §§ 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 (AB 52) provide that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) can result in a significant effect on the environment. SB18 requires public notice to be sent to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s SB18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general or specific plan. The Lead Agency is required to notify tribes within 14 days of deeming a development application complete subject to CEQA to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project.

AB 52 identifies examples of mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize impacts to TCR. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration circulated on or after July 1, 2015.

Although there is no indication of TCRs at the project site, AB 52 is clear in stating that it is the responsibility of the Public Agency (i.e., Lead Agency) to consult with Native American tribes early in the CEQA process to allow tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the appropriate level of environment review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to TCRs, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see Public Resources Code Section 2108.3.2). Specifically, government-to-government consultation may provide “tribal knowledge” of the project area that can be used in identifying TCRs that cannot be obtained through other investigative means. Pursuant to AB 52, as the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Redlands sent consultation notification letters on November 22, 2022 to the following tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
• Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A • Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes • Kern Valley Indian Community
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla Tribe
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 537 of 1013
• Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
• San Fernando Band of Mission Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
Only the Morongo Band of Mission Indians responded and requested consultation with the City. The City has not been presented with any information or evidence regarding the presence or likelihood of any TCR occurring on or near the project site. However, at the request of the Morongo Tribe, the City has agreed to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8 in the event of any inadvertent discovery of a TCR during construction activities related to the proposed project. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8 would ensure that potential impacts to listed or eligible TCR from the proposed project, if any, would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to TCR would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 538 of 1013

4.19 - 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, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
□ □ □
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
□ □ □
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that
it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
□ □ □
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State and local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
□ □ □
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
□ □ □
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Redlands Municipal Utilities & Engineering Department delivers water to over 23,000 service connections throughout its service area, including those in Redlands, Mentone, parts of Crafton Hills, San Timoteo Canyon, and San Bernardino. The Department receives its water from a mix of sources including local groundwater wells, the Mill Creek Watershed, Santa Ana Watershed, and imported water provided through the State Water Project. The City utilizes 23 groundwater wells, 44 booster pumps, 18 reservoirs, and 450 miles of transmission lines to deliver water.51 Additionally, the City operates two surface water treatment plants, Tate and Hinkley, which provide treated water from the Mill Creek and Santa Ana watersheds respectively, and State Water Project (SWP). The City maintains ownership in multiple local private and mutual water companies to Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 539 of 1013
bolster and secure reliable water supplies for their treatment plants. Wastewater is collected and treated at the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility and has a treatment capacity of 9.5 million gallons.

As discussed in Section 4.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), the project would install new water and sewer lines onsite connecting to the existing infrastructure in Redlands. Compliance with local drainage guidelines and implementation of pollutant-related BMPs would reduce the chances of substantial runoff accumulating. The project would not generate substantially increased runoff from new impermeable surfaces on site. The proposed project would have two drainage areas, one comprising the majority of the site, and a smaller second one located at the southwest corner of the site. Stormwater would be captured and infiltrated on site through two subsurface infiltration facilities. Runoff would then be collected by catch-basins and moved to the underground infiltration facility. No additional improvements are anticipated to either sewer lines or treatment facilities to serve the project. Standard connection fees would address any incremental impacts of the project. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impact as a result of new or expanded water supply and wastewater treatment facilities.

Impacts related to electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would also be less than significant. The project would connect to existing facilities and would not require any expansion of services. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause a significant environmental effect. Less than significant impacts would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. According to the 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Region, the City of Redlands is projected to have a total demand of 25,818 acre-feet (AF) in 2025. 52 The same estimates calculated a
supply total of 31,039 AF in 2020, a difference of 5,221 AF. The project would generate a small increase in additional demand for water from the City of Redlands’ water supply (17.1 AFY) relative to overall existing citywide demand. The Urban Water Management Plan anticipates an overall increase in demand associated with development in the area over 2015 conditions. The project would not substantially deplete water supplies, and the project would have a less than significant impact on entitled water supplies.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of this project if it results in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. As detailed in Sections 4.19.a and 4.19.b, the project would be adequately served by existing wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Significant impacts could occur if the proposed project would exceed the existing permitted landfill capacity or violates federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Solid waste disposal services are overseen by the City of Redlands Trash Collection. Solid waste collected in Redlands is primarily transferred to the San Timoteo Landfill in Redlands, located approximately 6 miles south of the project site. According to CalRecycle, the San Timoteo Landfill has a maximum capacity of 23,685,785 tons, with a remaining capacity of 12,360,396 tons measured April 30th, 2019.53 Construction of the facility is anticipated to generate some solid waste, with an estimated total waste generation of approximately 3,577 lbs, per dwelling unit, per year. 54 There would be adequate landfill capacity in the region to accommodate project-generated waste; as such, the proposed project is not expected to generate an amount of solid waste in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure. Impacts to solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 540 of 1013
e) No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, County, and City statutes and regulations related to solid waste as a standard project condition of approval.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 541 of 1013
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

4.20 – 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
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
□ □ □
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
□ □ □
a) No Impact. The project site is not located within a State Responsibility Areas (SRA). The nearest SRA area is approximately one mile east of the project site in Crafton. 55 There are no wildland conditions in the urbanized area where the project site is located. While the project site is currently undeveloped and vacant with low to the ground vegetation, the site is bounded by Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue and is surrounded by residential, industrial, and commercial uses. The City’s General Plan identifies several evacuation routes out of the City; these routes were previously designated as potential evacuation routes in the 2007 San Bernardino General Plan.56 These include: Interstates 10, 15, 210, and 215, and State Highways 30, 60, 66, 71, and 83. In the event of an earthquake, the following roads would provide safe access out of the San Bernardino Valley, as indicated by Caltrans and cited in the Redlands General Plan:
• Hospitality Lane from Tippecanoe Avenue to Waterman Avenue • Coulston Street from Mountain View Avenue to Tippecanoe Avenue • Lugonia Avenue from Orange Street to Mountain View Avenue • Redlands Boulevard from Orange Street to Waterman Avenue Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 542 of 1013
The proposed project would not interfere with the availability of these highways and roadways as evacuation routes. The project would not substantially impair any adopted or informal emergency response plan or evacuation plan, as such no impact would occur. b) No Impact. The project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).57 The nearest FHSZ is considered moderate, and is located approximately one mile east of the project site, beginning at the southeastern corner of Coltan and Crafton Avenue. The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 1.6 miles south in South Redlands. The project site is located in an urbanized area that would not exacerbate wildfire risks, thereby exposing occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impact would occur. c) No Impact. The project site is not located within or near a State Responsibility Areas as indicated in Section 4.19.a. Development of the proposed project would involve the construction of three streets and associated driveways that would provide access in and out of the project site. The installation of utility connections to the new housing developments would also be required to provide water, heating, and electricity to residents. None of the project improvements would exacerbate fire risk or would result in a temporary or ongoing impact from wildfires requiring the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impact would occur.
d) No Impact. The project site is not located within or near any State Responsibility Areas. As described in Threshold 4.9.c.iv above, the project site is located in an area designated as Flood Zone “X” or Zone “D”; Zone X representing areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance and Zone “D” where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. Additionally, according to Figure 7-3: Flood Hazards of the Healthy Community Element of the Redlands General Plan, the project site is not located within a floodway, or within a 100 or 500-year floodplain.58 Additionally, the project site is not located in a dam inundation area. The project site is located in a relatively flat area, with little to no potential for landslides or downstream flooding or runoff. If such an event were to occur, the City of Redlands General Plan outlines policies and principles to mitigate potential impacts from flooding.

Development of the proposed project would not exacerbate risks to people from flooding or landslides.

No impacts would occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 543 of 1013

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
□ □ □
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? □ □ □
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
□ □ □
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not substantially impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, as discussed in Section

4.1, and would not result in excessive light or glare. The project site is located within a developed area with no natural habitat. The proposed project would not significantly impact any sensitive plants, plant communities, fish, wildlife, or habitat for any sensitive species. Impacts to burrowing owl and nesting birds would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations and incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. There are no jurisdictional waters on the project site. Impacts to archaeological resources, buried human remains, and Tribal Cultural Resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8. Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to items 4.1 through 4.20, no evidence is presented that this proposed project would degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts related to degradation of the environment would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long-term, due to the permanent land-use changes and operational Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 544 of 1013
characteristics involved with the proposed project. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, as further discussed herein.

Aesthetics
Impacts related to aesthetics at the project-level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on-site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur.

Agricultural Resources
The analysis provided in Sections 4.2 found that no individual impacts would occur; therefore, the Project could not contribute considerably to local agriculture or forestry.

Air Quality
The analysis provided in Section 4.3 found that impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality impacts.

Biological Resources
The analysis provided in Section 4.4 found that no individual impacts to sensitive species or migratory birds would occur with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2; therefore, the project would not contribute considerably to regional impacts on such species, and impacts would be less than significant. The analysis also found that the project would have no other impacts on biological resources and would not result in localized or regional cumulative impacts, and as such, impacts would be less than significant.

Cultural Resources
The analysis provided in Section 4.5 found that impacts to archaeological resources and buried human remains would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL8. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable cultural resources impacts.

Energy
The analysis provided in Section 4.6 found that no individual impacts related to energy use would occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative energy impacts.

Geology and Soils
Impacts related to geology at the project-level have no potential for cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have no contribution to potential geological or soil degradation or other such impacts. The analysis in section 4.7 found that if during construction operations, paleontological resources are discovered, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would establish proper care and attention to such discoveries. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative paleontological resources impacts.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As discussed in Section 4.8, climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas emissions all over the world. The project would not contribute considerably to global climate change.

Hazardous Materials
The analysis provided in Section 4.9 related to hazards and hazardous materials, and the associated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment found that impacts would be less than significant with Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 545 of 1013
adherence to the following mitigation measure listed below. Additionally, compliance with all regulations related to the disposal and storage of household hazardous waste would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning
The analysis provided in Section 4.11 related to Land Use and Planning found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, while the proposed project would contribute to individual, localized, or regional cumulative impacts, its contribution would not be considerable.

Mineral Resources
The analysis provided in Section 4.12 related to mineral resources found that there would be no impact; therefore, while the project would contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution would not be considerable.

Noise
The analysis provided in Section 4.13 found that impacts related to the construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-3. Therefore, the project would not contribute considerably to cumulative noise impacts.

Population and Housing
The analysis provided in Section 4.14 related to Population and Housing found that no impacts would result; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur.

Public Services
The analysis provided in Section 4.15 related to Public Services found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, while the proposed project would contribute to localized cumulative impacts, the contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

Recreation
The analysis provided in Section 4.16 related to Recreation found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur.

Traffic and Transportation
Traffic conditions were analyzed in Section 4.17 and found to be less than significant. The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to local and regional transportation facilities would not be considerable.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The analysis provided in Section 4.18 related to Tribal Cultural Resources found that impacts would be less than significant with adherence to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8.

Utilities and Service Systems
The analysis provided in Section 4.19 related to Utilities and Service Systems found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, while the project would contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution would not be considerable.

Wildfire
The analysis provided in Section 4.20 related to Wildfire found that no impacts would result; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 546 of 1013
c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly, as noted in the previous sections above.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 547 of 1013
5 Mitigation Summary
AIR-1: To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated with PM10 exhaust emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated during project construction activities, the City shall require the applicant and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel to comply with the following construction equipment restriction for the project:
• All construction equipment with a rated power-output of 50 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Interim Emission Standards. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV Interim emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB-verified diesel emission control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM10 emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards.

As an alternative to using equipment that meets Tier IV Interim Emissions Standards for off-road equipment with a rated power-output of 50 horsepower or greater, the applicant may prepare and submit a refined construction health risk assessment to the City once additional project-specific construction information is known (e.g., specific construction equipment type, quantity, engine tier, and runtime by phase). The refined health risk assessment shall demonstrate and identify any measures necessary such that the proposed project’s incremental cancerogenic health risk at nearby sensitive receptor locations is below the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 10 cancers in a million.

BIO-1: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys: Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl should be conducted. The surveys should follow the methods described in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2012). Two surveys should be conducted, with the first survey being scheduled between 30 and 14 days before initial ground disturbance (grading, grubbing, and construction), and the second survey being conducted no more than 24 hours prior to initial ground disturbance. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrowing owl burrows are identified on the project site during the survey, the project should consult with CDFW and follow the methods listed in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for avoidance and/or passive relocation. If burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified on the project site during the survey, these features must be completely avoided. If impacts to those features are unavoidable then the project proponent must also develop an owl mitigation plan in consultation with CDFW. Mitigation methods may include passive relocation conducted outside of the owl breeding season (between September 1 and February 28). If an active owl burrow is identified, and construction is to proceed, then a qualified biologist (with two or more years of burrowing owl experience) can establish an appropriate disturbance-limit buffer around the burrow using flagging or staking.

Construction activities shall not occur within any buffer zones until the burrow is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist.

BIO-2: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: If construction or other project activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist to ensure that active bird nests shall not be disturbed or destroyed. The survey shall be Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 548 of 1013
completed no more than three days prior to initial ground disturbance. The nesting bird survey shall include the project site and adjacent areas where project activities have the potential to affect active nests, either directly or indirectly, due to construction activity, noise, human activity, or ground disturbance. If an active nest is identified, a qualified avian biologist shall establish an appropriately sized non-disturbance buffer around the nest using flagging or staking. Construction activities shall not occur within any nondisturbance buffer zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified avian biologist.

CUL-1: Native American Treatment Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for the project. The Tribal Monitor shall be on-site during all grounddisturbing activities (including, but not limited 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.

CUL-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 address the 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.

CUL-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 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 549 of 1013
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 consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

The archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery.

E. Full avoidance.

F. If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.

G. 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.

H. 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)
CUL-7: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians 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].

E. 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 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 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 550 of 1013
Coroner has 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98.

F. 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.

G. 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
H. 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 reburial will 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 will be determined by the Tribe’s Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the landowner, and the City Planning Department.

GEO-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources. If paleontological materials are uncovered during grading or other earth moving activities, the contractor shall be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find, and to retain a professional paleontologist to examine the materials to determine whether it is a significant paleontological resource. If this determination is positive, the resource shall be left in place, if determined feasible by the project paleontologist. Otherwise, the scientifically consequential information shall be fully recovered by the paleontologist. Work may continue outside of the area of the find; however, no further work shall occur in the immediate location of the find until all information recovery has been completed and a report concerning it filed with the Development Services Director. The applicant shall bear the cost of implementing this mitigation.

NOI-1 Reduce Potential Project Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from project construction activities, the applicant shall:

1) Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the applicant/project representative and the City of Redlands responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per action #5 below). This notice shall be provided to the Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 551 of 1013
owner/occupants of residential dwelling units that border the project site to the north and west and that are directly across Colton Avenue from the project site. 2) Restrict Work Hours: All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section

3) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures: The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used at the project site:
a. Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities.
b. Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints.
c. Electric hook-ups shall be provided for stationary equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors, welding sets). This measure shall be subject to the approval of the local electric utility. If electric service is denied, the applicant shall ensure actions 3a, 3b, and 3d are implemented.
d. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be shielded and located as far as possible from residential land uses given site and active work constraints.

Shielding may consist of a three-or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation. e. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities.
f. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust.
g. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
4) Install Construction Noise Barrier: The following measures shall apply to project construction activities:
a. Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the north, south, and western site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 552 of 1013
ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB.
iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities.
iv. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site).

5) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan: The applicant shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall:

a. Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues.
b. Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative shall receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. c. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.

NOI-2 Reduce Potential Project HVAC Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from project heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, the City shall prohibit the installation of HVAC systems that generate a noise level greater than 76 dBA at three (3) feet. In addition, for HVAC systems located in the rear or side yards of residential units along the project’s northern property line, the applicant shall, prior to the release of the grading or building permit that authorizes the construction of any such unit, submit evidence of one the following:
1) The HVAC units to be installed shall be located at least 25 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment) and shall not generate a noise level in excess of 74.6 dBA at three (3) feet from the unit. The City may accept a manufacturer’s specifications or other information, such as actual empirical noise measurements, as evidence of the noise levels that may be generated by the final proposed HVAC system(s). 2) If the HVAC units to be installed generate a noise level between 74.6 dBA and 76 dBA at three (3) feet they shall be located a minimum of 34 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment).
3) If the HVAC units to be installed generate a noise level between 74.6 dBA and 76 dBA at three (3) feet) and they are located closer than 34 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment), then the height of the planned northern perimeter concrete masonry unit Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 553 of 1013
wall shall be increased from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet in height above the planned finished surface elevation.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 554 of 1013
6 References

6.1 – List of Preparers
City of Redlands
Planning Department
35 Cajon Street, Suite 15-A
Redlands, California 92373
909-798-7555
MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 787-9222
 Bob Prasse, Director of Environmental Services
 Cameron Hile, Senior Analyst
 Chris Dugan, Director of Air Quality, GHG, and Noise Services  Kasey Kitowski, Air Quality Noise Analyst
 William Deeman, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Services Analyst  Duncan Edwards, Assistant Planner
Ecorp Consulting Inc. (Biological Report & Cultural Resources Report) 215 North 5th Street
Redlands, California 92374
 Chelsie Brown, Associate Biologist | Biological Resources Report  Phillip Wasz, Senior Wildlife Biologist | Biological Resources Report  Julian E. Acuña, M.A., RPA, Associate Archaeologist | Cultural Resources Report TGR Soils Inc. (Geotechnical Study)
3037 S. Harbor Blvd.

Santa Ana, CA. 92704
(714) 641-7189
 Sanjay Govil, PhD, PE, GE 2382, Principal Geotechnical Engineer  Edward L. Burrows, MS, PG, CEG 1750, Principal Engineering Geologist Hazard Management Consulting Inc. (Phase I ESA)
211 W. Avenida Cordoba, Suite 200
San Clemente, CA. 92672
(949) 361-3902
 Mark Cousineau, NREP, Principal
CA Engineering Inc. (Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan) 13821 Newport Avenue, Suite 110
Tustin, CA. 92780
(949) 724-9480
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 555 of 1013
 Fred Cornwell, PE
Gandini Group Inc. (Traffic Impact Analysis)
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225
Santa Ana, CA92705
714) 795-3100.
 Perrie Ilercil, PE (AZ)
 Giancarlo Gandini, PE, PTP

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted
 N/A
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 556 of 1013

6.3 – Bibliography
1 City of Redlands City Code. Chapter 18.52.030 R-2 Multiple Family Residential District. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-16713#JD_18.52.120. [Accessed May 2023].
2 Caltrans. California State Scenic Highways.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa. [Accessed May 2023].
3 City of Redlands. General Plan: Distinctive City Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed May 2023]. 4 City of Redlands City Code. Chapter 18.164 Article I Residential Parking. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-20247. {Accessed June 2023].
5 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. [Accessed May 2023]. 6 City of Redlands. Zoning Map (PDF). https://www.cityofredlands.org/zoning. [Accessed May 2023].
7 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020. Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-andgrowth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. [Accessed June 2023]. 8 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. Diamond Bar, CA. August 2003. [Accessed June 2023].
9 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. Diamond Bar, CA. August 2003. [Accessed June 2023].
10 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Sacramento, CA. 2005. Available online at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2017a. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA. March 2017. [Accessed June 2023]. 11 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2017a. CalEnviroScreen 3,0 Report. January 2017.
2017b. Disadvantaged Communities Map. June 2017. Available online at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535. [Accessed June 2023]. 12 City of Redlands. General Plan: Vital Environment Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed May 2023]. 13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. [Accessed May 2023]. 14 City of Redlands City Code. Chapter 12.52: Trees and Tree Protection. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-9277. [Accessed May 2023].
15 San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. The Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan. https://www.sbvwcd.org/santa-ana-washplan#:~:text=The%20Wash%20Plan%20provides%20several,will%20be%20funded%20in%20per petuity. [Accessed May 2023].

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 557 of 1013
16 City of Redlands. General Plan: Healthy Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed May 2023]. 17 City of Redlands City Code. Chapter 15.04 California Building Code. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-11655. [Accessed May 2023].
18 City of Redlands. General Plan: Healthy Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed May 2023]. 19 City of Redlands. General Plan: Healthy Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed May 2023]. 20 City of Redlands. General Plan: Healthy Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed May 2023]. 21 South Coast AQMD. Rule 403 Dust Control Information. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/rule-403-dust-control-information. [Accessed May 2023]. 22 City of Redlands City Code. Chapter 13.54.300: NPDES Program Regulatory Fees. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-10951. [Accessed May 2023].
23 California Laws - Health and Safety Code. Chapter 6.95. Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory. https://www.easylawlookup.com/California-Law/Health-and-SafetyCode/par36866/_easylookup.blp?GO=Prepare&site=easy&print=&data=health&p_start=1620&p_end=1640 &p_para=36866&p_epara=37309&par=36866&displayer=YES#:~:text=The%20Legislature%20de clares%20that%2C%20in,threatened%20release%20of%20hazardous%20materials. [Accessed May 2023].
24 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed May 2023]. 25 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List).
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type= CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCE S+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29 [Accessed May 2023].
26 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed May 2023]. 27 California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed May 2023]. 28 California State Water Resources Control Board. List of Active CDO and CAO. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed May 2023]. 29 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed May 2023]. 30 City of Redlands. General Plan: Healthy Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed July 2023]. 31 City of Redlands. Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. May 6, 2003. https://raacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Redlands-Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan.pdf [Accessed July 2023].

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 558 of 1013
32 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. State Responsibility Area Viewer. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/. [Accessed June 2023].
33 City of Redlands. General Plan: Vital Environment Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed May 2023]. 34 California Department of Water Resources. Groundwater Live. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b3886b33b49c4fa8adf2ae8bdd8f16c3. [Accessed May 2023]. 35 City of Redlands. Erosion Control Plan. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/erosion-control-plans. [Accessed May 2023].
36 City of Redlands City Code. Chapter 15.54.200: Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-27953. [Accessed June 2023].
37 California Department of Water Resources. Dam Breach Inundation Map. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. [Accessed May 2023]. 38 City of Redlands. General Plan: Vital Environment Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed June 2023]. 39 City of Redlands. General Plan: Vital Environment Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed June 2023]. 40 City of Redlands. General Plan: Healthy Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed July 2023]. 41 City of Redlands. General Plan: Livable Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed June 2023]. 42 City of Redlands. Fire Station Locations. https://www.cityofredlands.org/pod/fire-station-locations0. [Accessed June 2023]. 43 City of Redlands. Development Impact Fees. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/developmentimpact-fees. [Accessed June 2023]. 44 City of Redlands. Development Impact Fees. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/developmentimpact-fees. [Accessed June 2023]. 45 Redlands Unified School District. School Facility Fees. https://www.redlandsusd.net/cms/lib/CA01900901/Centricity/Domain/61/Facl%20Fees%20Flyer% 20Effective%2010-8-22%20with%20Holidays.pdf. [Accessed June 2023]. 46 City of Redlands. Development Impact Fees. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/developmentimpact-fees. [Accessed June 2023]. 47 City of Redlands. Development Impact Fees. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/developmentimpact-fees. [Accessed June 2023]. 48 City of Redlands. Crafton Park. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/crafton-park. [Accessed June 2023].
49 City of Redlands Code of Ordinances. Chapter 12.44 Parks. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-8999. [Accessed June 2023].
50 City of Redlands City Code. Chapter 15.04 California Building Code. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-11655. [Accessed June 2023].
51 City of Redlands. Water System. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/water-system. [Accessed June 2023].

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 559 of 1013
52 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed. Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.cityofredlands.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/part_2_chapter_4_redlands_2020_uwmp.pdf?1622145365 [Accessed June 2023]. 53 CalRecycle. SWIS Facility / Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1906?siteID=2688. [Accessed June 2023].
54 CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates. [Accessed June 2023]. 55 CAL Fire. State Responsibility Area Viewer. https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad86861638765c e1. [Accessed May June 2023].
56 City of Redlands. General Plan: Healthy Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed June 2023]. 57 CAL Fire. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. [Accessed June 2023].
58 City of Redlands. General Plan: Healthy Community Element. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/planning-division-general-plan. [Accessed June 2023].

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 560 of 1013
Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 – Madera at Citrus Trail
Residential Project
Final Initial Study
and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency:

City of Redlands
35 Cajon St., Ste. 20/P.O. Box 3005
Redlands, CA 92373
Office 909.798.7555 ext. 7344
Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
Final IS/MND
March 6, 2024
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 561 of 1013
- This document is designed for double-sided printing - Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 562 of 1013
Table of Contents Page
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Response to Comments ............................................................................................................ 2-1 3 Errata ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 4 Public Circulation....................................................................................................................... 4-1 5 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program................................................................................... 5-1 List of Tables
Table 2-1 Public Review Draft IS/MND Comments....................................................................... 2-1 Attachments
Attachment 1: Public Review Draft IS/MND.................................................................................. 4-8 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 563 of 1013
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 564 of 1013
1 – INTRODUCTION
This Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) has been prepared to provide revisions to the Public Review Draft IS/MND, dated October 11, 2023, that was prepared for the proposed project (see Attachment 1) and to respond to public comments that were received during the public circulation period for the document. Certification of this Final IS/MND by the Redlands City Council must occur as part of approval of the proposed project and related city approvals.

Purpose of the IS/MND
The Public Review Draft IS/MND was prepared to assess the short-term, long-term, and cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The Public Review Draft IS/MND was prepared to comply with CEQA Guidelines § 15063, which sets forth the required contents of an Initial Study. These include:
• A description of the project, including the location of the project (see Section 2 of Attachment 1);
• Identification of the environmental setting (see Section 2.10 of Attachment 1); • Identification of environmental effects by the use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (see Section 4 of Attachment 1); • Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (see Section 4.13 of Attachment 1); • Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any (See Section 5); and, • The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (see Section 6 of Attachment 1).

Project Description
The proposed project includes Tentative Tract Map No. 20571, which would include the construction of 102 new single-family homes, consisting of approximately 214,454 square feet of gross building space, along with associated landscaping and roadway improvements. The proposed single-family homes would be designed in three plan types (P1, P2, and P3), with various architectural styles associated with each plan. All of the proposed plan types would have two stories, a two-car garage, and would range in height from 27 feet to 30 feet. Plan P1 is a 1,544-square foot house, with 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and an attached 408-square foot garage. Plan P2 is a 1,700-square foot house, with 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and an attached 409-square foot garage. Plan P3 is a 1,858-square foot house, with 4 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, and an attached 407-square foot garage. Forty (40) of the proposed housing units would be plan type P1, twenty-six (26) of the proposed units would be plan type P2, and thirty-six (36) of the proposed units would be plan type P3.

Passenger vehicle access to and from the project site would be provided via three new streets connecting to Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue. “A” Street would run in a north – south direction, and connect with Colton Avenue. “B” and “C” Streets would run in an east – west direction, both connecting to Wabash Avenue and “A” Street. From these streets, there would be drive aisles that would provide direct access to residential units. Development of the project would Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 565 of 1013
include 204 garage parking stalls and 65 guest parking stalls; totaling 269 parking stalls.

Approximately 74,220 square feet of the site would be landscaped. Landscaping includes the front, side, and backyards of the housing units, sidewalk landscaping within the development area and on outwardly facing Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue, as well as the community park located within the center of the project site. The remainder of the site would be paved, including sidewalks, streets within the neighborhood, and driveways. The project also includes development of a 0.63 acre private park. The park would be located off of “A Street” in the center of the proposed community and would include: an area for children with recreational “climb and slide” equipment, an enclosed dog park, open turf, and a sitting area with shaded benches and two outdoor grills. Newly planted trees would also encircle the community park.

The proposed project would install new onsite water and sewer lines that would connect to existing lines in the surrounding streets. The proposed project would have two drainage areas, the first comprising the majority area of the site, the second being smaller, located at the southwest corner of the site. Stormwater would be captured and infiltrated on site through two subsurface infiltration facilities. Flows would be collected by catch basins and conveyed, via the on-site storm drain, to the underground infiltration facility where filters would remove sediment, debris, and various pollutants. Based on the preliminary estimates, grading for the project would require cut of approximately 33,287 cubic yards (cy), and fill of 40,918 cy, requiring approximately 7,631 cubic yards of soil import during grading.

City of Redlands Discretionary Approvals
The City Council as lead agency must take the following actions with respect to the Final IS/MND before the Council can approve the proposed project:
• Planning Commission Review and Approval
• Tentative Tract Map No. 20571
• General Plan Amendment
• Specific Plan No. 66
• Compliance with the requirements of CEQA
• Grading Permits and Encroachment Permits
• Building Permits
No other government/public agency approvals are required for the proposed project.

Availability of IS/MND Materials
Materials related to the preparation of Public Review Draft IS/MND and this Final IS/MND are available for public review on the city website: https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/environmentaldocuments. To request an appointment to review these materials in person, please contact:

Ryan Murphy
Senior Planner
City of Redlands
35 Cajon St., Ste. 20
Redlands, CA 92373
Office 909.798.7555 ext. 7308
Email: [email protected]
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 566 of 1013
2 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Public Review Draft IS/MND was circulated for 30-day public review and comment period beginning on October 12, 2023 and ending on November 14, 2023. A Notice of Intent to Adopt was sent to the State Clearinghouse, other government agencies, neighboring cities, and nongovernmental interested parties. The city’s Local Agency Notification List, showing who received notice of the Public Review Draft IS/MND, is provided in Section 4.0 (Public Circulation) of this Final IS/MND. Two (2) comment letters were received (see Table 2-1). A copy of the comment letter, and written responses to those comments, follows below. Based on the responses to comments provided below, no further analysis of impacts is required and no edits to the Public Review Draft IS/MND are necessary.

Table 2-1
Public Review Draft IS/MND Comments
ID Agency/Organization/Individual Date
A Julia Lenhardt November 7, 2023
B Alexandria McCleary (San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians) November 16, 2023
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 567 of 1013
COMMENT LETTER A – JULIA LENHARDT

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 568 of 1013
ID Response to Comment Letter A – Julia Lenhardt
A-1 The commenter accurately identifies that page 60 of the Public Review Draft IS/MND describes the census tract in which the project is located (census tract 6071008402) as having a cumulative score in the 41st percentile and ozone indicator in the 100th percentile, based on data available from CalEnviroScreen 4.0. The Public Review Draft IS/MND never states, however, that ozone should be omitted or dismissed from the analysis. It only states that the census tract is not defined as a “disadvantaged community,” because it does not fall within a cumulative percentile of 75 or greater (i.e., how SB 535 defines a “disadvantaged community”). As described below, the project’s air quality impacts, including ozone during the project’s operational phase, have been fully evaluated.

As described on page 3-1 of the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report (Appendix A of the Public Review Draft IS/MND), ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere. Rather, ozone is created from chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG) in the presence of sunlight. The Public Review Draft IS/MND includes an analysis of potential ozone impacts on both the regional and localized scale through the analysis of the project’s NOx and ROG emissions during project construction and operation and, thusly, analyzes how the proposed project could exacerbate ozone levels in the vicinity of the project and air basin as a whole.

As shown in Table 6 (Public Review Draft IS/MND page 58), the project’s unmitigated construction emissions, including ROG and NOx, would be below all regional SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Similarly, Table 7 (Public Review Draft IS/MND page 59) shows unmitigated operational emissions would also be below all regional SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. The operational ROG and NOx emissions are approximately 14% and 16% of the maximum daily emissions during construction, respectively.

Therefore, while construction emissions would be greater than operation, at no time would project activities exceed applicable thresholds established by the SCAQMD for the protection of regional air quality.

Although not contained in the main body of the Public Review Draft IS/MND, Appendix A (Air Quality Impact and Health Risk Assessment) included a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis for the project. As described on page 4-2 of Appendix A:
“In addition to establishing thresholds of significance for emissions of criteria air pollutants on a regional level, the SCAQMD has also developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards, which would result in significant adverse localized air quality effects.”
The SCAQMD’s LSTs, which were developed in response to one of the Air District’s environmental justice initiatives, takes into account a number of factors, including (1) existing ambient air quality in each SRA; (2) how many acres the project would disturb; and (3) how far project construction and operational activities would take place from the nearest sensitive receptor. As shown in Tables 4-9 and 4-10 of Appendix A (page 4-13), the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions (including NOx) would be below applicable LSTs for the site. It should be Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 569 of 1013
ID Response to Comment Letter A – Julia Lenhardt
further noted that mobile source NOx emissions during the operational phase (0.1 lbs/day; see Table 4-10) would be less than 0.1% of the SCAQMD LST of 270 lbs/day.

Therefore, the proposed project’s potential to adversely impact air quality, including ozone, has been fully evaluated. The approximately 918 additional vehicle trips generated by the project would not significantly impact air quality in the vicinity of the project, including ozone concentrations. No further analysis is required.

A-2 Common species (such as gophers and squirrels) are not required to be evaluated under CEQA (please see CEQA Appendix G Section IV for a list of topics required to be analyzed). Common species are outlined as part of reporting the existing baseline conditions of a site, but no impact evaluation or mitigation is required for species that are not listed or protected under any laws, regulations, policies, or plans. In addition, CEQA does not require analysis of displacement of common species from projects sites. As such, this comment has been noted and no further analysis is required.

A-3 As documented in the project TIA, the project is forecast to contribute approximately 14 trips during the AM peak hour on Wabash Avenue south of Colton Avenue; this equates to approximately one additional trip every four minutes and is well below the typical threshold of 50 peak hour trips used for identifying roadway facilities that may be substantially affected by additional traffic. In addition, project trip contributions are expected to be lower during the afternoon school release period.

An existing pedestrian crossing is located south of Colton Avenue at the intersection of Wabash Avenue and Independence Avenue. Based on cursory review of crash data, there does not appear to be any reported collisions involving bicycles or pedestrians at the intersection of Wabash Avenue and Independence Avenue for the most recent 5-year period of available data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (UC Berkeley/SafeTREC, January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2022).

Therefore, there does not appear to be a history of pedestrian or bicycle collisions at this intersection that would warrant further analysis.

Additionally, the intersection of Wabash Avenue and Independence Avenue is all-way stop controlled, requiring all vehicles to come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. Pedestrian crossings are appropriately marked as yellow school zone crossings with ladder/perpendicular markings for enhanced visibility.

Therefore, the crossing referred to in Comment 3 currently includes features that enhance pedestrian safety.

Based on review of these considerations, the project is expected to have no significant effect on pedestrian crossings south of Colton Avenue, and no further analysis is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 570 of 1013
COMMENT LETTER B – ALEXANDRIA MCCLEARY (SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION

INDIANS)

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 571 of 1013
ID Response to Comment Letter B – Alexandria McCleary
B-1 The commenter is correct in saying the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requested consultation on this project and to be notified of inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources. As shown in the Errata section of this Final IS/MND (see Chapter 3), revisions have been made to the Public Review Draft IS/MND to include the San Manuel Band of Missions Indians as a consulting tribe on this project. In addition, the mitigation measures for cultural resources have been revised to include the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for notification in the event of inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 572 of 1013
3 – ERRATA
This section identifies revisions to the Public Review Draft IS/MND. These revisions incorporate clarifications, corrections, or additions prepared as a result of project changes and consultation with interested parties during the public review period that occurred from October 12, 2023 through November 14, 2023. Revisions are shown below in underline. Deletions are shown in strikethrough. Commentary notes are shown in Italic type where needed.

None of the revisions below represents a substantial increase in the severity of an identified significant impact or the identification of a new significant impact, mitigation, or alternative considerably different from those already considered in the Public Review Draft IS/MND.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Chapter 1, Introduction
(Page 1, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence): The City of Redlands (“Lead Agency”) received a development proposal from Soni 2012 Irrevocable Trusts (“applicant”) for a Tentative Tract Map (No. 20571) that would develop 102 103 new single-family homes, as well as a 0.63-acre community park (together these comprise the “project”), on a 9.01-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue in the City of Redlands, California.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 2.8, Project Description (Page 6, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence): The proposed project includes Tentative Tract Map No. 20571, which would include the construction of 102 103 new single-family homes, consisting of approximately 214,454 216,567 square feet of gross building space, along with associated landscaping and roadway improvements (see Exhibit 3, Conceptual Site Plan).

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 2.8, Project Description (Page 6, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence): Development of the project would also include 204 206 garage parking stalls and 65 70 guest parking stalls; totaling 269 276 parking stalls.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 2.8, Project Description (Page 6, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence): Approximately 74,220 65,470 square feet of the site would be landscaped.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 2.8, Project Description (Page 7, Landscaping, 1st sentence): Approximately 74,220 65,470 square feet of the site would be landscaped (see Exhibit 6, Conceptual Landscape Plan).

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 2.8, Project Description (Page 7, last paragraph, 1st sentence): There would be 269 276 parking spaces provided on the project site, 65 70 of which would be allocated for guest parking spaces, equating to approximately

2.6 2.7 spaces per residence.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 573 of 1013
Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.1, Aesthetics
(Page 50, last paragraph, 4th sentence): Project plans include 204 206 covered parking stalls for the 102 103 proposed dwelling units.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.3, Air Quality
(Page 50, last paragraph, 4th sentence): The proposed project would generate approximately 330 333 new residents, which would be well within the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth projections for the City of Redlands (i.e., 11,300 residents between 2016 and 2045).

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.5, Cultural Resources (Page 72, 1st full paragraph, 3rd sentence): However, in the unlikely event that archeological materials are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, and at the request of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8 have been incorporated.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.5, Cultural Resources (Page 72, 2nd full paragraph, 3rd sentence): In addition, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requested incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL1 through CUL-8 to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered human remains.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.5, Cultural Resources (Page 72, Mitigation Measure CUL-1, 1st sentence): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for the project.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.5, Cultural Resources (Page 74, Mitigation Measure CUL-7, 1st sentence): The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.5, Cultural Resources (Page 74, Mitigation Measure CUL-7, section D, 1st sentence): If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and/or the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians has been named the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Tribe(s) 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.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.6, Energy
(Page 75, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence): The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of 102 103 new single-family residential home.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 574 of 1013
Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Page 86, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence): The proposed project involves the development of 102 103 single-family dwelling units, in addition to a community park and streets.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (Page 88, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence): The proposed project includes the construction of 102 103 single family homes, interior streets, sidewalks, and a community park located at the center of the new development.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (Page 88, 4th paragraph, 5th sentence): The proposed project includes the development of a new residential development, consisting of some 102 103 single-family units, totaling approximately 214,454 216,567 square feet of gross building space.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (Page 88, 4th paragraph, 6th sentence): The project would include 204 206 garage parking stalls and 65 63 guest parking stalls; 269 total parking stalls.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (Page 89, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence): However, approximately 74,220 65,470 square feet of the site would be landscaped, including a 0.63 acre community park which would be centrally located within the neighborhood.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.14, Population and Housing (Page 108, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence): The proposed project would include development of 102 103 new single-family homes, which would result in a density of 11.32 11.43 du/ac and up to 330 333 new persons on the site.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.15, Public Services (Page 111, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence): The project includes construction of 102 103 single family dwelling units, and, as such, would directly lead to population growth in the area of up to 330 333 persons, and an associated growth within the Redlands Unified School District of up to 32 33 students.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.16, Recreation
(Page 112, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence): The project involves the development of 102 103 single family residential dwelling units at the northwestern corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.16, Recreation
(Page 112, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence): The project involves the development of 102 103 single family dwelling units, as well as an approximately 0.63-acre community park.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 575 of 1013
Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources (Page 120, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence): Only the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded and requested consultation with the City.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources (Page 120, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence): However, at the request of the Morongo Tribe Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the City has agreed to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-8 in the event of any inadvertent discovery of a TCR during construction activities related to the proposed project.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Chapter 5, Mitigation Summary (Page 131, Mitigation Measure CUL-1, 1st sentence): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for the project.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Chapter 5, Mitigation Summary (Page 132, Mitigation Measure CUL-7, 1st sentence): The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations.

Public Review Draft IS/MND Chapter 5, Mitigation Summary (Page 133, Mitigation Measure CUL-7, section D, 1st sentence): If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians or the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians has been named the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Tribe(s) 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.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 576 of 1013
4 – PUBLIC CIRCULATION
Availability and Distribution
On October 11, 2023, the city of Redlands filed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) for the proposed project with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board (see Attachment A). The city also published the NOI in the local public circulation Redlands Daily Facts on the same date. In addition, the NOI was sent by certified mail to public agencies, interested individuals, neighboring jurisdictions, other non-governmental entities, and interested individuals on the city’s agency notification list (see Attachment B). The NOI was also submitted electronically along with a Notice of Completion (NOC) (see Attachment C) to the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) State Clearinghouse (SCH) website for distribution to State agencies and the project was issued SCH #2023100328. The NOI and Public Review Draft IS/MND materials were also available on the city’s website during the entire public review and comment period. Finally, notification was submitted to local Native American Tribal Governments in accordance with CEQA statutes, guidelines, and Assembly Bill 52. Below is a list of the public agencies, interested individuals, neighboring jurisdictions, other non-governmental entities, and interested individuals on the city’s agency notification list:

Agency Notification List
Federal
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Army Corps of Engineers
State of California
Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse
San Bernardino County
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department
San Bernardino County Public Works Department – Traffic Division San Bernardino County Flood Control District
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
Regional
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
Riverside County Planning Department
Southern California Association of Governments
Local Native American Tribes
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Ganbrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 577 of 1013
Local Cities
City of Calimesa Community Development Department
City of San Bernardino Community and Economic Development Department City of Yucaipa Community Development Department
City of Highland Community Development Department
City of Loma Linda Community Development Department
Transportation
OmniTrans Public Transit Agency
Redlands Airport Association
Education
Redlands Unifies School District
Utilities/Services
Western Heights Water Company
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas Co.

Verizon Communications
Non-Governmental Entities
Redlands Chamber of Commerce
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 578 of 1013
ATTACHMENT A: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE

DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 579 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 580 of 1013
ATTACHMENT B: AGENCY NOTIFICATION LIST
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 581 of 1013
ATTACHMENT C: NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 582 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 583 of 1013
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 584 of 1013
5 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies Mitigation Measures incorporated into the Public Review Draft IS/MND prepared for the Madera at Citrus Trail Residential Project in the city of Redlands, California. For each Mitigation Measure, the MMRP identifies the significant impact, the related mitigation measure, the implementation entity, the monitoring and verification entity, and timing requirements.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 585 of 1013
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 586 of 1013

MADERA AT CITRUS TRAIL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Timing/
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
AIR-1
To reduce potential short-term adverse health
risks associated with PM10 exhaust emissions,
including emissions of diesel particulate matter
(DPM), generated during project construction
activities, the City shall require the applicant
and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s
representatives, or other appropriate personnel
to comply with the following construction
equipment restriction for the project:
• All construction equipment with a rated
power-output of 50 horsepower or greater
shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV
Interim Emission Standards. This may be
achieved via the use of equipment with
engines that have been certified to meet
Tier IV Interim emission standards, or
through the use of equipment that has been
retrofitted with a CARB-verified diesel
emission control strategy (e.g., oxidation
catalyst, particulate filter) capable of
reducing exhaust PM10 emissions to levels
that meet Tier IV standards.

As an alternative to using equipment that meets
Tier IV Interim Emissions Standards for off-road
equipment with a rated power-output of 50
horsepower or greater, the applicant may
prepare and submit a refined construction
Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits and
Throughout
Construction
Construction
Plans
Submission
or Study
Completion
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 587 of 1013

Biological Resources Mitigation Measures
BIO-1
Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys:

Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall
be conducted. The surveys shall follow the
methods described in the CDFW’s Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California
Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2012).

Two surveys shall be conducted, with the first
survey being scheduled between 30 and 14
days before initial ground disturbance (grading,
grubbing, and construction), and the second
survey being conducted no more than 24 hours
prior to initial ground disturbance. If burrowing
owls and/or suitable burrowing owl burrows are
identified on the project site during the survey,
the project shall consult with CDFW and follow
the methods listed in the CDFW’s Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for
avoidance and/or passive relocation. If
Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits
Complete
Surveys
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 588 of 1013

MADERA AT CITRUS TRAIL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Timing/
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl
burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets,
feathers, prey remains) are identified on the
project site during the survey, these features
must be completely avoided. If impacts to those
features are unavoidable then the project
proponent must also develop an owl mitigation
plan in consultation with CDFW. Mitigation
methods may include passive relocation
conducted outside of the owl breeding season
(between September 1 and February 28). If an
active owl burrow is identified, and construction
is to proceed, then a qualified biologist (with
two or more years of burrowing owl experience)
can establish an appropriate disturbance-limit
buffer around the burrow using flagging or
staking. Construction activities shall not occur
within any buffer zones until the burrow is
deemed inactive by the qualified biologist.

BIO-2
Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: If
construction or other project activities are
scheduled to occur during the nesting bird
season (February 1 through August 31), a
preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be
conducted by a qualified avian biologist to
ensure that active bird nests shall not be
disturbed or destroyed. The survey shall be
completed no more than three days prior to
initial ground disturbance. The nesting bird
survey shall include the project site and
Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits
Complete
Surveys
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 589 of 1013

MADERA AT CITRUS TRAIL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Timing/
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
adjacent areas where project activities have the
potential to affect active nests, either directly or
indirectly, due to construction activity, noise,
human activity, or ground disturbance. If an
active nest is identified, a qualified avian
biologist shall establish an appropriately sized
non-disturbance buffer around the nest using
flagging or staking. Construction activities shall
not occur within any non-disturbance buffer
zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the
qualified avian biologist. If initial grounddisturbing activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season, then a biological
monitor shall be present during all vegetation
removal activities to ensure no impacts to
nesting birds occur.

Cultural and Tribal Resources Mitigation Measures
CUL-1
Native American Treatment Agreement. Prior
to the issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring
Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians for the project. 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 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
Prior to
Construction
Completion
of Agreement
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 590 of 1013

CUL-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 will 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 will 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.

Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits and
Throughout
Construction
Retention of
Archaeologist
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
CUL-3
Cultural Resource Management Plan. Prior to
any ground-disturbing activities the project
archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource
Management Plan (CRMP) and/or
Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits
Completion
of Plan
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 591 of 1013

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.

CUL-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.

Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits
Completion
of Meeting
Tribal
Monitors,
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
CUL-5
On-site Monitoring. During all grounddisturbing activities the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be onsite 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 consultation with the
During
Grading and
Site
Preparation
Daily
Monitoring
Report
Tribal
Monitors,
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 592 of 1013

CUL-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
During
Grading and
Site
Preparation
Daily
Monitoring
Report
Tribal
Monitors,
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 593 of 1013

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.

The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians request
the following specific conditions to be imposed
in order to protect Native American human
During
Grading and
Site
Preparation
Daily
Monitoring
Report
Tribal
Monitors,
Project
Proponent,
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 594 of 1013

A. Should human remains and/or
cremations be encountered on the
surface or during any and all grounddisturbing activities (i.e., 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
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 595 of 1013

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
If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and/or
the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians has
been named the Most Likely Descendant
(MLD), the Tribe(s) 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 reburial will 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 will be determined
by the Tribe’s Most Likely Descendant (MLD),
the landowner, and the City Planning
Department.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 596 of 1013

After approval of all parties, the final reports are
to be submitted to the Eastern Information
Center, and the Consulting Tribe(s).

Prior to
Issuance of
Occupancy
Permits
Report
submission
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures
GEO-1
Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological
Resources. If paleontological materials are
uncovered during grading or other earth moving
activities, the contractor shall be required to halt
work in the immediate area of the find, and to
retain a professional paleontologist to examine
the materials to determine whether it is a
significant paleontological resource. If this
determination is positive, the resource shall be
left in place, if determined feasible by the
project paleontologist. Otherwise, the
scientifically consequential information shall be
fully recovered by the paleontologist. Work may
continue outside of the area of the find;
however, no further work shall occur in the
immediate location of the find until all
information recovery has been completed and a
report concerning it filed with the Development
Services Director. The applicant shall bear the
cost of implementing this mitigation.

During
Grading and
Site
Preparation
Report
submission
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Noise Mitigation Measures
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 597 of 1013

1) Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned
Construction Activities. This notice shall be
provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the
start of any construction activities, describe
the noise control measures to be
implemented by the project, and include the
name and phone number of the designated
contact for the applicant/project
representative and the City of Redlands
responsible for handling constructionrelated noise complaints (per action #5 below). This notice shall be provided to the
owner/occupants of residential dwelling
units that border the project site to the north
and west and that are directly across Colton
Avenue from the project site.
2) Restrict Work Hours: All constructionrelated work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the
requirements of City Municipal Code
Section 8.06.120(G). Construction activities,
including deliveries, shall occur only during
the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM Monday to
Saturday and shall not occur any time on
Prior to
Issuance of
Construction
Permits
Plan
Submission
and Nosie
Barrier
Installation
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 598 of 1013

3) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and
Noise Control Measures: The following
measures shall apply to construction
equipment used at the project site:
a. Contractors shall use the smallest size
equipment capable of safely completing
work activities.
b. Construction staging shall occur as far
away from residential land uses as
possible given site and active work
constraints.
c. Electric hook-ups shall be provided for
stationary equipment (e.g., pumps,
compressors, welding sets). This
measure shall be subject to the approval
of the local electric utility. If electric
service is denied, the applicant shall
ensure actions 3a, 3b, and 3d are
implemented.
d. All stationary noise generating
equipment shall be shielded and located
as far as possible from residential land
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 599 of 1013

MADERA AT CITRUS TRAIL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Timing/
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
uses given site and active work
constraints. Shielding may consist of a
three-or four-sided enclosure provided
the structure/enclosure breaks the line
of sight between the equipment and the
receptor and provides for proper
ventilation and equipment operation.
e. Heavy equipment engines shall be
equipped with standard noise
suppression devices such as mufflers,
engine covers, and engine/mechanical
isolators, mounts, and be maintained in
accordance with manufacturer’s
recommendations during active
construction activities.
f. Pneumatic tools shall include a
suppression device on the compressed
air exhaust.
g. No radios or other amplified sound
devices shall be audible beyond the
property line of the construction site.
4) Install Construction Noise Barrier: The
following measures shall apply to project
construction activities:
a. Site Preparation, Grading, and
Foundation Work: During all site
preparation, grading, and structure
foundation work activities, a physical
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 600 of 1013

MADERA AT CITRUS TRAIL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Timing/
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
noise barrier shall be installed and
maintained around the north, south, and
western site perimeter to the maximum
extent feasible given site constraints
and access requirements. The noise
barrier shall extend to a height of six (6)
feet above grade. Potential barrier
options capable of reducing construction
noise levels could include, but are not
limited to:
i. A plywood or other barrier installed
at-grade (or mounted to structures
located at-grade, such as a K-Rail),
and consisting of a solid material (i.e.,
free of openings or gaps other than
weep holes) that has a minimum
rated transmission loss value of 20
dB.
ii. Commercially available acoustic
panels or other products such as
acoustic barrier blankets that have a
minimum sound transmission class
(STC) or transmission loss value of
20 dB.
iii. Any combination of noise barriers
and commercial products capable of
achieving required construction noise
reductions during site preparation,
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 601 of 1013

The noise barrier shall not be required if the
perimeter concrete masonry unit wall
included in the project’s site plan is fully
constructed prior to the start of substantial
site preparation and grading activities at the
site (i.e., only clearing and grubbing and
grading necessary to access the site and
install the perimeter wall may occur).

5) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint
Plan: The applicant shall prepare a
Construction Noise Complaint Plan that
shall:

a. Identify the name and/or title and
contact information (including phone
number and email) for a designated
project and City representative
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 602 of 1013

MADERA AT CITRUS TRAIL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Timing/
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Monitoring
Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
equipment) and shall not generate a noise
level in excess of 74.6 dBA at three (3) feet
from the unit. The City may accept a
manufacturer’s specifications or other
information, such as actual empirical noise
measurements, as evidence of the noise
levels that may be generated by the final
proposed HVAC system(s).
2) If the HVAC units to be installed generate a
noise level between 74.6 dBA and 76 dBA
at three (3) feet they shall be located a
minimum of 34 feet from the northern
property line (as measured from the edge of
the HVAC compressor/condenser
equipment).
3) If the HVAC units to be installed generate a
noise level between 74.6 dBA and 76 dBA
at three (3) feet) and they are located closer
than 34 feet from the northern property line
(as measured from the edge of the HVAC
compressor/condenser equipment), then the
height of the planned northern perimeter
concrete masonry unit wall shall be
increased from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet in
height above the planned finished surface
elevation.

NOI-3
Prohibit Vibratory Construction Equipment.

To reduce potential vibration levels associated
with construction of the proposed project, the
applicant and/or its designated contractor,
Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits and
Construction
Plans
Submission
Project
Proponent,
City of
Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 604 of 1013

Throughout
Construction
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 605 of 1013
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 606 of 1013
RESOLUTION NO. 8576

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING THE SOCIOECONOMIC COST/BENEFIT STUDY FOR THE MADERA AT CITRUS

TRAIL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF COLTON AVENUE AND WABASH AVENUE (APN: 0168-291- 02-0000).

WHEREAS, Vanita Soni Puri (the “Applicant”), has filed applications for General Plan Amendment No. 147, Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan), Tentative Parcel Map No. 20571, and Commission Review & Approval No. 965 for a residential development located at the northwest corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue (APN: 0168-291-02-0000) (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project and circulated for public review for a period of thirty days beginning on October 12, 2023, and ending on November 14, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony, and the written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant and by members of the public; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program be adopted; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials for the Project that were reviewed by the Planning Commission in making its recommendation for approval have been forwarded to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on or about April 26, 2024, notice of the City Council’s public hearing for the Project, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, was published in a newspaper of general circulation by the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 7, 2024, at which interested persons had the opportunity to provide verbal and written testimony on the Project, proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 607 of 1013

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

Section 1. CEQA Compliance. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”), related technical studies and analyses, public comments received, the Responses to Comments, and supporting documentation. The City Council determines that the MND and related documents contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project. The City Council finds that the MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and that the City complied with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements.

Section 2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency. The MND for the Project, prepared by the City’s environmental consultant, reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The City has exercised independent judgment and analysis in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in managing as appropriate the environmental consultant, and directing the consultant in the preparation of the MND. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the MND and accompanying technical studies/reports, and finds that the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

Section 3. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council finds on the basis of the whole record that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, including mitigation measures and any project design features, and hereby adopts the MND for the Project.

Section 4. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program attached to the MND, and all mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the Project.

Section 5. Notice of Determination. The City Council directs staff to file and post a Notice of Determination in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 6. Custodian of Records. The custodian of documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based is the Development Services Director or designee, and all records are located in the City’s Development Services Department.

Section 7. Approval of Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby approves and adopts the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study prepared for the Project based upon the following findings:

A. The Project will not create unmitigated physical blight within the City or overburden public services including, without limitation, the sufficiency of Police and Fire Protection services.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 608 of 1013
The Project will not create significant unmitigable physical blight in the City of Redlands (“City”) or overburden public services, including without limitation police and fire protection services, because the mitigation measures for environmental impacts, described in the study, have been added to the project as Conditions of Approval.

The Project developer will make improvements to facilitate implementation of the Project, including roadway improvements the project frontage. The Project would provide connections to existing City infrastructure. Utility lines less than 66kV in size or capacity will be placed underground. The Project developer is required to fund the project’s fair share allocation of any necessary public infrastructure associated with development of the Project.

B. The benefits to the City resulting from development of the Project outweigh any direct cost to the City that may result.

The Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study demonstrates that the Project will generate “new net” annual revenues of approximately $160,030 and approximately $68,552 in costs, and therefore will result in a positive balance of $91,478 (or cost/benefit ratio of +2.33). For every dollar the City spends in providing services to the Project, the City will receive $2.33 in “new net” revenue. The Project would provide for the development of 102 new residential units. The project also will contribute toward the development of affordable housing units through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Schools will be enhanced with the payment of school fees. Further, with the additional revenue provided to the City through increased property tax assessment, and the payment of development impact fees, indirect funding will be provided for cultural enhancements, downtown district enhancements, public safety (Police and Fire) enhancements, and traffic enhancements.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 7
th day of May, 2024.
______________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 609 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 th day
of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 610 of 1013
RESOLUTION NO. 8577

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

APPROVING THE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO
RESIDENTIAL LAND PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.40s OF THE REDLANDS GENERAL PLAN FOR 9.01 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF COLTON AVENUE AND WABASH AVENUE (APN: 0168-291- 02-0000).

WHEREAS, by ballot initiative in 1997, Measure “U” was enacted by the residents of the City to amend the Redlands General Plan and establish comprehensive growth management principles to preserve, enhance and maintain the quality of life in the Redlands community; and WHEREAS, Vanita Soni Puri (the “Applicant”), has filed applications for General Plan Amendment No. 147, Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan), Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 and Commission Review and Approval No. 965 for a 102-unit single family residential development located at the northwest corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue (APN: 0168-291-02-0000) (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site contained active agricultural production on June 1, 1987, thus making the provisions of Measure “U” applicable to the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project involves the adoption of a new Specific Plan for a 102-unit single family residential development at a density of 11.3 units per acre, which exceeds the Residential Estate (R-E) density of 3.0 units per acre; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony, and the written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant and by members of the public; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, notice of the City Council’s public hearing for the Project was published in a newspaper of general circulation by the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing and considered the staff written and oral reports, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the testimony and written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant, and testimony by members of the public; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project including a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 611 of 1013
WHEREAS, the purpose of the following analysis is to determine whether the increased density permitted by designating the property as Specific Plan No. 66 which would allow approximately 11.3 units per gross acre would be consistent with the mandatory findings required by Measure “U.”

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

Section 1. In accordance with Section 4.40s of the Redlands General Plan, the City Council of the City of Redlands hereby approves the re-zoning of lands designated “Urban Reserve” in the Redlands General Plan (as of June 1, 1987) or in active agricultural production (as of November 3, 1986) to permit residential density greater than the Residential Estate (R-E) classification as the same existed as of June 1, 1987, based upon the following findings:

A. There are substantial and overriding economic or social benefits to the City and its residents and taxpayers from the proposed density.

The project site previously supported agricultural uses (citrus groves) in 1980’s, however the site does not currently support agricultural operations. The 2035 General Plan incorporated potential impacts to agricultural resources into its respective analysis. The property is currently designated as Low Density Residential (allowing up to six units per acre). The current zoning designation is Single Family Residential (R-1) District. The existing designations anticipated the conversion of the property from agriculture to non-agricultural uses, at a density higher than R-E zoning district.

The additional 102 units on the 9.01-acre site, which produce an overall density of 11.3 units per acre, would substantially add to the tax revenue accruing to the City that helps fund infrastructure and public services, which is a direct economic benefit to the City. As part of the project, the developer will also pay development impact fees for transportation and other infrastructure, as well as police, fire, and for the library.

From a social benefit standpoint, the project will contribute approximately $1.5 million dollars in fees the will go toward the development of affordable housing for the City of Redlands. As demonstrated by the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, there is a significant need for affordable housing in the City. Further, the project will include common open space through pocket parks, and enhance the public right-of-way, creating a more pedestrian friendly condition along sidewalks and roadways and creating a “gateway” to the City of Redlands through enhance landscaping and landscape features. These factors benefit the whole City of Redlands, and fill a recognized public need.

In addition, the construction of new homes on small lots provides a variety of housing types and affordability levels in the City of Redlands, which is consistent with the policies contained within the City’s current 2035 General Plan and will contribute an additional 102 new housing units that will help the City meet its overall housing goals.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 612 of 1013
B. The proposed density increase will not cause adverse environmental impacts, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly.

The project has been analyzed through the drafting of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, with fifteen mitigation measures that have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval, referencing technical studies prepared for the project, to ensure the project will not have a significant impact on the environment, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly.

C. The proposed density increase will not convert viable agricultural land to nonagricultural uses.

The proposed density increase would not convert viable agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. The area surrounding the project site is urbanized, with commercial, industrial and residential development an all sides, and the project is an infill project. Aerial photographs indicate that the agricultural uses in this area, including those on the subject property, have been removed over time as citrus groves have become less economically viable. The California Important Farmland Finder prepared by the California Department of Conservation does not identify the project site as being located on prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide Importance.5 The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses. The City of Redlands General Plan does identify portions of the northeastern city for Agricultural and Open Space uses, however, the project site is located away from any land zoned for agricultural uses. There would be no conversion of farmlands to non-agricultural uses, and as a result no such impacts would occur. Therefore, the increase in density will not convert viable agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses.

D. The proposed density will not have a growth-inducing effect on other property.

The property is surrounded by urban development with residential development to the west, residential to the north, residential to the south, and industrial development to the east. The development the adjacent properties with residential land use designations preceded the construction of Redlands East Valley High School, which has further created a growth-inducing effect on the area. As the surrounding area has already developed, development of this property on its own would not be considered to contribute to growth-inducing effects on adjacent properties.

As such, the density increase is not expected to have any growth-inducing effect on other property, as there are no properties adjacent to the project site that have not already been developed.

E. The resulting use will be compatible with uses on adjacent land.

The project has been designed to be compatible with the current residential development to the north, west and south of the site. Further, walls and landscaping near eastern perimeter of the project form appropriate barriers and buffers from the industrial development to the east. The development of Redlands East Valley High School further east changed the context of the area, and the single-family residential use proposed by the project is a continuation of the surrounding single-family residential uses. The project incorporates pedestrian facilities to accommodate safe Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 613 of 1013
routes to the nearby schools and sidewalks, and compliments the Orange Blossom Trail with design features that enhance the nearby facility.

F. The proposed density or height increase will not require substantial expansion of public infrastructure, facilities or services.

The project would connect and enhance the existing infrastructure in the area and would not require substantial infrastructure improvements to water and sewer service to accommodate project demands. Sewer service and water service will be brought to the project from available connections currently in place on Wabash Avenue. The existing water treatment facilities within the City, are capable of serving the proposed project and not substantial expansion would be required. The developer would be required to pay the appropriate development impact fees for transportation and infrastructure improvements as well as school fees, and development impact fees for public safety, parks and open spaces and the library. These developer impact fees represent the new development’s fair share of planned facilities and are not intended to address any needed facilities required to serve existing development. Therefore, the additional residential density would not require substantial expansion of public infrastructure, facilities or services.

Section 2. In accordance with Measure “U,” this resolution has been adopted by a 4/5 vote of the membership of the City Council.

Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 7
th day of May, 2024.
______________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 614 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 th day
of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 615 of 1013
RESOLUTION NO. 8578

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO. 147 TO THE REDLANDS GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM ‘LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL’ TO ‘MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL’ FOR ONE PARCEL

9.01 ACRES IN SIZE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
COLTON AVENUE AND WABASH AVENUE (APN: 0168-291-02-0000).

WHEREAS, Vanita Soni Puri (the “Applicant”), has filed applications for General Plan Amendment No. 147, Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan), Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 and Commission Review and Approval No. 965 for a 102-unit single family residential development located at the northwest corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue (APN: 0168-291-02-0000) (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the Project, and at which the Planning Commission considered the Project; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 147 be approved; and WHEREAS on or about April 26, 2024, notice of the City Council’s public hearing for the Amendment was published in a newspaper of general circulation by the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the staff written and oral reports, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the testimony and written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant, and testimony by members of the public; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project including a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing on the Amendment, the City Council determined that adoption of the Amendment is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare.

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

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 616 of 1013
Section 1. Approval. General Plan Amendment No. 147 is hereby approved to change the General Plan land use designation of one parcel 9.01 acres in size from ‘Low Density Residential’ to ‘Medium Density Residential’ located at the northwest corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue (APN: 0168-291-02-0000) as more particularly shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 7
th day of May, 2024.
______________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 617 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 th day
of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 618 of 1013
Exhibit A-1
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
Project Site
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 619 of 1013
Exhibit A-2
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation (Amendment)
Project Site
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 620 of 1013
RESOLUTION NO. 8579

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 66 (MADERA AT CITRUS TRAIL
SPECIFIC PLAN) FOR ONE 9.01-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE

NORTHWEST CORNER OF COLTON AVENUE AND WABASH AVENUE
(APN: 0168-291-02-0000).

WHEREAS, Vanita Soni Puri (the “Applicant”), has filed applications for General Plan Amendment No. 147, Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan), Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 and Commission Review and Approval No. 965 for a 102-unit single family residential development located at the northeast corner of Interstate 210, and West Pioneer Avenue at the northwest corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue (APN: 0168-291-02-0000) (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the Project, and at which the Planning Commission considered the Project; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1661 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan); and
WHEREAS, on or about April 26, 2024, notice of the City Council’s public hearing for the Project was published in a newspaper of general circulation by the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing and considered the staff written and oral reports, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the testimony and written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant, and testimony by members of the public; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project including a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing on Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan), the City Council determined that adoption of the Specific Plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

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

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 621 of 1013
Section 1. General Plan Conformity. The proposed Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan) is in conformity with the Redlands General Plan, including the land use designation of Medium Density Residential (as amended) for the subject property and related street system improvements.

Section 2. Specific Plan Adoption. Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan) for the development of approximately 9.01 acres of real property as a single-family residential development containing 102 dwelling units and related site improvements is hereby adopted for the subject property as more particularly shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.

Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 7
th day of May, 2024.
_________________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 622 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 th day
of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 623 of 1013

EXHIBIT A
Specific Plan Area
Project Area
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 624 of 1013
RESOLUTION NO. 8580

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20571 AND COMMISSION
REVIEW & APPROVAL NO. 965 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.01 ACRES FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR 102 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
(CONDOMINIUM AIRSPACE UNITS PLUS COMMON LOTS), AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 102-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF INTERSTATE 210, NORTH SIDE OF DOMESTIC AVENUE, AND APPROXIMATELY 625 FEET WEST OF TEXAS STREET.

WHEREAS, Vanita Soni Puri (the “Applicant”), has filed applications for General Plan Amendment No. 147, Specific Plan No. 66 (Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan), Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 and Commission Review and Approval No. 965 for a 102-unit single family residential development located at the northwest corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue (APN: 0168-291-02-0000) (the “Project” or “Project Entitlements”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority per Chapter 17.07 of the Redlands Municipal Code to take action on Tentative Tract No. 20571 to subdivide approximately 9.01 acres for condominium purposes for 102 single family residential homes; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony, and the written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant and by members of the public; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council for Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 and Commission Review & Approval No. 965; and
WHEREAS, on or about April 26, 2024, notice of the City Council’s public hearing for the Project was published in a newspaper of general circulation by the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the staff written and oral reports, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the testimony and written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant, and testimony by members of the public; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project including a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 625 of 1013
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council determined that adoption of the Project Entitlements is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

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

Section 1. California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City Council has adopted a resolution certifying and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for the project in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Section 2. Findings for Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 20571. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 for the Project subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B,” and based upon the following findings:

1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code.

The proposed map is consistent with the Redlands General Plan, Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 66) and the Redlands Municipal Code. The project’s proposed Medium Density Residential land use designation allows for 8-15 units per acre and the project has been designed at 11.3 units per acre. The tentative tract map is also consistent with policies 2-A.4, 2-A.17, 2-A.19, 4-A.150, 4-P.8, 4-P.10, 4-A.6, 4-A.7, 4- A.8, 4-P.16 contained within the General Plan Livable Community Chapter. The proposed map will be consistent with the Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 66), which is being processed concurrently, and the Specific Plan’s design guidelines and development standards will support development of the project. The proposed map will also be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code.

2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development.

The project site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site has a relatively flat grade with a very gradual fall towards the southwest over distance, and the design of the subdivision will generally follow the grade of the site, and will not require excessive grading. All on-site and on-site improvements proposed as part of the project’s design will meet all City standards and provide a safe environment for existing and future residents. and is large enough at 9.01 acres to be subdivided into 102 residential condominium units, and the construction of the necessary on-site circulation, on-site landscaping and private on-site open space. On-site and off-site improvements proposed as part of the project’s Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 626 of 1013
design will ensure the property is compatible with adjacent developments and mitigate potential impacts to traffic and other environmental factors to a less than significant level.

3. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development.

The maximum density allowed within the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation is fifteen (15) units per acre. The project is designed at 11.3 units per acre. The project site is relatively flat in topography, and the design of the subdivision will generally follow the grade of the site without the need for excessive grading. All on-site and on-site improvements proposed as part of the project’s design will meet all City standards and provide a safe environment for existing and future residents. As such, the siteis physically suitable for the density of development proposed.

4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Based on the Initial Study that has been prepared for the project, there are no environmental factors that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration lists mitigation measures for Biological Resources, regarding pre-construction surveys for sensitive species. As such, the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed project would accommodate a residential subdivision, and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems as the project is designed with improvements that meets all City and State building and fire codes. An Air Quality Analysis was prepared for project and the project will be required to comply with all local, state, and federal laws addressing air quality impacts. The memorandum found that the project would cause a less than significant impact to air quality and health risks.

The nature of the residential use does not involve any substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and the ambient noise will not affect residential properties because all noise will be mitigated to a level of less than significant as shown in the Initial Study.

6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 627 of 1013
The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The project will improve pedestrian and vehicular access in the immediate vicinity through the improvement and construction of public facilities. In addition, the project is responsible for installing or repairing associated street improvements such as curb and gutter, adjacent to the project, consistent with City requirements.

7. That pursuant to Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (commencing with section 51200 of the Government Code) and that the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would be too small to sustain their agricultural use.

The subject property is not under a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, and will not be detrimental or otherwise affect lands in agricultural use.

Section 3. Findings for Commission Review and Approval No. 965. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby approves Commission Review & Approval No. 965 and related Inclusionary Housing Plan for the Project subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B,” and based upon the following findings:

1. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and all of the required yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features will adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood.

The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. The subject property will be developed with 102 single-family dwellings, private open space and will provide the necessary on-site improvements including parking, landscaping, lighting, and utility connections. The project site complies with the applicable development standards as proposed by the Madera at Citrus Trail Specific Plan (Specific Plan 66) including requirements for setbacks, and lot coverage. The proposed use will also be compatible with the surrounding uses such as the existing mobile home parks to the south and west, located adjacent to the project site and will be consistent with the low density residential development on parcels to the north, as it consists of single family condominium homes.

2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways which are properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 628 of 1013
The site is designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use.

The site will provide new improved access from Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue.

These improvements are designed to carry the volume of residential traffic anticipated to be generated by the project and implement the project’s portion of the roadways designated for the area by the General Plan as well as additional roadway necessary to facilitate required access.

3. The conditions set forth in the approval and those shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.

The conditions of approval for the project will protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project site will be developed in accordance with standard engineering design requirements as well as standard building code and fire code requirements. The project has been conditioned to comply with the applicable provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code.

Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 7th day of May, 2024.

Eddie Tejeda,
ATTEST:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 629 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 630 of 1013
EXHIBIT “A”

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 and Commission Review & Approval No. 965) Planning Division

1. This permit/approval is for Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 and Commission Review & Approval No. 965, for the “Madera at Citrus Trail Project” generally described as the following:
a. The subdivision of the project site for condominium purposes, to be utilized for 102 residential condominium units.
b. Construction of a 102-unit townhouse development with frontage on Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue. The Project also includes onsite parking and recreation areas, with access provided via one driveway on Colton Avenue and one driveway on Wabash Avenue.
c. Common recreational open space (privately-owned with private access) outdoors for use by the project’s residents and residential guests. d. Frontage and street improvements in accordance with the civil engineering plans.

2. This permit/approval shall expire two (2) years from the date of project approval (will expire on January 23, 2026), unless construction has commenced pursuant to a building or engineering permit(s), or a time extension is granted in accordance with the Redlands Municipal Code (RMC Section 18.12.090 for Commission Review & Approval; and RMC Sections 17.07.110 and 17.07.120 for Subdivision Regulations).

3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d), certain fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed by the City as a condition of approval of this project are subject to a statutory ninety (90) day protest period. Please be advised that the ninety (90) day protest period for those fees, dedications, reservations, and exactions which are subject to Government Code Section 66020(a) has commenced to run on the date this project was approved by the City.

4. The applicant for this permit, and its successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Redlands, and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, actions, and proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this permit by the City, or brought against the City due to acts or omissions in any way connected to the applicant’s project that is the subject of this permit. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees, costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in such actions or proceedings, including damages for the injury to property or persons, including death of a person, and any award of attorneys’ fees.

In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all, or any, provisions of this permit, or is commenced for any other reason against the City for acts or omissions relating to the applicant’s project, within fourteen (14) City business days of the Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 631 of 1013
same, the applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit (together, the “Security”) in a form satisfactory to the City and in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000), to ensure applicant’s performance of its defense and indemnity obligations under this condition. The failure of the applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express acknowledgement and agreement by the applicant that the City shall have the authority and right, without objection by the applicant, to revoke all entitlements granted for the project pursuant to this permit. The City shall have no liability to the applicant for the exercise of City’s right to revoke this permit.

5. By signing and/or using this permit, the permittee acknowledges all of the conditions imposed and accepts this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code including Title 15 (Buildings and Construction), Title 16 (General Plan), Title 17 (Subdivision Regulations), and Title 18 (Zoning Regulations). Failure of the permittee to sign these conditions does not affect their enforceability by the City or other responsible entity. These conditions are binding upon all future property owners and occupants of the subject property.

6. This permit/approval is granted for the project plans dated December 15, 2023 (“the plans”) on file with the Development Services Department.

7. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, the applicant and/or developer shall provide payment of In -lieu Fees in accordance with the approved Inclusionary Housing Plan provided with the application.

8. No final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted until all conditions of approval have been satisfied.

9. The issuance of any permits shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code.

10. All plans submitted to the City shall reflect all Planning Commission and/or City Council approvals and any other changes required by the Commission, Council and/or staff. This condition applies to site plans, landscape plans, elevations, grading, and all other illustrations, text, or plans submitted to the City in connection with the project.

11. The Development Services Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approval project plans or any of the conditions of approval if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions.

12. The final maps shall substantially conform to the tentative maps as approved by the Planning Commission.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 632 of 1013

13. A copy of the approved Conditions of Approval shall be included on the cover page ofthe construction plans submitted to the Building Division.

14. The applicant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Violations or convictions of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this permit.

15. All off-site and on-site utilities shall be placed underground. Prior to approval of the final map the applicant shall submit plans to be approved by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director and the Development Services Director, that detail undergrounding of all utilities for the project.

16. Transformer cabinets and gas meters shall not be located within required setbacks and/or adjacent to public streets, and shall be screened from public view either by architectural treatment or with landscaping. Multiple electrical meters and panels shall be fully enclosed and incorporated into the overall architectural design of the building(s). Backflow preventers shall be enclosed with landscaping that will provide complete screening upon maturity. The location and method of enclosure or screening of this equipment shall be shown on the construction plans and landscape plans prior to building permit issuance.

Location of said equipment shall be coordinated with appropriate utility company (i.e., Southern California Gas Company or Southern California Edison Company). The applicant shall submit plans showing details of screening subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director, prior to issuance of building permits

17. Plans submitted for plan check shall include an exterior lighting plan, including fixture and pole designs, for review and approval by the Development Services Director or designee.

Prior to building permit issuance, a lighting and photometric plan shall be submitted demonstrating that adequate lighting ranges will be provided throughout the development without creating light spillover, light pollution, or conflicts with surrounding factors such as tree locations, off-site or adjacent lighting.

18. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall demonstrate that light poles will not conflict with tree locations. Developer shall submit a plan showing both the lighting and landscape on the same sheet. Fixtures on exterior light poles shall direct lighting downward (e.g., contain a flat lens and/or have shielding that directs light downward and contains glare).

19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans detailing that roof screening is of adequate height to screen any roof-top equipment from public view on all sides, subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director. Screening of air conditioning units and other equipment on the buildings shall be incorporated into or compatible with the architectural design of the buildings. All equipment shall be screened from public view of adjacent roadways and freeways. Plumbing vents, ducts and other appurtenances protruding from the roof of structures shall be placed so that they will not Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 633 of 1013
be visible from the front of the property or other major public vantage points. Developer shall include a note on the construction plumbing drawings of exterior elevations to indicate to contractors that roof features shall be grouped and located in the described manner. Roof vents shall be shown on construction drawings and painted to match roof material color.

20. Utility meters shall be fully screened and incorporated into the overall architectural design of the building (e.g., interior room, cabinet with wing wall, or equivalent complete screening). Any enclosures or screening shall be architecturally treated to match the exterior of the attached structure.

21. If any bollards or similar devices are used along street frontages or interior drive aisles, then the bollards or the equivalent shall be decorative in nature and subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director or designee in Plan Check prior to permit issuance. If any steel bollards or pour-in-place bollards are installed, they shall only be installed for protecting utility devices (e.g., transformers above-ground) and shall be painted a dark color (e.g., dark green, brown, or black) to blend with surrounding landscape screening.

22. Telecommunications and television equipment or satellite dishes shall not be located on the exterior of any building (including but not limited to balconies, patios, exterior railings, rooflines, etc.). Dwelling units shall be internally wired for all available utility and telecommunications services, with service devices, panels, or meters located within a centralized equipment room. The equipment room(s) in each building shall be fully enclosed and incorporated into the overall architectural design of the building(s). Any satellite dishes/receivers shall only be located on the roof and shall be completely screened from public view on all sides.

23. Where any public sidewalks are adjacent to slopes or parkways with slopes (e.g., downslopes), a 6” concrete curb may be required to be constructed with the sidewalk. Hand railings or guard rails should be avoided, if feasible. Prior to permit issuance, Developer shall identify any areas with slopes and parkways on the civil plans and identify construction of a 6” concrete curb as needed.

24. Prior to issuance of any building or engineering permit for any building or phase of the project, the Developer shall prepare and submit a Construction Parking Management Plan for all contractors, workers, and deliveries related to the project site. The Construction Parking Management Plan shall identify areas of the project site, surrounding private properties (with property owner’s authorization), and surrounding public streets that construction personnel may utilize. Deliveries of construction materials, equipment, trailers, vehicles, etc., shall be performed on the project site to the extent practicable, and avoid the use of public streets and rights-of-way if possible. The Developer and/or on-site primary general contractor (superintendent) shall have responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the approved parking management plan. The plan shall be subject to review and Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 634 of 1013
approval by the City Planner or designee, and may be modified by the City after approval to mitigate any unanticipated impacts or public nuisance conditions.

25. Prior to any use of any public street or right-of-way for construction-related activities, the Developer shall submit and receive approval for a Traffic Control Plan. Developer shall be responsible for repairing, replacing, or financially compensating any damages to public rights-of-way (including but not limited to paving,sidewalks, driveways, curbs and gutters, storm drain facilities, parkway landscape, street trees, public utilities, etc.) to the satisfaction of the Director(s) of the Municipal Utilities & Engineering Department and/or the Facilities & Community Services Department, or their designee(s), as applicable.

26. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a building or phase, Developer shall remove all construction materials and vehicles from the subject property.

27. Developer shall arrange for materials collection during construction, demolition, and occupancy with the City's Solid Waste Division, or Developer shall arrange for self-hauling to an authorized facility.

28. Prior to placing or constructing any signs on the project property, Developer shall obtain a sign permit from the City. Sign locations and illumination are subject to review and approval by the Planning Division under separate permit.

29. Each condominium unit shall have two (2) covered parking spaces as required by the Redlands Municipal Code.

30. Any landscaping and amenities in common areas within Tract Map No. 20571 shall be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association.

31. Streetscape and front yard landscaping Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 shall be planted and installed prior to occupancy of the unit.

32. The applicant shall not make any modifications or changes during construction that are in conflict or contrary to the project’s approved site design, or building elevations without first consulting with the Development Services Director or designee.

33. Any graded slopes greater in height than three feet (3’) shall be provided with irrigation systems and planted with groundcover, shrubs, and trees as approved by the Development Services Department and Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, to prevent erosion.

34. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for walls over three feet in height, or open fences over four feet in height within the front yard setback, the developer shall obtain a Minor Exception Permit.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 635 of 1013

35. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for walls or fences over six feet in height, the developer shall obtain a Minor Exception Permit.

36. Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be approved prior to the issuance of building permits.

Landscape and Irrigation shall be submitted for plan check to the Development Services Department, Building & Safety Division, for distribution to other departments and for review and approval by the Development Services Director. Plans shall be in compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance No. 2724 (Also known as Chapter 15.54of the RMC).

37. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and no construction activities permitted on Sundays and Federal Holidays.

38. The project site shall be kept in a weed and dust free condition throughout all periods of development.

39. All walls facing public areas or existing development must be decorative in nature, using decorative (split-face or slump stone) block and or a textured finish (i.e. stucco).

Subdivision Conditions (Tentative Tract Map No. 20571):

40. Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 authorizes the subdivision of 9.01 acres for condominium purposes, to be utilized for 102 residential units, located at the southwest corner of Colton Avenue and Wabash Avenue.

41. This Tentative Tract Map shall expire two (2) years or 24 months from the date of project approval, unless the Final Map has been recorded. or a time extension is granted in accordance with the Redlands Municipal Code pursuant to RMC Sections 17.07.110 and

17.07.120 (Subdivision Regulations).

42. Any application(s) for an extension of time of the above expiration date shall be filed with the Planning Division not less than 90 days prior to the expiration date and shall comply with Title 17 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Redlands Municipal Code. Upon application by the subdivider prior to the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map, the tentative map shall be automatically extended in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

43. The applicant shall record the subdivision by a Final Tract Map. The Final Tract Map(s) shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act and the Redlands Municipal Code (RMC).

44. Any conditions of approval determined by the City to not be completed prior to Final Map approval shall be included within the Subdivision Improvement Agreement entered into by the developer with the City.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 636 of 1013

45. The applicant shall establish a Home Owners Association (HOA) for the care and maintenance of all property improvements held in common ownership of the subdivision.

The HOA shall be formed for the property, and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R’s)shall be prepared,submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney, prior to approval of the final map. The HOA and the CC&R’s shall cover the care and maintenance of all property and improvements held in common ownership of the subdivision and shall also cover the care and maintenance of parkways, groves, basins, and all lettered lots within the development.

46. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the City for the condominium project (Tentative Tract Map No. 20571). The CC&Rs shall contain the following:
a. A provision which reads substantially as follows: "The City shall have the right to review and approve any proposed amendment or termination of [the CC&Rs] when such termination or amendment would alter, amend, terminate or otherwise impair the rights of the City under those provisions of [the CC&Rs] which satisfy the conditions of approval imposed by the City for the project. All proposed amendments shall be submitted to the City's Development Services Director and shall be approved in writing by the City Attorney as a precondition of and prior to the recordation of such amendment.”
b. A provision which readssubstantially as follows: "[The CC&Rs] shall be covenants running with the land, and shall, in any event, and without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or otherwise, be, to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, binding for the benefit and the favor of, and enforceable by the City of Redlands. Although the City of Redlands shall be a beneficiary of [the CC&Rs], and shall have a right to enforce [them], the City of Redlands shall not be obligated hereunder to exercise such rights of enforcement." c. CC&Rs shall detail the ownership and maintenance requirements for the development, and include statements that the required recreational open space, drive aisles and common landscape areas for the project shall be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association for the project in perpetuity. d. The CC&Rs shall designate that any required guest parking spaces shall be owned, maintained, and operated by the Homeowners’ Association e. CC&Rs shall include methods of compliance with the project’s approved Parking Management Plan. ** Added by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2024. f. CC&Rs shall include compliance with the project’s approved Final Fire Protection Plan.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 637 of 1013
g. Fire Access requirements shall be monitored, enforced, and maintained by the HOA. ** Added by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2024.

47. Prior to Final Tract Map clearance, the applicant shall submit one (1) copy of each of the final Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws of the Homeowners’ Association, and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Planning Division for review and approval. After recordation of the final CC&Rs, two (2) copies of said recorded CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Division.

48. Building plans submitted for the project shall clearly indicate the structures are condominiums for the applicable dwelling units.

CEQA Mitigation Measures:

49. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 1 (AIR-1):

To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated with PM10 exhaust emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated during project construction activities, the City shall require the applicant and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel to comply with the following construction equipment restriction for the project:
• All construction equipment with a rated power-output of 50 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Interim Emission Standards. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV Interim emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB-verified diesel emission control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM10 emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards.

50. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 (BIO-1):

Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys: Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl should be conducted. The surveys should follow the methods described in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 638 of 1013
[CDFG] 2012). Two surveys should be conducted, with the first survey being scheduled between 30 and 14 days before initial ground disturbance (grading, grubbing, and construction), and the second survey being conducted no more than 24 hours prior to initial ground disturbance. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrowing owl burrows are identified on the project site during the survey, the project should consult with CDFW and follow the methods listed in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for avoidance and/or passive relocation. If burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified on the project site during the survey, these features must be completely avoided.

If impacts to those features are unavoidable then the project proponent must also develop an owl mitigation plan in consultation with CDFW. Mitigation methods may include passive relocation conducted outside of the owl breeding season (between September 1 and February 28). If an active owl burrow is identified, and construction is to proceed, then a qualified biologist (with two or more years of burrowing owl experience) can establish an appropriate disturbance-limit buffer around the burrow using flagging or staking.

Construction activities shall not occur within any buffer zones until the burrow is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist.

51. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 2 (BIO-2):

Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: If construction or other project activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist to ensure that active bird nests shall not be disturbed or destroyed. The survey shall be completed no more than three days prior to initial ground disturbance. The nesting bird survey shall include the project site and adjacent areas where project activities have the potential to affect active nests, either directly or indirectly, due to construction activity, noise, human activity, or ground disturbance. If an active nest is identified, a qualified avian biologist shall establish an appropriately sized non-disturbance buffer around the nest using flagging orstaking. Construction activitiesshall not occur within any non disturbance buffer zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified avian biologist. If initial ground-disturbing activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season, then a biological monitor shall be present during all vegetation removal activities to ensure no impacts to nesting birds occur.

52. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1 (CUL-1):

Native American Treatment Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for the project. 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 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 groundRedlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 639 of 1013 disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

53. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 2 (CUL-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 will 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 will 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.

54. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3 (CUL-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 address the 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.

55. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 4 (CUL-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.

56. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 5 (CUL-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 inspectionsshall 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.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 640 of 1013
The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

57. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 6 (CUL-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/ortemporarily 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.

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)

58. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 7 (CUL-7):

Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians 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].

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 641 of 1013
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 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 areashall be protected; project personnel/observers will be restricted. The County Coroneris 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.

59. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 8 (CUL-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 Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] for review and comment. After approval of all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe[s].

60. Geological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 (GEO-1):

Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources. If paleontological materials are uncovered during grading or other earth moving activities, the contractor shall be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find, and to retain a professional paleontologist to examine the materials to determine whether it is a significant paleontological resource.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 642 of 1013
If this determination is positive, the resource shall be left in place, if determined feasible by the project paleontologist. Otherwise, the scientifically consequential information shall be fully recovered by the paleontologist. Work may continue outside of the area of the find; however, no further work shall occur in the immediate location of the find until all information recovery has been completed and a report concerning it filed with the Development Services Director. The applicant shall bear the cost of implementing this mitigation.

61. Noise Mitigation Measure 1 (NOI-1):

Reduce Potential Project Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from project construction activities, the applicant shall:
a. Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the applicant/project representative and the City of Redlands responsible for handling constructionrelated noise complaints (per action #5 below). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of residential dwelling units that border the project site to the north and west and that are directly across Colton Avenue from the project site. b. Restrict Work Hours: All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section

8.06.120(G). Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM Monday to Saturday and shall not occur any time on Sundays and holidays. The applicant/project representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, other workers, etc. of this requirement. c. Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures: The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used at the project site:
i. Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities.
ii. Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints.
iii. Electric hook-ups shall be provided for stationary equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors, welding sets). This measure shall be subject to the approval of the local electric utility. If electric service is denied, the applicant shall ensure actions 3a, 3b, and 3d are implemented.
iv. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be shielded and located as far as possible from residential land uses given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of a three-or four-sided enclosure Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 643 of 1013
provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation.
v. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devicessuch as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities.
vi. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust.
vii. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
d. Install Construction Noise Barrier: The following measures shall apply to project construction activities:
i.Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the north, south, and western site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of six (6) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to:
• A plywood or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB.
• Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB.
• Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during sitepreparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities.
• The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site).
ii. The noise barrier shall not be required if the perimeter concrete masonry unit wall included in the project’s site plan is fully constructed prior to the start of substantial site preparation and grading activities at the site (i.e., only clearing and grubbing and grading necessary to access the site and install the perimeter wall may occur).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 644 of 1013
e. Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan: The applicant shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall:
i. Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues. ii. Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative shall receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. iii. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.

62. Noise Mitigation Measure 2 (NOI-2):

Reduce Potential Project HVAC Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from project heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, the City shall prohibit the installation of HVAC systems that generate a noise level greater than 76 dBA at three (3) feet. In addition, for HVAC systems located in the rear or side yards of residential units along the project’s northern property line, the applicant shall, prior to the release of the grading or building permit that authorizes the construction of any such unit, submit evidence of one the following:

A. The HVAC units to be installed shall be located at least 25 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment) and shall not generate a noise level in excess of 74.6 dBA at three (3) feet from the unit. The City may accept a manufacturer’s specifications or other information, such as actual empirical noise measurements, as evidence of the noise levels that may be generated by the final proposed HVAC system(s).

B. If the HVAC units to be installed generate a noise level between 74.6 dBA and 76 dBA at three (3) feet they shall be located a minimum of 34 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment).

C. If the HVAC units to be installed generate a noise level between 74.6 dBA and 76 dBA at three (3) feet) and they are located closer than 34 feet from the northern property line (as measured from the edge of the HVAC compressor/condenser equipment), then the height of the planned northern perimeter concrete masonry unit wall shall be increased from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet in height above the planned finished surface elevation.

63. Noise Mitigation Measure 3 (NOI-3):

Prohibit Vibratory Construction Equipment. To reduce potential vibration levels associated with construction of the proposed project, the applicant and/or its designated contractor, Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 645 of 1013
contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall use tamper and drum/wheel style rollers during project construction. The use of large vibratory rollers or other vibratory equipment shall be prohibited during construction unless geotechnical evaluations indicate the use of this equipment is specifically required to address compaction or other building requirements, in which case the use of vibratory rollers and equipment shall be limited to the area/conditions specified in the geotechnical report.

Building Division

64. Building plans submitted for plan check shall consist of complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal.

Facilities and Community Services Department

65. The City maintains a list of acceptable street trees by species, by street name, and by tree district, pursuant to RMC 12.52.050. Street trees for public streets adjacent to the project must be selected from this approved list.

66. Prior to issuance of any buildings permits for any building, the Developer shall prepare and submit a Trash Management Plan. The plan shall provide estimates of trash generation, estimates for the numbers and sizes of containers and facilities, schedule for City services, pertinent instructions for on-site maintenance staff (e.g., bins and containers shall not be placed on public streets and left unattended outdoors for more than two hours before or after trash service pick-up, bins and containers shall not be placed or staged in a manner that obstructs any vehicle travel lanes, etc.), and other necessary information as required by the City. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Facilities & Community Services Department and the Development Services Department, and may be modified by the City after approval to mitigate any unanticipated impacts or public nuisance conditions.
a. Each building and building pad shall be designed to accommodate all necessary refuse storage rooms, bins and containers, hallways, access paths, and other structural elements to be completely screened or enclosed. Refuse and recycling storage rooms and all bins or containers shall be completely screened from view from any streets (when not placed outdoors for scheduled pick-up and hauling).

Fire Department

67. Fuels Management and Weed Abatement:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 646 of 1013
a. From the present time until project construction phase, property owner is responsible to maintain compliance with Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 regarding Weed Abatement and Fuels Management.
b. Weeds and annual grasses shall be maintained at a 4 inches of growth or less. c. Tumbleweeds and similar uncultivated vegetation shall be removed.

68. Any gates shall be designed for emergency access, and incorporate Knox Rapid Access System, subject to approval by the Redlands Fire Department.

69. Fire Protection Plan: Prior to the issuance of building permits, a separate Fire Master Plan is required for submittal to the RFD. It shall be a site plan reflecting all the following fire department related items:
a. Fire hydrant locations, public and private, as well as the associated fire flow compliance.
b. FDC locations.
c. Dimensions from FDC’s to hydrants.
d. DCDA locations.
e. Fire sprinkler riser locations and location of system serving. f. FACP locations.
g. Knox box and Knox switch locations.
h. Gate locations.
i. Fire lane locations, dimensions, lengths, turning radii at corners and circles/cul-desacs. j. Fire lane signage and striping.
k. Property dimensions or accurate scale.
l. Building locations and heights.
m. Building addresses and suite addresses.
n. Ground ladder access to emergency escape openings.

Other City Departments/Divisions:

70. Conditions of Approval from the following City Departments/Divisions are applicable to the project, and are hereby incorporated by reference:
a. Land Use Engineering Division (Exhibit B)
Brian Desatnik
Development Services Director
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 647 of 1013

EXHIBIT B

LAND USE ENGINEERING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Tentative Tract Map No. 20571 and Commission Review & Approval No. 965) [ Attached ]
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 648 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 649 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 650 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 651 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 652 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 653 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 654 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 655 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 656 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 657 of 1013
City Council Meeting K. 2.

DATE: 05/07/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Public Hearing-Ordinance No. 2963 Amending Title 15, Section

15.36.420 related to Freeway-Orientated Signs and Sign
Conditional Use Permit No. 28 to Consider a Request to Construct a Freeway-Orientated Sign
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
PUBLIC HEARING to consider ORDINANCE NO. 2963
(ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 368), an ordinance
amending Title 15 (Sign Code) of the Redlands Municipal Code by updating Section 15.36.420 relating to regulations applicable to the location of freeway-oriented signs. This proposal qualifies for an exemption from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

PUBLIC HEARING to consider SIGN CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 28, a request to construct a Freeway Oriented Sign for a motorist-serving business (drive-through restaurant) with an overall sign face exceeding 120 square-feet. The proposed sign is 95 feet high with a sign face consisting of 197.1 square-feet. The project site is located at the southwest corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Citrus Plaza Drive, on the west side of the Interstate 210 freeway, within the General Commercial (EV/CG) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (APNs: 0169-341-09-0000 and
0169-341-07-0000). The proposal qualifies for exemption from environmental review in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15311 for
accessory structures such as on-premises
signs. (Development Services Director Desatnik)
b.

PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 658 of 1013

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

2. Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.

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

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

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

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

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

7. 8. Mayor closes the public hearing.

9. City Council considers the motion and votes.

MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motions are provided:

I move to introduce Ordinance No. 2963 and find that the Ordinance is exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and,

1. I move to approve Resolution No. 8581 to approve Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28 for a freeway-oriented sign.

2. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 2963 to amend Section 15.36.420 of RMC Chapter 15.36 (Sign Code) relating to regulations applicable to the location of freeway-oriented signs in Redlands. As the proposed amendment pertains to RMC Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) and not Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), the matter was not reviewed by the Planning Commission.

On March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission reviewed Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28 and voted 5-2 recommending approval to the City Council.

Commissioners Endsley and Wells voted against recommending approval, and stated this type of signage primarily serves as billboard advertisement and is no longer necessary for wayfinding due to advances in GPS/navigation and mobile technology. Concerns were also cited related to the potential change in the overall aesthetics and visual imposition that the proposed sign would create when entering the City in this area where there are few signs of this nature.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 659 of 1013
BACKGROUND:

In March 2023, the applicant (In-N-Out Burger) received approval of CUP No. 1170 for the construction of a 3,887 square-foot drive-through restaurant with dual drive-through lanes. The project is currently under construction and is anticipated to open in the second half of 2024. The project is located at the southern terminus of Citrus Plaza Drive at the intersection of Lugonia Avenue, and adjacent to the westerly side of the 210 freeway.

The nearest freeway off-ramp from the southbound 210 freeway is at San Bernardino Avenue, approximately one-half mile north of the project site (with direct access along Citrus Plaza Drive). The nearest freeway off-ramp from westbound Interstate 10 is at the Tennessee Street exit, approximately 1400 feet south of Lugonia Avenue. The nearest freeway off-ramp from eastbound Interstate 10 is at the Alabama Street exit, approximately one-half mile southwest of the project site.

Currently, Redlands Municipal Code (RMC) Section 15.36.420, titled, “Freeway Oriented Signs,” includes an illustration identifying the specific locations where freeway-oriented signs may be allowed (See Attachment A – Existing Figure 16).

Properties eligible for freeway-oriented signs are generally located surrounding freeway exits onto City streets. Freeway-oriented signs may only be allowed for new automobile dealerships, regional shopping centers, and motorist serving businesses, which are defined in the Municipal Code as businesses that provide primarily food, lodging or fuel. Currently, the Tennessee Street underpass at Lugonia Avenue is not included on Figure 16 (as there are no off-ramps or on-ramps that directly connect to Lugonia Avenue).

The applicant is seeking approval to construct a freeway-oriented sign, which requires an ordinance text amendment to revise Figure 16. A related approval is required for a Sign Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a sign having over 120 square-feet in sign face area.

A) Proposed Code Amendment
The proposed code amendment would modify Figure 16 of the Sign Code to include additional areas near the intersection of the Tennessee Street Exit and Lugonia Avenue. In addition, to the requested modification by the applicant to include the Tennessee Street Exit on Figure 16, City staff is recommending modifications to Figure 16 to remove properties indicated on the exhibit that are no longer within the City of Redlands (as well as incidental modifications to make the exhibit more legible and user-friendly). The proposed updated Figure 16 is included as Attachment B.

The modifications to Figure 16 would include eight additional parcels within the City of Redlands. While the proposed code amendment would allow additional Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 660 of 1013
City of Redlands. While the proposed code amendment would allow additional properties the right to apply for a freeway-oriented sign, any proposed freeway-oriented sign must also comply with the provisions within RMC Section

15.36.420 (summarized below).

Only regional shopping centers, multi-tenant automobile dealerships, and businesses which are "motorist serving" (provide food, fuel, or lodging) may install freeway-oriented signs.

The maximum height of freeway-oriented signs shall be 25 feet unless a taller sign is necessary, as determined by a flag test and approved by the Planning Commission or City Council.

The maximum size of a freeway-oriented sign shall be 120 square-feet unless a conditional use permit is approved. The area of a freeway-oriented sign shall not count toward the maximum sign area for the business.

Freeway-Oriented signs may not obscure another sign when viewed from the freeway.

New freeway-oriented signs may not be constructed closer than 100 feet from another freeway-oriented sign.

Sign lettering must be a minimum of be one foot (1') in vertical or horizontal dimension and have a maximum size of three feet (3'), vertical or horizontal dimension.

Only one (1) freeway-oriented sign is permitted per property, with exceptions for unified shopping centers on more than one parcel.

A limited number of parcels (eight) are to proposed to be included within the allowable freeway-oriented sign areas shown on Figure 16. Also, the code requirement for businesses located within these areas to be motorist-serving, regional shopping centers, or multi-tenant automobile dealerships would limit the potential applicants. Therefore, approval of the proposed code amendment is not anticipated to result in a significant number of additional signs within the indicated area.

B) Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28
The applicant is proposing a freeway-oriented sign, which will be constructed as a pole sign for a motorist serving business (In-N-Out Burger) with a maximum height of 95 feet and a sign face area of 197 square feet. The project is located at the southern terminus of Citrus Plaza Drive, and adjacent to the west side of the 210 freeway. The sign will be designed for a single tenant and will be located near the northeast portion of the property adjacent to the 210 freeway (See Attachment C - Location Map; and Attachment D – Project Plans).

Signs over 120 square-feet in sign face area require approval of a Sign Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 661 of 1013
Signs over 120 square-feet in sign face area require approval of a Sign Conditional Use Permit by a 4/5 vote of the City Council. The Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment E to this report and summarized below.

Flag Test: A flag test was conducted on July 25, 2022, based on the procedures outlined in the Municipal Code and is further discussed in the Planning Commission staff report. The purpose of a flag test is to determine the maximum allowable sign height for a freeway-oriented sign. To do this, a flag no smaller than 32 square-feet is lifted vertically at the location of the proposed sign, starting at a height of 25'. The flag is viewed from the freeway at the off-ramps serving the site and it is raised until it is visible from these locations. As detailed on the Planning Commission staff report, the off-ramps serving this project are Tennessee St. (from westbound Interstate 10), Alabama St. and Tennessee St. (from eastbound Interstate 10), and San Bernardino Ave. (from the southbound 210 freeway).

Based on the results of the flag test, a sign height of 95’ was determined to be necessary to clearly view the flag during the test. The flag at lower heights (65 ft. and 75 ft.) was not visible due to sight obstructions by freeway connectors and tall trees in the vicinity; the flag at a height of 85 ft. was marginally visible from the west only. Therefore, only at a height of 95 ft. was the flag visible from the west (10 Freeway approaching the Tennessee St. exit) and from the east (10 Freeway at the Tennessee St. exit), and partially visible from the north (southbound 210 Freeway at the San Bernardino Ave. exit). It should be noted that the subject property sits significantly lower than the surrounding 210 freeway lanes (approximately 35 ft. lower), therefore the sign height above freeway lane elevation is roughly 60 feet above freeway lane level. Based on the results of the flag test, the applicant has proposed a 95’ tall sign.

Development Standards: Table 1 lists the development standards for freeway-oriented signs, and summarizes the proposed sign's compliance with the applicable sign regulations.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 662 of 1013
Table 1: Sign Standards for Freeway Oriented Signs (RMC

15.36.420)
Sign Standards Proposed Sign Consistent?
Permitted within areas
identified within Figure
16 of RMC Chapter

15.36 (Sign Code).

An amendment is
proposed to
modify Figure 16 to
allow signs at this
location (freeway
adjacent).

Yes, with the approval
of the proposed Sign
Code amendment.

Permitted for
motorist-serving
businesses.

The proposed sign is
for a
motorist serving
business (provides
primarily food, lodging,
or fuel; and
open 12 hours per day)
Yes
Maximum height of 25’
unless flag test deems
otherwise.
95’ proposed
Flag test was
performed on
July 25, 2022. Flag
was visible at 95 ft.
high from 3/10 of one
mile from the
off-ramps directly
serving the business.

May not obscure or be
erected within 100’ of
another
freeway-oriented sign.
850’ to the nearest
freeway-oriented sign
(Citrus Plaza). Yes
Minimum letter size of
12”;
Maximum size of 36”
Letters are proposed to
be 23”
tall.

Yes
No more than 1
freeway-oriented sign
per property
Only one fwy-oriented
sign is proposed Yes
With City Council approval of the proposed sign code amendment, the project will meet all applicable development standards and sign regulations.

Comparable Sign Heights in Vicinity: Several freeway-oriented signs exceeding 75 feet high already exist in the general area. Generally, the taller signs were approved due to surrounding hilly topography or elevated freeway connectors that justified the taller signs. Similar site conditions are apparent at the In-N-Out project site, where the 210 freeway is elevated approximately 30 feet higher than the project site (which for practical purposes would result in the proposed sign being approximately 65 feet higher than the freeway lanes). For further discussion and analysis, please see the Planning Commission staff report Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 663 of 1013
(Attachment E).

C) Findings for Approval (SIgn CUP No. 28)
The size of the sign should be compatible with the design, architecture, and scale of the building(s) and/or project.

1. The proposed single freeway sign with a sign face that is 197 square feet. The design of the sign ties in colors and materials of the building located on site and is of a scale that will provide freeway drivers with adequate notice of the presence of the business on the property, which will allow them adequate time to safely navigate to an appropriate exit for the business.

The size of the sign should be aesthetically consistent with the project, adjacent areas, and the City of Redlands.

2. The project is located in an urbanized area of the City, adjacent to the I-10 and 210 freeways. The sign is located along a freeway corridor, which has similarly sized freeway-oriented signs. The size and style of the sign is aesthetically consistent with the development of the project site, which is being developed with a new motorist-serving restaurant. Due to the proposed sign’s location within a freeway corridor adjacent to a freeway offramp within a location that is obscured by overpasses and existing vegetation, and the presence of similar signs in the adjacent areas, the proposed sign’s size is suitable.

The size of the sign should be needed to provide necessary project identification for the benefit of the general public.

3. The size of the sign is needed to provide necessary project identification for the benefit of the general public. Due to the presence of elevated freeway overpasses surrounding the site, large trees and other vegetation blocking the view of the site, and due to the positioning of the site at a lower elevation than the adjacent intersecting freeways, the increased height and size of the sign is necessary to provide business identification, guidance and clarity for incoming motorists.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed amendment to the Redlands Municipal Code is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as the proposal is a text amendment and does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

The proposed sign is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 664 of 1013
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15311(a) exempts the construction or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to on-premises signs.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can continue the public hearing and direct staff to address any further issues.

SUBMITTED BY:

Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

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

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
PREPARED BY:

Sean Reilly, Principal Planner
Attachments
Attachment A: Existing Figure 16 (RMC Section 15.36.420) Attachment B: Proposed Figure 16 (RMC Section 15.36.420 amendment) Attachment C: Location Map and Aerial Photograph
Attachment D: Sign CUP No. 28 Project Plans
Attachment E: March 12, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment F: Ordinance No. 2963
Attachment G: Resolution No. 8581
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 665 of 1013
(Ord. 2552 § 1, 2004)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 666 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 667 of 1013

W LUGONIA AVE

W COLTON AVE

ALABAMA ST

TEXAS ST

NEVADA ST

W REDLANDS BLVD

W SAN BERNARDINO AVE

W LUGONIA AVE

ARIZONA ST

LIVE OAK CT

CARLOTTA CT

W SUN AVE

RUBY AVE
DI A
H
O
ST

KANSAS ST

DA H LIA AVE

LAWTON ST

COLUMBIA ST

ELISE DR

W BROCKTON AVE

INDIANA CT

IOWA ST
CITRUS
PLAZA
D
R

ARLENE ST

ASHLEY W AY FRANCES ST

KARON ST
CANT
E
R
B
U

RI C YR
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
WAY
E 10 FRWYCALHOUN ST

MOUNTAIN GROVE

NEW YORK ST
E 10 TO 210 FRWY
E 210 FRWY

PLUM LN
E 210 TO 10 FRWY

ORANGE TREE LN
T
E
N
N
E
S
S
E
E
S
T
E 10 FRWY
W 210 FRWY
W 10 FRWY
W 10 TO 210 FRWY

ALMOND AVE

INDUSTRIAL PARK AVE
Copyright nearm ap 2015
Location Map
OneStop.mxd
0 525 1,050
Feet
Scale
This map was produced by the City of Redlands,
Geographic Information System.

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

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

February 23, 2024
.

Project Location
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 668 of 1013

W LUGONIA AVE

CITRUS WAY

CITRUS PLAZA DR
W 210 FRWY
E 210 FRWY
E 10 TO 210 FRWY
E 210 TO 10 FRWY
Copyright nearmap 2015
Aerial Photo
OneStop.mxd
0 80 160
Feet
Scale
This map was produced by the City of Redlands,
Geographic Information System.

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

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

February 23, 2024 .

Proposed Sign Location
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 669 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 670 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 671 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 672 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 673 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 674 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 675 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 676 of 1013
City of Redlands

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Planning Commission Agenda Item NO. 5. B.

Meeting Date: 03/12/2024
APPLICANT:

SIGNTECH ELECTRICAL ADVERTISING
(PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN REILLY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER)

1. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28 - A request to construct a Freeway Oriented Sign for a motorist-serving business (drive-through restaurant) with an overall sign face exceeding 120 square-feet. The proposed sign is 95 feet high with a sign face consisting of 197.1 square-feet. The project site is located at the southwest corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Citrus Plaza Drive, on the west side of the Interstate 210 freeway, within the General Commercial (EV/CG) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (APNs: 0169-341-09-0000 and 0169-341-07-0000). The proposal qualifies for exemption from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15311 for accessory structures such as on-premises signs.

SYNOPSIS

1. General Plan
Designation: Commercial

2. Existing Zoning: General Commercial (EV/CG) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.

3. Surrounding Zoning:

North: Special Development (EV/SD) District of the EVCSP within San Bernardino County
East, South, and West: EV/CG District

4. Existing Land Use: A new In-N-Out drive-through restaurant is currently being constructed on the project site.

5. Surrounding Land Use:

North: Citrus Plaza Shopping Center (San Bernardino County) South: Vacant lot, telecommunications equipment, Interstate 10 East: 210 Freeway
West: “A Storage Place” Self-Storage, bank and office building, Raising Cane’s drive-through restaurant

6. Area / Topography: The site is 2.1 acres, flat in topography.

7. Environmental
Determination:

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.

8. Socio-Economic Cost /
Benefit Study:

The project is exempt from the Measure U requirement to complete a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study.

9. Planning Commission
Submittal Dates:
(A) Date Submitted:
(B) Date Accepted As Complete:
(C) Planning Commission Meeting:

May 9, 2023
February 1, 2024
March 12, 2024

PROPOSAL
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 677 of 1013
The applicant is proposing a freeway oriented sign, which will be constructed as a pole sign for a motorist serving business (In-N-Out Burger) with a maximum height of 95 feet and a sign face area of 197 square feet. The project is located at the southern terminus of Citrus Plaza Drive, and adjacent to the west side of the 210 freeway. The sign will be designed for a single tenant and will be located near the northeast portion of the property adjacent to the 210 freeway (See Attachment A - Location Map; and Attachment B - Project Plans).

BACKGROUND
In March 2023, In-N-Out Burger, received approval of CUP No. 1170 to construct a 3,887 square-foot drive-through restaurant with dual drive-through lanes at the proposed project site.

The project is currently under construction and is anticipated to open in the second half of 2024.

Measure U, a City of Redlands voter-approved initiative regarding managed growth, requires that any commercial sign over 120 square-feet in sign area obtain a Conditional Use Permit and must be approved by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. The applicant is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for the approval of Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28.

ANALYSIS
The sign will be located on the west side of the 210 freeway and south of Lugonia Avenue on.

The sign is proposed with a single white pole for support, with a sign face that will display the In-N-Out Burger corporate logo. No other tenant panels or signage is included in this proposal.

Flag Test: A flag test was performed in accordance with RMC Section 15.36.420(D) to determine the maximum appropriate sign height for this proposed freeway-oriented sign for the subject property. A flag no smaller than 32 square-feet is lifted vertically at the location of the proposed sign, starting at a height of 25'. City personnel then observe (from surrounding freeway lanes in multiple directions) whether the flag is visible beginning at a height of 25’, and if the flag is not visible, then it is raised in ten-foot increments until it is visible at a distance that is 3/10 of one mile (approximately 1,600 ft.) from the beginning of the off-ramps serving the business. The maximum allowable height for the sign is the greatest flag height necessary to be visible from 3/10 of a mile from the off-ramps.

The off-ramps serving this project are Tennessee St. (from westbound Interstate 10), Alabama St. and Tennessee St. (from eastbound Interstate 10), and San Bernardino Ave. (from the southbound 210 freeway). A flag test was completed on July 25, 2022, and a height of 95’ was necessary to clearly view flag during the test. The flag at lower heights (65 ft. and 75 ft.) was not visible due to sight obstructions by freeway connectors and tall trees in the vicinity; the flag at a height of 85 ft. was marginally visible from the west only. Therefore, only at a height of 95 ft. was the flag visible from the west (10 Freeway approaching the Tennessee St. exit) and from the east (10 Freeway at the Tennessee St. exit), and partially visible from the north (southbound 210 Freeway at the San Bernardino Ave. exit). It should be noted that the subject property sits significantly lower than the surrounding 210 freeway lanes (approximately 35 ft. lower), therefore the sign height above freeway lane elevation is roughly 60 feet above freeway lane level. Based on the results of the flag test, the applicant has proposed a 95’ tall sign.

Nearby Freeway-Oriented Signs: For comparison, Table 1 below indicates the location and height Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 678 of 1013
Nearby Freeway-Oriented Signs: For comparison, Table 1 below indicates the location and height of some of the freeway-oriented signs within the City and surrounding area. Most of these signs range between 50 and 80 feet high (where the topography is generally flat and level with unobstructed sight lines). Where the surrounding topography includes slopes or hills, or freeway ramps/connectors are elevated nearby, then the freeway-oriented signs need to be somewha tigher than typical due to the obstructed sight lines.

Table 1: Nearby Freeway-Oriented Signs
Business Identification Location Height (ft.)

1. In-N-Out Burger (Proposed) 1301 W. Lugonia Ave. 95*

2. Walmart/Food 4 Less 2072 W. Redlands Blvd. 50

3. Mountain Grove 27641 San Bernardino Ave. 65

4. Citrus Plaza 27550 W. Lugonia Ave. 70

5. Tom Bell Chevrolet 1590 Industrial Park Ave. 75

6. Toyota of Redlands 921 New York St. 80

7. Tri-City Center 1520 Industrial Park Ave. 80

8. Old Spaghetti Factory 1635 Industrial Park Ave. 80

9. Starbucks/Dominoe’s Pizza 1045 Parkford Dr. 120*

10. 76 Gas Station 1076 Parkford Dr. 150*
* Indicates surrounding topography contains hills or significant freeway grade differences.

Sign Code: Table 2 lists the development standards for freeway-oriented signs, and summarizes the proposed sign's compliance with the applicable sign regulations.

Table 2: Sign Standards for Freeway Oriented Signs (RMC 15.36.420) Sign Standards Proposed Sign Consistent?
Permitted within areas
identified within Figure 16 of
RMC Chapter 15.36 (Sign
Code).

An amendment is proposed to
modify Figure 16 to allow
signs at this location (freeway
adjacent).

Yes, with the approval of the
proposed Sign Code
amendment.

Permitted for motorist-serving
businesses.

The proposed sign is for a
motorist serving business
(provides primarily food,
lodging, or fuel; and
open 12 hours per day)
Yes
Maximum height of 25’ unless
flag test deems otherwise. 95’ proposed
Flag test was performed on
July 25, 2022. Flag was
visible at 95 ft. high from 3/10
of one mile from the off-ramps
directly serving the business.

May not obscure or be
erected within 100’ of another
freeway-oriented sign.
850’ to the nearest
freeway-oriented sign (Citrus
Plaza).

Yes
Minimum letter size of 12”;
Maximum size of 36”
Letters are proposed to be 23”
tall. Yes
No more than 1
freeway-oriented sign per
property
Only one fwy-oriented sign is
proposed Yes
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 679 of 1013
Proposed Sign Code Amendment: A code amendment to RMC Chapter 15.36, Section 15.36.420, is required to allow the proposed sign to be placed in this location. Figure 16 in Section

15.36.420 details locations where freeway-oriented signs may be placed (generally these locations are typically at the ends of freeway off-ramps and the immediately surrounding areas).

The Tennessee Street off-ramp and its immediate area were not included in this figure, including the In-N-Out project site. The proposed amendment would modify Figure 16 to include both sides of the freeway near the Tennessee Street off-ramp and Lugonia Avenue intersection to indicate that these areas are eligible for Freeway Oriented Signs.

It should be noted that this amendment is not within the purview of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, as the Sign Regulations are contained in RMC Title 15 (Buildings & Construction) and not in RMC Title 18 (Zoning Regulations). Following the Planning Commission recommendation on the size and height of the proposed sign, the proposed code amendment will be presented to the City Council along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the sign for a final decision.

With City Council approval of the proposed sign code amendment, the project will meet all applicable development standards and sign regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed sign is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15311(a) exempts the construction or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to on-premises signs.

FINDINGS
Sign Conditional Use Permit has the following findings that must be made with respect to signs exceeding 120 square feet in size in order to approve of the proposed sign.

1.The size of the sign should be compatible with the design, architecture, and scale of the building(s) and/or project.

The proposed single freeway sign with a sign face that is 197 square feet. The design of the sign ties in colors and materials of the building located on site and is of a scale that will provide freeway drivers with adequate notice of the presence of the business on the property, which will allow them adequate time to safely navigate to an appropriate exit for the business.

2. The size of the sign should be aesthetically consistent with the project, adjacent areas, and the City of Redlands.

The project is located in an urbanized area of the City, adjacent to the I-10 and 210 freeways. The sign is located along a freeway corridor, which has similarly sized freeway-oriented signs. The size and style of the sign is aesthetically consistent with the development of the project site, which is being developed with a new motorist-serving restaurant. Due to the proposed sign’s location within a freeway corridor adjacent to a freeway offramp within a location that is obscured by overpasses and existing vegetation, and the presence of similar signs in the adjacent areas, the proposed sign’s size is suitable.

3. The size of the sign should be needed to provide necessary project identification for the benefit of Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 680 of 1013
the general public.

The size of the sign is needed to provide necessary project identification for the benefit of the general public. Due to the presence of elevated freeway overpasses surrounding the site, large trees and other vegetation blocking the view of the site, and due to the positioning of the site at a lower elevation than the adjacent intersecting freeways, the increased height and size of the sign is necessary to provide business identification, guidance and clarity for incoming motorists.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above analysis and findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28.

MOTIONS
If the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:
“I move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1658 and recommend that the City Council approve Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28.”
Attachments
Attachment A: Location Map and Aerial Photograph
Attachment B: Project Plans
Attachment C: Resolution No. 1658
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 681 of 1013
ORDINANCE NO. 2963
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AMENDING TITLE 15.36 (SIGN CODE) OF THE REDLANDS MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 15.36.420 (FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGNS), TO MODIFY FIGURE 16.

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2963 would amend Section 15.36.420 (Freeway Oriented Signs) of Chapter 15.36 (Sign Code) of the Redlands Municipal Code to modify Figure 16 depicting the allowable locations for freeway oriented signs; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65090, on or about April 25, 2024, the City Clerk gave notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation of the holding of a public hearing at which Ordinance No. 2963 would be considered by City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to, Ordinance No. 2963; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2963 is exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing and deliberating upon the matter, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance and amendment to the Redlands Municipal Code are in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed amendment to the Redlands Municipal Code does not require environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), this amendment is exempt from environmental review because there is no possibility that the municipal code amendment may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment. Redlands Municipal Code Section 15.36.420, entitled “Freeway Oriented Signs” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“15.36.420: FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGNS:

Motorist serving businesses and regional shopping centers and new automobile dealerships which are within the areas identified in figure 16 of this section herein may install freeway oriented signs, subject to the regulations and standards of this code. The following regulations and standards shall apply to freeway oriented signs:

A. Only regional shopping centers, new automobile dealerships in accordance with subsection

15.36.390D of this chapter, and businesses which are "motorist serving" as defined in this chapter may install freeway oriented signs. In no case may a regional mall or any use within a "regional mall" (as defined in this chapter) install a freeway oriented sign.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 682 of 1013
B. The maximum height of freeway oriented signs shall be twenty five feet (25'), unless a taller sign is necessary to achieve visibility a minimum of three-tenths (3/10) of one mile from at least one approach to an off ramp serving the business. If determined necessary by a flag test as described below, a sign higher than twenty five feet (25') may be constructed.

C. The maximum size of a freeway oriented sign shall be one hundred twenty (120) square feet, unless a conditional use permit is approved for such a sign pursuant to subsection 15.36.100F of this chapter. The area of a freeway oriented sign shall not be counted toward the maximum sign area for the business.

D. Flag tests for freeway oriented signs shall be conducted as follows:

1. A flag or object no smaller than thirty two (32) square feet shall be lifted vertically in the location of the proposed freeway oriented sign, starting at a height of twenty five feet (25') (measured from the bottom of the object).

2. City personnel shall be stationed at locations three-tenths (3/10) of one mile from the beginning of the off ramps directly serving the business for which the sign will be installed.

3. City personnel shall observe whether the object is visible at a height of twenty five feet (25'). If the object is not visible, it shall be raised in ten foot (10') increments until it is visible from one direction at a distance of three-tenths (3/10) of one mile from the start of the off ramp approach. If a greater height is needed for visibility from one of the two (2) off ramp approaches, the planning commission may permit the greater height to be used if it is determined that visibility from that direction is needed.

4. The height established in subsection D3 of this section (or by the planning commission, as noted in subsection D3 of this section) shall be maximum height for the sign.

E. No freeway oriented sign shall be erected which would obscure another sign when viewed from the freeway.

F. No freeway oriented sign shall be erected that will be closer than one hundred feet (100') from another freeway oriented sign.

G. The minimum size letter in the text of a freeway oriented sign shall be one foot (1') in vertical or horizontal dimension. The maximum size letter shall be three feet (3'), vertical or horizontal dimension.

H. No more than one freeway oriented sign is permitted per property; provided, however, that a freeway oriented property which is located within a freeway oriented unified shopping center may be permitted an additional freeway oriented sign if it is located on a separate parcel and the sign would meet all other standards in this section.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 683 of 1013
”
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section,subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and thereafter, this ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.
_________________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 684 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk, City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council at the regular meeting thereof, held on the ________ day of _____________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 685 of 1013
RESOLUTION NO. 8581

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS APPROVING SIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 28 TO CONSTRUCT A 197.1

SQUARE-FOOT FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST

CORNER OF WEST LUGONIA AVENUE AND CITRUS PLAZA DRIVE, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE 210 FREEWAY.

WHEREAS, Signtech Electrical Advertising (“Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Sign Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 197.1 square foot pole sign located at the southwest corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Citrus Plaza Drive, on the west side of the Interstate 210 freeway (APNs: 0169-341-09-0000 and 0169-341-07-0000); and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28, and at which the Planning Commission subsequently recommended approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28 is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, notice of the City Council’s public hearing for the Project was published in a newspaper of general circulation by the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024 the City Council held a public hearing and considered the staff written and oral reports, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the testimony and written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the Applicant, and testimony by members of the public;

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

Section 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The proposal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines for accessory structures such as on-premises signs.

Section 2. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.

28. The City Council hereby approves Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28 based upon the following findings, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto Exhibit “A.”

1. The size of the sign should be compatible with the design, architecture, and scale of the building(s) and/or project.

The proposed single freeway sign with a sign face that is 197 square feet. The design of the sign ties in colors and materials of the building located on site and is of a scale that will Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 686 of 1013
provide freeway drivers with adequate notice of the presence of the business on the property, which will allow them adequate time to safely navigate to an appropriate exit for the business.

2. The size of the sign should be aesthetically consistent with the project, adjacent areas, and the City of Redlands.

The project is located in an urbanized area of the City, adjacent to the I-10 and 210 freeways. The sign is located along a freeway corridor, which has similarly sized freeway-oriented signs. The size and style of the sign is aesthetically consistent with the development of the project site, which is being developed with a new motorist-serving restaurant. Due to the proposed sign’s location within a freeway corridor adjacent to a freeway off ramp within a location that is obscured by overpasses and existing vegetation, and the presence of similar signs in the adjacent areas, the proposed sign’s size is suitable.

3. The size of the sign should be needed to provide necessary project identification for the benefit of the general public.

Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 7
th day of May, 2024.
______________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 687 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 th day
of May 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 688 of 1013

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 28

1. This approval is for Sign Conditional Use Permit No. 28 to construct a 197.1 square-foot. freeway oriented Sign for a motorist serving business (In-N-Out Burger). The project is located at the southwest corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Citrus Plaza Drive, on the west side of the Interstate 210 freeway, within the General Commercial (EV/CG) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (APNs: 0169-341-09-0000 and 0169-341-07- 0000).

2. This approval is subject to the separate and related approval of Ordinance Text Amendment No. 368, a proposal to amend RMC Chapter 15.36, Section 15.36.420 (Figure 16) for freeway-oriented signs.

3. No building permit for Sign Conditional Use Pemit No 28 may be issued until Ordinance Text Amendment No. 368 becomes effective.

4. Unless a building permit is issued for the proposed sign, or a time extension is granted in accordance with the Redlands Municipal Code, this approval shall expire two (2) years from the date of City Council approval.

5. All signs shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code. The sign shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable building, electrical, and other codes in effect at the time of construction or maintenance, with particular respect to wind and seismic loads.

6. Prior to installation, the applicant shall obtain a Building Permit from the Development Services Department. All plans submitted to the City shall be in substantial conformance to the Planning Commission/City Council approval and any other changes required by the Commission/Council and/or staff. This condition applies to the site plan and all other illustrations, text, or plans submitted to the City in connection with this project.

7. The applicant shall not make any modifications or changes during construction that are in conflict or contrary to the sign’s approved design or location without first consulting with the Development Services Director or designee.

8. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d), certain fees, dedications, reservations or exactions imposed by the City as a condition of approval of this project are subject to a statutory ninety (90) day protest period. Please be advised that the ninety (90) day protest period for those fees, dedications, reservations and exactions which are subject to Government Code Section 66020(a) has commenced to run on the date this project was approved by the City.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 689 of 1013

9. The property owner and applicant and their successors and assigns, shall defend, by paying for the defense costs of the City of Redlands (for counsel retained by the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City of Redlands, and its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, and proceedings (collectively “Claims”) to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit by the City, or Claims brought against the City due to acts or omissions in any way connected to the applicant’s project that is the subject of this permit. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees, costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in such actions or proceedings, including damages for the injury to property or persons, including death of a person, and any award of costs or attorneys’ fees. In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all, or any, provisions of this permit, or is commenced for any other reason against the City for acts or omissions relating to the applicant’s project, within fourteen (14) City business days following notice of such action from the City, the applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security satisfactory to the City (the “Security”) in a form satisfactory to the City, and in the amount of $300,000, to ensure applicant’s performance of its defense and indemnity obligations under this condition. The Security amount shall not limit the total indemnity obligation of the applicant pursuant to this condition. The failure of the applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express acknowledgement and agreement by the applicant that the City shall have the authority and right, without objection by the applicant, to revoke all entitlements granted for the project pursuant to this permit. The City shall have no liability to the applicant for the exercise of City’s right to revoke this permit.
_____________________
Brian Desatnik
Development Services Director
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 690 of 1013
City Council Meeting K. 3.

DATE: 05/07/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Ordinance No. 2966 amending Chapter 17.17 of the Redlands Municipal code for undergrounding utilities (Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
Consideration of Ordinance No. 2966 amending Redlands
Municipal Code Chapter 17.17 (Improvements) of Title 17 (Subdivision Regulations) to modify the criteria and findings pertaining to the requirement for undergrounding utilities that are applicable to subdivisions and development projects. a.

Determination that the proposal is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines (Development Services Director Desatnik)
b.

PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

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

2. Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.

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

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

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

6. Mayor closes the public hearing.

7. City Council considers the motion and votes.

MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to introduce Ordinance No. 2966 and find that the Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State’s Guidelines Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 691 of 1013
(“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State’s Guidelines implementing CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 2966.

DISCUSSION:

A) Background
Currently, Redlands Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.17.020, titled, “Required Improvements,” identifies the specific types of public and private improvements that shall be required of new subdivisions and new development projects. The generic term “improvements” generally includes facilities such as street frontage, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, storm drains, water supply, sewer connections, and various public and private utilities. Generally, the required improvements for a particular project site are constructed by the developer when a subdivision has been approved in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code §§ 66410 – 66499.58 ) or when a new development project is being constructed.

For some project sites in Redlands, there may be existing overhead utility lines that are adjacent to a subdivision or project site (e.g., low-power electricity distribution, high-power electricity transmission, telephone, cable, communications, and others). In those cases where there are existing overhead utility lines and power poles directly adjacent to a project site, RMC Section

17.17.020(G) imposes a standard requirement that such utility lines are to be relocated underground when the project or subdivision is constructed. However, some development applications for existing developed properties or when no construction is proposed (such as a Tentative Parcel Map to create new lot lines only, or a Conditional Use Permit to establish a use only) are also frequently subject to the City's undergrounding requirements even though no substantial construction is involved.

RMC Section 17.17.020(G) also includes a provision and process for a developer to request a waiver of the undergrounding requirement, and those requests are considered on a case-by-case basis by the decision-making body (usually the Planning Commission or the City Council). The code provides two findings for determining when those requests for waivers should be approved or denied. In those approved exceptions when the undergrounding requirement has been waived, the developer must still pay a fee to the City that is an equivalent amount (an “in-lieu fee”) as if the developer had performed the undergrounding work in conjunction with their private development project.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 692 of 1013
In recent years, the City has received several requests for waivers of the undergrounding requirements (usually by applicants such as affordable housing developers, developers of small development projects on small sites, property owners of religious or nonprofit facilities, and other applications not involving any new construction). Reasons cited have included the infeasibility of undergrounding short sections of utility lines only along their property’s individual frontage (i.e., where the subject property was surrounded by many overhead lines along the streets that would have remained above-ground), delays of many months or years while trying to negotiate with multiple utility companies and SoCal Edison, or the lack of a nexus when no new or no substantial construction is involved. Many requests for waivers have been approved recently for reasons such as infeasibility and/or delays to commencing private development projects.

B) Proposed Code Amendment

The proposed code amendment would clarify several code provisions as they pertain to the requirements for undergrounding utilities: a) installing new utility lines underground (new lines to serve the development project or subdivision); and b) relocating existing overhead utility lines to be installed underground (many of which may not serve the project site or subdivision).

The elements of the proposed code amendment would adjust and clarify the following:

Criteria (i.e., when the undergrounding requirement applies to a project); Findings (i.e., the facts for determining when to waive the undergrounding requirement and allow payment of an in-lieu fee); and,
Method of calculating the amount of an “in-lieu fee” when undergrounding will not be required of a project. The applicant or developer must still pay to the City an amount that is equivalent to the cost of the developer performing the work themselves as part of their private development project.

The proposed text of the code amendment is the following (new text has bold font, and deleted text has strikethrough font):
“17.17.020: REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS:

A. General: In addition to all improvements required as conditions of approval of the tentative map or by city ordinance or resolution, the improvements set forth below shall be required of all subdivisions. Requirements for construction of on site and off site improvements for subdivisions of four (4) or less parcels shall be noted on the parcel map, or waiver of parcel map or the subdivision improvement agreement recorded prior to or concurrent with the parcel map.

Completion of improvements shall be in accordance with Section 17.17.100 of Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 693 of 1013
this chapter.

B. Frontage Improvements: The frontage of each lot shall be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions.

C. Storm Drainage: Storm water runoff from the subdivision shall be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. The storm drain system shall be designed for ultimate development of the watershed and shall be capable of collecting and conveying runoff generated by a 100-year flood. The storm drain system shall provide for ultimate development of the watershed and shall be capable of collecting and conveying runoff generated by a 100- year flood. The storm drain system shall provide for the protection of abutting and off site properties that would be adversely affected by any increase in runoff attributed to the development. Off site storm drain improvements may be required to satisfy this requirement.

D. Sanitary Sewers: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved sanitary sewer system in accordance with the provisions of this code.

E. Water Supply: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved domestic water system, in accordance with the provisions of this code.

F. Utilities: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by gas, electric, telephone and cablevision and other necessary facilities.

G. Underground Utilities:

A subdivision parcel map (not including any site development) that creates only two (2) parcels, and does not exceed four gross acres in total area of the subdivision, shall not be subject to the undergrounding requirement or payment of an in-lieu fee. a.

Affordable Housing developments, where at least fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units are reserved for Low- or Very-Low income households, shall not be subject to the undergrounding requirement or payment of an in-lieu fee.
b.
c. Parcels with less than three hundred and fifty (350) linear feet of Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 694 of 1013
Parcels with less than three hundred and fifty (350) linear feet of street frontage may pay an in-lieu fee by right for the affected side(s) that is less than 350 feet in length.
c.

Parcels with greater than three hundred and fifty (350) linear feet of street frontage shall underground the utilities along the affected side(s) that is greater than 350 feet in length, or may request a waiver of undergrounding with the findings contained in subsections (G)(3)(a) and (G)(3)(b) of this section to be made.
d.

2. The developer may request that the undergrounding requirement along peripheral streets be waived by the approving body which may, at its discretion, accept a fee in lieu of the undergrounding. The amount of fee shall be determined by calculating the linear distance of the project site's street frontage and applying the applicable linear foot fee(s) established by City Council. the city engineer and shall be based upon the reasonable estimated cost of that portion of a future undergrounding project attributable to the subdivision. The requirement for undergrounding or payment of an in lieu fee shall be a condition of approval of the tentative map or applicable development permit.

3. Undergrounding requirements may be waived or modified by the approving body only upon making one of the following findings:

a. The subdivision or development parcel is within an area where existing utilities have not been undergrounded and that deferral will be allowed because undergrounding is either impractical due to physical constraints, or the surrounding neighborhood is absent of similar improvements; and or
b. Overhead utilities will have no significant visual impact.

Requiring undergrounding is likely to result in a
disproportionate economic impact or time delay that would make the project economically infeasible in the sole discretion of the decision-making body, and based upon substantial evidence submitted by the applicant or developer.

4. If the A subdivision or development meeting the requirements of subsection (G)(1)(d), or where undergrounding requirements are have been waived as allowed by the findings in pursuant to subsections (G)(3)(a) and (G)(3)(b) of this section, the in lieu fee as established by the city engineer calculating the linear distance of the project site’s street frontage and applying the applicable linear foot fee(s) established by City Council shall be made a condition of approval of the tentative map.

5. In lieu fees shall be deposited in a special undergrounding account to be used as approved by the city council for future undergrounding of utilities throughout the city.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 695 of 1013
utilities throughout the city.

6. The provisions of this subsection are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of this code.

H. Fencing: Each parcel or lot within the subdivision that is adjacent to property containing a public facility shall have an approved fence adequate to prevent unauthorized access between the properties.

I. Other Improvements: Other improvements including, but not limited to, grading, street lights, fire hydrants, signs, street lines and markings, street trees and shrubs, landscaping, monuments, bicycle facilities, fences and smoke detectors, or fees in lieu of any of the foregoing, shall also be required as determined by the city engineer in accordance with this code, the general plan and city standards and specifications.

J. Off Site Improvements: If the subdivider is required to construct off site improvements on land in which neither the subdivider nor the city has sufficient title or interest to allow construction, the city shall, within one hundred twenty (120) days of recording the final map, acquire by negotiation or commence condemnation of the land. If the city fails to meet the one hundred twenty (120) day time limit, the condition for the construction shall be waived. Prior to approval of the final map, the city may require the subdivider to enter into an agreement to complete the off site improvements at the time the city acquires title or an interest in the land. The subdivider shall pay the cost of acquiring off site land or an interest in the land required to construct the off site improvements.”

C) New In-Lieu Fee

A new in-lieu fee will be proposed at a future date pertaining to the undergrounding of utilities. Currently, the code requires the City Engineer to establish an appropriate in-lieu fee amount “based upon the reasonable estimated cost of that portion of a future undergrounding project attributable to the subdivision.” Unique fee studies are prepared for each separate application to ascertain the appropriate fee amount for a given property. There is no adopted in-lieu fee or flat rate fee based upon the length of project site frontage or other objective factors.

A new in-lieu fee is envisioned as a flat-rate fee that would be calculated on a per-linear-foot basis of street frontage for the project site. A fee would be created pertaining to Southern California Edison facilities (e.g., poles, wires, etc.) and another fee for all other types of utility lines (e.g., telephone, cable, communications lines, other types of public/private utilities). More time is needed to determine the appropriate fee amounts and will be brought back to Council at a later date as a separate resolution or ordinance.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 696 of 1013

D) General Plan Consistency

The proposed code amendment will be consistent with the Principles and Actions contained in the 2035 General Plan, as listed below.

Action 4-A.17: Rely on strong landscape treatments, setbacks, sign controls, and, where feasible, underground utilities and street improvements to prevent visual chaos where businesses are competing for attention.

Action 4-A.150: Encourage the undergrounding of utilities for all new development.

The existing provisions of RMC Section 17.17.020(G) allow for modifying the requirement to relocate underground any existing overhead utility lines, as well as payment of an in-lieu fee (meaning a subdivider or developer pays a fee in-lieu of performing the undergrounding work themselves). The proposed amendment would adjust and clarify the criteria as well as the findings pertaining to undergrounding requests. This proposal is meant to improve and streamline RMC Chapter 17.17 pertaining to undergrounding requirements, while evaluating unique feasibility and cost factors on a case-by-case basis.

E) Environmental Review

The adoption of the proposed amendment to the Redlands Municipal Code is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as the proposal is a text amendment and does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can continue the public hearing and direct staff to address any further issues.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not applicable.

SUBMITTED BY:

Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

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

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 697 of 1013
Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
John Harris, Municipal Utilities & Engineering Director PREPARED BY:

Brian Foote, City Planner/Planning Manager
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 23-24
Revenue Generating: No
Appropriation Required Y/N: No
Discussion:

There is no impact to the General Fund associated with this code amendment.

Attachments
Attachment A-1: Ordinance No. 2966 (Legislative)
Attachment A-2: Ordinance No. 2966 (Clean)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 698 of 1013
ORDINANCE NO. 2966
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AMENDING TITLE 17
(SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) OF THE REDLANDS MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 17.17 (IMPROVEMENTS), TO MODIFY THE CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES.

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2966 would amend Chapter 17.17 (Improvements) of Title 17 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Redlands Municipal Code to modify the criteria, findings, and other requirements pertaining to the undergrounding of utilities; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65090, on or about April 26, 2024, the City Clerk gave notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation of the holding of a public hearing at which Ordinance No. 2966 would be considered by City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to, Ordinance No. 2966; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2966 is exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing and deliberating upon the matter, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance and amendment to the Redlands Municipal Code are in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment. Redlands Municipal Code Section 17.17.020, entitled “Required Improvements,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“17.17.020: REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS:

Completion of improvements shall be in accordance with section 17.17.100 of this chapter.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 699 of 1013
B. Frontage Improvements: The frontage of each lot shall be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions.

D. Sanitary Sewers: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved sanitary sewer system in accordance with the provisions of this code.

E. Water Supply: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved domestic water system, in accordance with the provisions of this code.

F. Utilities: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by gas, electric, telephone and cablevision and other necessary facilities.

G. Underground Utilities:

1. All existing and proposed utilities within the subdivision or development parcel, and along peripheral streets of the subdivision site or development parcel, shall be placed underground except those facilities exempted by the public utilities commission regulations, or unless specifically exempt from this requirement under subsections a-d below. Undergrounding shall be required for overhead lines on either side of peripheral streets. a. A subdivision parcel map (not including any site development) that creates only two (2) parcels, and does not exceed four gross acres in total area of the subdivision, shall not be subject to the undergrounding requirement or payment of an in-lieu fee. b. Affordable Housing developments, where at least fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units are reserved for Low- or Very-Low income households, shall not be subject to the undergrounding requirement or payment of an in-lieu fee. c. Parcels with less than three hundred and fifty (350) linear feet of street frontage may pay an in-lieu fee by right for the affected side(s) that is less than 350 feet in length. d. Parcels with greater than three hundred and fifty (350) linear feet of street frontage shall underground the utilities along the affected side(s) that is greater than 350 feet in length, or may request a waiver of undergrounding with the findings contained in subsections (G)(3)(a) and (G)(3)(b) of this section to be made.

2. The developer may request that the undergrounding requirement along peripheral streets be waived by the approving body which may, at its discretion, accept a fee in lieu of the Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 700 of 1013
undergrounding. The amount of fee shall be determined by calculating the linear distance of the project site’s street frontage and applying the applicable linear foot fee(s) established by City Council. the city engineer and shall be based upon the reasonable estimated cost of that portion of a future undergrounding project attributable to the subdivision. The requirement for undergrounding or payment of an in lieu fee shall be a condition of approval of the tentative map or applicable development permit.

3. Undergrounding requirements may be waived or modified by the approving body only upon making one of the following findings:
a. The subdivision or development parcel is within an area where existing utilities have not been undergrounded and that deferral will be allowed because undergrounding is either impractical due to physical constraints, or the surrounding neighborhood is absent of similar improvements; and or
b. Overhead utilities will have no significant visual impact. Requiring undergrounding is likely to result in a disproportionate economic impact or time delay that would make the project economically infeasible in the sole discretion of the decision-making body, and based upon substantial evidence submitted by the applicant or developer.

5. In lieu fees shall be deposited in a special undergrounding account to be used as approved by the city council for future undergrounding of utilities throughout the city.

6. The provisions of this subsection are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of this code.

J. Off Site Improvements: If the subdivider is required to construct off site improvements on land in which neither the subdivider nor the city has sufficient title or interest to allow construction, the city shall, within one hundred twenty (120) days of recording the final map, acquire by negotiation or commence condemnation of the land. If the city fails to meet the one hundred twenty (120) day time limit, the condition for the construction shall be waived. Prior to approval of the final map, the city may require the subdivider to enter into an agreement to Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 701 of 1013
complete the off site improvements at the time the city acquires title or an interest in the land.

The subdivider shall pay the cost of acquiring off site land or an interest in the land required to construct the off site improvements.”
SECTION 3. Municipal Code Amendment. Redlands Municipal Code Section 12.12.055, entitled “Undergrounding of Utilities,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“12.22.055: UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES:

Where utilities have been undergrounded as a condition of development, utility installation, expansion, repair, upgrade, modification, or relocation shall be undergrounded following the same requirements and allowing for the same exceptions contained in Section 17.17.020(G) of the Redlands Municipal Title 17.” SECTION 4. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and thereafter, this ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.
_________________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 702 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk, City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council at the regular meeting thereof, held on the _______ day of ______________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 703 of 1013
ORDINANCE NO. 2966
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AMENDING TITLE 17
(SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) OF THE REDLANDS MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 17.17 (IMPROVEMENTS), TO MODIFY THE CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment. Redlands Municipal Code Section 17.17.020, entitled “Required Improvements,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“17.17.020: REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS:

Completion of improvements shall be in accordance with section 17.17.100 of this chapter.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 704 of 1013
B. Frontage Improvements: The frontage of each lot shall be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions.

D. Sanitary Sewers: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved sanitary sewer system in accordance with the provisions of this code.

E. Water Supply: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved domestic water system, in accordance with the provisions of this code.

F. Utilities: Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by gas, electric, and other necessary facilities.

G. Underground Utilities:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 705 of 1013

2. The developer may request that the undergrounding requirement along peripheral streets be waived by the approving body which may, at its discretion, accept a fee in lieu of the undergrounding. The amount of fee shall be determined by calculating the linear distance of the project site’s street frontage and applying the applicable linear foot fee(s) established by City Council. The requirement for undergrounding or payment of an in lieu fee shall be a condition of approval of the tentative map or applicable development permit.

3. Undergrounding requirements may be waived or modified by the approving body only upon making one of the following findings:
a. The subdivision or development parcel is within an area where existing utilities have not been undergrounded and that undergrounding is either impractical due to physical constraints or the surrounding neighborhood is absent of similar improvements; or b. Requiring undergrounding is likely to result in a disproportionate economic impact or time delay that would make the project economically infeasible in the sole discretion of the decision-making body, and based upon substantial evidence submitted by the applicant or developer.

4. A subdivision or development meeting the requirements of subsection (G)(1)(d), or where undergrounding requirements have been waived pursuant to subsections (G)(3)(a) and (G)(3)(b) of this section, the in lieu fee as established by calculating the linear distance of the project site’s street frontage and applying the applicable linear foot fee(s) established by City Council shall be made a condition of approval of the tentative map.

5. In lieu fees shall be deposited in a special undergrounding account to be used as approved by the city council for future undergrounding of utilities throughout the city.

6. The provisions of this subsection are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of this code.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 706 of 1013
The subdivider shall pay the cost of acquiring off site land or an interest in the land required to construct the off site improvements.”
SECTION 3. Municipal Code Amendment. Redlands Municipal Code Section 12.12.055, entitled “Undergrounding of Utilities,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“12.22.055: UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES:

Where utilities have been undergrounded as a condition of development, utility installation, expansion, repair, upgrade, modification, or relocation shall be undergrounded following the same requirements and allowing for the same exceptions contained in Section 17.17.020(G) of the Redlands Municipal Code Title 17.” SECTION 4. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and thereafter, this ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.
_________________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 707 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk, City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council at the regular meeting thereof, held on the ____ day of ________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 708 of 1013
City Council Meeting K. 4.

DATE: 05/07/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Public Hearing-Ordinance No. 2967 amending Ordinance No. 2961 Chapter 18.20 of the Redlands Municipal Code
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
a. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2967 pertaining to agricultural tourism and related uses within the A-1, Agricultural zone of the City of Redlands (Chapter 18.20 of the Redlands
Municipal Code).

PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

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

2. Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.

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

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

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

6. Mayor closes the public hearing.

7. City Council considers the motion and votes.

MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to introduce Ordinance No. 2967 and find that the Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State’s Guidelines implementing CEQA.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 709 of 1013
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council introduce the proposed amendment to RMC Chapter 18.20 (Ordinance No. 2967). On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve Ordinance Text Amendment No. 366.

DISCUSSION:

A) Background
On April 16, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2961 to allow agricultural tourism and related land uses within the A-1, Agricultural zoning district (see Attachments A, B, and C). At the initial public hearing on April 2, 2024, several requests for revisions were presented to the City Council regarding the level of discretionary review to be required for specified land uses.

Specifically, applicant's representative, Anna Knight, urged the Council to include four uses to be classified under the administrative review processes, rather than under the Conditional Use Permit processes. These items included:
farm stays, educational farm camp (no motor vehicles/trailers), retail self-pick onsite by customers, and tours, day classes and farm experience excursions (Attachment D – Meeting Minutes). The City Council adopted the proposed Ordinance No. 2961 without any revisions at that time and directed staff to continue to work with the applicant to evaluate potential revisions that had been requested.

Staff is now bringing back minor amendments to RMC Chapter 18.20, which will require adoption of a separate ordinance to approve the revisions.

B) Code Amendment
The main elements of the proposed code amendment are the following:
1) Specify certain uses that may be allowable subject to approval of an Administrative Use Permit; and,
2) Slightly modify the list of uses that are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

No changes are necessary to the previously adopted development standards, performance standards, or sign regulations that will pertain to agritourism uses.

Staff has met with the applicant and the applicant is in agreement that these proposed text amendments sufficiently address their concerns and prior public comments.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 710 of 1013

1) Accessory Uses

In the proposed amendment, certain accessory uses are permitted subject to approval of an Administrative Use Permit (with review and approval procedure pursuant to RMC Chapter 18.193). The approval process for an Administrative Use Permit includes public noticing as well as a public hearing and decision by the Development Servies Director (RMC § 18.193.060). The Director may also refer applications directly to the Planning Commission for the decision.

Decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and decisions of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council (RMC §

18.193.070).

These uses were previously listed under the section for conditional uses. Note that occupancy limits are proposed (i.e., numbers of persons, rooms, or beds) in order to be considered accessory uses and be eligible for an Administrative Use Permit.

New text is in bold.

“18.20.040: ACCESSORY USES:

In the A-1 zone, the following accessory uses that are secondary and supplemental (not to exceed 25% of the land area in active agriculture/ranching) to the primary agricultural uses of the land, may be permitted subject to approval of an Administrative Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.193 of this title.

A. Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (between 150 to 300 persons daily).

B. Tours, day classes, day camp, educational farm camp, or farm experience excursions (between 150 to 300 persons daily).

C. Farm-stay facility, or general tent camping facilities (no motor vehicles or trailers), with up to 50 rooms.

D. Overnight camp for persons under eighteen years of age, with up to 50 beds.”

2) Conditional Uses
The list of conditional uses has been slightly modified to clarify the occupancy limits (i.e., number of persons, rooms, or beds) that will be subject to discretionary review and approval with a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit applications are decided by the Planning Commission (RMC § Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 711 of 1013

18.192.040). Decisions of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council (RMC § 18.192.070), and the City Council by its own volition may call up a Commission decision for appeal review (RMC § 18.192.080).

“Uses permitted by conditional use permit in the A-1 zone include:

A. Accessory public parking areas which serve existing public facilities such as parks, trails or linear parks, or similar public uses, containing more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet or twenty (20) spaces. In this instance, "accessory" shall mean that the parking area is accessory to the existing land use of either park, trail or linear park, or similar public use.

B. Aviaries and hatcheries.

C. Dairies, including the processing of milk.

D. Farms or ranches for commercial raising of poultry or rabbits. No more than five hundred (500) poultry or rabbits for each twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of lot area; provided, however, that such rabbits or fowl are kept at least fifty feet (50') from any property line, and five hundred feet (500') from any residential zone, church, school, park or hospital.

E. Grange halls and similar uses incidental to the promotion and development of sound agriculture.

F. Related ancillary activities to agricultural or ranching operations, including agritourism activities, that are secondary and supplemental to the primary agricultural uses of the land (not to exceed 25% of the land area in active agriculture/ranching), including but not limited to the following:

1. Bed and breakfast inn or facility.

Food processing operations, wholesale or retail (including canning, food packaging, with or without ancillary on-site retail food sales).

2. Compost production and processing that exceeds a total of nine hundred (900) tons per year for on-site use, with or without incidental sale of compost for off-site use.

3. Educational farm camp (day camp and/or overnight camp).

Overnight camp for persons under eighteen years of age, with more than 50 beds.

4. Harvest festivals, seasonal or special events, or other periodic assembly uses.

5. Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (with more than 150 300 persons daily).

6. Tours, day classes, day camp, educational farm camp, and farm experience excursions (with more than 150 300 persons daily).

7. Farm-stay facility, or general tent camping facilities (no motor vehicles or trailers), with more than 50 rooms.

8. Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 712 of 1013

8. 9. Sales of other food or beverage products, with a portion of the ingredients sourced on-site.

9. 10. Wineries, including the following related ancillary activities:
a. Wine tasting room;
Retail sale of vintner products, which must include some products that are produced on-site; and,
b.

Hospitality activities limited to the education of growing vineyards or the production of wine, provided that not more than forty percent (40%) of the interior floor area is utilized for such activity. c.

G. Riding stables or academies; provided, that the minimum lot size for such use shall be not less than five (5) acres, and that all such buildings for the housing, feeding or rental of such animals shall be at least one hundred feet (100') from any property line, and five hundred feet (500') from any R-S or R-1 zone, church, school, park or hospital.

H. Wedding venue, indoors or outdoors, on non-prime agricultural land or soils.

I. Water harvesting, no bottling on site.”

B) General Plan Consistency

The proposed amendment will remain consistent with and implement several Principles and Actions contained in the 2035 General Plan, as listed below.

Action 4-A.40: Permit commercial functions related to agricultural uses to encourage the sustainability of farming in Redlands and the Planning Area.

Such functions can include: roadside stands, packing and processing operations, agri-tourism events, and bed-and-breakfast inns. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit such uses.

Principle 4-P.23: Preserve agricultural land in the Planning Area and protect it from premature development.

Action 4-A.37: Ensure adequate buffers and transitions between agricultural land and non-agricultural development in order to reduce the potential for land use conflicts.

C) Environmental Review
The adoption of the proposed zoning amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as the proposal is a code amendment and does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Any future applications for entitlements (e.g., CUP, AUP, etc.) may be subject to Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 713 of 1013
environmental review on the merits of the individual application, and the applicability of CEQA would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can continue the public hearing and direct staff to address any further issues.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

The proposal is consistent with Priority A (Quality of Life), Strategic Objective No. 4 (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) which states, “Enhance recreational program opportunities.”
SUBMITTED BY:

Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

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

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
PREPARED BY:

Brian Foote, City Planner/Planning Manager
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 23-24
Revenue Generating: No
Appropriation Required Y/N: No
Discussion:

No impact to the General Fund.

Attachments
Attachment A: Map of Agricultural (A-1) District
Attachment B: Ordinance No. 2961
Attachment C: City Council Staff Report of April 2, 2024 Attachment D: Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2024
Attachment E-1: Ordinance 2967 (Legislative)
Attachment E-2: Draft Ordinance 2967 (Clean)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 714 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 715 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 716 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 717 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 718 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 719 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 720 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 721 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 722 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 723 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 724 of 1013
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 725 of 1013
City Council Meeting AGENDA ITEM NO. H. 1.

DATE: 04/02/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2961 –
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to amend
Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 18.20 (A-1, Agricultural District) to permit certain types of agritourism and related uses as ancillary land uses within the A-1, Agricultural zone, as well as adopt development standards and sign standards for
agritourism uses.

1. Finding that the proposal is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Development Services Director Desatnik)

2. PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

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

2. Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.

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

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

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

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

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

7. 8. Mayor closes the public hearing.

9. City Council considers the motion and votes.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 726 of 1013
MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to introduce Ordinance No. 2961.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 1655 recommending that the City Council approve Ordinance Text Amendment No. 366.

BACKGROUND:

The applicant represents multiple property owners and farmers who predominantly reside or operate citrus groves in the San Timoteo Canyon and Live Oak Canyon areas of Redlands. The applicant has applied to amend the provisions of Redlands Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 18.20 for the A-1, Agricultural District to expand the list of allowable ancillary and supportive activities to enhance and diversify revenue sources from existing agricultural land uses. The largest contiguous area of Redlands with A-1 zoning is in San Timoteo Canyon and Live Oak Canyon (south Redlands). Smaller areas of remnant groves with A-1 zoning include parcels near the Redlands Municipal Airport (northeast Redlands).

The applicant’s stated intent is to promote the longevity and economic sustainability of farming operations (i.e., economic development opportunities) without sacrificing or diminishing the existing agricultural uses of the land. As citrus production in the region has gradually declined over recent decades, landowners are seeking additional ancillary revenue streams to augment declining crop income. Some grove owners in areas of north Redlands experiencing encroachment by urban development have chosen to cease growing crops entirely and sell the land to home builders. This proposed code amendment will allow for a variety of related land uses that are intended to be ancillary and supportive of agriculture activities, without detrimentally affecting the rural and historic character of the agricultural areas.

Project Description:

The applicant, Two Canyon Farmers Guild, has applied for Ordinance Text Amendment No. 366 to permit agricultural tourism in the A-1, Agricultural District. Agricultural tourism (or “agri-tourism”) is a broad concept that includes a variety of activities including:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 727 of 1013
On-farm direct sales (farm stand, u-pick, pumpkin patch, etc.); Educational activities (classes, camps, tours, farm experience excursions, tastings, petting zoos, etc.);
Accommodation and lodging (farm stays, bed & breakfast, tent camping, cabins, etc.);
Outdoor recreation (picnic, horseback riding, biking, photography, etc.); and,
Entertainment and special events (wedding venue, corn maze, harvest festival, farm dinners, etc.).

The proposed ordinance includes a definition for “agritourism” as well as a statement of intent. Agritourism “is the act of visiting a working farm/ranch or agricultural operation for the purpose of enjoyment, education, or active involvement in the activities of the farm/ranch or agricultural operation that adds to the economic viability of the agricultural operation. Agritourism activities are secondary and supplemental to the agricultural uses of the land, and do not create conflicts with agricultural activities on said lands and/or adjacent lands.” The stated purpose is to allow for enhanced economic viability of working farms while maintaining the rural character of agricultural districts for the continued operation and preservation of farming and ranching land uses.

ANALYSIS:

A) Zoning Code Amendment

The main elements of the proposed code amendment are the following:

1) Expand the list of permitted and ancillary land uses (secondary and supplemental to primarily agricultural uses) in the A-1, Agricultural zone; 2) Expand the list of conditional land uses (secondary and supplemental to primarily agricultural uses) for the A-1, Agricultural zone; 3) Adopt new development standards and operating standards for agritourism facilities; and,
4) Adopt new sign regulations pertaining to agritourism facilities in the A-1 zone.

These are described in greater detail below. The applicant’s original request also included a provision to allow farmworker housing, however, that component has been removed from this application (and will be addressed in a separate code amendment updating the City’s housing definitions and regulations as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element work program).

1) Permitted Uses

New permitted uses (i.e., allowed by-right with no discretionary review required) are proposed to include the following:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 728 of 1013
Roadside stand up to 1,200 square-feet in size (an increase over the current limit of 500 square-feet). The existing regulations only permit “the sale of fruit, vegetables, produce, flowers and other similar products grown on the property.”
Temporary holiday sales, such as pumpkin lot or tree lot, subject to a permit approved in accordance with the existing regulations in RMC Chapter 18.194 (Temporary Holiday Sales Facilities).

Related ancillary activities including agritourism activities that are secondary and supplemental (not to exceed 25% of the land area in active agriculture/ranching) to the primary agricultural uses of the land, including the following:
- Preparation of farm-to-table meals (for on-site or off-site consumption). - Retail sale of ancillary farm-grown products, prepackaged food items, gardening tools, and other small food- or farm-related sundry items to individual consumers.
- Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (not to exceed 150 persons daily).
- Temporary holiday sales facilities, subject to a permit approved in accordance with RMC Chapter 18.194.
- Walking tours, day classes, farm experience excursions, living history farms, processing demonstrations (not to exceed 150 persons daily) Compost production and processing, not to exceed a total of 900 tons per year for on-site use. This would also include incidental sale of compost for off-site use (not to exceed 25% of the total cubic yards produced), and no piling or storage of compost higher than 15 feet above ground level.

2) Conditional Uses
New conditional uses (i.e., allowable subject to discretionary review and a Conditional Use Permit) are proposed to include the following:

Wedding venue, indoors or outdoors, on non-prime agricultural land.

Related ancillary activities to agricultural or ranching operations, including agritourism activities, that are secondary and supplemental to the primary agricultural uses of the land (not to exceed 25% of the land area in active agriculture/ranching), including the following:

Bed and breakfast, farm-stay, general camping facilities, glamping facilities, or resort hotel.

1. Food processing operations, wholesale or retail (including canning, food packaging, with or without ancillary on-site retail food sales).

2. Compost production and processing that exceeds a total of 900 tons per year for on-site use, with or without incidental sale of compost for off-site use.

3. 4. Educational farm camp (day camp and/or overnight camp).

Harvest festivals, seasonal or special events, or other periodic assembly uses.

5. Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 729 of 1013
Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (with more than 150 persons daily).

6. Tours, day classes, and farm experience excursions (with more than 150 persons daily).

7. Sales of other food or beverage products, with a portion of the ingredients sourced on-site.

8. Wineries, including the following related ancillary activities:
a. Wine tasting room;
Retail sale of vintner products, which must include some products that are produced on-site; and,
b.

9. 3) Proposed development standards
This new section includes several proposed development standards and performance standards for agritourism land uses. This section lists the types of rides and attractions that may be provided as well as the types of non-prime soils on which the activities may be conducted. The proposed language is provided in the draft ordinance.

The development standards encourage clustering of agritourism structures, and related improvements and activities, for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing any impacts on agricultural operations and soils.

On parcels with a minimum of 10 contiguous acres or more in size, all agritourism structures and related improvements should be clustered and shall consume no more than one (1) gross acre in aggregate per every ten contiguous acres of site area (excludes hayrides or trains with rubberized wheels). Parking is excluded from the acreage calculation.

On parcels less than 10 contiguous acres in size, all agritourism structures and related improvements should be clustered and shall consume no more than ten percent (10%) in aggregate of the gross site acreage (excludes hayrides or trains with rubberized wheels). Parking is excluded from the acreage calculation.

If non-agricultural development is to occur, it shall minimize its impacts on natural areas and on nearby farming and agricultural operations. Natural land forms shall be preserved as much as practicable, and any grading or cut/fill activity shall be minimized for roads, driveways, and site grading.

The development standards also include a 300-foot separation requirement from any surrounding residential or other sensitive uses (church, school, hospital, or park), design and building requirements for any agritourism structures, lighting regulations, noise control regulations, ADA accessibility requirements, and on-site parking regulations (with a provision that allows waiving the typical Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 730 of 1013
on-site parking regulations (with a provision that allows waiving the typical requirement for installation of paving).

4) Sign regulations for agritourism uses
The proposed amendment would allow limited commercial signs for approved nonresidential uses (consistent with the existing sign regulations that apply in the Administrative & Professional Office zoning district), temporary signs or banners (consistent with existing sign regulations for temporary signs), plus one small A-frame sign that may be placed adjacent to public right-of-way. The following Section 15.36.390 would be created and added to the sign regulations:

"15.36.390: A-1 ZONING DISTRICT:

Commercial signs for agritourism uses in the A-1 zoning district shall be subject to the following requirements:

A. The sign provisions for the Administrative and Professional Office (A-P) zoning district (Section 15.36.260 of this title) shall apply to approved nonresidential uses within the A-1, Agricultural District subject to a building permit and/or applicable sign permit.

B. A temporary sign or banner shall be permitted for approved nonresidential uses that include seasonal sales of agricultural products or approved seasonal or periodic activities, subject to the applicable development standards and design criteria contained in Sections

15.36.520 and 15.36.530 of this title.

C. One (1) portable or A-frame sign shall be permitted per property for the seasonal sales of agricultural products or approved seasonal or periodic activities, subject to the applicable development standards and design criteria contained in RMC Section 15.36.240 (subsections B through F of this title" (pertaining to portable A-frame signs in the downtown area).

B) General Plan Consistency

The proposed code amendment will be consistent with and implement several Principles and Actions contained in the 2035 General Plan, as listed below. It is evident that this type of code amendment was contemplated in 2015-16 when the draft General Plan Update was being prepared, and is specifically referenced in Action 4-A.40.

Action 4-A.40: Permit commercial functions related to agricultural uses to encourage the sustainability of farming in Redlands and the Planning Area.

Such functions can include: roadside stands, packing and processing operations, agri-tourism events, and bed-and-breakfast inns. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit such uses.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 731 of 1013

Principle 4-P.23: Preserve agricultural land in the Planning Area and protect it from premature development.

Action 4-A.37: Ensure adequate buffers and transitions between agricultural land and non-agricultural development in order to reduce the potential for land use conflicts.

C) Planning Commission Review

On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and received public comments. A total of 17 speakers offered testimony in support of the proposal, including Redlands property owners (farmers), residents, local business representatives, representatives from local school districts, and other interested persons. In addition, a total of 24 written comments were submitted prior to the meeting (almost all from Redlands residents and all in support of the proposal) and were reviewed by Commissioners prior to the meeting. There were no public speakers or written comments opposed to the code amendment.

The applicant provided additional information and clarification in response to Commissioners’ questions. Commissioners discussed matters related to land uses and agri-tourism activities, permitting processes, the City’s review procedures for temporary uses and proposed development, and other matters pertaining to the agriculture industry in Redlands. The Commission voted 7 to 0 recommending that the City Council approve the ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The adoption of the proposed zoning amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as the proposal is a code amendment and does not have the potential to result in a significant effect on the environment. Any future development applications or other applications for entitlements may be subject to environmental review on the merits of the individual application(s), and the applicability of CEQA would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can continue the public hearing and direct staff to address any further issues.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

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

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

Brian Foote, City Planner/Planning Manager
Attachments
Attachment A: Map of the Agricultural (A-1) Zoning District Attachment B: Examples of Agritourism Uses
Attachment C-1: Ordinance No. 2961 (Legislative)
Attachment C-2: Ordinance No. 2961 (Clean)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 733 of 1013

MINUTES
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redlands held in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 35 Cajon Street, on April 2, 2024 at 5:00 P.M.

Present: Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
Paul Barich, Mayor Pro Tempore
Denise Davis, Council Member
Jenna Guzman-Lowery, Council Member
Mario Saucedo, Council Member
Staff: Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager; Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney; Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk; Phillip Doolittle, City Treasurer; Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager; Chris Boatman, Assistant City Manager; Carl Baker, Public Information Officer; Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director; Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director; John Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director; Rich Sessler, Fire Chief; Rachel Tolber, Police Chief; Tabitha Crocker, Facilities and Community Services Director; Robert Meteau, HR/Risk Management Director Mayor Tejeda called the meeting to order and announced there were no closed session matters scheduled for the City Council to consider. The meeting recessed at 5:00 P.M.

RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The meeting reconvened at 6:00 P.M. with an invocation by Mayor Tejeda. The pledge of allegiance to the American flag was conducted by the Flag Folder and Safety Squad of Kingsbury Elementary School.

PRESENTATIONS
Redlands Pet Adoption
Animal Services Supervisor Jodi Kroeger and Kennel Attendant Hailey Stuck introduced "Ariel", a three-year-old female Australian Kelpie, who is available for adoption, along with forty-three other dogs and ten cat at the Redlands Animal Shelter. Ms. Kroeger informed the Council there had been forty-one dogs and eight cats adopted in March 2024. She announced the Shelter was full, and all dog adoption fees would be waived.

Proclamation National Crime Victims’ Rights Week
Council Member Saucedo and Police Chief Tolber presented a Proclamation declaring April 21-27, 2024, as National Crime Victims’ Rights Week to Rose Madsen of Family and Friends of Murder Victims.

Proclamation Dolores Huerta Day
Council Member Saucedo presented a Proclamation to Yolanda Contreras in celebration of Dolores Huerta Day.

Proclamation Child Abuse Prevention Month
Mayor Tejeda presented a Proclamation declaring the month of April 2024 as Child Abuse Prevention Month to Kevin Anderson, Interim Children's Network Officer, San Bernardino County.

Council Members agreed to move Agenda Item I-4 of New Business to the first item of discussion under New Business. Consideration of Resolution No. 8573, naming the park in Tract No. 20336 in honor of Jerry Coyazo, naming the baseball field within the park in honor of Joe Gonzales, and the placement of a commemorative plaque in honor of Patrick J. Meyer on the flag pole at the park.

PUBLIC COMMENT
4/19/24, 1:30 PM Minutes
https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=288&id=73352&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=20867024&CFTOKEN=5b006… 1/6 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 734 of 1013
Mayor Tejeda announced that comments could be presented in-person, via Zoom, via cell phone or landline.

Construction Industry Tax Fraud - Eddie Campos and Delshawn McClellon, of Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, brought attention to a growing problem of employer tax fraud in the construction industry, which they said was allowing businesses to cheat their employees, evade taxes and defraud communities. A Days of Action event is planned from April 13 - April 19, to protest and raise awareness.

Parking Enforcement - Dennis Bell noted that the City had increased the levels of parking enforcement in the downtown area, but he said this same level of enforcement should apply across the City.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the regular meeting minutes of March 19, 2024.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Proclamation National Crime Victims’ Rights Week
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously authorized, by roll call vote, the issuance of a proclamation declaring April 21-27, 2024 National Crime Victims’ Rights Week.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Proclamation Dolores Huerta Day
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously authorized, by roll call vote, the issuance of a proclamation declaring April 10, 2024, as Dolores Huerta Day.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Proclamation Child Abuse Prevention Month
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously authorized, by roll call vote, the issuance of a proclamation declaring the month of April 2024 as Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Conflict of Interest Code Review
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously directed staff, by roll call vote, to review the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Redlands in accordance with Section 87306.5 of the California Government Code.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Resolution No. 8569 Small Claims Court Representatives
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8569 appointing Small Claims Court Representatives to act for the City of Redlands and on the City's behalf and Rescinding Resolution No.8405.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
4/19/24, 1:30 PM Minutes
https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=288&id=73352&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=20867024&CFTOKEN=5b006… 2/6 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 735 of 1013
Homeless Resources Services Agreement
Homeless Solutions Manager David Rabindranath introduced a Homeless Resources Services Agreement and purchase order with Swami Shriji Investment Inc. doing business as Super 8 Redlands for Temporary Housing Services on an as-needed basis for an amount not to exceed $66,300. He added that the Super 8 Redlands operates the motel within the City of Redlands and the purchase order will facilitate the use of the motel for the purpose of providing emergency rooms for homeless individuals and families, ranging in stay from one to seven nights. As public comment, Dennis Bell thought the City's strategy was only just to warehouse the homeless population instead of addressing the bigger problems associated with homelessness.

On motion of Mayor Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, a Homeless Resources Services Agreement and a sole source purchase order with Swami Shriji Investment Inc. doing business as Super 8 Redlands for Temporary Housing Services on an asneeded basis for an amount not to exceed $66,300.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Amending On-Call Plumbing Services Agreement
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the First Amendment to the agreement to perform on-call plumbing services with Pro-Craft Construction, Inc. for an additional $30,000 per year for the remaining two years, resulting in a total agreement amount of $210,000.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Amending Development Impact Fee Study Professional Services Agreement On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously determined, by roll call vote, that the Fourth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with David Taussig and Associates, Inc. is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and approved the Fourth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with David Taussig and Associates, Inc. increasing the total compensation to $67,480.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
RESA Event Services Agreement
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously determined, by roll call vote, that approval of the agreement is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and approved the agreement with the University of Redlands for the Redlands Emergency Services Academy.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
RAFME Side Letter Agreement
On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the Side Letter of Agreement between the City and Redlands Association of Fire Management Employees modifying language in Article 19 of the Memorandum of Understanding to clarify sick leave benefits at the time of retirement.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ordinance No. 2961 Agritourism
4/19/24, 1:30 PM Minutes
https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=288&id=73352&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=20867024&CFTOKEN=5b006… 3/6 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 736 of 1013
Mayor Tejeda opened the public hearing and called on Planning Manager Brian Foote, of Development Services, for details of Ordinance No. 2961, to amend Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 18.20 (A-1, Agricultural District) to permit certain types of agritourism and related uses as ancillary land uses within the A1, Agricultural zone, as well as adopt development standards and sign standards for agritourism uses. He reported the applicant, Two Canyon Farmers Guild, represents multiple property owners and farmers who predominantly reside or operate citrus groves in the San Timoteo Canyon and Live Oak Canyon areas of Redlands. The applicant has applied to amend the provisions of Redlands Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter

18.20 for the A-1, Agricultural District to expand the list of allowable ancillary and supportive activities to enhance and diversify revenue sources from existing agricultural land uses. The largest contiguous area of Redlands with A-1 zoning is in San Timoteo Canyon and Live Oak Canyon (south Redlands). On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7 to 0, recommending that the City Council approve the ordinance.

Representing Two Canyon Farmers Guild, Anna Knight explained the group's intent was to promote the longevity and economic sustainability of farming operations (i.e., economic development opportunities) without sacrificing or diminishing the existing agricultural uses of the land. As citrus production in the region has gradually declined over recent decades, landowners are seeking additional ancillary revenue streams to augment declining crop income. This proposed code amendment will allow for a variety of related land uses that are intended to be ancillary and supportive of agriculture activities, without detrimentally affecting the rural and historic character of the agricultural areas. She introduced another local farmer, Tony Hicks, who added that fewer restrictions in connection to pumpkin patches, "glamping", and wineries would be helpful.

As public comment, fifteen speakers, including Dennis Bell, Linda Hamilton, Phil Courtney, Bob Knight, Ann Van Damme, Kaito Knight, John P Beall, Teresa Mattura, Julie Estrella, Tammy White, Doug Powell, Hans and Mary Ann Schaepper, Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, Evan Sanford and Jaimie Fanous addressed the Council to voice their support of the proposal. Speakers represented a diverse segment of the population including Redlands property owners (farmers), residents, local business representatives, members from local school districts, and other interested persons. Overall, they stressed the value the proposed changes would bring and stated these would benefit not only the farmers, but bring a revenue boost to the local economy, and would preserve the rich agricultural heritage of the community.

Four written comments were received from Sherli Leonard representing Redlands Conservancy and also representing Two Canyons Conservancy, Samiha Hamdi of Fresh Approach and Jamie Fanous, of Community Alliance with Family Farmers. All letters were in full support of the proposal. As rebuttal, Anna Knight urged the Council to include four line items to be classified under the administrative review processes, rather than under the Conditional Use Permit processes. These items included farm stays, educational farm camp (no motor vehicles/trailers), retail self-pick onsite by customers, and tours, day classes and farm experience excursions.

With no additional comments, Mayor Tejeda closed the public hearing.

Council Members thanked Anna Knight for her informative and passionate presentation and announced their support of agritourism. They were anxious to make this work for both the farmers and the City but wanted to make sure clear standards were set. Several questions were raised, and they asked for clarification regarding the timing to approve the ordinance, the timing to consider revisions to the ordinance and possible continuation of the hearing to the May 7 Council meeting, definition of certain terms, such as "glamping", the use of RVs, permit requirements and cost of permits. During the lengthy discussion, it was agreed to introduce the ordinance as originally presented and continue to work with the applicant to evaluate the additional revisions they requested.

On motion of Mayor Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council unanimously introduced, by roll call vote, Ordinance No. 2961, to amend the Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 18.20 (A-1, Agricultural District) to permit certain types of agritourism and related uses as ancillary land uses within the A-1, Agricultural zone, as well as adopt development standards and sign standards for agritourism uses; and determined that the proposal is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 4/19/24, 1:30 PM Minutes
https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=288&id=73352&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=20867024&CFTOKEN=5b006… 4/6 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 737 of 1013
Vote: 5 - 0 Passed

NEW BUSINESS
Arts and Culture Master Plan Agreement
Facilities and Community Services Director Crocker reviewed a Professional Services Agreement with The Cultural Planning Group, LLC for the development of an Arts and Culture Master Plan for an amount not to exceed $126,000. The Cultural Arts Commission recommended that the City Council direct staff to procure the services of a consultant to develop an Arts and Culture Master Plan (Plan), as the Plan is a necessary tool to ensure that art is promoted and utilized in a cohesive and intentional manner throughout the community. On December 6, 2022, the City Council directed staff to advertise a request for proposal for the development of the Plan. As public comment, Dennis Bell said the City didn't need another plan, and he thought it was a waste of taxpayers' money.

On motion of Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council determined, by roll call vote, that approval of a Professional Services Agreement with The Cultural Planning Group, LLC for the development of an Arts and Culture Master Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and approved the Professional Services Agreement with The Cultural Planning Group, LLC for an amount not to exceed $126,000.

Vote: 4 - 0 Passed
Mayor Pro Tem Barich was absent during the vote
Amending Applied LNG Technologies, LLC Agreement
Facilities and Community Services Director Crocker explained the need to amend the Agreement with Applied LNG Technologies, LLC to increase the total agreement amount not to exceed $3,909,879. During the first extended term of this agreement, the City has experienced an increase in RLNG and CNG sales. This Second Amendment will increase the agreement amount and provide for the purchase order modification to account for the increased expense and revenue associated with the additional fuel sales. The estimated revenue for FY 2023- 24 is $851,500, which is a 39% increase over FY 2022-23 totals.

On motion of Council Member Mario Saucedo, seconded by Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, an additional expense appropriation in the amount of $136,902; a revenue appropriation in the amount of $243,000 for the Equipment Maintenance Fund; and approved the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Applied LNG Technologies, LLC.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Resolution No. 8559 Master Lease & Purchase Caterpillar Model D8 Track Type Tractor Facilities and Community Services Director Crocker detailed Resolution No. 8559 approving a Master Lease and Purchase Agreement with Caterpillar Financial Services Inc. for the lease and purchase of a replacement Caterpillar Model D8 Track Type Tractor for $1,363,518.10. The City uses a D8 Dozer at the City landfill on a daily basis and plays a crucial role in daily landfill operations and has now surpassed its recommended service life and is no longer in working condition. The dozer is essential to maintain regulatory compliance, and its replacement is needed immediately to stay in compliance, avoid unnecessary fines, and incur violations at the California Street Landfill. The purchase price will be paid over a six-year term with the first (5) five annual payments in the amount of $272,683.42 and a remaining payment in the sixth year in the amount of $101.00. At the end of the agreement and upon the last payment, the City will own the vehicle outright.

On motion of Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8559 approving a Master Lease and Purchase 4/19/24, 1:30 PM Minutes
https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=288&id=73352&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=20867024&CFTOKEN=5b006… 5/6 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 738 of 1013
Agreement with Caterpillar Financial Services Inc. for the lease and purchase of a replacement Caterpillar Model D8 Track Type Tractor for $1,363,518.10.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Resolution No. 8753 Naming of Park, Baseball Field & Commemorative Plaque in Tract No. 20336 Facilities and Community Services Department Director Crocker provided background for Resolution No. 8573 and the proposal to name the park in Tract No. 20336 in honor of Jerry Coyazo, name the baseball field within the park in honor of Joe Gonzales, and to place a commemorative plaque in honor of Patrick J. Meyer on the flag pole at the park. As part of the development of Tract 20336, now known as the Live Oak neighborhood, MLC Holdings LLC will build and dedicate to the City of Redlands an 11.8-acre public park with 7 sports fields, parking, public restroom facilities, picnic, and passive open space areas. The Master Landscape Plan incorporates several features in the park, including: one baseball/softball field, six soccer fields, a basketball court, sports field lighting, restrooms, and multi-use trails. The developer requested the City name the park and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission led the effort in accordance with the park naming resolution.

They received over 150 park name suggestions from the public.

As public comment, Jim Holmes, President and CEO of Redlands Community Hospital, spoke in honor of Pat Meyer, who was instrumental in bringing many developments to fruition, including this one. Mr. Holmes spoke for the many others also in attendance, and he expressed their deep sadness of Mr. Meyer's recent passing, on March 31, 2024. Mayor Tejeda and Council Member Saucedo praised Mr. Meyer for his efforts to encourage developers to incorporate parks and trails and sports fields within their developments, bringing great value to the whole community. Andy Coyazo, on behalf of the Coyazo family, and Gloria Candelaria, on behalf of her father, Joe Gonzales, said they were humbled and honored to have the park and baseball field named for their families.

On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Barich, seconded by Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8573, naming the park in Tract No. 20336 in honor of Jerry Coyazo, naming the baseball field at the park in honor of Joe Gonzales, and placing a commemorative plaque in honor of Patrick J. Meyer on the flag pole at the park.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed

COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES
Council Member Guzman-Lowery announced the West Valley National Crime Week Memorial will be held on April 22, 2024 in Rancho Cucamonga. On a personal note, she was grateful for City staff members and gave special recognition to the Redlands Fire Department, Station 1 crew, for their incredible response to a family emergency.

Council Member Saucedo expressed his appreciation of Esther Martinez, Redlands Emergency Operations Specialist, who was honored by Assemblymember James C. Ramos as one of the 2024 Women of Distinction in Assembly District 45. The annual award honors women in the district who exemplify leadership, innovation, and service in Assembly District 45.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further action required the meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. in honor of Pat J. Meyer, who passed away on March 31, 2024. Mayor Tejeda called for a moment of silence and praised him for his dedication and selfless service to the betterment of the community. He will be greatly missed. The next regular meeting of the City of Redlands City Council will be held on April 16, 2024. 4/19/24, 1:30 PM Minutes
https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=288&id=73352&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=20867024&CFTOKEN=5b006… 6/6 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 739 of 1013
ORDINANCE NO. 2967

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE REDLANDS

MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO
AGRICULTURAL TOURISM AND RELATED LAND USES IN THE A-1,
AGRICULTURAL ZONE.

WHEREAS, Two Canyons Farmers Guild (“Applicant”), has submitted an application for Ordinance Text Amendment No. 366 to amend RMC Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), Chapter 18.20, to permit agricultural tourism and related ancillary land uses as permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, or uses subject to an administrative use permit within the A-1, Agricultural District; and,
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance Text Amendment No. 366; and,
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony and written evidence submitted by City staff, the Applicant, and the public; and,
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2961 approving agricultural tourism land uses and related uses, as well as approved new development standards and performance standards for agritourism land uses; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the provisions previously adopted by Ordinance No. 2961 pertaining to agritourism land uses; and, WHEREAS, on or about April 26, 2024, the City Clerk gave notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation of the holding of a public hearing at which Ordinance No. 2967 would be considered by City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony and written evidence submitted by City staff, the Applicant, and the public; and,
WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed ordinance qualifies for exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and,
WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing and deliberating upon the matter, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment to Title 18 (Zoning Regulations) of the Redlands Municipal Code will be consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 740 of 1013

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. General Plan Consistency. The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment is consistent with the City of Redlands General Plan 2035, including Principle 4-P.23, Action 4-A.37, and Action 4-A.40.

SECTION 2. Approval of Amendment to RMC Section 18.20.030. The proposed amendment to Title 18 of the Redlands Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20 (A-1 Agricultural District), Section

18.20.030, entitled “Permitted Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Principal permitted uses in the A-1 zone include:

A. Accessory public parking areas which serve existing public facilities such as parks, trails or linear parks, or similar public uses, pursuant to the review procedures set forth in section 18.12.190 of this title for lots containing ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less or twenty (20) spaces or fewer. In this instance, "accessory" shall mean that the parking area is accessory to the existing land use of either park, trail or linear park, or similar public use.

B. Apiaries, provided that no hives or boxes housing bees are kept closer than three hundred feet (300') from any dwelling other than that occupied by the owner of the apiary.

C. Farms or ranches for the grazing, breeding or raising of not more than two (2) horses, cattle, pigs, goats or sheep per acre. Except for the keeping of up to three (3) horses, as provided for in sections 18.44.020 through 18.44.050 of this title of the R-1 zone, no animal(s) shall be housed or corralled closer than five hundred feet (500') from any existing residence in the R-1, R-1-D, R-2, R-2-2000 or R-3 zone, or one hundred feet (100') from any property line.

D. Farms or ranches with non-commercial or incidental keeping of poultry. No more than one hundred (100) chickens or poultry for each contiguous one acre of lot area; provided, however, that such fowl are housed or corralled at least five hundred feet (500') from any residential zone, church, school, park or hospital, or one hundred feet (100') from any property line.

E. Horse boarding.

F. Orchards, groves, nurseries, the raising of field crops, tree crops, berry crops, bush crops, truck gardening and commercial flower growing.

G. Single-family residences; provided, however, that there shall be not more than two (2) dwellings on each parcel of five (5) acres or more. Where parcels of land are already subdivided into parcels less than five (5) acres in area, there shall be permitted one dwelling for each lot, provided the lot contains dimensions and an area equivalent to the closest single-family residential zone.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 741 of 1013
H. The sale of fruit, vegetables, produce, flowers, eggs/meats, and other similar products grown on the property; provided, however, that roadside stands located on private property used for such sales shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet. Roadside or other interior stands shall include architectural treatment that blends the structure into the rural open space character of the area.

Exterior treatment materials consisting of primarily natural materials such as wood, stone, brick, or stucco are permitted. Roof materials shall be fire-resistant and may include metal roofing. Structures with predominantly metal siding, or other structures or objects not originally designed as occupiable structures (such as shipping containers or otherwise utilizing corrugated metal), are prohibited.

Roadside stands for serving customers shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code (including ADA accessibility), Redlands Municipal Code Title 15 (Buildings and Construction), and California Fire Code.

I. Compost production and processing, not to exceed a total of nine hundred (900) tons per year for on-site use, which may include incidental sale of compost for off-site use (not to exceed 25% of the total cubic yards produced), and no piling or storage of compost higher than fifteen feet above ground level.

J. Related ancillary activities including agritourism activities that are secondary and supplemental (not to exceed 25% of the land area in active agriculture/ranching) to the primary agricultural uses of the land, including the following:

1. Preparation of farm-to-table meals (for on-site or off-site consumption).

2. Retail sale of ancillary farm grown products, prepackaged food items, gardening tools, and other small food- or farm-related sundry items to individual consumers.

3. Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (not to exceed 150 persons daily).

4. Temporary holiday sales facilities, including but not limited to pumpkin lots and tree lots, subject to approval of a permit in accordance with Chapter 18.194 of this title.

5. Walking tours, day classes, day camps, farm experience excursions, living history farms, processing demonstrations (not to exceed 150 persons daily).

K. The Planning Commission may, by resolution of record, permit any other uses which it may determine to be similar to those listed in section 18.20.030 of this chapter, in conformity with the intent and purpose of the A-1 zone, and not more obnoxious or detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or other uses permitted in this zone.”
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 742 of 1013
SECTION 3. Approval of Amendment to RMC Section 18.20.040. The proposed amendment to Title 18 of the Redlands Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20 (A-1 Agricultural District), Section

18.20.040, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.20.040: SIMILAR USES PERMITTED BY COMMISSION DETERMINATION:

The commission may, by resolution of record, permit any other uses which it may determine to be similar to those listed in section 18.20.030 of this chapter, in conformity with the intent and purpose of the A-1 zone, and not more obnoxious or detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or other uses permitted in this zone.

18.20.040: ACCESSORY USES:

A. Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (between 150 to 300 persons daily).

B. Tours, day classes, day camp, educational farm camp, or farm experience excursions (between 150 to 300 persons daily).

C. Farm-stay facility, or general tent camping facilities (no motor vehicles or trailers), with up to 50 rooms.

18.20.050, entitled “Conditional Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Uses permitted by conditional use permit in the A-1 zone include:

B. Aviaries and hatcheries.

C. Dairies, including the processing of milk.

D. Farms or ranches for commercial raising of poultry or rabbits. No more than five Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 743 of 1013
hundred (500) poultry or rabbits for each twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of lot area; provided, however, that such rabbits or fowl are kept at least fifty feet (50') from any property line, and five hundred feet (500') from any residential zone, church, school, park or hospital.

E. Grange halls and similar uses incidental to the promotion and development of sound agriculture.

1. Bed and breakfast inn or facility.

2. Food processing operations, wholesale or retail (including canning, food packaging, with or without ancillary on-site retail food sales).

3. Compost production and processing that exceeds a total of nine hundred (900) tons per year for on-site use, with or without incidental sale of compost for offsite use.

4. Educational farm camp (day camp and/or overnight camp). Overnight camp for persons under eighteen years of age, with more than 50 beds.

5. Harvest festivals, seasonal or special events, or other periodic assembly uses.

6. Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (with more than 150 300 persons daily).

7. Tours, day classes, day camp, educational farm camp, and farm experience excursions (with more than 150 300 persons daily).

8. Farm-stay facility, or general tent camping facilities (no motor vehicles or trailers), with more than 50 rooms.

8. 9. Sales of other food or beverage products, with a portion of the ingredients sourced on-site.

9. 10. Wineries, including the following related ancillary activities:
a. Wine tasting room;
b. Retail sale of vintner products, which must include some products that are produced on-site; and,
c. Hospitality activities limited to the education of growing vineyards or the production of wine, provided that not more than forty percent (40%) of the interior floor area is utilized for such activity.

H. Wedding venue, indoors or outdoors, on non-prime agricultural land or soils.

I. Water harvesting, no bottling on site.”
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 744 of 1013
SECTION 5. California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment does not require environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as this proposal is exempt because there is no possibility that the zoning code amendment may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section,subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and thereafter, this ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.

Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 745 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk, City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council at the regular meeting thereof, held on the _____ day of __________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 746 of 1013
ORDINANCE NO. 2967

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE REDLANDS

MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO
AGRICULTURAL TOURISM AND RELATED LAND USES IN THE A-1,
AGRICULTURAL ZONE.

WHEREAS, Two Canyons Farmers Guild (“Applicant”), has submitted an application for Ordinance Text Amendment No. 366 to amend RMC Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), Chapter

18.20, to permit agricultural tourism and related ancillary land uses as permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, or uses subject to an administrative use permit within the A-1, Agricultural District; and,
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance Text Amendment No. 366; and,
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony and written evidence submitted by City staff, the Applicant, and the public; and,
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2961 approving agricultural tourism land uses and related uses, as well as approved new development standards and performance standards for agritourism land uses; and, WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the provisions previously adopted by Ordinance No. 2961 pertaining to agritourism land uses; and, WHEREAS, on or about April 26, 2024, the City Clerk gave notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation of the holding of a public hearing at which Ordinance No. 2967 would be considered by City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony and written evidence submitted by City staff, the Applicant, and the public; and,
WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed ordinance qualifies for exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and,
WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing and deliberating upon the matter, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment to Title 18 (Zoning Regulations) of the Redlands Municipal Code will be consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 747 of 1013
SECTION 1. General Plan Consistency. The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment is consistent with the City of Redlands General Plan 2035, including Principle 4-P.23, Action 4- A.37, and Action 4-A.40.

SECTION 2. Approval of Amendment to RMC Section 18.20.030. The proposed amendment to Title 18 of the Redlands Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20 (A-1 Agricultural District), Section 18.20.030, entitled “Permitted Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Principal permitted uses in the A-1 zone include:

B. Apiaries, provided that no hives or boxes housing bees are kept closer than three hundred feet (300') from any dwelling other than that occupied by the owner of the apiary.

E. Horse boarding.

F. Orchards, groves, nurseries, the raising of field crops, tree crops, berry crops, bush crops, truck gardening and commercial flower growing.

H. The sale of fruit, vegetables, produce, flowers, eggs/meats, and other similar products grown on the property; provided, however, that roadside stands located Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 748 of 1013
on private property used for such sales shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet. Roadside or other interior stands shall include architectural treatment that blends the structure into the rural open space character of the area.

1. Preparation of farm-to-table meals (for on-site or off-site consumption).

2. Retail sale of ancillary farm grown products, prepackaged food items, gardening tools, and other small food- or farm-related sundry items to individual consumers.

3. Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (not to exceed 150 persons daily).

4. Temporary holiday sales facilities, including but not limited to pumpkin lots and tree lots, subject to approval of a permit in accordance with Chapter 18.194 of this title.

5. Walking tours, day classes, day camps, farm experience excursions, living history farms, processing demonstrations (not to exceed 150 persons daily).

K. The Planning Commission may, by resolution of record, permit any other uses which it may determine to be similar to those listed in section 18.20.030 of this chapter, in conformity with the intent and purpose of the A-1 zone, and not more obnoxious or detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or other uses permitted in this zone.”
SECTION 3. Approval of Amendment to RMC Section 18.20.040. The proposed amendment to Title 18 of the Redlands Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20 (A-1 Agricultural District), Section 18.20.040, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.20.040: ACCESSORY USES:

In the A-1 zone, the following accessory uses that are secondary and supplemental (not to Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 749 of 1013
exceed 25% of the land area in active agriculture/ranching) to the primary agricultural uses of the land, may be permitted subject to approval of an Administrative Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.193 of this title.

A. Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (between 150 to 300 persons daily).

B. Tours, day classes, day camp, educational farm camp, or farm experience excursions (between 150 to 300 persons daily).

C. Farm-stay facility, or general tent camping facilities (no motor vehicles or trailers), with up to 50 rooms.

D. Overnight camp for persons under eighteen years of age, with up to 50 beds.” SECTION 4. Approval of Amendment to RMC Section 18.20.050. The proposed amendment to Title 18 of the Redlands Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20 (A-1 Agricultural District), Section 18.20.050, entitled “Conditional Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Uses permitted by conditional use permit in the A-1 zone include:

B. Aviaries and hatcheries.

C. Dairies, including the processing of milk.

E. Grange halls and similar uses incidental to the promotion and development of sound agriculture.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 750 of 1013

1. Bed and breakfast inn or facility.

2. Food processing operations, wholesale or retail (including canning, food packaging, with or without ancillary on-site retail food sales).

3. Compost production and processing that exceeds a total of nine hundred (900) tons per year for on-site use, with or without incidental sale of compost for offsite use.

4. Overnight camp for persons under eighteen years of age, with more than 50 beds.

5. Harvest festivals, seasonal or special events, or other periodic assembly uses.

6. Retail self-pick or u-pick by customers of produce grown on-site (with more than 300 persons daily).

7. Tours, day classes, day camp, educational farm camp, and farm experience excursions (with more than 300 persons daily).

8. Farm-stay facility, or general tent camping facilities (no motor vehicles or trailers), with more than 50 rooms.

9. Sales of other food or beverage products, with a portion of the ingredients sourced on-site.

10. Wineries, including the following related ancillary activities:
a. Wine tasting room;
b. Retail sale of vintner products, which must include some products that are produced on-site; and,
c. Hospitality activities limited to the education of growing vineyards or the production of wine, provided that not more than forty percent (40%) of the interior floor area is utilized for such activity.

H. Wedding venue, indoors or outdoors, on non-prime agricultural land or soils.

I. Water harvesting, no bottling on site.”
SECTION 5. California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment does not require environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as this proposal is exempt because there is no possibility that the zoning code amendment may have a significant effect on the environment.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 751 of 1013
SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and thereafter, this ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.

Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 752 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk, City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council at the regular meeting thereof, held on the ____ day of _______, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 753 of 1013
City Council Meeting L. 1.

DATE: 05/07/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution No. 8584 Authorizing Forgiveness of the Interfund Loan between the Public Facilities Fund and the General Fund (Management Services/Finance Director Garcia) MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff’s recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to adopt Resolution No. 8584.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 8584.

DISCUSSION:

In 1993, the City issued Certificates of Participation to refinance previous borrowings that were issued in 1985, 1986, and 1987 for the acquisition and construction of the corporate yard, Fire Station 263, a two-story parking garage in downtown, as well as certain improvements to the A. K. Smiley Library. In 2003, the aforementioned Certificates of Participation were refinanced again with a maturity date of September 1, 2017.

As part of the provisions of the 2003 refinancing, payment of the debt service on the Certificates of Participation shall be evenly split between the General Fund and the Public Facilities Fund (50% and 50%, respectively). Although debt service fluctuated annually according to the amortization schedule, roughly $1.8 million was due each year, with $900,000 due from the Public Facilities Fund and $900,000 due from the General Fund.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 754 of 1013
Between 2003, when the certificates were issued, and 2017, when the certificates matured, the City navigated several economic cycles including the Great Recession. In 2003, building permit activity was at an all-time high in California from its previous peak in 1986. New development was occurring throughout the City and this development generated significant revenue in the form of impact fees, the main source of revenue in the Public Facilities Fund.

Then, in a matter of a few years, the economy took a turn and the Great Recession ensued. New housing starts and development activity declined sharply, and with it, development impact fee revenue.

During these years, the General Fund provided annual loans to the Public Facilities Fund in order for Public Facilities to pay its required 50% share of the debt service on the certificates. During the most severe years of the Recession, smaller loans were also provided from other funds to the Public Facilities Fund in order to shoulder some of the burden from an already over-burdened General Fund. These other interfund loans were provided from the Open Space Fund, the Parks & Open Space Fund, and the Storm Drain Construction Fund and have been fully repaid. There is one remaining interfund loan from the Water Fund in the amount of $16,090. Staff does not recommend forgiveness of this loan, as the Public Facilities Fund should be able to fully repay this amount by the end of the current fiscal year.

The total amount outstanding as of June 30, 2023 was $7,690,541 owed to the General Fund from the Public Facilities Fund. As the fund has been attempting to repay this loan for several years and has not made significant progress, staff feels it is appropriate to forgive the loan based on two important factors. The first is the concept of timeliness. Impact fees currently collected in the Public Facilities Fund should be expended on projects and facilities related to current development. In this case, the fees are repaying a loan for debt incurred in the distant past. The second factor is the nature of the projects that were financed with the initial borrowing: the City's Corporate Yard, Fire Station 263, a public parking structure, and improvements to the A. K. Smiley Public Library. All such projects are legitimate obligations of the General Fund, which is designated as the City's fund to record all general government services like fire protection, public infrastructure and library services.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Council may deny, modify, or table this request for Council action.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 755 of 1013
SUBMITTED BY:

Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

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

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: FY 2023-24
Appropriation Required Y/N: No
Discussion:

The fiscal impact of forgiveness of the Interfund Loan between the Public Facilities Fund and the General Fund is mostly related to the assets and liabilities in both funds and not actual cash or expenditures. Forgiveness of the loan will eliminate the Advances Payable within the Public Facilities Fund, except for the amount still owed to the Water Fund ($16,090). It will also eliminate the Advances Receivable within the General Fund from $7,690,541 to $0.

Attachments
Resolution No. 8584 Interfund Loan Forgiveness between Fund 251 & Fund 101 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 756 of 1013
RESOLUTION NO. 8584

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

AUTHORIZING THE FORGIVENESS OF THE INTERFUND LOAN BETWEEN THE CITY’S PUBLIC FACILITIES FUND (251) AND THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND (101) RELATED TO REPAYMENT OF 2003 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS REFUNDED IN 1993 WHEREAS, the City issued Certificates of Participation in 2003 to refund borrowings from 1993 that financed certain projects related to the acquisition and construction of the corporate yard, Fire Station 263, a two-story parking garage in downtown, and certain improvements to the A. K. Smiley Library; and
WHEREAS, as part of the provisions of the 2003 refinancing, payment of the debt service on the Certificates of Participation was to be evenly split between the General Fund and the Public Facilities Fund (50% and 50%, respectively); and
WHEREAS, during certain years the Public Facilities Fund did not have sufficient revenue to cover its portion of the debt service related to the 2003 Certificates of Participation because such revenue was linked to the economic cycles and building activity that affected the amount of development impact fee revenue generated in the fund; and
WHEREAS, revenue currently collected in the Public Facilities Fund is intended to provide a funding mechanism for new public infrastructure and facilities required to serve new development in the community; and
WHEREAS, the nature of the projects previously financed under the 2003 Certificates of Participation are duly recognized as appropriate and proper obligations of the General Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby determines that approval of this Resolution is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines as approval of this resolution will not cause a direct physical change to the environment, nor a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the forgiveness of the Interfund Loan between the City’s Public Facilities Fund (251) and the City’s General Fund (101), and accordingly, the City’s financial accounting records will reflect a decrease in Advances Receivable in the General Fund of $7,690,541 and a decrease in Advances Payable in the Public Facilities Fund of the same amount.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 757 of 1013
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 7
th day of May, 2024.
________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 758 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 th day of May, 2024, by
the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 759 of 1013
City Council Meeting L. 2.

DATE: 05/07/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Consideration of the introduction of Ordinance No. 2964 and Ordinance No. 2965 to implement water and wastewater rate increases, adoption of Resolution No. 8583 providing notice of intent to increase water and wastewater rates, direct staff to issue the required Proposition 218 notice establishing a public hearing date and location, and determine that consideration of the proposed rate increases is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)
MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motions are provided:

I move to introduce Ordinance No. 2964 and Ordinance No. 2965 and that consideration of the proposed water and wastewater rate increases are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and

1. I move that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 8583 providing notice of intent to increase water and wastewater rates; and;

2. I move to direct staff to issue the required Proposition 218 notice for a public hearing.

3. Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 760 of 1013
RECOMMENDATION:

The Utility Advisory Committee and staff recommend the following water and wastewater rate increases:

Water -
A two percent (2%) rate increase in fiscal year 24/25
A two percent (2%) rate increase in fiscal year 25/26
Wastewater -
A ten percent (10%) rate increase in fiscal year 24/25
A ten percent (10%) rate increase in fiscal year 25/26
Staff further recommends City Council determine that adoption of Resolution No. 8583 is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt Resolution No. 8583 providing notice of intent to increase water and wastewater rates, and direct staff to issue the Proposition 218 notice establishing a date and location for a public hearing.

DISCUSSION:

Chapter 2.70 of the Redlands Municipal Code establishes a framework for a citizen committee, the Utility Advisory Committee (UAC), to develop fair and equitable rates to cover costs of services for the City's water and wastewater utilities. The seven (7) member UAC was appointed by City Council on January 16, 2024, and worked with MUED staff and the City's Utility Rate Consultant, Raftelis, to develop rate recommendations that provide adequate revenue to recover costs for services, are equitable to all customer classes, comply with state and federal laws, and are easily explained to customers. The UAC serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council.

The rate recommendation process began by introducing the UAC to the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (MUED) structure, water and wastewater utilities, and 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The UAC reviewed historic and projected operating, maintenance, and CIP costs necessary to provide high-quality services for Redlands' utility customers.

Raftelis presented a financial analysis including multi-year revenue projections, target reserve balances, and annual labor and material cost escalations. Several rate scenarios were modeled and considered by the UAC, who ultimately recommends the following rate adjustments:

Potable Water:
2% increase in FY 24/25
2% increase in FY 25/26
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 761 of 1013
2% increase in FY 25/26
Non-Potable Water:
0% increase in FY 24/25
0% increase in FY 25/26
Wastewater:
10% increase in FY 24/25
10% increase in FY 25/26
These increases will be applied to customer classifications proportionally based on the demands placed on each utility, and will generate the additional revenue necessary to continue providing water and wastewater utility services for all Redlands customers. Resolution No. 8583 provides notice of intent to increase water and wastewater rates.

If City Council determines these recommendations are appropriate, staff will issue a Public Hearing Proposition 218 notice, which will include a copy of Resolution 7128 that describes protest procedures. The following schedule is anticipated:

Resolution of Intent/Ordinance Introduction May 7, 2024 Proposition 218 Notices Mailed May 10, 2024
Ordinance - Public Hearing/Adoption July 2, 2024
Rate Implementation August 5, 2024
Approval of water and wastewater utility rate increases is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act since it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may deny the staff recommendation and provide alternate direction.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
SUBMITTED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 762 of 1013
REVIEWED BY:

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

John R. Harris
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: FY 24/25
Revenue Generating: Y
Appropriation Required Y/N: N
Discussion:

Adoption of the recommended Water and Wastewater rates will generate revenues necessary to offset operating, maintenance, and capital improvement costs for each utility.

Attachments
Resolution No. 8583
2024 UAC Presentation
Prop 218 Notice
Raftelis Rate Study Report
Resolution 7128
Ordinance 2964 Amending RMC 3.52
Ordinance 2965 Amending RMC 3.62
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 763 of 1013
RESOLUTION NO. 8583

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ADJUST WATER AND WASTEWATER
RATES; SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PROPOSITION 218 MAJORITY PROTEST PUBLIC HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE THE RELATED NOTICE IN

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE-MANDATED TIMING REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Redlands has identified ongoing operational and capital needs associated with the City’s water and wastewater utility systems; and WHEREAS, in order to fund the identified water and wastewater system operational and capital costs, it will be necessary to adjust the City’s current water and wastewater rates; and WHEREAS, the City of Redlands engaged Raftelis, a firm with expertise in the analysis of costs relating to utilities, to conduct a rate study of the City’s water and wastewater utilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council received the report prepared by Raftelis at the May 7, 2024 City Council meeting and heard from staff on this matter; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, requiring specific procedures be followed with regard to “property-related” fee increases, including the need to provide written notice at least 45 days in advance of a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2006, the California Supreme Court confirmed that charges for water and wastewater (sewer) are subject to Proposition 218 procedures (Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 205); and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2015, the California Court of Appeal ruled that water rate surcharges and by analogy, wastewater surcharges may be charged as long as they are based upon the actual cost of service to the ratepayers receiving the surcharge (Capistrano Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015) 235 Cal. App. 4th 1493); and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is in the public interest and desires to proceed through the requisite processes pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 218 in order to consider adjustments to the City of Redlands’ fees, rates, and charges related to its water and wastewater systems.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows:

Section 1. A Proposition 218 Public Hearing is hereby set and will be held before the City Council on July 2, 2024, in order for the City Council to consider adjustments to the City’s water and wastewater utility fees, rates, and/or charges; and
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 764 of 1013
Section 2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to cause a notice of Public Hearing that provides details related to adjustments to the specific water and wastewater fees, Rates, and/or charges being proposed to be mailed no later than May 10, 2024, in a manner that complies with applicable laws, including without limitation, the State-mandated 45-day required notice under Proposition 218.

Section 3. At the Public Hearing, the City Council shall consider objections and protests, if any, to the proposed rate adjustments, and Resolution No. 7128 shall govern the submission and tabulation of written protests with respect to the proposed rate adjustments.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 7
th day of May, 2024.
________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 765 of 1013
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 th day of May, 2024,
by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 766 of 1013

UTILITIES ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
(UAC)

WASTEWATER, POTABLE WATER
& NON-POTABLE WATER

REVENUE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 767 of 1013

UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
• Appointed by City Council January 16, 2024
• Series of meetings from February through April
2024
• WWTP Operational Status from Staff
• Financial and Rate Review from Consultant Raftelis
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 768 of 1013

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
• John E. James - Chair
• Sid Jain - Vice Chair
• Richard Corneille
• Dan Jimenez
• Brandon Lopez
• Aholibama “Oly” Ojeda
• Desiree Reyes
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 769 of 1013
• The Utilities Advisory Committee will recommend to the City Council revenue adjustments for potable water,
wastewater and non-potable water utilities.
• The Committee will:
• Examine different approaches to establishing potable
water, wastewater and non-potable water revenue
needs
• Promote understanding and appreciation for
different points of view, and
• Build consensus that will ensure a balanced approach
to divergent interests in the community concerning
utility rates.

MISSION STATEMENT/GOALS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 770 of 1013

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
• Reviewed Overall Financial Needs to Maintain
Safe, Reliable Systems and Service to Residents
• All operations were analyzed in the following financial areas:
• Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs
• Capital Improvement Projects (Capital Investment)
• Revenue Projections at Current Rates
• Reserve Balances
• Reserve Balance Target
• Required Revenue Adjustments to Maintain Reserves
• Keep Credit Rating at or Above Current AA+ Level
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 771 of 1013

WASTEWATER UTILITY
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 772 of 1013

WASTEWATER
• Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Costs
• Collection System –
• Primarily Gravity Flow Pipe System
• Inspection And Periodic Clean Out
• Treatment Plant – Continuous Flow From
the City at Large Must be Treated and
Discharged on a continuous Basis
• Electricity
• Chemicals
• Replacement Parts
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 773 of 1013

1.– Headworks

2.--Primary Clarifiers

3.--Primary Sludge Pump Station
4 - Peak Storage Ponds and Pump Station
5 - Aeration Basins and Blower Building
6 -Secondary Clarifiers and Effluent Pump
Station

7. -MBR Facility

8.- Recycled Water Pump Station

9.- RAS/WAS Pump Station
10- DAFTs
11 - Primary and Secondary Digesters
12- Dewatering Facility
13- Solar
14- Cogeneration Facility
15 - Flare

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 774 of 1013
• Critical Failure of MBR (Membrane Bioreactor)
filters
• Consultant recommended a 2 phase approach
• 1
st Phase to replace MBR filters – High
quality recycled water
• 2
nd Phase to rehabilitate remaining WWTP
• Costs/Funding
• MBR from existing reserves and other
funding sources - $15MM
• Phase 2 from rate adjustments and issuance
of debt – State Revolving Fund
• Phase 2 cost - $45MM
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 775 of 1013
PHASE 2-WWTP UPGRADE PROJECT
• PROCESS, MECHANICAL, STRUCTURAL, CIVIL, &
ELECTRICAL DESIGN:
• PRIMARY PROCESS; HEADWORKS, CLARIFIERS,

SLUDGE PUMPS, & PEAK PONDS
• SECONDARY/TERTIARY PROCESS; AERATION

BASINS, BLOWER BUILDING & BLOWERS, RAS PUMPS,

EFFLUENTS PUMP STATION, MBR FACILITY
• SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITY; THICKENING,

DIGESTER, DEWATERING
• ELECTRICAL; FIVE (5) POWER CENTERS, & A SECOND

EMERGENCY GENERATOR
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 776 of 1013
Examples of Equipment in
Critial Need of Replacement/Upgrade
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 777 of 1013

REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
VS.

IMPACT ON CUSTOMER BILL
• Prop 218 – Charge imposed upon any parcel shall not exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to the parcel. • Cost of service –
• O&M expenses
• Capital costs
• Treatment cost based on makeup and concentration of waste stream – varies by customer
• Total revenue adjustments based on cost of service of the utility • Final impact on individual bill depends on customer type and is proportional to incurred cost of service - Prop 218
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 778 of 1013
Revenue
Adjustments 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 8.0%
Bi-Monthly Rates Current July 2024 July 2025 July 2026 July 2027 July 2028 Residential ($/dwelling unit)
Single Family $62.43 $66.04 $72.65 $79.92 $87.92 $94.96 Multiple Family $48.08 $52.40 $57.64 $63.41 $69.76 $75.35 Non-Residential ($/ccf)
Low Strength I $2.42 $2.82 $3.11 $3.43 $3.78 $4.09
Low Strength II $2.87 $3.41 $3.76 $4.14 $4.56 $4.93
Low Strength III $3.32 $3.99 $4.39 $4.83 $5.32 $5.75
Medium Strength I $3.77 $4.58 $5.04 $5.55 $6.11 $6.60
Medium Strength II $4.22 $5.16 $5.68 $6.25 $6.88 $7.44
Medium Strength III $4.67 $5.75 $6.33 $6.97 $7.67 $8.29 High Strength I $5.12 $6.34 $6.98 $7.68 $8.45 $9.13
High Strength II $5.56 $6.92 $7.62 $8.39 $9.23 $9.97
Large Volume User $3.32 $3.99 $4.39 $4.83 $5.32 $5.75
Minimum Charge ($) $48.08 $52.40 $57.64 $63.41 $69.76 $75.35 Schools ($/100 ADA)
Elementary $134.38 $143.11 $157.43 $173.18 $190.50 $205.74 Secondary & High $215.02 $238.52 $262.38 $288.62 $317.49 $342.89 Septage Charge ($/gal) $0.11 $0.10 $0.11 $0.13 $0.15 $0.17 2 Year UAC
Recommendations
Rate Model Forecast
Looking Forward 5 Years

RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER RATES
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 779 of 1013
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Millions
Cash Balance Reserve Target
2 Year UAC
Recommendations
Rate Model Forecast
Looking Forward 5 Years
WASTEWATER – ENDING BALANCES
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 780 of 1013

POTABLE WATER UTILITY
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 781 of 1013

POTABLE WATER
• Water Operations and Maintenance Costs
• Water Treatment
• Surface Water - Chemicals
• Water Wells
• Electric Pumping Costs
• Chemicals
• Reservoirs
• Maintenance and Chemicals
• Pipe Delivery System
• Leak Repair
• Capital Improvement Projects per Master Plan
• Yearly Pipe Replacement
• Other Infrastructure Investments and Betterments
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 782 of 1013

REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
VS.

IMPACT ON CUSTOMER BILL
• Prop 218 – Charge imposed upon any parcel shall not exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to the parcel. • Cost of service –
• O&M expenses
• Capital costs
• Water delivery cost for total amount of water delivered to City at large • Peaking Charges – costs to meet maximum daily peak demands • Total revenue adjustments based on total cost of service of the utility • Final impact on individual bill depends on customer and customer type and is proportional to incurred cost of service based on water usageProp 218 Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 783 of 1013

PROPOSED POTABLE WATER RATES
Revenue
Adjustments 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Bi-Monthly Rates Current July 2024 July 2025 July 2026 July 2027 July 2028 Water Service Charge
5/8" $32.10 $32.94 $33.60 $34.28 $34.97 $35.67
3/4" $43.17 $44.01 $44.90 $45.80 $46.72 $47.66
1" $64.67 $65.50 $66.81 $68.15 $69.52 $70.92
1 1/2" $116.79 $117.60 $119.96 $122.36 $124.81 $127.31
2" $172.83 $173.62 $177.10 $180.65 $184.27 $187.96
3" $299.23 $299.97 $305.97 $312.09 $318.34 $324.71
4" $462.10 $462.79 $472.05 $481.50 $491.13 $500.96
6" $853.02 $853.56 $870.64 $888.06 $905.83 $923.95
8" $1,256.97 $1,257.36 $1,282.51 $1,308.17 $1,334.34 $1,361.03 10" $2,977.00 $2,976.76 $3,036.30 $3,097.03 $3,158.98 $3,222.16 12" $3,915.20 $3,914.61 $3,992.91 $4,072.77 $4,154.23 $4,237.32 Water Usage Rate ($/ccf)
Building Water Usage
Tier 1 $1.46 $1.57 $1.61 $1.65 $1.69 $1.73
Tier 2 $1.78 $1.86 $1.90 $1.94 $1.98 $2.02
Tier 3 $2.69 $2.79 $2.85 $2.91 $2.97 $3.03
2 Year UAC
Recommendations
Rate Model Forecast
Looking Forward 5 Years
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 784 of 1013
POTABLE WATER – ENDING BALANCES
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Millions
Source Acquistion Fund Cash Balance Reserve Target
2 Year UAC
Recommendations
Rate Model Forecast
Looking Forward 5 Years
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 785 of 1013

NON-POTABLE WATER UTILITY
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 786 of 1013

RECOMMENDED NON-POTABLE
WATER RATES*
Revenue Adjustments 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bi-Monthly Rates Current July 2024 July 2025 July 2026 July 2027 July 2028 Non-Potable Water Service Charge ($/meter size)
3/4" $13.81 $13.81 $13.81 $13.81 $13.81 $13.81
1" $20.65 $20.65 $20.65 $20.65 $20.65 $20.65
1 1/2" $37.29 $37.29 $37.29 $37.29 $37.29 $37.29
2" $55.16 $55.16 $55.16 $55.16 $55.16 $55.16
3" $95.50 $95.50 $95.50 $95.50 $95.50 $95.50
4" $147.45 $147.45 $147.45 $147.45 $147.45 $147.45
6" $272.16 $272.16 $272.16 $272.16 $272.16 $272.16
8" $401.04 $401.04 $401.04 $401.04 $401.04 $401.04
Non-Potable Water Usage Rate ($/ccf)
Non-Potable Water $0.99 $0.99 $0.99 $0.99 $0.99 $0.99
Conversion Customer $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 *Only applies to non-potable
water customers
2 Year UAC
Recommendations
Rate Model Forecast
Looking Forward 5 Years
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 787 of 1013
2 Year UAC
Recommendations
Rate Model Forecast
Looking Forward 5 Years
$0
$1
$1
$2
$2
$3
$3
$4
FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Millions
Cash Balance Reserve Target
NON-POTABLE WATER – ENDING BALANCES
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 788 of 1013

REVENUE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY
• Wastewater
• 10% a year for each of next 2 years
• Issuance of $45MM in debt to capital project costs
• Revenue adjustment will cover SRF debt service
• Potable Water
• 2% a year for each of next 2 years
• Will retain Capital Investment needed for continued reliable water delivery service
• Will retain reserve balances at recommended target level • Non-Potable Water
• 0% a year for each of next 2 years
• Retains reserve balances to allow for future expansion of non-potable system
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 789 of 1013

PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY CUSTOMER BI-MONTHLY
IMPACTS (3/4” METER, 40 CCF)

A B C D E F
Bi-Monthly Impacts Proposed
July 2024
Proposed
July 2025
Proposed
July 2026
Proposed
July 2027
Proposed
July 2028
Current Water Bill $121.08 $121.08 $121.08 $121.08 $121.08 Proposed Water Bill $125.86 $128.61 $131.37 $134.15 $136.95 Difference ($) $4.78 $7.53 $10.29 $13.07 $15.87
Current Wastewater Bill $62.43 $62.43 $62.43 $62.43 $62.43 Proposed Wastewater Bill $66.04 $7 2.65 $7 9.92 $87 .92 $94.96 Difference ($) $3.61 $10.22 $17.49 $25.49 $32.53
Current Non-Potable Water Bill $53.41 $53.41 $53.41 $53.41 $53.41 Proposed Non-Potable Water Bill $53.41 $53.41 $53.41 $53.41 $53.41 Difference ($) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Current Water and Wastewater Bill $183.51 $183.51 $183.51 $183.51 $183.51 Proposed Water and Wastewater Bill $191.90 $201.26 $211.29 $222.07 $231.91 Difference ($) $8.39 $17.75 $27.78 $38.56 $48.40
Current Combined Bill $236.92 $236.92 $236.92 $236.92 $236.92 Proposed Combined Bill $245.31 $254.67 $264.7 0 $27 5.48 $285.32 Difference ($) $8.39 $17.75 $27.78 $38.56 $48.40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 790 of 1013
The End
Thank you
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 791 of 1013
Questions ?
Redlands Regular Meeting of 5-7-2024 792 of 1013

CITY OF REDLANDS
The proposed increases are
scheduled to go into effect on
August 5, 2024, and on July
1, 2025
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant as it
stands today.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED ADOPTION OF WATER AND

WASTEWATER UTILITY RATE INCREASES
MAY 2024
The City Council of the City of Redlands is currently considering an increase to its water and wastewater utility rates.

You are receiving this notice because you are a City water and/or wastewater utility customer, or an owner of property receiving water and/or wastewater utility services from the City. This notice describes the proposed rate increases and explains how you may participate in a public hearing and the rate setting process.

On July 2, 2024, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218), a public hearing on the proposed water and wastewater rate increases will be held by the City Council in the Council Chambers, located at 35 Cajon Street, Redlands, CA 92373. The purpose of the hearing is to consider verbal and written testimony, and any written protests, relating to the proposed increases to water

REDLANDS RATE SETTING BACKGROUND
Wastewater rates were last increased in July 2022 and water rates were last increased in July 2018. Periodic rate increases are necessary to (i) ensure that each water and wastewater service customer bears a fair and proportionate share of the costs of providing services (consistent with Proposition 218 legal requirements); (ii) recoup the rising cost of providing services, including operation and maintenance costs, debt service and capital program needs; and (iii) meet financial, regulatory, and service obligations.

Water and wastewater system costs include energy, fuel, and chemical costs; distribution and collection costs; treatment and disposal costs; administrative and customer service account costs, and costs related to facilities replacement, rehabilitation, and upgrades. The City has made significant improvements to its utility infrastructure to ensure continued functionality and reliability, and to meet State and Federal regulatory agency requirements.

The City recently expended more than $14,000,000, and will expend an additional $45,000,000 to upgrade its Wastewater Treatment Plant during the next five years. Additionally, antiquated pipelines have been and will continue to be replaced to avoid leaks, overflows, and related potential regulatory penalties. The City recently completed water utility and wastewater utility master plans that identify necessary capital improvements for the efficient and effective operation of the City’s water and wastewater utility infrastructure.

Redlands City CouncilMay 7, 2024

Redlands City Council
May 7, 2024