coating phase would generate an average of 6.4 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix.
Operational Emissions Modeling
In general, operation of the new reservoir tanks will be passive as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tanks that creates air emissions. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tanks are constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water tank occurs on a monthly and as‐needed basis by City employees, that includes landscaping. No change would occur between the maintenance activities for the existing water tank and proposed reservoir tanks. As such, operation of the proposed project would not create any additional air emissions, over which is currently being created, and no operational air emission modeling was performed.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2012 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
8.0 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
8.1 Regional Air Quality
Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution generators in the Air Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure.
Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes to this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table H.
Table H – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3
Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3
Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2
8.2 Local Air Quality
Project‐related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project‐related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
The LST Methodology provides Look‐Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. As detailed above in Section 6.3, the project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 34, Central San Bernardino Valley. The Look‐Up Tables provided in the LST Methodology include project site acreage sizes of 1‐acre, 2‐acres and 5‐acres. Since the proposed project would disturb up to 6.2 acres, the 5‐acre thresholds were utilized, since it is the closest acreage size available. It should also be noted that no more than 5‐acres would be disturbed in any workday as part of the proposed project.
The nearestsensitive receptor to the projectsite is a single‐family home that islocated as near as 280 feet (85 meters) south of the area that would be disturbed as part of the proposed project. As such, the 50 meter and 100 meter thresholds were interpolated to find the 85 meter thresholds. Table I below shows the LSTs for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2013 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
Table I – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Activity
Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction 356 3,630 59 15
Operation 356 3,630 15 4
Notes:
1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptor is a single‐family home located as near as 280 feet (85 meters)south of the area that would be disturbed.
As such, the 50 meter and 100 meter thresholds were interpolated to find the 85 meter thresholds.
Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for five acres in Air Monitoring Area 34, San Bernardino Valley.
8.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact:
If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or Toxic air contaminants from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater.
In order to determine if the proposed project may have a significant impact related to toxic air contaminants (TACs), the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003, recommends that if the proposed project is anticipated to create TACs through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the source of the TAC and the toxicity of the HAP should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility‐wide health risk assessment (HRA).
8.4 Odor Impacts
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the proposed project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states:
“A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.” If the proposed project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the proposed project would create a significant odor impact.
8.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The City of Redlands Climate Action Plan (Redlands CAP), was adopted on December 5, 2017. The Redlands CAP was prepared pursuant to Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines to be utilized as a tiering document for the General Plan as well as future projects within the City that are consistent with Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2014 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
the General Plan. The Redlands CAP incorporates the guidelines established in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.
The 2017 Scoping Plan was prepared to meet the most current GHG emissions reduction targets set in Executive Order S‐3‐15 and SB 32 that recommends local governments to develop plans to reduce GHG emissions to 6 MTCO2e per capita per year by the year 2030 and 2 MTCO2e per capita per year by the year 2050. Since the Redlands CAP was prepared in coordination with the General Plan that has a horizon year of 2035, the Redlands CAP provides a year 2035 target of 5 MTCO2e per capita per year, which was determined through interpolation of the 2030 and 2035 GHG emissions targets. Since a per capita threshold does not apply to the proposed, the SCAQMD thresholds has been utilized, instead.
In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects.
The GHG emissions analysis for both construction and operation of the proposed project can be found below in Sections 9.6 and 9.7.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2015 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
9.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
9.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality and GHG emissions would occur if the proposed project is determined to:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; Result in other emissions(such asthose leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people;
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
9.2 Air Quality Compliance
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The following section discusses the proposed project’s consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.
SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP.
The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision‐makers determine that the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2016 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.
Criterion 1 ‐ Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short‐term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 8.1 or local thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 8.2. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 8.1. The analysis for long‐term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not exceed the air quality standards.
Therefore, a less than significant long‐term impact would occur and no mitigation would be required.
Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion.
Criterion 2 ‐ Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptionsis determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptionsin the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion isto ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the Connect SoCal and 2019 FTIP. The Connect SoCal is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The Connect SoCal is a long‐range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The 2019 FTIP provides long‐range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California.
Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of Redlands General Plan’s Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP.
The project site is currently designated as Resource Preservation in the General Plan. The proposed reservoirs are an allowed use within this land use designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.
Based on the above, the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.
Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur in relation to implementation of the AQMP.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
9.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non‐Attainment Pollution The proposed project would not 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.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2017 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/Agendas/Environmental‐Justice/cumulative‐impacts‐ working‐group/cumulative‐impacts‐white‐paper.pdf). In this report the AQMD clearly states (Page D‐3):
“…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility‐ wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds(MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts. Projects that exceed the project‐specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project‐specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project‐specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.”
Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project‐ specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project‐related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project‐specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards.
Construction Emissions
The construction activitiesforthe proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of approximately 6.2 acres, building construction of the proposed reservoirs, paving of an onsite driveway and parking spaces, and application of architectural coatings. The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction‐related emissions from the proposed project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 7.1. The maximum daily construction‐related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project are shown below in Table J.
Table J – Construction‐Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Season and Year of Construction VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summer 2024 3.74 36.1 34.4 0.05 8.04 4.26
Winter 2024 1.37 11.9 15.4 0.03 1.03 0.59
Summer 2025 35.8 11.0 15.8 0.03 0.96 0.53
Winter 2025 1.27 11.0 15.1 0.03 0.96 0.53
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 35.8 36.1 34.4 0.05 8.04 4.26 SCQAMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local Thresholds1 ‐‐ 356 3,630 ‐‐ 59 15
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2018 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
Notes:
1 The nearest sensitive receptor is a single‐family home located as near as 280 feet (85 meters) south of the area that would be disturbed. As such, the 50 meter and 100 meter thresholds were interpolated to find the 85 meter thresholds. Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐ up Tables for five acres in Air Monitoring Area 34, San Bernardino Valley.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.
Table J shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant regional or local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.
Operational Emissions
In general, operation of the new reservoir tanks will be passive as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tanks that creates air emissions. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tanks are constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water tank occurs on a monthly and as‐needed basis by City employees, that includes landscaping. No change would occur between the maintenance activities for the existing water tank and proposed reservoir tanks. As such, operation of the proposed project would not create any additional air emissions, over which is currently being created, and no operational air emission modeling was performed. As such, less than significant air quality impacts would occur from operation of the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
9.4 Sensitive Receptors
The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated above in Section 9.3 for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from local criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions.
Construction‐Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts
Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below.
Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction
The local air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed above in Section 9.3 and found that the construction of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds ofsignificance discussed above in Section 8.2. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would create a less than significant construction‐related impact to local air quality and no mitigation would be required.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2019 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to DPM emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70‐year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk‐assessment methodology. Itshould be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30‐year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors (OEHHA, 2015).
Given the relatively limited number of heavy‐duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short‐term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long‐term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off‐road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, due to the limitations in off‐road construction equipment DPM emissions from implementation of Section 2448, a less than significant short‐term TAC impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project from DPM emissions.
As such, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Operations‐Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts
In general, operation of the new reservoir tanks will be passive as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tanks that creates air emissions. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tanks are constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water tank occurs on a monthly and as‐needed basis by City employees, that includes landscaping. No change would occur between the maintenance activities for the existing water tank and proposed reservoir tanks. As such, operation of the proposed project would not create any additional air emissions, over which is currently being created, and no operational air emission modeling was performed. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
9.5 Odor Emissions
The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2020 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor.
Sensory perception hasfour major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population.
The intensity refersto the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below.
Construction‐Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. Standard construction requirements that limit the time of day when construction may occur as well as SCAQMD Rule 1108 that limits VOC content in asphalt and Rule 1113 that limits the VOC content in paints and solvents would minimize odor impacts from construction. As such, the objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site’s boundaries. Through compliance with the applicable regulations that reduce odors and due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required.
Operations‐Related Odor Impacts
The proposed project would consist of the development of two enclosed water reservoirs. Enclosed water reservoirs are not a known source of odors. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur from operation of the proposed project.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact
9.6 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would consist of the development of two water reservoirs. The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from construction activities.
In general, operation of the new reservoir tanks will be passive as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tanks that creates GHG emissions. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tanks are constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water tank occurs on a Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2021 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
monthly and as‐needed basis by City employees, that includes landscaping. No change would occur between the maintenance activities for the existing water tank and proposed reservoir tanks. As such, operation of the proposed project would not create any additional GHG emissions, over which is currently being created, as such no operation‐related GHG emissions would be created from the proposed project.
The project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model based on the construction and operational parameters detailed in Section 7.1 above. A summary of the results is shown below in Table K and the CalEEMod model run annual printouts are provided in Appendix B.
Table K – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
Year of Construction CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2024 233 0.01 0.01 235
2025 174 0.01 <0.01 176
Total Construction Emissions 407 0.02 0.01 411
Amortized Construction Emissions1 (30 years) 13.7
SCAQMD Draft Threshold 3,000
Exceed Threshold? No
Notes:
7 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.
The data provided in Table KError! Reference source not found. above shows that the proposed project’s construction activities would generate a total of 411 MTCO2e. According to the SCAQMD recommended GHG emissions analysis methodology, construction‐related GHG emissions should be amortized over 30 years, which results in the proposed project creating 13.7 MTCO2e per year. According to the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance detailed above in Section 8.5, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on‐going operations would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from development of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
9.7 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The applicable plan for the proposed project is the Redlands CAP that was prepared pursuant to Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines to be utilized as a tiering document for the General Plan as well as future projects within the City that are consistent with the General Plan. Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the proposed project meets the criteria allowed for use of the Redlands CAP for analysis of the proposed project.
In addition, as detailed above in Section 9.6, the proposed project is anticipated to create 13.7 MTCO2e per year, which is well below the SCAQMD threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD developed this threshold in order to meet the State GHG emissions reduction regulations that was based on substantial evidence supporting the use of the recommended thresholds. Therefore, the Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2022 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2023 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
10.0 REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User Guide Version 2022.1, April 2022.
California Air Resources Board, 2017 Off‐Road Diesel Emission Factor Update for NOx and PM, 2017.
California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 16, 2022.
California Air Resources Board, Appendix VII Risk Characterization Scenarios, October 2000.
California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.
California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, October 26, 2022.
California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, May 2014.
California Air Resources Board, Resolution 08‐43, December 12, 2008.
California Air Resources Board, Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act, on October 24, 2008.
California Air Resources Board, Final Staff Report Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets, October 2017.
California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition.
California Building Standards Commission, 2022 California Green Building Standards Code CALGreen, 2022.
California Department of Conservation, A General Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August, 2000.
California Energy Commission, 2022 Reference Appendices for the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, August 2022.
California Natural Resources Agency, 2022 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines, Association of Environmental Professionals, 2022.
City of Redlands, City of Redlands General Plan 2035, Adopted December 5, 2017.
City of Redlands, City of Redlands Green Plan, Adopted December 5, 2017.
Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990‐2020, April 15, 2022.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2024 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June 1, 2007.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2, 2022.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, December, 2012.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March, 2017.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July 2008.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 402 Nuisance, Adopted May 7, 1976.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, Amended June 3, 2005.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108 Cutback Asphalt, Amended February 1, 1985.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108.1 Emulsified Asphalt, Amended November 4, 1983.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, Amended September 6, 2013.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi‐Purpose Solvents, Amended December 3, 2010.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES III, January 2008.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast AQMD Final Report, August 2021.
Southern California Association of Governments, 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), September 3, 2020.
Southern California Association of Governments, 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Guidelines, September 2018.
University of California, Davis, Transportation Project‐Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997.
U.S. Geological Survey, Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California, 2011.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2025 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Redlands
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
CalEEMod Model Printouts
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2026 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
1 / 28
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2027 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
2 / 28
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2028 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
3 / 28
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2029 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
4 / 28
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2030 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
5 / 28
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Sunset Reservoirs
Construction Start Date 5/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 24.0
Location 34.0142921947767, -117.13757366796683
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Redlands
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5390
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.19
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
User Defined
Industrial
6.00 User Defined Unit 5.50 76,027 23,951 — — —
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2031 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
6 / 28
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
1.00 Acre 0.70 0.00 3,049 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 35.8 36.1 34.4 0.05 8.04 4.26 5,556 0.23 0.09 2.93 5,578 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.37 11.9 15.4 0.03 1.03 0.59 3,210 0.15 0.09 0.08 3,241 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.39 5.99 7.24 0.01 0.78 0.41 1,408 0.06 0.03 0.46 1,420 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.44 1.09 1.32 < 0.005 0.14 0.08 233 0.01 0.01 0.08 235 Exceeds (Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2032 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
7 / 28
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.74 36.1 34.4 0.05 8.04 4.26 5,556 0.23 0.09 2.93 5,578 2025 35.8 11.0 15.8 0.03 0.96 0.53 3,232 0.15 0.09 2.75 3,266 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.37 11.9 15.4 0.03 1.03 0.59 3,210 0.15 0.09 0.08 3,241 2025 1.27 11.0 15.1 0.03 0.96 0.53 3,195 0.15 0.09 0.07 3,226 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.67 5.99 7.24 0.01 0.78 0.41 1,408 0.06 0.03 0.46 1,420 2025 2.39 3.73 5.19 0.01 0.32 0.18 1,051 0.05 0.03 0.38 1,061 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.12 1.09 1.32 < 0.005 0.14 0.08 233 0.01 0.01 0.08 235 2025 0.44 0.68 0.95 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 174 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 176
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 1.47 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2033 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
8 / 28
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 5.11 2.63 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 1.10 0.11 7.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.42 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.14 0.07 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.03 0.01 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 1.48 0.00 0.23 0.05 252 0.01 0.01 1.01 256 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 6.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2034 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
9 / 28
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 0.77 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 1.84 0.89 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 1.10 0.11 7.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.42 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 1.00 1.03 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.10 0.05 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.01 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2035 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
10 / 28
— — — — — 0.01 0.02 — — — — Dust From
Material
Movement
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.20 0.05 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.85 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 0.46 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2036 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
11 / 28
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 0.46 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.40 3.78 4.41 0.01 0.17 0.15 807 0.03 0.01 — 810
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.69 0.81 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.15 2.70 0.00 0.42 0.10 460 0.02 0.02 1.84 467 Vendor 0.01 0.45 0.24 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 391 0.03 0.06 1.09 410 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.18 2.04 0.00 0.42 0.10 421 0.02 0.02 0.05 427 Vendor 0.01 0.47 0.24 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 391 0.03 0.06 0.03 409 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.14 0.03 144 0.01 0.01 0.27 146 Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 132 0.01 0.02 0.16 138 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2037 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
12 / 28
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 22.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.33 3.09 3.85 0.01 0.13 0.12 709 0.03 0.01 — 711
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.56 0.70 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 117 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 118 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 2.49 0.00 0.42 0.10 450 0.02 0.02 1.67 457 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2038 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
13 / 28
Vendor 0.01 0.43 0.23 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 384 0.03 0.06 1.08 404 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.15 1.87 0.00 0.42 0.10 413 0.02 0.02 0.04 418 Vendor 0.01 0.45 0.23 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 385 0.03 0.06 0.03 403 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.12 0.03 124 0.01 < 0.005 0.21 125 Vendor < 0.005 0.13 0.07 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 114 0.01 0.02 0.14 119 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.01 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 20.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517
Paving 0.09 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2039 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
14 / 28
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 1.17 0.00 0.20 0.05 211 0.01 0.01 0.78 215 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2040 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
15 / 28
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectural
Coatings
35.7 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architectural
Coatings
1.95 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architectural
Coatings
0.36 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.50 0.00 0.08 0.02 90.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 91.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2041 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
16 / 28
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.65 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2042 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
17 / 28
— — — — — — — — — — — Daily, Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2043 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
18 / 28
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/30/2024 6/13/2024 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 6/14/2024 7/12/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/13/2024 5/31/2025 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 6/1/2025 6/29/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/30/2025 7/28/2025 5.00 20.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2044 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
19 / 28
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 3.00 0.25 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2045 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
20 / 28
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 3.00 0.25 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 31.9 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 12.5 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.39 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 114,041 38,014 1,830
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2046 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
21 / 28
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 20.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.70 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2047 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
22 / 28
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 25.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 8.54 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2048 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
23 / 28
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2049 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
24 / 28
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 100
AQ-PM 53.5
AQ-DPM 54.7
Drinking Water 76.3
Lead Risk Housing 26.9
Pesticides 55.5
Toxic Releases 44.7
Traffic 69.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 58.2
Groundwater 59.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.4
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2050 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
25 / 28
Impaired Water Bodies 12.5
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 42.5
Cardio-vascular 61.2
Low Birth Weights 44.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 9.73
Housing 2.13
Linguistic 0.51
Poverty 11.9
Unemployment 55.0
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 93.44283331
Employed 55.33170794
Median HI 93.45566534
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 89.16976774
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 88.91312717
Transportation —
Auto Access 76.73553189
Active commuting 3.131015013
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2051 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
26 / 28
Social —
2-parent households 90.78660336
Voting 88.10470935
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 87.29629154
Park access 34.23585269
Retail density 13.05017323
Supermarket access 10.39394328
Tree canopy 80.90594123
Housing —
Homeownership 94.91851662
Housing habitability 96.04773515
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 89.38791223 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 78.59617606
Uncrowded housing 87.19363531
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 98.08802772
Arthritis 8.6
Asthma ER Admissions 59.1
High Blood Pressure 10.7
Cancer (excluding skin) 3.4
Asthma 76.7
Coronary Heart Disease 19.3
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 56.7
Diagnosed Diabetes 67.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 81.9
Cognitively Disabled 72.6
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2052 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
27 / 28
Physically Disabled 68.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 18.3
Mental Health Not Good 93.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 45.1
Obesity 81.6
Pedestrian Injuries 66.4
Physical Health Not Good 81.0
Stroke 51.7
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 60.3
Current Smoker 95.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 93.5
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 39.5
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 53.3
Elderly 10.6
English Speaking 89.1
Foreign-born 11.7
Outdoor Workers 59.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 91.1
Traffic Density 67.1
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 16.4
Other Decision Support—
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2053 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Detailed Report, 10/1/2023
28 / 28
2016 Voting 97.8
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 43.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 91.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total disturbed area 6.2 acres. Approx 0.7 acre will be paved and 10% of area will be landscaped.
Construction: Construction Phases No Demolition
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2054 of 2362
APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE ASSESSMENT
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2055 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
1 September 21, 2023
3151 Airway Ave., Suite F-208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
City of Redlands
Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department
Subject: Biological Reconnaissance Assessment for Report regarding the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) was retained by the City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department to conduct a literature review and biological reconnaissance-level survey for the Sunset Reservoir Project (Project). The purpose of this survey was to document existing vegetation communities, identify special status species with a potential for occurrence, map habitats that could support special status wildlife species, and evaluate potential impacts of the Project to these resources.
Project Site Location and Description
The City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department proposes the construction of two new reservoir tanks to improve drought resiliency by increasing storage capacity. Based on the water needs of the City, the Project proposes to install two new above ground factory-coated bolt carbon steel tank with an approximately 14 million gallon (MG) total capacity
The 21.91-acre Project site is located south of Helen Drive, in Redlands, San Bernardino County, California within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 0300-451-13, 14, 24, and 25. The existing reservoir is located west of Helen Court.
The site is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Redlands, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The proposed temporary reservoir will be located east of the existing reservoir. Both the existing reservoir and the proposed Project site are within City property. The reservoirs will be located within APN 0300-451-25 and 0300- 451-14, consisting of approximately 10.28 acres. The elevational range of the Project site is between 2,100 to 2,300 feet above mean sea level (amsl). A map of the Project location and Project vicinity is provided in Attachment 1: Figure
1. Literature Review
Prior to performing the biological reconnaissance survey, a literature review was conducted for soils, jurisdictional water features that contribute to hydrology, and special status species known to occur within the Project’s vicinity (approximately 5 miles).
Soils
Prior to performing the biological reconnaissance survey, soil maps for the Project site were referenced in accordance with categories set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2023) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023).
Hydrology
Prior to performing the field survey, a database review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS 2023) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and National Hydrography Database (NHD) blueline drainages was referenced (NHD 2023).
A general assessment of waters potentially regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was conducted for the Project siteProject site. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The State of California (State) regulates discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2056 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
2 Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake which supports fish or wildlife. A desktop assessment was conducted of available data prior to the biological reconnaissance survey in the field.
Special Status Habitats and Species
The most recent records of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by CDFW (2023) and the California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2023) were reviewed for the following USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the Project:
Yucaipa, San Bernardino South, Redlands, Harrison Mtn., San Bernardino North, Keller Peak, Sunnymead, El Casco, and Riverside East. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federally or State-listed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Special Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status species or habitats that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site (Attachment 1: Figure 2 – CNDDB Occurrences Map).
Biological Reconnaissance Survey
The biological reconnaissance survey was conducted on foot within the Project site. During the survey, the biologists identified and mapped all vegetation communities found within the site onto aerial photographs (Attachment 1: Figure 3 – Vegetation Communities Map). Plant communities were determined in accordance with the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). Plant and wildlife species observed or detected within the Project site were recorded (Attachments 2 and 3). Site photographs were taken depicting current site conditions (Attachment 4).
Results
Chambers Group biologists Heather Franklin and Jessica Calvillo conducted the biological reconnaissance survey within the Project site to identify vegetation communities, the potential for occurrence of special status species, and/or habitats that could support special status wildlife species. The survey was conducted on foot between 0830 and 1530 hours on July 31, 2023. Weather conditions during the survey included temperatures ranging from 80 to 92 degrees Fahrenheit, wind speeds between 1 and 3 miles per hour, with 60 percent cloud cover and 0 percent precipitation.
Biological Site Conditions
Soils
According to the results from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023), the Project site is in the San Bernardino County Southwestern Part CA677 of the soil map. Two soil types are known to occur within and/or adjacent to the site.
The soil types are described below (Attachment 1: Figure 4 – Soils Map).
Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded occurs within a small northern section of the Project site. The parent material is alluvium derived from granite. The soil profile is sandy loam at the H1 layer (0 to 23 inches), loam at the H2 layer (23 to 32 inches), clay loam at the H3 layer (32 to 54 inches), and sandy loam at the H4 layer (54 to 60 inches). The available water storage is classified as moderate (approximately 7.9 inches) with a depth to the water table of more than 80 inches (USDA 2023).
Saugus sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes occurs within the majority of the Project site. The parent material is Residuum weathered from sedimentary rock. The soil profile is sandy loam at the H1 layer (0 to 8 inches), loam at the H2 layer (8 to 40 inches), and weathered bedrock at the H3 layer (40 to 44 inches). The available water storage is classified as moderate (approximately 6.0 inches) with a depth to the water table of more than 80 inches (USDA 2023).
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2057 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
3 Hydrology
The Project is located within the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC 10] 1807020304) (USDA 2023) in San Bernardino County, California. The Upper Santa Ana River Watershed is bound to the north and east by mountains and southwest by the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Ana River is the major water source for the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed. The headwaters of the Santa Ana River are located in the San Bernardino Mountains. These waters ultimately end in the Pacific Ocean, a Traditional Navigable Water. Mill Creek, City Creek, San Timoteo Creek are all tributaries to the Santa Ana River Watershed. Lytle Creek is the largest tributary that feeds in from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north down through Riverside County.
No jurisdictional features such as drainages or swales were observed within the Project site (Attachment 1: Figure 5 – Jurisdictional Waters Map) during the survey. Three large NWI blue-line features and several additional NHD tributaries are shown to occur directly east, south, and west of the site outside of the Project boundary. These features are historically mapped by the NWI/NHD as riverine systems flowing away from the Project site. One NHD ephemeral feature is shown to flow west to east through the Project site and appears to connect to the mapped NWI blue-line feature just east of the Project boundary. However, during the survey, no defined channelization or bank to bank was observed in the area of the NHD feature. No bed and bank features were identified within the Project site. Work is anticipated to occur on the top of the slope near the existing water tank and no impacts are anticipated to occur outside of the Project boundary or to the NWI drainage features; therefore, with the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as installation of silt fencing and/or weed free straw waddles to prevent sediment from traveling downhill, no impacts to waters of the United States or waters of the State are anticipated to occur as a result of this Project.
Vegetation Communities and Other Areas
Four native vegetation communities, California Buckwheat Scrub, Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub, Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, and Disturbed Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, and three other areas, Bare Ground, Developed, and Ruderal were found within the Project site during the biological reconnaissance survey. The majority of the Project site is comprised of Disturbed Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral. The communities are described in the following subsections.
California Buckwheat Scrub
California Buckwheat Scrub is found in upland slopes, intermittently flooded arroyos, channels and washes, and rarely flooded low-gradient deposits. Soils are coarse, well drained, and moderately acidic to slightly saline (Sawyer et al. 2009). Stands do well on rocky sites and in shallow soils, and they establish after disturbance by fire or flood or after heavy grazing. In southern coastal California, this alliance is usually one of the first of the coastal scrubs to establish in mechanically disturbed areas such as road cuts or slope failures, and it persists in areas with light to moderate grazing (Sawyer et al. 2009). In this vegetation community, California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) or yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei) is dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy in cismontane stands with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), brittlebush sunflower (Encelia californica), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), white sage (Salvia apiana), or black sage (Salvia mellifera). The herbaceous layer is variable and may be grassy (Sawyer et al. 2009).
Areas with California Buckwheat Scrub vegetation are present within 0.61 acre of the Project site within several small pockets on site. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included: California buckwheat, California sagebrush, deerweed, black sage, twiggy wreathplant (Stephanomeria virgata), sand-aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), and slender sunflower (Helianthus gracilentus) with occasional scattered chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and hoary leaf ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius) also present. Non-native species Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2058 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
4 included: shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), wild oat (Avena fatua), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis subsp. madritensis), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus).
Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub
A disturbed form of California Buckwheat Scrub is present within 1.04 acres of the Project site within several small pockets adjacent to undisturbed California Buckwheat Scrub. Disturbed areas have a high percentage of non-native weedy species (i.e., greater than 25 percent of the species cover). Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included: California buckwheat, California sagebrush, deerweed, black sage, twiggy wreathplant, sand-aster, and slender sunflower with a 25 percent cover of non-native species including shortpod mustard, tocalote, wild oat, foxtail chess, and Russian thistle.
Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral
Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral can be found on slopes, often south-facing with soils that are typically shallow and rocky (Sawyer et al. 2009). Hoary leaf ceanothus is dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with chamise, big berry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca), chaparral whitethorn (Ceanothus leucodermis), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), sticky monkeyflower, California buckwheat, chaparral yucca, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), chaparral beard tongue (Keckiella antirrhinoides), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), sugarbush (Rhus ovata) and black sage. Membership rules state that both hoary leaf ceanothus and chamise have a 30 to 60 percent relative cover in the shrub canopy (Sawyer et al. 2009). Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The shrub canopy is typically less than 11 feet and is intermittent to continuous with an herbaceous layer that is open (Sawyer et al. 2009).
Areas with Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral vegetation are present within 3.79 acres of the Project site along the slopes.
Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included: hoary leaf ceanothus, chaparral whitethorn, chamise, California buckwheat, black sage, scrub oak, skunk bush (Rhus aromatica), sacapellote (Acourtia microcephala), southern honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata), and spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea). Nonnative species included: shortpod mustard, tocalote, wild oat, foxtail chess, and Russian thistle.
Disturbed Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral
A disturbed form of Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral is present within 7.94 acres of sloping areas of the Project site.
Disturbed areas are those areas that have a high percentage of non-native weedy species (i.e., greater than 25 percent of the species cover). Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included:
hoary leaf ceanothus, chaparral whitethorn, chamise, California buckwheat, black sage, scrub oak, skunk bush, sacapellote, southern honeysuckle, and spiny redberry with approximately 25 percent cover of non-native species including shortpod mustard, tocalote, wild oat, foxtail chess, and Russian thistle.
Other Areas
Developed
Developed areas are areas that have been altered by humans and now display man-made structures such as houses, paved roads, buildings, parks, and other maintained areas.
Developed areas are present within the Project site along an eroding asphalt path that cuts through the center of the Project site. There are 0.23 acre of Developed areas on the Project Site. These areas were devoid of vegetation.
Bare Ground
Bare Ground areas are generally devoid of vegetation, but do not contain any form of pavement or other developed structures. Bare Ground has higher water permeability. Areas with Bare Ground are found within 1.46 acres of the Project site bordering the southern portions of the site and adjacent to the existing water tower outside of the Project Site.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2059 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
5 Ruderal
Areas classified as Ruderal tend to be dominated by pioneering herbaceous species that readily colonize disturbed ground and that are typically found in temporary, often frequently disturbed habitats (Barbour et al. 1999). The soils in ruderal areas are typically characterized as heavily-compacted or frequently-disturbed. The vegetation in these areas is adapted to living in compact soils where water does not readily penetrate the soil. Often, Ruderal areas are dominated by species of the Centaurea, Brassica, Malva, Salsola, Eremocarpus, Amaranthus, and Atriplex genera.
Areas with Ruderal vegetation were present within the Project site along the slopes and bordering Bare Ground areas.
Ruderal plant species found on the Project site included: shortpod mustard, tocalote, wild oat, foxtail chess, and Russian thistle. Scattered native species present in low abundance included twiggy wreathplant, sand-aster, and slender sunflower. There are 6.84 acres of Ruderal vegetation on the Project site.
General Plants
A total of 23 plant species were observed within the Project site during the biological reconnaissance survey (Attachment 2: Plant Species Observed). Plant species observed during the survey were representative of the existing Project site conditions. No special status plant species were observed during the survey.
General Wildlife
A total of 16 wildlife species were observed within the Project site during the biological reconnaissance survey. Wildlife species observed or detected during the survey were characteristic of the existing Project site conditions. A complete list of wildlife species observed or detected is provided in Attachment 3 – Wildlife Species Observed/Detected List.
Special Status Species
The following information is a list of abbreviations used to help determine special status biological resources potentially occurring in the Project site.
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
1A = Plants presumed extinct in California.
1B = Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range. 2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range.
3 = Plants about which we need more information, a review list. 4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.
CRPR Extensions
0.1 = Seriously endangered in California (greater than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat).
0.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened).
0.3 = Not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened).
Federal
FE = Federally listed; Endangered
FT = Federally listed; Threatened
State
ST = State listed; Threatened
SE = State listed; Endangered
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2060 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
6 RARE = State listed; Rare (Listed “Rare” animals have been re-designated as Threatened, but Rare plants have retained the Rare designation.)
SSC = State Species of Special Concern
WL = CDFW Watch List
FP = CDFW Fully Protected
The following information was used to determine biological resources potentially occurring within the Project site. The criteria used to evaluate the potential for special status species to occur within the Project site are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Criteria for Evaluating Special Status Species Potential for Occurrence (PFO) PFO* CRITERIA
Absent: Species is restricted to habitats or environmental conditions that do not occur within the proposed Project site.
Low:
Either historical records for this species do not exist within the vicinity (approximately 5 miles) of the proposed Project site, and/or habitats or environmental conditions needed to support the species are of poor quality, or historical records for this species do exist within the vicinity (approximately 5 miles) of the proposed Project site, and habitats or environmental conditions needed to support the species are of poor quality.
Moderate:
Either a historical record exists of the species within the vicinity of the proposed Project site (approximately 5 miles) and habitat exists on the proposed Project site, or the habitat requirements or environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the proposed Project site, but no historical records exist within 5 miles of the proposed Project site.
High:
Both a historical record exists of the species within the proposed Project site or its immediate vicinity (approximately 1 mile), and the habitat requirements and environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the proposed Project site.
Present: Species was detected within the proposed Project site at the time of the survey. *PFO: Potential for Occurrence
Special Status Plant Species
Database searches (CDFW 2023; CNPS 2023) resulted in a list of 52 federally and/or State-listed threatened, endangered, or otherwise special status plant species documented to historically occur within the vicinity of Project site. Of the 52 plant species, it was determined that 43 plant species are considered Absent, one considered to have Low potential to occur, and 8 are considered to have a Moderate potential to occur within the Project site. No special status plant species were found during the biological reconnaissance survey.
The following 4 plant species are considered Absent from the Project site because the species are presumed extinct (CRPR 1A) in California, have not been observed within 5 miles of the Project site, and all records of historical occurrence are over 43 years old:
• Los Angeles sunflower (Helianthus nuttallii subsp. parishii) – CRPR 1A • Parish's bush-mallow (Malacothamnus parishii) – CRPR 1A • Pringle's monardella (Monardella pringlei) – CRPR 1A
• Parish's gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum var. parishii) – CRPR 1A Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2061 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
7 The following 37 plant species are considered Absent from the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat:
• Mt. Pinos onion (Allium howellii var. clokeyi) – CRPR 1B.3 • Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii) – CRPR 1B.2
• marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) – FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1 • Horn's milk-vetch (Astragalus hornii var. hornii) – CRPR 1B.1 • San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) – FE, CRPR 1B.1 • Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) – CRPR 1B.2 • thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) – FT, SE, CRPR 1B.1 • Palmer's mariposa-lily (Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri) – CRPR 1B.2 • bristly sedge (Carex comosa) – CRPR 2B.1
• ash-gray paintbrush (Castilleja cinerea) – FT, CRPR 1B.2 • San Bernardino Mountains owl's-clover (Castilleja lasiorhyncha) – CRPR 1B.2 • smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens subsp. laevis) – CRPR 1B.1 • salt marsh bird's-beak (Chloropyron maritimum subsp. maritimum) - FE, SE, CRPR 1B.2 • white-bracted spineflower (Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca) – CRPR 1B.2 • Peruvian dodder (Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa) – CRPR 2B.2 • San Bernardino Mountains monkeyflower (Erythranthe exigua) – CRPR 1B.2 • hot springs fimbristylis (Fimbristylis thermalis) – CRPR 2B.2 • Alvin Meadow bedstraw (Galium californicum subsp. primum) – CRPR 1B.2 • Parish's alumroot (Heuchera parishii) – CRPR 1B.3
• California satintail (Imperata brevifolia) – CRPR 2B.1 • silver-haired ivesia (Ivesia argyrocoma var. argyrocoma) – CRPR 1B.2 • Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata subsp. coulteri) – CRPR 1B.1 • lemon lily (Lilium parryi) – CRPR 1B.2
• mud nama (Nama stenocarpa) – CRPR 2B.2
• Gambel's water cress (Nasturtium gambelii) – FE, ST, CRPR 1B.1 • San Bernardino ragwort (Packera bernardina) – CRPR 1B.2 • Sonoran maiden fern (Pelazoneuron puberulum var. sonorense) – CRPR 2B.2 • Parish's yampah (Perideridia parishii subsp. parishii) – CRPR 2B.2 • black bog-rush (Schoenus nigricans) – CRPR 2B.2
• Parish's checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii subsp. parishii) – CR, CRPR 1B.2 • Bear Valley checkerbloom (Sidalcea malviflora subsp. dolosa) – CRPR 1B.2 • salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana) – CRPR 2B.2 • bird-foot checkerbloom (Sidalcea pedata) – FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1 • prairie wedge grass (Sphenopholis obtusata) – CRPR 2B.2 • southern jewelflower (Streptanthus campestris) – CRPR 1B.3 • San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) – CRPR 1B.2 • Wright's trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii) – CRPR 2B.1 The following two plant species are considered Absent because their size and stature would have made them conspicuous during the reconnaissance-level survey and they were not observed within the Project site. • Parish's desert-thorn (Lycium parishii) – CRPR 2B.3
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2062 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
8 • Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii) – FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1 The following plant species is considered to have a Low potential for occurrence within the Project site as historical records of this species known to occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project site (approximately 5 miles) are more than 20 years old, but habitats or environmental conditions needed to support the species are present. • slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) – FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1 The following 6 plant species are considered to have a Moderate potential for occurrence within the proposed Project site because the habitat requirements or environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Project site, but no historical records exist within 5 miles of the Project site. chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) – CRPR 1B.1 Chaparral sand-verbena is a CRPR 1B.1 species. This perennial herb is in the Nyctaginaceae family and blooms from March to September and sometimes blooms as early as January. It is typically found in sandy soils within chaparral, coastal scrub, and desert dune habitats at elevations between 245 and 5,250 feet amsl. The known range includes Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties.
Chaparral sand-verbena is potentially threatened by non-native plants, alteration of fire regimes, road maintenance, flood control activities, vehicles, and development. The survey was conducted within the flowering period of this species when it would have been identifiable; however, due to the species’ small stature and the Project’s size and topography it was not observed within the scope of the reconnaissancelevel survey. No historical records of this species have been found within 5 miles of this site, but appropriate chaparral and coastal scrub habitat with sandy soil is present on the Project site. Therefore, there is a Moderate potential for this species to occur within the Project site.
Jaeger's milk-vetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri) – CRPR 1B.1 Jaeger's milk-vetch is a CRPR 1B.1 species. This perennial shrub is in the Fabaceae family and blooms from December to June. It is typically found in soils that are sometimes rocky or sandy within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations between 1,200 and 3,200 feet amsl. The known range includes Riverside and San Diego counties. Jaeger's milk-vetch is potentially threatened by urbanization, vehicles, road maintenance, and agriculture. The survey was conducted outside the flowering period of this species. No historical records of this species have been found within 5 miles of this site but appropriate chaparral and coastal scrub habitat with sandy soil is present on the Project site. Therefore, there is a Moderate potential for this species to occur within the Project site. mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) – CRPR 1B.1 Mesa horkelia is a CRPR 1B.2 species. This perennial herb is in the Rosaceae family and blooms from February to September. It is typically found in sandy or gravelly soils, within maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats at elevations between 230 and 2,657 feet amsl. The known range includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura counties. Further study is required to confirm status of occurrences and for true species representation. Mesa horkelia is potentially threatened by habitat conversion. The survey was conducted within the flowering period of this species when it would have been identifiable; however, due to the species’ small stature and the Project’s size and topography it was not observed within the scope of the reconnaissance-level survey. No historical records of this species have been found within 5 miles of this site but appropriate chaparral and coastal scrub habitat with sandy soil is present on the Project site. Therefore, there is a Moderate potential for this species to occur within the Project site.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2063 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
9 Hall's monardella (Monardella macrantha subsp. hallii) – CRPR 1B.3 Hall's monardella is a CRPR 1B.3 species. This perennial rhizomatous herb is in the Lamiaceae family and blooms from June to October. It is typically found in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations between 2,395 and 7,200 feet amsl. The known range includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. Hall's monardella is threatened by road maintenance and recreational activities. The survey was conducted within the flowering period of this species when it would have been identifiable; however, due to the species’ small stature and the Project’s size and topography it was not observed within the scope of the reconnaissance-level survey. No historical records of this species have been found within 5 miles of this site, but appropriate chaparral habitat is present on the Project site.
Therefore, there is a Moderate potential for this species to occur within the Project site.
Brand's star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) – CRPR 1B.1
Brand’s star phacelia is a CRPR 1B.1 species. This annual herb is in the Hydrophyllaceae family and blooms from March and June. It is typically found on coastal dunes and coastal scrub habitat at elevations between 5 and 1,310 feet amsl. The known range includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. Brand’s star phacelia is potentially threatened by development, foot traffic/trampling, and non-native plant impacts (CNPS 2023). The survey was conducted outside the flowering period of this species. No historical records of this species have been found within 5 miles of this site, but appropriate coastal scrub habitat is present on the Project site. Therefore, there is a Moderate potential for this species to occur within the Project site.
chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) – CRPR 2B.2
Chaparral ragwort is a CRPR 2.2 species. It is an annual herb in the Asteraceae family that blooms between January and April. This species occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub in soils that are sometimes alkaline at elevations between 50 and 2,600 feet amsl. The known range of this species exists in Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Solano, and Ventura counties; and on Santa Catalina Island; Santa Cruz Island; Santa Rosa Island; and Baja California. The survey was conducted outside the flowering period of this species. No historical records of this species have been found within 5 miles of this site, but appropriate chaparral and coastal scrub habitat is present on the Project site. Therefore, there is a Moderate potential for this species to occur within the Project site.
The following 2 plant species are considered to have a Moderate potential for occurrence within the Project site because historical records (within the past 20 years) exist for the species within the vicinity (approximately 5 miles) of the proposed Project site and habitat exists on the Project site.
Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) – CRPR 1B.1 Parry’s spineflower is a CRPR 1B.1 species. This annual herb is in the Polygonaceae family and blooms from April to June in sandy to gravelly open areas of chaparral and coastal scrub at elevations between 130 to 6,000 feet amsl. Known ranges include Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Habitat for Parry’s spineflower is rapidly declining due to urbanization and may already be extirpated in Los Angeles County. This species has been previously confused with prostrate spineflower (Chorizanthe procumbens) and is often misidentified as this plant. The survey was conducted outside the flowering period of this species. Most recent historical records indicate an extant population has been observed 5 years ago within
4.78 miles of the Project site “approximately 0.75 air mile [northeast] of the junction of Opal Ave with San Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2064 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
10 Bernardino Ave., Redlands” (CDFW 2023). Therefore, there is a Moderate potential for this species to occur within the Project site.
Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium subsp. sanctorum) – FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1 Santa Ana River woollystar is a CRPR 1B.1 species. This annual herb is in the Polemoniaceae family and blooms from April to September in sometimes sandy to sometimes gravelly chaparral and alluvial fans within coastal scrub at elevations between 300 to 2,000 feet amsl. Known ranges include Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. This species is threatened by development, vehicles, foot traffic, sand and gravel mining, hydrological alterations, illegal dumping, road construction, flood control projects, and nonnative plants. The survey was conducted within the flowering period of this species when it would have been identifiable; however due to the species’ small stature and the Project’s size and topography it was not observed within the scope of the reconnaissance-level survey. However, appropriate sandy chaparral habitat occurs within the Project site. Most recent historical records indicate an extant population has been observed 9 years ago within 4.75 miles of the Project site and that “2 plants [were] observed in 2014; 1 flowering and one dormant/dead” (CDFW 2023). Therefore, there is a Moderate potential for this species to occur within the Project site.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Database searches (CDFW 2023; USFWS 2023) resulted in a list of 47 federally and/or State listed endangered or threatened, State SSC, or otherwise special status wildlife species documented to occur within the Project site. After a literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types within the Project site, it was determined that 43 special status wildlife species are considered absent and four species have a low potential to occur within the site.
The following 43 wildlife species are considered Absent from the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat present within the site, lack of riparian habitat within the vicinity of the site, or no known occurrences within the last 25 years:
• American badger (Taxidea taxus) – SSC
• arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii) – SSC
• bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)—SE
• burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – SSC
• California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus)—ST • California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) – FT, SSC • coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) – SSC
• coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)—FT, SSC • Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis)—FE • least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) – FE, SE
• lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae) – SSC • Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) – SSC • loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) – SSC
• northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) – SSC • pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) – SSC
• pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) – SSC • quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas Editha quino)—FE • red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) – SSC
• Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) – FE • San Bernardino flying squirrel (Glaucomys oregonensis californicus) – SSC Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2065 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
11 • San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)—FE, SSC • Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 8) – SSC • Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae)—FT
• San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbotti) – SSC • San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) – SSC • California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) – SSC • southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona) – SSC • southern mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) – FE, SE • southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica) – ST
• southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) – FE, SE • steelhead-Southern California DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.10)—FE • Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi)—FT, ST
• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)—ST
• tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)—ST
• two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii) – SSC • western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) – SSC • western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) – SSC
• western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) – SSC
• western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) – SSC
• western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentails)—FT, SE • white-eared pocket mouse (Perognathus alticola alticola) – SSC • yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) – SSC
• yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) – SSC
The analysis of the CNDDB search and field survey resulted in four species with a low potential to occur directly adjacent to the Project site.
• coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) – SSC • coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) – SSC orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) SSC • southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) – SSC United States Fish Wildlife Service Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat is defined as areas of land, water, and air space containing the physical and biological features essential for the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species. Designated Critical Habitat includes sites for breeding and rearing, movement or migration, feeding, roosting, cover, and shelter. Designated Critical Habitats require special management and protection of existing resources, including water quality and quantity, host animals and plants, food availability, pollinators, sunlight, and specific soil types. Designated Critical Habitat delineates all suitable habitat, occupied or not, that is essential to the survival and recovery of the species. According to the USFWS Critical Habitat WebGIS map, the Project site does not fall within Designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2023). Critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher occurs approximately 1.85 miles west of the Project site; however, the Project site lacks any riparian habitat or water sources required by this species and therefore, this species is not anticipated to occur with the site.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2066 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
12 Special Status Communities
Five special status communities, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Southern Willow Scrub were found within 5 miles of the proposed Project site but were not present on or adjacent the proposed Project site.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Hydrology
No USFWS NWI features are present within the Project site. One NHD ephemeral feature is shown to historically flow through the Project site; however, based on the results of the field survey, no defined channelization or bank to bank was observed in the area of the NHD feature and it appears this area just facilitates nuisance flow during rain events and becomes sheet flow at the bottom of the hill and does not appear to connect to any other features downstream.
In addition, Project impacts are proposed to occur on the top of the hill near the existing water tower and no work is anticipated to occur along the hillsides. Therefore, no impacts to jurisdictional waters are anticipated to occur as a result of Project activities. In order to minimize temporary impacts along the surrounding hillsides, BMP’s including silt fencing and straw waddle are recommended throughout construction activities.
Special Status Plant Species
Following the literature review and after the reconnaissance level field assessment of the various habitat types in the Project site, it was determined that of the 52 special status plant species that have been observed within one of the surrounding quadrangles of the site, 43 are considered Absent, one is considered to have a Low potential for occurrence, and eight are considered to have a Moderate potential to occur within the Project site. No special status plant species were found during the biological reconnaissance survey. Focused protocol-level plant surveys are recommended in order to determine if the one Low or eight Moderate species with a potential to occur are present on the Project site. Surveys should be conducted during June in order to ensure all species are surveyed during the blooming period.
Special Status Communities
Five special status communities, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Southern Willow Scrub were found within 5 miles of the proposed Project site but were not present on the proposed Project site.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Following the literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types within the Project site, it was determined that 43 of 47 special status wildlife species known to occur within the Project site are considered absent due to a lack of suitable habitat for these species. Four species, coastal patch-nosed snake, coastal whiptail, orangethroated whiptail, and southern California legless lizard have been observed within two miles of the site; however, the Project site lacks contains only marginal quality habitat and is not adjacent to any riparian areas, which is often associated with these species. Therefore, these species have a low potential to occur within the Project site and no impacts are anticipated to occur to these species as a result of Project activities. Coastal California gnatcatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo have been recorded within two miles of the site; however, the Project site is composed of low to moderate quality habitat for California gnatcatcher and lacks any riparian habitat required by yellow-billed cuckoo.
Therefore, these species are not anticipated to occur within the site. No sensitive wildlife species were observed during the field survey.
To minimize potential impacts to nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), construction activities should take place outside nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to the greatest extent practicable.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2067 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
13 If construction activities occur during nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be conducted prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities. To the maximum extent practicable, a minimum buffer zone around occupied nests should be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid impacts to the active nest. The buffer should be maintained during physical ground-disturbing activities. Once nesting has ceased and the nestlings has fledged, the buffer may be removed.
Please contact me at (949) 261-5414 or [email protected] if you have any questions or concerns regarding this report.
Sincerely,
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
Heather Franklin
Senior Biologist
[email protected]
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2068 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
14 Attachments
Attachment 1: Figure 1 – Project Location and Vicinity Map Figure 2 – CNDDB Occurrences Map
Figure 3 – Vegetation Communities Map
Figure 4 – Soils Map
Figure 5 – Jurisdictional Waters Map
Attachment 2: Plant Species Observed
Attachment 3: Wildlife Species Observed
Attachment 4: Site Photographs
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2069 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment the Sunset
Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project
City of Redlands
15 References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors) 2012 The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz. 1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2023 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind Version 3.1.0. Database Query for the Yucaipa, San Bernardino South, Redlands, Harrison Mtn., San Bernardino North, Keller Peak, Sunnymead, El Casco, Riverside East, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Accessed March 2023.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
2023 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Accessed March 2023 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory for the Yucaipa, San Bernardino South, Redlands, Harrison Mtn., San Bernardino North, Keller Peak, Sunnymead, El Casco, Riverside East, California USGS
7.5-minute quadrangles.
National Hydrology Dataset (NHD)
2023 U.S. Department of Interior, United States Geological Survey (USGS). Official NHD Accessed August 2023 from National Hydrography Dataset | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov).
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens
2009 A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2023 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions Accessed March 2023 from https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS)
2023 Endangered Species Database. Accessed March 2023.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2070 of 2362
ATTACHMENT 1 – FIGURES
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2071 of 2362
HELEN DR
BRUDER
LN
H
ELEN CT
KRISTIN CT
San
Bernardino
Kern
Ventura
Riverside
Orange
Imperial
Los Angeles
San Diego
1:24,000 1:5,000,000
Figure 1
Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
Project Location and Vicinity
Name: 21413 BIO Fig 1 Project Location and Vicinity.Mxd Print Date: 8/7/2023 9:34:27 AM Author: pcarlos
0 75 150 300
Feet
´
Project Location
^_
Project Location
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2072 of 2362
1 mi
3 mi
5 mi
22 23
14 13
18 4
1 20
20 10
30 26 11
7 16
31 30
2 10
9 2
4 14
18 18 18
18 18 18
18 18
18 18 18 18 18
18 18
18 18
14 18
15 14
25 10
27 25
18 33
33 33
33 33
33 33
33 33
18 22
15 23 23 23
23 23
15 25
8 25
22 23
23 23
14 22
22 7
22 19 19 19
29 19
19 23
25 21
3 29
23 22
23 15
15 29
23 23
22 19
15 5
19 19
29 19
15 40
44 38
44 45
36 39
38 41
39 38 42
49 47
37 46
50 37
37 37
49 49
48 38 18 18 18 18
18 24
24 18
10 10 10
4 4
4 4
18 18
10 10
10 18
18 18
24 10
10 10
18 10
10 10
10 18
10 10
10 10
18 18
4 18
18 18
18 18
18 18
18 18
18 24
34 18
10 25
18 18
18 18
18 18
18 10
Figure 2
Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
CNDDB Occurrences
Name: 21413 BIO Fig 2 CNDDB and USFWS Occurrences.Mxd
Print Date: 9/25/2023 2:00:49 PM Author: pcarlos
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
´
Project Location
USFWS Occurrences
CNDDB Occurrences
Animals
Plants
Animals 16. pallid bat 32. w hite-tailed kite 47. Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
1. American badger 17. red-diamond rattlesnake 33. yellow w arbler 48. Southern Riparian Forest
2. coast horned lizard 18. San Bernardino kangaroo rat 34. yellow -billed cuckoo 49. Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
3. coast patch-nosed snake 19. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit 35. yellow -breasted chat 50. Southern Willow Scrub
4. coastal California gnatcatcher 20. San Diego desert w oodrat Plants
5. coastal w hiptail 21. Santa Ana speckled dace 36. California satintail
6. Cooper's haw k 22. Southern California legless lizard 37. Nevin's barberry
7. Crotch bumble bee 23. southern California rufous-crow ned sparrow 38. Parry's spineflow er
8. ferruginous haw k 24. southw estern w illow flycatcher 39. Plummer's mariposa-lily
9. golden eagle 25. Stephens' kangaroo rat 40. Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
10. least Bell's vireo 26. Sw ainson's haw k 41. Robinson's pepper-grass
11. lesser long-nosed bat 27. tricolored blackbird 42. salt spring checkerbloom
12. loggerhead shrike 28. w estern pond turtle 43. San Bernardino aster
13. Los Angeles pocket mouse 29. w estern spadefoot 44. Santa Ana River w oollystar
14. northw estern San Diego pocket mouse 30. w estern yellow bat 45. slender-horned spineflow er
15. orange-throated w hiptail 31. w hite cuckoo bee 46. smooth tarplant Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2073 of 2362
HELEN DR
HELEN CT
BRUDER LN
KRISTIN CT
Figure 3
Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
Vegetation Communities
Name: 21413 BIO Fig 3 Vegetation Communities.Mxd
Print Date: 8/8/2023 9:06:07 AM Author: pcarlos
0 60 120 240
Feet
´
Project Location
Vegetation Communities
Hoary Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral
Disturbed Hoary Leaf Ceanothus
Chaparral
California Buckwheat Scrub
Disturbed California Buckwheat
Scrub
Ruderal
Bare Ground
Developed
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2074 of 2362
HaD
HaD
RmC
RmD Cr Cr Cr
SgF2
HaD
HaC
RmD
RmC
RmC
ScC
ScC
HaC
HaC
HaD
HaD
HaC
ScC
ScC
RmE2
ShF
ShF
Figure 4
Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
Soils
Name: 21413 BIO Fig 4 Soils.Mxd
Print Date: 9/25/2023 1:17:57 PM Author: pcarlos
0 300 600 1,200
Feet
´
Project Location
Soils
Cr - Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex, 30
to 50 percent slopes, MLRA 20
HaC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
HaD - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 9 to
15 percent slopes
RmC - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes, MLRA 19
RmD - Ramona sandy loam, 9 to 15
percent slopes
RmE2 - Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 30
percent slopes, eroded
ScC - San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 2 to
9 percent slopes
SgF2 - San Timoteo loam, 30 to 50
percent slopes, eroded
ShF - Saugus sandy loam, 30 to 50
percent slopes
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2075 of 2362
Figure 5
Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
Jurisdictional Waters
Name: 21413 BIO Fig 5 Jurisdictional Waters.Mxd
Print Date: 9/25/2023 2:03:08 PM Author: pcarlos
0 300 600 1,200
Feet ´
Project Location
NHD
Stream/River
NWI
Riverine
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2076 of 2362
ATTACHMENT 2 – PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2077 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment Report for the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21403
ATTACHMENT 2– PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Scientific Name Common Name
ANGIOSPERMS (EUDICOTS)
ADOXACEAE MUSKROOT FAMILY
Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry
ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
Rhus aromatica skunkbrush
Rhus ovata sugar bush
ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Acourtia microcephala sacapellote
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Centaurea melitensis* tocalote
Corethrogyne filaginifolia sand-aster
Helianthus gracilentus slender sunflower
Stephanomeria virgata twiggy wreathplant
BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY
BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
Hirschfeldia incana* shortpod mustard
CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
Lonicera subspicata southern honeysuckle
CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Salsola tragus* Russian thistle
FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY
Acmispon glaber deerweed
FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY
Quercus berberidifolia scrub oak
LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
Salvia mellifera black sage
ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Eulobus californicus California evening primrose
POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY
Ceanothus crassifolius hoary leaf ceanothus
Ceanothus foliosus var. foliosus wavy-leaf-lilac
Rhamnus crocea spiny redberry
ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY
Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise
ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS)
POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2078 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment Report for the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21403
Avena fatua* wild oat
Bromus madritensis subsp. madritensis* foxtail chess
*Non-Native Species, +Ornamental, Unlikely to be Invasive Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2079 of 2362
ATTACHMENT 3 – WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED/DETECTED
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2080 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment Report for the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21413
Attachment 3 – Wildlife Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name
CLASS REPTILIA REPTILES
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE ZEBRA-TAILED, EARLESS, FRINGE-TOED, SPINY,
TREE, SIDE-BLOTCHED, AND HORNED LIZARDS
Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard
Uta stansburiana side-blotched lizard
CLASS AVES BIRDS
CATHARTIDAE NEW WORLD VULTURES
Cathartes aura turkey vulture
ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
ODONTOPHORIDAE NEW WORLD QUAIL
Callipepla californica California quail
COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS & DOVES
Zenaida macroura mourning dove
TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird
CORVIDAE JAYS & CROWS
Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax common raven
AEGITHALIDAE BUSHTITS
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit
TROGLODYTIDAE WRENS
Thryomanes bewickii bewick's wren
SYLVIIDAE OLD WORLD WARBLERS
Chamaea fasciata wrentit
POLIOPTILIDAE GNATCATCHERS
Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher
MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS, THRASHERS
Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher
EMBERIZIDAE EMBERIZIDS
Melospiza melodia song sparrow
Melozone crissalis California towhee
Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee
CARDINALIDAE CARDINALS
Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak
FRINGILLIDAE FINCHES
Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2081 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment Report for the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21413
Scientific Name Common Name
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2082 of 2362
ATTACHMENT 4 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2083 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment Report for the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21403
ATTACHMENT 4 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1
Photo depicting California
Buckwheat Scrub.
Photo 2
Photo depicting California
Buckwheat Scrub and Bare Ground
by the existing water tower just
outside the Project site.
Photo 3
Photo depicting Disturbed
California Buckwheat Scrub.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2084 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment for Report regarding the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21403
Photo 4
Photo depicting Ruderal vegetation
with Hoary Leaf Ceanothus
Chaparral along the slopes.
Photo 5
Photo depicting Ruderal vegetation
with Hoary Leaf Ceanothus
Chaparral along the slopes.
Photo 6
Photo depicting Ruderal vegetation
with Hoary Leaf Ceanothus
Chaparral along the slopes.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2085 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment for Report regarding the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21403
Photo 7
Photo depicting California
Buckwheat Scrub with Ruderal
vegetation along the paved road.
Photo 8
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation.
Photo 9
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2086 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment for Report regarding the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21403
Photo 10
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation.
Photo 11
Photo depicting Ruderal vegetation
and large Bare Ground area at
Southern end of the Project site.
Photo 12
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2087 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment for Report regarding the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21403
Photo 13
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation.
Photo 14
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation.
Photo 15
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2088 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment for Report regarding the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 6
21403
Photo 16
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral, Ruderal
vegetation, with Disturbed
California Buckwheat Scrub in the
foreground.
Photo 17
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation along Helen Dr..
Photo 18
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation along Helen Dr..
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2089 of 2362
Biological Reconnaissance Assessment for Report regarding the Sunset Reservoir Water Storage Tank Project, Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21403
Photo 19
Photo depicting Disturbed Hoary
Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral and
Ruderal vegetation along Helen Dr..
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2090 of 2362
APPENDIX C – CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY and STUDY REPORT Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2091 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
1 September 22, 2023
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123
(21413)
Veronica Medina
City of Redlands
City Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department
35 Cajon Street
Redlands, CA 92373
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project, San Bernardino County, California.
Dear Ms. Medina,
Chambers Group provides this Cultural Resources Letter Report to the City of Redlands(City) in support of the proposed Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project (Project) in San Bernardino County, California. This assessment includes the results of a cultural resources survey of the Project site, and a cultural resources records search and literature review of a surrounding half-mile radius (study area) (Figure 1). The purpose of the study is to gather and analyze information needed to assess the potential for impacts to cultural resources within the Project site.
Project Description and Location
The City, acting as Lead Agency, is proposing to construct two new reservoir tanks adjacent to the existing reservoir tank located on Helen Court, near East Sunset Drive in the City of Redlands. The existing reservoir is located west of Helen Court, to the southwest of the Project site. The proposed two new reservoir tanks will be located to the east of the existing reservoir on parcel 0300-451-25 and 0300-451-14. Further Project description details are available within the associated Environmental Document prepared for the Project.
The Project site is located within City property south of Helen Drive, Redlands, San Bernardino County, California 92373, and consists of an approximately 22-acre tract of generally vacant and undeveloped, densely vegetated land. The Project is located in a residential neighborhood within assessor parcel numbers (APNs): 0300-451-13, 0300-451-14, 0300-451- 24, and 0300-451-25. The Project is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Redlands, California Quadrangle, Township 2 South, Range 2 West, Section 7 (Figure 1). Parcels to the north and northeast of the Project site are developed as residential; land to the south, east, and west are undeveloped aside from the reservoir tank directly to the southwest of the Project site and minimally maintained various access roads.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2092 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
2 Figure 1: Project Location
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2093 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
3 Regulatory Context
As the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency for the Project, the City must determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.1). In addition to State of California (State) and county regulations, projects in the City are also subject to several local regulations relating to cultural resources. Chapter 2 of the City of Redlands’ General Plan pertains specifically to the identification and protection of cultural, historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources within the City. The regulatory framework as it pertains to cultural resources under CEQA is detailed below.
Under the provisions of CEQA, including the CEQA Statutes (PRC §§ 21083.2 and 21084.1), CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 15064.5), and PRC § 5024.1 (Title 14 CCR § 4850 et seq.), properties expected to be directly or indirectly affected by a proposed project must be evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
California Register of Historical Resources
The purpose of the CRHR is to maintain listings of the State’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from material impairment and substantial adverse change. The term historical resources include a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR; a resource included in a local register of historical resources; and any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CCR § 15064.5[a]). The criteria for listing properties in the CRHR were expressly developed in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 1995:2) regards “any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old” as meriting recordation and evaluation.
A cultural resource is considered “historically significant” under CEQA if the resource meets one or more of the criteria for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR was designed to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify existing cultural resources within the State and to indicate which of those resources should be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The following criteria have been established for the CRHR. A resource is considered significant if it:
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; or
4. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be able to convey the reasons for their significance. Such integrity is evaluated in regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Under CEQA, if an archeological site is not a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archeological resource” as defined in PRC § 21083.2, then it should be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. A unique archaeological resource is defined as follows:
An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
• Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; and
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2094 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
4 Resources that neither meet any of these criteria for listing in the CRHR nor qualify as a “unique archaeological resource” under CEQA PRC § 21083.2 are viewed as not significant. Under CEQA, “A non-unique archaeological resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead agency if it so elects” (PRC § 21083.2[h]).
Impacts that adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. Impacts to historical resources from a proposed project are thus considered significant if the project:
1. physically destroys or damages all or part of a resource;
2. changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource, which contributes to its significance; or
3. introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the resource.
Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was enacted in 2015 and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category: tribal cultural resources (TCR). AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency. It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a TCR, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) define TCRs as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” which meet either of the following criteria:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
• 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 PRC Section 5024.1 (in applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe)
Local
City of Redlands
In addition to State and County regulations, projects built in the City are also subject to several local regulations relating to cultural and paleontological resources. Chapter 2, Distinctive City, of the City of Redlands 2035 General Plan outlines principles and actions to protect and preserve Redlands’ cultural, historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources within the City (City of Redlands, 2017). Per Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Cultural Resources, of the City of Redlands General Plan, the following sections outline its principles and actions as follows:
Cultural Resources
Principle 2-P.8 Identify, maintain, protect, and enhance Redlands’ cultural, historic, social, economic, architectural, agricultural, archaeological, and scenic heritage. In so doing, Redlands will preserve its unique character and beauty, foster community pride, conserve the character and architecture of its neighborhoods and commercial and rural areas, enable citizens and visitors to enjoy and learn about local history, and provide a framework for making appropriate physical changes.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2095 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
5 Principle 2-P.9 Provide incentives to protect, preserve, and maintain the city’s heritage.
Principle 2-P.10 Foster an understanding and appreciation of history and architecture.
Principle 2-P.11 Encourage retention of the character of existing historic structures and urban design elements that define the built environment of the city’s older neighborhoods.
Principle 2-P.12 Encourage retention of historic structures in their original use or reconversion to their original use where feasible. Encourage sensitive, adaptive reuse where the original use is no longer feasible.
Principle 2-P.13 Encourage preservation of and public access to defined and established significant scenic vistas, viewpoints, and view corridors.
Principle 2-P.14 Coordinate preservation of historic resources with policies designed to preserve neighborhoods and support the affordability of housing in historical structures.
Principle 2-P.15 Balance the preservation of historic resources with the desire of property owners of historic structures to adopt energy efficient strategies.
Principle 2-P.17 Protect archaeological and paleontological resources for their aesthetic, scientific, educational, and cultural values.
Action 2-A.71 Using an annually updated Archaeological Resource Sensitivity Map, review proposed development projects to determine whether a site contains known prehistoric or historic cultural resources and/or to determine the potential for discovery of additional cultural resources.
Action 2-A.72 Require that applicants for projects identified by the South Coastal Information Center as potentially affecting sensitive resource sites hire a consulting archaeologist to develop an archaeological resource mitigation plan and to monitor the project to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented.
Action 2-A.73 Require that areas found during construction to contain significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist (RPA certified) or historian for appropriate protection and preservation.
Action 2-A.74 Proactively coordinate with the area’s native tribes in the review and protection of any tribal cultural resources discovered at development sites.
Paleontological Resources
Principle 2-P.16 Work with local paleontologists to identify significant non-renewable paleontological resources.
Principle 2-P.17 Protect archaeological and paleontological resources for their aesthetic, scientific, educational, and cultural values.
Action 2-A.75 Require, as a standard condition of approval, that project applicants provide an assessment as to whether grading for the Proposed Project would impact underlying soil units or geologic formations that have a moderate to high potential to yield fossiliferous materials, prior to issuance of a grading permit. If the potential for fossil discovery is moderate to high, require applicants to provide a paleontological monitor during rough grading of the project.
Action 2-A.76 Establish a procedure for the management of paleontological materials found onsite during a development, including the following provisions:
• If materials are found on-site during grading, require that work be halted until a qualified professional evaluates the find to determine if it represents a significant paleontological resource. • If the resource is determined to be significant, the paleontologist shall supervise removal of the material and determine the most appropriate archival storage of the material. • Appropriate materials shall be prepared, catalogued, and archived at the applicant’s expense and shall be retained within San Bernardino County if feasible.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2096 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
6 Environmental Setting
The City of Redlands is situated at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains, located in southwest San Bernardino County in Southern California. The city is situated between the northern margin of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province and the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province and lies within the broad alluvial flood plain derived from Santa Ana River deposits and eroding mountain hillsides (Morton and Miller 2006). The topography of the Project site is characterized as predominately hilly, with slopes up to 42 degrees, and has an elevation averaging approximately 2,200 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
The Project site is underlain by older surficial sediments (Qoa) that are weakly indurated alluvial fan deposits derived from local terrains of plutonic rocks. These alluvial fan deposits consist of sand and minor gravel of the Pleistocene age (Dibblee and Minch 2003). The Davis SoilWeb database (2023) describes the soil classification as the San Bernardino County Southwestern Part (CA677) and as Saugus sandy loam (ShF) with 30 to 50 percent slopes.
The Project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land, and is densely vegetated by plant species from the chaparral community. Common native plants typically include oak and scrub oak, sycamore, chamise, cacti, agave, yucca, species of sage, chía, and various grasses (Munz and Keck 1968). The nearest water source is Yucaipa Creek, in Live Oak Canyon, approximately 0.75 miles south of the Project site.
Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Overview
During the twentieth century, many archaeologists developed chronological sequences to explain prehistoric cultural changes within all or portions of Southern California (Moratto 1984; Jones and Klar 2007). A prehistoric chronology was devised for the Southern California coastal region based on early studies and focused on data synthesis that included four horizons: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric (Wallace 1955, 1978). Although initially lacking the chronological precision of absolute dates (Moratto 1984:159), Wallace’s 1955 synthesis has been modified and improved using thousands of radiocarbon dates obtained by Southern California researchers over recent decades (Byrd and Raab 2007:217; Koerper and Drover 1983; Koerper et al. 2002). The prehistoric chronological sequence for Southern California presented below is a composite based on Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968) as well as later studies, including Koerper and Drover (1983).
It is generally believed that human occupation of Southern California began at least 10,000 years before present (BP).
The archaeological record indicates that between approximately 10,000- and 6,000-years BP, a predominantly hunting and gathering economy existed, characterized by archaeological sites containing numerous projectile points and butchered large animal bones. The most heavily exploited species were likely those species still alive today. Bones of extinct species have been found but cannot definitively be associated with human artifacts in California, unlike other regions of the continent. Although small animal bones and plant grinding tools are rarely found within archaeological sites of this period, small game and vegetal foods were likely exploited. A lack of deep cultural deposits from this period has been interpreted by some researchers as indicative that the region was occupied by small groups that practiced high residential mobility during this period (Wallace 1978).
The three major periods of prehistory for the greater Los Angeles Basin region have been refined by recent research using radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in coastal Southern California (Koerper and Drover 1983; Mason and Peterson 1994):
• Millingstone Period (6,000 –1,000 BP, or about 8,000–3,000 years ago) • Intermediate Period (1,000 BC – AD 650, or 3,000–1,350 years ago) • Late Prehistoric Period (AD 650 – about AD 1800, or 1,350–200 years ago) Around 6,000 years BP, a shift in focus from hunting toward a greater reliance on vegetal resources occurred.
Archaeological evidence of this trend consists of a much greater number of milling tools (e.g., metates and manos) for processing seeds and other vegetable matter (Wallace 1978). This period, termed by archaeologists as the Millingstone Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2097 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
7 Period, was a long cultural phase characterized by small, mobile groups that likely relied on a seasonal round of settlements that included both inland and coastal residential bases. Seeds from sage and grasses, rather than acorns, provided calories and carbohydrates. Faunal remains from sites dating to this period indicate that similar animals to those in the prior period were hunted. Inland Millingstone sites are characterized by numerous manos, metates, and hammerstones. Shell middens are common at coastal Millingstone sites. Coarse-grained lithic materials, such as quartzite and rhyolite, are more common than fine-grained materials in flaked stone tools from this time. Projectile points are found in archaeological sites from this period, but they are far fewer in number than from sites dating to before 6,000 years BP. An increase in the size of groups and the stability of settlements is indicated by deep, extensive middens at some sites from this period (Wallace 1978).
In sites post-dating roughly 3,000 years BP, archaeological evidence indicates the reliance on both plant gathering and hunting continued but was more specialized and locally adapted to particular environments. Mortars and pestles were added to metates and manos for grinding seeds and other vegetable material. Chipped-stone tools became more refined and specialized, and bone tools appear to be more common. During this period, peoples from the Great Basin began entering Southern California. These immigrants, who spoke a language of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock, seem to have displaced or absorbed the earlier population of Hokan-speaking peoples. The exact time of their entry into the region is not known; however, they were present in Southern California during the final phase of prehistory. During this period, population densities were higher than before; and settlement became concentrated in villages and communities along the coast and interior valleys (Erlandson 1994; McCawley 1996). During the Intermediate Period, mortars and pestles appeared, indicating the beginning of acorn exploitation. Use of the acorn – a high-calorie, storable food source – probably facilitated greater sedentism and increased social organization. Large projectile points from archaeological sites of this period indicate that the bow and arrow, a hallmark of the Late Prehistoric Period, had not yet been introduced, and hunting was likely accomplished using the atlatl (spear thrower) instead. Settlement patterns during this time are not well understood. The semi-sedentary settlement pattern characteristic of the Late Prehistoric Period may have begun during the Intermediate Period, although territoriality may not yet have developed because of lower population densities. Regional subcultures also started to develop, each with its own geographical territory and language or dialect (Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996; Moratto 1984). These were most likely the basis for the groups encountered by the first Europeans during the eighteenth century (Wallace 1978). Despite the regional differences, many material culture traits were shared among groups, indicating a great deal of interaction (Erlandson 1994). The Late Prehistoric Period is better understood than earlier periods largely through ethnographic analogy made possible by ethnographic and anthropological research of the descendants of these groups in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Ethnographic Overview
The Project site lies within an area known to be transitionally occupied by the Gabrielino, whose villages stretched from the Pacific coast to the San Bernardino Mountains to the east. The Cahuilla’s traditional use area ranged over the entire San Bernardino basin, the San Jacinto Mountains, the Coachella Valley, and portions of the southern Mojave. The Serrano territory included the entire San Bernardino range of mountains, west into the San Gabriel Mountains, south across the San Bernardino Valley, and eastward to near Twentynine Palms.
Historic Overview
Post-European contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848 – present). Briefly, and in very general terms, the Spanish Period encompassed the earliest historic-period explorations of the West, colonization, missionization and proselytization across the western frontier, the establishment of major centers such as Los Angeles and Monterey and a line of missions and presidios with attendant satellite communities, minor prospecting, and a foundational economic structure based on the rancho system. The Mexican Period initiated with a continuation of the same structures; however, commensurate with the political changes that led to the establishment of the Mexican state, the missions and presidios were secularized, the lands parceled, and Indian laborers released. Increased global trade introduced both foreign and American actors into the Mexican economic and political sphere, both coincidentally, and purposefully, smoothing the transition to the American Period. The American Period was ushered in with a momentous influx of people seeking fortune in the Sierra foothills where gold was “discovered” in 1848. By the early 1850s people Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2098 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
8 from all over the globe had made their way to California. Expansive industries were required to supply the early mining operations, such as forestry products and food networks. Grains, poultry, cattle, and water systems, which were initiated in the early Mexican Period, were intensified into a broad system of ranches and supply networks. Additionally, this period witnessed the development and expansion of port cities to supply hard goods and clothes, animals, and people transported along improved trail and road networks throughout the interior regions of the state. California cycled through boom and bust for several decades until World War I, when the Department of the Navy began porting war ships along the west coast. Subsequently, California has grown and contracted, predominantly around military policy along the west coast and the Pacific Ocean. Following the industrial expansion related to World War II and the Cold War, technology and systems associated have come to fore as economic drivers.
City of Redlands
The City of Redlands, also known in 1900 as “The City of Millionaires” and later as “The City of Beautiful Homes,” was founded in 1881 and became incorporated in 1888. Redlands is characterized as the quintessential “big town” with a “small town” feel. For much of its history Redlands was the “Washington Navel Orange Growing Capital of the World” with the citrus industry as the main focus of its economy. Some of the City’s most renowned buildings and landmarks are the A.K. Smiley Public Library, a Moorish-style library built in 1898, the University of Redlands, founded in 1907, and the Redlands Bowl, built in 1930 and home of the oldest continuously free outdoor concert series in California (City of Redlands 2023). The City of Redlands boasts a rich historical background and is the home of a variety of historic resources valued by the community. Redlands’ early period of growth remains strongly visible in the community today, in the form of mature street trees, citrus groves, and exquisitely detailed historic buildings (City of Redlands 2017).
Study Methods
Chambers Group requested a records search from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, on March 3, 2023. A records search of the Project site and surrounding study area was requested to provide context and additional information regarding types and extent of resources recorded within the Study area. These data provide the greater basis for this review. The SCCIC returned the records search results on April 11, 2023, providing information on all documented cultural resources and previous archaeological investigations within the study area. Resources consulted during the records search conducted by the SCCIC included the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Historic Highway Bridge Inventory, the California State Historic Resources Inventory, local registries of historic properties, and a review of available Sanborn Fire Insurance maps as well as historical photographs, maps, and aerial imagery. The task also included a search for potential prehistoric and/or historic burials (human remains) evident in previous site records and/or historical maps. In addition, Chambers Group submitted a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a review of the Sacred Land Files (SLF) for the Project site and surrounding vicinity. Results of the NACH SLF records search and additional outreach are detailed below and included in Attachment A. The results of the SCCIC records search are also detailed below and included in confidential Attachment B.
Chambers Group also requested a paleontological records search from the Western Science Center (WCS) on April 27, 2023. This information was requested with the intent to provide further context related to the paleontological sensitivity of the area based on known fossil locations identified within the Project site and study area. The paleontological records provide insight into what associated geological formations are most likely to contain fossils as well as the associated depths and placement of the known fossil locals relative to the geological formations in the area.
On May 3, 2023, Chambers Group received the results of the paleontological records search. These results are detailed below.
Additionally, a survey of the Project site was conducted on July 31, 2023. The pedestrian survey consisted of a systematic surface inspection of the areas of the Project site that were safely accessible and visible. The Project site was transected at 10-meter intervals to ensure that any evidence of surface-exposed cultural materials and/or evidence of paleontological resources could be identified.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2099 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
9 Chambers Group Cultural Resources Department Lead Lucas Tutschulte managed the Project tasks related to cultural resources. Chambers Group cultural resources specialist Eduvijes Davis-Mullens completed the pedestrian survey.
Cultural resources specialist Kellie Kandybowicz conducted background research and authored the report. Richard Shultz, MA, RPA, served as Principal Investigator for cultural resources and performed quality control for the report.
Results
Previous Cultural Resources Reports
Based on the records on-file with the SCCIC, nine cultural resource studies have previously been completed within the study area. Table 1 provides further details of these nine studies. Of these nine reports, two bisect the Project site.
These projects are bolded in the Table. A map (Figure 2) of the record search results is included in confidential Attachment B.
Table 1: Previous Cultural Resources Studies within a Half-Mile Radius of the Project SIte Report
Number Year Author Title
Within
Project
Site?
SB-00440 1976 Hearn, Joseph E.
Archaeological - Historical Resources
Assessment of Tentative Tract 9178, Redlands
Area
No
SB-00685 1978 Hearn, Joseph E. Archaeological - Historical - Paleontological Resources Assessment of Tract 9932 Yes
SB-03004 1993 Anthony, Chet Sunset Canyons No
SB-04056 2002 Bonner, Wayne and
Don Lewis
Cultural Resource Assessment: CM 365-11;
Redlands Water Tank, 9 Helen Dr, Redlands, CA
13pp
No
SB-04601 2004 White, Robert S.
and Laura S. White
A Cultural Resources Assessment of the 284.28
Acre Sector 8 Specific Plan Located in the
Southeast Portion of the City of Redlands, San
Bernardino County, California.
Yes
SB-04825 2005 Aislin-Kay, Marnie
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit
Results for Cingular Telecommunications Facility
Candidate CM-365-02 (ES-022-02) City of
Redlands Water Tank, 31280 "B" Helen Court,
Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
No
SB-06741 2010 Sander, Jay K.
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
for T-Mobile USA Inc., 1E04365A / CM365
Redlands Water District, 31280 Helen Court,
Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
92373
No
SB-06841 2011
Bonner, Wayne H
and Kathleen A.
Crawford
Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for
T-Mobile USA Candidate IE255O7-A (Redlands
Country Club), 1749 Garden Street, Redlands,
and Frederich and Mary Jane Auerbachet
Residence, 121 Sierra Vista, Redlands, San
Bernardino County, California
No
SB-07569 2003 McDougall, Dennis
P., and Jill A. Onken
Inland Feeder Pipeline Project: Final Synthetic
Report of Archaeological Findings, San
Bernardino County, California
Yes
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2100 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
10 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
Based upon the records search conducted by the SCCIC, two previously recorded cultural resources are recorded within the study area (Table 2). None are located within the Project site. A map (Figure 2) displaying the record search results is included in confidential Attachment B.
Table 2: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a Half-Mile Radius of the Project Site Primary No. Trinomial Resource Name Site Description
Within
Project
Site?
P-36-007835 CA-SBR-007835H Alphonso Edwards
Redland Hermit
AH02. Foundation/structure pad;
AH03. Landscaping/orchard;
AH04. Privy/dump/trash scatter;
AH05. Well/cistern;
AH16. Other
No
P-36-022622
Redlands Country Club
Golf Course; 1749
Garden St, Redlands
HP39. Country Club and Golf
Course No
Additional Background Research Results
In addition to the records search review, Chambers Group archaeologists completed background research to determine if any additional historic properties, landmarks, bridges, or other potentially significant or listed properties are located within the Project site or within the study area. This background research included, but was not limited to, the NRHP, California State Historic Property Data Files, California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, historic aerial imagery accessed via NETR Online, Historic U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), and Caltrans, and State and local bridge surveys. Additionally, Chambers Group archaeologists reviewed the San Bernardino County Historical Landmarks inventory designated by the County of San Bernardino Cultural Heritage Board as well as the San Bernardino Historical Society and local historical newspaper clippings via Newspapers.com, ProQuest Historical Newspapers.com, and the California Digital Newspaper Collection.
As a result of the records search review and archival research, no previously recorded resources or other listed or potentially significant properties are recorded within the Project site. Based on the review of available historic maps and imagery, the Project site was bisected by a dirt road by at least 1901, as illustrated on the 1901 Redlands USGS topographic map. By the mid-1930s, an access route to a water tank to the southwest of the Project site had already been established, as shown in the 1938 aerial photograph and housing development and construction began in the immediate vicinity during the 1960s (NETROnline 2023). The Project site was also partially cleared by 1980 for use during the development of the surrounding housing tracts to the north (NETROnline 2023).
NAHC SLF Search Results
Chambers Group submitted a request for a search of the Sacred Lands Files housed at the California NAHC on March 10, 2023. The results of the search were returned on March 29, 2023, and were negative, stating that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in the Project site that still may be impacted by Project development.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2101 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
11 Additional consultation with the tribes, as indicated in the NAHC SLF letter (Attachment A), would be required to determine the nature of any existing resources located during ground-disturbing activities. PRC Section 21074 defines a resource as a TCR if it meets either of the following criteria:
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
2. 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 PRC Section 5024.1 (in applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe)
The NAHC response provided contact information for 25 Native American tribal contacts that may have information on cultural resources on the Project site (Attachment A). The associated Native American contact list provided contacts from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño 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, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Torres–Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians).
AB 52 Notification and Tribal Consultation
At this time, Chambers Group assumes the City, as Lead Agency, is conducting AB 52 tribal consultation as necessary for the Project. As such, no details of consultation are included in this document.
Paleontological Resources
On May 3, 2023, Chambers Group received the results of the paleontological records search from the WSC. The results show that no fossil localities are documented directly within the Project site, but there are recorded fossil localities from the same sedimentary deposit that underlays the Project site.
Potential fossil-bearing units are present within the Project site, as stated in the WSC record search results. Based on the records search results, which covered only the records of the WSC, the paleontological sensitivity of the Project site could be considered moderate due to the previously recorded and known fossil localities in the same sedimentary deposits as mapped in the Project site and within the study area (Stoneburg 2023).
The geologic mapping of the region by Dibblee and Minch (2003) indicates the entire Project site is underlain by quaternary alluvial fan deposits of sand and gravel from the Pleistocene epoch. These Pleistocene period deposits are composed of older surficial sediments (Qoa) that are weakly indurated dissected alluvial fan deposits derived from local terrains of plutonic rocks. Pleistocene alluvial units are considered highly sensitive for paleontological resources. The Davis SoilWeb database (2023) describes soils associated with the Project site as Saugus sandy loam (ShF) with 30 to 50 percent slopes, which are part of the San Bernardino County Southwestern Part (CA677) classification. Based on the records search results and review of publicly available geologic mapping, the Project site’s underlying sedimentary deposits have potential to yield previously undocumented fossil localities during construction.
Field Survey Results
Chambers Group cultural resources specialist Eduvijes Davis-Mullens conducted the pedestrian survey on July 31, 2023.
All areas within the Project site that were safely accessible were surveyed, including proposed construction equipment access and staging areas for the proposed locations for the two new tanks. The western and mid-section areas of the Project site show evidence of disturbance related to previous construction for the existing water tank reservoir access roads, dating to as early as 1938. Additionally, surrounding housing development activity began in the 1960s adding to disturbances along East Sunset Drive South (NETROnline 2023).
The Project site terrain is composed primarily of undeveloped land, with steep slopes averaging a 40-degree angle with dense vegetation. Thus, much of the site was not surveyed intensively due to the safety concerns and the understanding Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2102 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
12 that there is less potential to encounter intact cultural resources on the surface of steep slopes. The dense vegetation observed on site is mainly composed of chaparral vegetation community species and tall grasses, and further limited access and ground surface visibility. Due to the dense vegetation, much of the Project site was observed with an average of 5 to 10 percent ground surface visibility (Photographs 1, 4, 5). Due to these safety and visibility constraints, approximately 8 acres (roughly 36 percent) of the approximately 22-acre Project site was surveyed intensively with 10- meter transects. Additionally, the maintained access roads and cleared areas within the Project site were observed with 97 to 100 percent visibility (Photographs 2 & 3). These access roads and cleared areas were subject to intensive survey for possible associated historic age items and features as they largely match previous historic age road alignments, leading to the extant reservoir tank adjacent to the southwest corner of the Project site, which can be observed as early as 1938 in historic aerial imagery (NETROnline 2023). Only a sparse collection of modern trash and furniture was observed at the south end of the Project site near Bruner Lane (Photograph 6).
No evidence of cultural or paleontological resources was observed during the field survey.
Photograph 1: Overview of current conditions at Sunset Reservoir Expansion Proposed Project location showing dense vegetation and steep slopes. View to the northeast.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2103 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
13 Photograph 2: Access Road leading to reservoir tank to the southwest of the Project site. View to the southwest.
Photograph 3: Overview of current conditions at Sunset Reservoir Expansion Proposed Project location showing vegetation overgrowth on road. View to the east.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2104 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
14 Photograph 4: Overview of current conditions at Sunset Reservoir Expansion Proposed Project location showing dense vegetation. View to the north.
Photograph 5: Overview of current conditions at Sunset Reservoir Expansion Proposed Project location showing dense vegetation and steep slopes. View to the southwest.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2105 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
15 Photograph 6: Overview of current conditions at Sunset Reservoir Expansion Proposed Project location showing modern debris and disturbance. View to the east.
Discussion
As detailed above, Chambers Group conducted a Project site-specific study that included cultural resources records searches, literature review, and a pedestrian survey for the proposed Project in accordance CEQA, as well as the City’s goals and policies regarding the protection of archaeological, tribal, historical, and paleontological resources (City of Redlands 2017). City of Redlands’ Chapter 2, Section 2.2 - Cultural Resources policies and actions, which protect the archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the City, will be applicable if resources are encountered during the Project.
An archival records search through the CHRIS database at the SCCIC, background research of the Project site, and a field survey were conducted as part of this study. A paleontological records search was also conducted by the WSC. In addition, Chambers Group requested a SLF search from the NAHC to determine the presence or absence of data regarding any known tribal cultural resources reported within the Project site or its study area.
The SCCIC records search identified two previous cultural resources studies that included the Project site; no cultural resources have been recorded within the Project site. The paleontological record search resulted in no documented fossil localities within the Project site. However, the results also indicated fossils localities have been recorded within the study area in the same sedimentary deposits as those mapped underlying the Project site. The NAHC SLF search was negative for documented resources important to the local Tribal groupsin the Project site and/or surrounding area.
Additionally, based on the review of available historic maps and imagery, Chambers Group archaeologists observed that the Project site was bisected by a dirt road by the early 1900s, as shown in the 1901 Redlands topographic map, and by 1938, as shown in the aerial imagery, slightly rerouted westward for access to a water tank reservoir southwest of the current Proposed Project site. The Project site was also partially cleared by 1980 for use during the development of the surrounding housing tracts to the north (NETROnline 2023).
During the field survey, no evidence of cultural or paleontological resources was observed. While there are no previously recorded cultural or paleontological resources in the Project site, there remains potential to uncover archaeological deposits during construction due to the nature of soil deposition and dense vegetation overgrowth Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2106 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
16 within areas of the Project site which appear to be previously undisturbed. Due to the mapped geologic formations underlying the Project site known to bear paleontological resources and the known fossil localities provided in the surrounding study area, there remains potential that new fossils could be exposed during the Project.
In summary, Chambers Group found no physical or archival evidence of cultural or paleontological resources within the Project site. While no surficial evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources was observed, the ground surface visibility was limited due to dense vegetation and steep slopes in much of the Project site. While no evidence of paleontological resources was observed during the survey, background research and WSC records indicate moderate sensitivity for fossil localities within the Project site and its study area. Additionally, WSC noted the existence of similar fossil-bearing geologic units mapped underlying the Project site. Finally, although the Project site has evidence of past disturbance and while the potential for encountering intact resources within the upper sediments is low, the possibility of buried resources being identified below surface disturbances is not diminished. Research indicates geologic units known to be fossil-bearing underlay the Project site and could be encountered during Project-related ground-disturbing construction activities. Additionally, due to the surface nature of the previous disturbance and limited surface visibility during survey, there is potential that intact native soil formations, which have been known to bear cultural resources, underly the Project site. Thus, there remains potential that buried cultural and paleontological resources could be encountered during the Project.
Recommendations
Per CEQA Guidelines, the Project should be designed to avoid impacts to cultural resources within the Project site whenever feasible. While Chambers Group did not identify any cultural resources through background research or though survey of the Project site, Chambers Group recommends the following mitigation measures be implemented as part of Project approval to ensure that potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources are less than significant.
MM CUL-1 The City shall retain the services of a Qualified Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards, or County requirements, whichever is the greater. The Qualified Archaeologist shall remain on-call throughout the Project. Upon approval or request by the City, a cultural resources mitigation plan (CRMP) outlining procedures for cultural resources monitoring, mitigation, treatment, and data recovery of any unanticipated discovery shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the CRMP shall include consultations with the City as well as a requirement that the curation of any significant cultural resources recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. If the City accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised.
MM CUL-2 In the event of the discovery of previously unidentified and/or potential cultural resources, the City, and/or its Contractor, shall immediately cease all work activities within an area of not less than 50 feet of the discovery. The City or its Contractor shall immediately contact the City and the City-retained oncall Qualified Archaeologist. Except in the case of cultural items that fall within the scope of the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, or California PRC Section 5097.98, the discovery of any cultural resource within the Project site shall not be grounds for a project-wide “stop work” notice or otherwise interfere with the Project’s continuation except as set forth in this mitigation measure. Additionally, any consulting Native American Tribal groups that requested notification of any unanticipated discovery of cultural resources on the Project shall be notified and included in subsequent consultation appropriately. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during construction, the City-retained Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the materials prior to resuming any construction-related activities in the vicinity of the find. If a CRMP is prepared for the Project, the protocols for mitigation or treatment of cultural resources will be implemented. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the discovery constitutes a significant resource under CEQA and it cannot be avoided, the City shall implement an archaeological data recovery program.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2107 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
17 MM-CUL-3 If cultural resources are encountered during the Project, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a report summarizing any and all prehistoric or historic archaeological finds as well as providing followup reports of any finds to the SCCIC, as required.
MM PAL-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall be required to obtain the services of a Qualified Project Paleontologist to remain on call for the duration of the proposed ground-disturbing construction activity. The paleontologist selected must be approved by the City. Upon approval or request by the City, a paleontological mitigation plan (PMP) outlining procedures for paleontological data recovery shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the PMP shall include consultations with the District’s Engineering Geologist as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. If the District accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised. The PMP shall include developing a multilevel ranking system, or Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC), as a tool to demonstrate the potential yield of fossils within a given stratigraphic unit. The PMP shall outline the monitoring and salvage protocols to address paleontological resources encountered during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, as well as the appropriate recording, collection, and processing protocols to appropriately address any resources discovered.
MM-PAL-2 At the completion of all ground-disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a final paleontological mitigation report summarizing all monitoring efforts and observations, as performed in line with the PMP, and all paleontological resources encountered, if any, as well as providing followup reports of any specific discovery, if necessary.
HUMAN REMAINS – LEGAL REQUIREMENTS In the event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, then the proposed Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and California PRC Section 5097.98. If human remains are found during ground-disturbing activities, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which shall notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (National Park Service 1983).
Chambers Group is available to assist with any further support or document preparation related to Cultural Resources, including tribal consultation. Please contact the cultural resources staff at the contact information below if you have any questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
Kellie Kandybowicz
Cultural Resources Specialist
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123
[email protected]
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2108 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
18 Lucas Tutschulte
Cultural Department Lead
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123
[email protected]
Richard Shultz, MA, RPA
Cultural Resources Principal Investigator
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123
[email protected]
Attachments
Attachment A: NAHC SLF Records Search Results Letter
Attachment B (Confidential): Record Search Results
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2109 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
19 References
Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar, pp. 215-228. Altamira Press, New York.
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1995 Historic Properties Directory. State of California: Sacramento.
City of Redlands
2017 City of Redlands 2035 General Plan. Accessed at https://www.cityofredlands.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/gp2035.pdf?1554321255. 2023 City of Redlands History & Landmarks. Accessed 2023 at https://www.cityofredlands.org/historylandmarks.
Dibblee, T.W., and J.A. Minch
2003 Geologic map of the Sunnymead/south 1/2 of Redlands quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California. Dibblee Geology Center Map DF-110.
Erlandson, Jon M.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.
Jones, Terry L., and Kathryn A. Klar
2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. AltaMira Press, Berkeley, California.
Koerper, Henry C., and C.E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.
Koerper Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson
2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity: The Late Holocene on the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63–81.
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press. The University of Michigan.
Mason, Roger D., and Mark L. Peterson
1994 Newport Coast Archeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Analysis and Discussion, Volume I. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach. The Keith Companies Archaeological Division, Costa Mesa. On file, Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2110 of 2362
Cultural Resources Survey and Study Letter Report
for the Sunset Reservoir Expansion Project
City of Redlands
20 Morton, Douglas M., and Fred K. Miller
2006 Geologic Map of the San Bernardino North 7.5' quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-131, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Munz, P.A. and David D. Keck
1968 California Flora and Supplement. Berkeley, University of California Press: 1681.
National Park Service
1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. 48 FR 44716-42.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETROnline) 2023 NETR Online. Aerial Images: 1938 – 2020; Topographical Maps: 1901 – 2021. Accessed 2023 at http://www.historicaerials.com/.
Stoneburg, Brittney E.
2023 Paleontological Records Search. Western Science Center (WCS).
University of California, Davis
2023 SoilWeb. Accessed 2023 at https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1901 Redlands, California, 7.5-Minute Topographical Quadrangle. Reston, Virginia.
Wallace, William J.
1955 Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-14. Portales.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2111 of 2362
ATTACHMENT A – NAHC SLF RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS LETTER
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2112 of 2362
Attachment A: NAHC SLF Records Search Results Letter
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2113 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2114 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2115 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2116 of 2362
ATTACHMENT B – CONFIDENTIAL RECORD SEARCH RESULTS
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2117 of 2362
APPENDIX D – PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2118 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2119 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2120 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2121 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2122 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2123 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2124 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2125 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2126 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2127 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2128 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2129 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2130 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2131 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2132 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2133 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2134 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2135 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2136 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2137 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2138 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2139 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2140 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2141 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2142 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2143 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2144 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2145 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2146 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2147 of 2362
Inquiry Number:
February 22, 2022
6867268.4
Macknet Property
South of Helen Drive
Redlands, San Bernardino County, California 92373
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2148 of 2362
Search Results:
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark otice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
page
:
2018
2015
2012
1996
1988
1979, 1980
1975
1973
1967
1954
1953, 1954
1901
1899
02/22/22
Macknet Property Terracon
South of Helen Drive 1355 East Cooley Drive
Redlands, CA 92373 Colton, CA 92324
6867268.4 Laura Hedman
EDR Topographic Map Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Terracon were identified for the years listed below. EDR’s Historical Topo Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topo Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the late 1800s.
NA 34.0157 34° 0' 57" North
CB227029 -117.136868 -117° 8' 13" West
Zone 11 North
487362.86
3763905.21
2217.07' above sea level
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2022 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 6867268 4 2
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2149 of 2362
page
Topo Sheet
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. 2018 Source Sheets
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Sunnymead
7.5-minute, 24000
El Casco
7.5-minute, 24000
2015 Source Sheets
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Sunnymead
7.5-minute, 24000
El Casco
7.5-minute, 24000
2012 Source Sheets
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Sunnymead
7.5-minute, 24000
El Casco
7.5-minute, 24000
1996 Source Sheets
El Casco
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1996
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1994
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1994
6867268 4 3
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2150 of 2362
page
Topo Sheet
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. 1988 Source Sheets
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1985
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1985
1979, 1980 Source Sheets
El Casco
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1976
Sunnymead
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
1975 Source Sheets
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1975
1973 Source Sheets
Sunnymead
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1973
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1973
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1973
6867268 4 4
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2151 of 2362
page
Topo Sheet
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. 1967 Source Sheets
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1966
El Casco
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1966
Redlands
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1966
Sunnymead
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1966
1954 Source Sheets
Redlands
15-minute, 62500
Aerial Photo Revised 1952
1953, 1954 Source Sheets
El Casco
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1951
Sunnymead
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1951
Yucaipa
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1952
1901 Source Sheets
Redlands
15-minute, 62500
6867268 4 5
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2152 of 2362
page
Topo Sheet
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. 1899 Source Sheets
Redlands
15-minute, 62500
6867268 4 6
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2153 of 2362
6867268 4 page 7
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2154 of 2362
6867268 4 page 8
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2155 of 2362
6867268 4 page 9
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2156 of 2362
6867268 4 page 10
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2157 of 2362
6867268 4 page 11
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2158 of 2362
6867268 4 page 12
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2159 of 2362
6867268 4 page 13
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2160 of 2362
6867268 4 page 14
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2161 of 2362
6867268 4 page 15
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2162 of 2362
6867268 4 page 16
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2163 of 2362
6867268 4 page 17
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2164 of 2362
6867268 4 page 18
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2165 of 2362
6867268 4 page 19
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2166 of 2362
Macknet Property
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2167 of 2362
2016 1"=500' Flight Year: 2016 USDA/NAIP
2012 1"=500' Flight Year: 2012 USDA/NAIP
2009 1"=500' Flight Year: 2009 USDA/NAIP
2006 1"=500' Flight Year: 2006 USDA/NAIP
2002 1"=500' Acquisition Date: January 01, 2002 USGS/DOQQ 1995 1"=500' Acquisition Date: January 01, 1995 USGS/DOQQ 1989 1"=500' Flight Date: August 15, 1989 USDA
1985 1"=500' Flight Date: July 28, 1985 USDA
1978 1"=500' Flight Date: September 20, 1978 USDA
1975 1"=500' Flight Date: August 01, 1975 USGS
1967 1"=500' Flight Date: July 15, 1967 USDA
1961 1"=500' Flight Date: June 14, 1961 USDA
1959 1"=500' Flight Date: October 15, 1959 USDA
1953 1"=500' Flight Date: February 16, 1953 USDA
1949 1"=500' Flight Date: May 23, 1949 USDA
1938 1"=500' Flight Date: August 09, 1938 USDA
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2168 of 2362
JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2169 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2170 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2171 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2172 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2173 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2174 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2175 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2176 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2177 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2178 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2179 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2180 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2181 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2182 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2183 of 2362 JSV CB227029 SHC As Shown Appendix
Macknet Property LSH
1355 East Cooley Drive C
Colton, California 92324
South of Helen Drive CAPRedlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2184 of 2362 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2185 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2186 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2187 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2188 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2189 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2190 of 2362
- HELEN CT
EDR Digital Archive
6867268.5 Page: A1
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
31280 CITY OF REDLANDS
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2191 of 2362
- HELEN DR
EDR Digital Archive
6867268.5 Page: A2
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
13039 SLAYYEH, YASER A
13063 RUNGCHARASSAENG, KITICHAI
13087 RICHEY, MARK A
13151 JUTZY, KENNETH R
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2192 of 2362
- HELEN DR
EDR Digital Archive
6867268.5 Page: A3
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
13039 SLAYYEH, YASER A
13051 BRICKLEY, TOM M
13063 LINDEMER, CURTIS A
13075 FARRIS, TERRY A
13087 RICHEY, MARK A
13151 JUTZY, KENNETH R
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2193 of 2362
- HELEN DR
EDR Digital Archive
6867268.5 Page: A4
Target Street Cross Street Source
2010
13039 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
13051 BRICKLEY, TOM M
13075 FARRIS, TERRY A
13087 RICHEY, MARK A
13151 JUTZY, KENNETH R
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2194 of 2362
- HELEN DR
EDR Digital Archive
6867268.5 Page: A5
Target Street Cross Street Source
2005
13039 SLAYYEH, YASER A
13051 FAIRCHILD, JAMES L
13063 LINDEMER, CURTIS A
13075 FARRIS, TERRY A
13087 RICHEY, MARK A
13151 JUTZY, KENNETH R
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2195 of 2362
- HELEN DR
EDR Digital Archive
6867268.5 Page: A6
Target Street Cross Street Source
2000
13039 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
13051 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
13063 SILVERGLEID, ARTHUR J
13075 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
13087 RICHEY, MARK
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2196 of 2362
- HELEN DR
EDR Digital Archive
6867268.5 Page: A7
Target Street Cross Street Source
1995
13075 SALVESEN, JOHN A
13087 RICHEY, MARK
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2197 of 2362
- HELEN DR
EDR Digital Archive
6867268.5 Page: A8
Target Street Cross Street Source
1992
13075 SALVESEN, JOHN A
13087 RICHEY, MARK A
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2198 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2199 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2200 of 2362
OWNERSHIP HISTORY REPORT FOR PARCEL 0300-451-13-0000
Property Information Management System
San Bernardino County
Office of the Assessor
Property Information Management System
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2201 of 2362
Ownership History
Owner Name: MACKNET, CATHY A
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
OTHER OWNER
07/27/2020
07/27/2020
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256178
Owner Name: MACKNET, KENNETH D II
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
BILLED OWNER
07/27/2020
07/27/2020
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256178
ACTIVE
ASSESSED BY COUNTY
VACANT
PUBLIC PAVED
1.501 TO 3.500 ACRES
SAN BERNARDINO
REAL PROPERTY
RES ZONE(MAX 14
UTS)&USE EX HPC/MHM(1-
14 UTS,CHURC
0300451130000
Property ID
Parcel Status
Tax Status
Use Code
Land Access
Land Type
Size
District
Resp Group
Resp Unit
Parcel
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
Parcel Type REAL PROPERTY
3/4/2022 12:26:00 PM Property Information Management System 1 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2202 of 2362
Owner Name: MACKNET, MARK R
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
07/27/2020
07/27/2020
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256178
Owner Name: MACKNET, ELAINE
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
04/02/2018
07/27/2020
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20200256177
Owner Name: MACKNET, ELAINE
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20160185616
Owner Name: MACKNET, KENNETH D
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
04/01/2018
Document Numbers
20160185616
3/4/2022 12:26:00 PM Property Information Management System 2 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2203 of 2362
Owner Name: MACKNET, K D DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
100.0000000
BILLED OWNER
02/20/1986
03/01/1988
05/11/2016
Document Numbers
8900000000000
3/4/2022 12:26:00 PM Property Information Management System 3 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2204 of 2362
OWNERSHIP HISTORY REPORT FOR PARCEL 0300-451-14-0000
Property Information Management System
San Bernardino County
Office of the Assessor
Property Information Management System
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2205 of 2362
Ownership History
Owner Name: MACKNET, CATHY A
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
OTHER OWNER
07/27/2020
07/27/2020
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256180
Owner Name: MACKNET, KENNETH D II
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
BILLED OWNER
07/27/2020
07/27/2020
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256180
ACTIVE
ASSESSED BY COUNTY
VACANT
PUBLIC PAVED
1.501 TO 3.500 ACRES
SAN BERNARDINO
REAL PROPERTY
RES ZONE(MAX 14
UTS)&USE EX HPC/MHM(1-
14 UTS,CHURC
0300451140000
Property ID
Parcel Status
Tax Status
Use Code
Land Access
Land Type
Size
District
Resp Group
Resp Unit
Parcel
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
Parcel Type REAL PROPERTY
3/4/2022 12:26:37 PM Property Information Management System 1 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2206 of 2362
Owner Name: MACKNET, MARK R
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
07/27/2020
07/27/2020
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256180
Owner Name: MACKNET, ELAINE
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
04/02/2018
07/27/2020
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20200256179
Owner Name: MACKNET, ELAINE
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20160185615
Owner Name: MACKNET, KENNETH D
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
04/01/2018
Document Numbers
20160185615
3/4/2022 12:26:37 PM Property Information Management System 2 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2207 of 2362
Owner Name: MACKNET, K D DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
100.0000000
BILLED OWNER
02/20/1986
03/01/1988
05/11/2016
Document Numbers
8900000000000
3/4/2022 12:26:37 PM Property Information Management System 3 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2208 of 2362
OWNERSHIP HISTORY REPORT FOR PARCEL 0300-451-24-0000
Property Information Management System
San Bernardino County
Office of the Assessor
Property Information Management System
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2209 of 2362
Ownership History
Owner Name: MACKNET, CATHY A
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
OTHER OWNER
07/27/2020
02/16/2021
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256182
20210073621
Owner Name: MACKNET, KENNETH D II
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
BILLED OWNER
07/27/2020
02/16/2021
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256182
20210073621
ACTIVE
ASSESSED BY COUNTY
VACANT
PUBLIC PAVED
7.001 TO 14.000 ACRES
SAN BERNARDINO
REAL PROPERTY
RES ZONE(MAX 14
UTS)&USE EX HPC/MHM(1-
14 UTS,CHURC
0300451240000
Property ID
Parcel Status
Tax Status
Use Code
Land Access
Land Type
Size
District
Resp Group
Resp Unit
Parcel
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
Parcel Type REAL PROPERTY
3/4/2022 12:24:11 PM Property Information Management System 1 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2210 of 2362
Owner Name: MACKNET, MARK R
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
07/27/2020
02/16/2021
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256182
20210073621
Owner Name: MACKNET, ELAINE
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
04/02/2018
02/10/2021
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20210066183
Owner Name: MACKNET, ELAINE
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20160185617
Owner Name: MACKNET, KENNETH D
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
04/01/2018
Document Numbers
20160185617
3/4/2022 12:24:11 PM Property Information Management System 2 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2211 of 2362
Owner Name: MACKNET, K D DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
100.0000000
BILLED OWNER
02/20/1986
07/22/2015
05/11/2016
Document Numbers
20150311466
20150311470
3/4/2022 12:24:11 PM Property Information Management System 3 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2212 of 2362
OWNERSHIP HISTORY REPORT FOR PARCEL 0300-451-25-0000
Property Information Management System
San Bernardino County
Office of the Assessor
Property Information Management System
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2213 of 2362
Ownership History
Owner Name: MACKNET, ELAINE
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
04/02/2018
07/27/2020
NONE
Document Numbers
20200256181
Owner Name: MACKNET, ELAINE
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
NONE
Document Numbers
20160185618
ACTIVE
ASSESSED BY COUNTY
VACANT
PUBLIC PAVED
7.001 TO 14.000 ACRES
SAN BERNARDINO
REAL PROPERTY
RES ZONE(MAX 14
UTS)&USE EX HPC/MHM(1-
14 UTS,CHURC
0300451250000
Property ID
Parcel Status
Tax Status
Use Code
Land Access
Land Type
Size
District
Resp Group
Resp Unit
Parcel
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
Parcel Type REAL PROPERTY
3/4/2022 12:24:59 PM Property Information Management System 1 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2214 of 2362
Owner Name: (DEED ERR) MACKNET, CATHY A
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
OTHER OWNER
07/27/2020
02/16/2021
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20200256182
20210073621
Owner Name: (DEED ERR) MACKNET, KENNETH D II
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
BILLED OWNER
07/27/2020
02/16/2021
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20200256182
20210073621
Owner Name: (DEED ERR) MACKNET, MARK R
R/I JOINT TENANCY
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
33.3333000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
07/27/2020
02/16/2021
07/26/2020
Document Numbers
20200256182
20210073621
Owner Name: (ERR) MACKNEYT, ELAINE
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
04/02/2018
07/27/2020
04/01/2018
Document Numbers
20200256181
3/4/2022 12:24:59 PM Property Information Management System 2 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2215 of 2362
Owner Name: MACKNET, KENNETH D
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
BILLED OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
04/01/2018
Document Numbers
20160185618
Owner Name: (ERR) MACKNEYT, ELAINE
R/I SPOUSAL
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
50.0000000
JOINT MAIL OWNER
05/12/2016
05/12/2016
05/11/2016
Document Numbers
20160185618
Owner Name: MACKNET, K D DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION
R/I SOLE OWNER
% Int
Type
Acquisition Date
Document Date
Inactive Date
100.0000000
BILLED OWNER
02/20/1986
07/22/2015
05/11/2016
Document Numbers
20150311466
20150311470
3/4/2022 12:24:59 PM Property Information Management System 3 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2216 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2217 of 2362
The EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®
Macknet Property
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2218 of 2362
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 9
Orphan Summary 15
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map A-5
Physical Setting Source Map A-10
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-12
Physical Setting Source Records Searched PSGR-1
Thank you for your business.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2219 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2220 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2221 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2222 of 2362
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Lists of Federal NPL (Superfund) sites
Lists of Federal Delisted NPL sites
Lists of Federal sites subject to
CERCLA removals and CERCLA orders
Lists of Federal CERCLA sites with NFRAP
Lists of Federal RCRA facilities
undergoing Corrective Action
Lists of Federal RCRA TSD facilities
Lists of Federal RCRA generators
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
Federal ERNS list
Lists of state- and tribal
(Superfund) equivalent sites
Lists of state- and tribal
hazardous waste facilities
Lists of state and tribal landfills
and solid waste disposal facilities
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2223 of 2362
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Lists of state and tribal leaking storage tanks
Lists of state and tribal registered storage tanks
Lists of state and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
Lists of state and tribal brownfield sites
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2224 of 2362
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Local Land Records
Records of Emergency Release Reports
Other Ascertainable Records
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2225 of 2362
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2226 of 2362
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2227 of 2362
27 ft.
0.005 mi.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
2137 ft.
< 1/8 REDLANDS, CA 92373 HWTS
North 31280 B HELEN CT CERS N/A
1 AT&T MOBILITY - ES0022-02 (CM365) REDLANDS WATER T San Bern. Co. Permit S127126892 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2228 of 2362
AT&T MOBILITY - ES0022-02 (CM365) REDLANDS WATER TANK (USID5 (Continued) S127126892 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2229 of 2362
4560 ft.
0.864 mi.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
1932 ft.
1/2-1 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
WSW SO. CNR RIALTO BTWN D & ARROWHEAD VCP N/A
2 SO CAL GAS/SAN BERNARDINO 2 (RIALTO) ENVIROSTOR S106568284 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2230 of 2362
SO CAL GAS/SAN BERNARDINO 2 (RIALTO) (Continued) S106568284 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2231 of 2362
SO CAL GAS/SAN BERNARDINO 2 (RIALTO) (Continued) S106568284 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2232 of 2362
SO CAL GAS/SAN BERNARDINO 2 (RIALTO) (Continued) S106568284 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2233 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2234 of 2362
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING St Acronym Full Name Government Agency Gov Date Arvl. Date Active Date Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2235 of 2362
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING St Acronym Full Name Government Agency Gov Date Arvl. Date Active Date Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2236 of 2362
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING St Acronym Full Name Government Agency Gov Date Arvl. Date Active Date Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2237 of 2362
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING St Acronym Full Name Government Agency Gov Date Arvl. Date Active Date Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2238 of 2362
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION TC6867268.2s Page GR−5 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING St Acronym Full Name Government Agency Gov Date Arvl. Date Active Date Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2239 of 2362
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2240 of 2362
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
Target Property Elevation: 2221 ft.
North South
West East 17721726 1782 1892 1962 2066 2151 2185 2241 2221 2180 21552103 2083 20792024 2084 2081 1878 2062 21282049 2065 2040 2039 2096 2133 2137 22212156 2146 2200 21642093 2089 2084 2079 2046
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2241 of 2362
AQUIFLOW
Site-Specific Hydrogeological Data*:
* ©1996 Site−specific hydrogeological data gathered by CERCLIS Alerts, Inc., Bainbridge Island, WA. All rights reserved. All
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2242 of 2362
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2243 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2244 of 2362
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH)
Soil Map ID: 1
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2245 of 2362
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH)
Soil Map ID: 2
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2246 of 2362
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH)
Soil Map ID: 3
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2247 of 2362
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH)
Soil Map ID: 4
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2248 of 2362
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2249 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2250 of 2362
AREA RADON INFORMATION
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2251 of 2362
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2252 of 2362
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2253 of 2362
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2254 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2255 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2256 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2257 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2258 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2259 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2260 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2261 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2262 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2263 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2264 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2265 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2266 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2267 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2268 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2269 of 2362
APPENDIX E – NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2270 of 2362
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
SUNSET RESERVOIRS PROJECT
CITY OF REDLANDS
Lead Agency:
City of Redlands
Municipal Utilities & Engineering
35 Cajon Street
Redlands, California 92373
Prepared by:
Vista Environmental
1021 Didrickson Way
Laguna Beach, California 92651
949 510 5355
Greg Tonkovich, INCE
Project No. 22048
October 4, 2023
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2271 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives................................................................................. 1
1.2 Site Location and Study Area ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Proposed Project Description .................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Standard Noise Regulatory Conditions...................................................................................... 2
1.5 Summary of Analysis Results ..................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 3
2.0 Noise Fundamentals................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Noise Descriptors....................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Tone Noise ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Noise Propagation...................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Ground Absorption .................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 Ground‐Borne Vibration Fundamentals................................................................................... 8
3.1 Vibration Descriptors................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 Vibration Perception.................................................................................................................. 8
3.3 Vibration Propagation................................................................................................................ 8
4.0 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 State Regulations..................................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Local Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 11
5.0 Existing Noise Conditions....................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Noise Measurement Equipment.............................................................................................. 18
5.2 Noise Measurement Results.................................................................................................... 18
6.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions................................................................................. 21
6.1 Construction Noise................................................................................................................... 21
6.2 Vibration .................................................................................................................................. 22
7.0 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 23
7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance.............................................................................................. 23
7.2 Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards ................................................................. 23
7.3 Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration .................................................................... 25
7.4 Aircraft Noise ........................................................................................................................... 25
8.0 References............................................................................................................................. 26 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2272 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Field Noise Measurements Photo Index
Appendix B – Field Noise Measurements Printouts
Appendix C – RCNM Model Construction Noise Calculations
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Project Location Map ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 – Field Noise Monitoring Locations .............................................................................................. 20
LIST OF TABLES
Table A – FTA Construction Noise Criteria.................................................................................................... 9 Table B – City of Redlands Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix........................................................ 11 Table C – City of Redlands Interior and Exterior Noise Standards.............................................................. 12 Table D – City of Redlands Maximum Permissible Sound Levels By Receiving Land Use........................... 15 Table E – City of Redlands Maximum Permissible Interior Sound Levels By Receiving Land Use .............. 15 Table F – Existing (Ambient) Noise Measurement Results......................................................................... 19 Table G – Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors.................................................... 21 Table H – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment................................................................. 22 Table I – Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors..................................................... 24 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2273 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
Page iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Redlands
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB Decibel
dBA A‐weighted decibels
DOT Department of Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Hz Hertz
Ldn Day‐night average noise level
Leq Equivalent sound level
Lmax Maximum noise level
ONAC Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PPV Peak particle velocity
RMS Root mean square
SEL Single Event Level or Sound Exposure Level
STC Sound Transmission Class
TTM Tentative Tract Map
VdB Vibration velocity level in decibels
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2274 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This Noise Impact Analysis has been prepared to determine the noise impacts associated with the proposed Sunset Reservoirs project (proposed project). The following is provided in this report:
A description of the study area and the proposed project; Information regarding the fundamentals of noise;
Information regarding the fundamentals of vibration;
A description of the local noise guidelines and standards; An evaluation of the current noise environment;
An analysis of the potential short‐term construction‐related noise impacts from the proposed project; and,
An analysis of long‐term operations‐related noise impacts from the proposed project.
1.2 Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located south of Helen Drive in the City of Redlands (City). There is an existing City reservoir tank located on the west side of Helen Court and the proposed reservoir tanks would be located on the eastside of Helen Court on parcels APN 0300‐451‐25 (7.78 acres) and APN 0300‐451‐14 (2.50 acres) that total 10.28 acres and are currently vacant. The project site is bounded by vacant land and Helen Drive to the north, vacant land to the east, a single‐family home to the south, and Helen Court and the existing reservoir tank to the west. The project study area is shown in Figure 1.
Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity
The nearestsensitive receptor to the projectsite is a single‐family home that islocated as near as 280 feet south of the area that would be disturbed as part of the proposed project. There are also single‐family homes as near as 730 feet northeast and 780 feet north of the area that would be disturbed as part of the proposed project.
1.3 Proposed Project Description
The City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department proposes the construction of two new above ground 220 foot diameter factory‐coated bolt carbon steel tanks that with an approximately 14 million gallon (MG) total capacity from both tanks. To provide uninterrupted water service to its users during the demolition, the City will keep its existing 3 MG reservoir active. It is anticipated that approximately 6.2 acres of the two parcels that total 10.28 acres will be disturbed as part of the proposed project. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2.
One driveway will connect the existing water tank and Helen Court. The driveway will be constructed utilizing asphalt/gravel. Two parking spaces will be installed for maintenance purposes. The site will remain unmanned. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tanks will be constructed. Maintenance will occur on a monthly and as‐needed basis by City employees. Landscaping will be maintained by the City.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2275 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
The Project is expected to break ground in 2024 and be completed by 2025. Construction activities will take place between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction work will occur on Sundays or holidays per the City’s Community Noise Control Section Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code.
1.4 Standard Noise Regulatory Conditions
The proposed project will be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the City of Redlands and State of California.
City of Redlands Municipal Code
The following lists the City of Redlands Municipal Code regulations that are applicable to the proposed project.
Section 8.06.120(G) – Construction Activity
Section 8.06.120(G) of the City’s Municipal Code exempts noise sources associated with new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or grading of any property from the City’s noise standards provided construction activities that occur do not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, with no activities occurring at any time on Sundays or federal holidays.
Additionally, all construction equipment must be equipped with functioning mufflers.
Section 8.06.070(A) – Exterior Noise Limits
Section 8.06.070(A) of the City’s Municipal Code limits noise to single‐family residential uses to 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and to 60 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m..
Section 8.06.080(A) –Interior Noise Limits
Section 8.06.080(A) of the City’s Municipal Code limitsinterior noise levels ofsingle‐family residential uses to 45 dBA at all times.
State of California Rules
The following lists the State of California rules that are applicable to the proposed project.
California Vehicle Code Section 27200‐27207 – On‐Road Vehicle Noise California Vehicle Code Section 27200‐27207 provides noise limits for vehicles operated in California. For vehicles over 10,000 pounds noise is limited to 88 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1973, 86 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1975, 83 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1988, and 80 dB for vehicles manufactured after 1987. All measurements are based at 50 feet from the vehicle.
California Vehicle Section 38365‐38380 – Off‐Road Vehicle Noise California Vehicle Code Section 38365‐38380 provides noise limits for off‐highway motor vehicles operated in California. 92 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1973, 88 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1975, 86 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1986, and 82 dBA for vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1985. All measurements are based at 50 feet from the vehicle.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2276 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
1.5 Summary of Analysis Results
The following is a summary of the proposed project’s impacts with regard to the State CEQA Guidelines noise checklist questions.
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant impact.
Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact.
For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact.
1.6 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
This analysis found that through adherence to the noise and vibration regulations detailed in Section 1.4 above, all noise and vibration impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2277 of 2362
Figure 1
Project Location Map
SOURCE: Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer. N Project Site Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2278 of 2362
Figure 2 Site Plan SOURCE: City of Redlands. N
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2279 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
2.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
The following discussion on noise fundamentals has been obtained from Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TeNS), prepared by Caltrans, September 2013. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. A‐weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.
2.1 Noise Descriptors
Noise Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A‐weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.
The peak traffic hour Leq is the noise metric used by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for all traffic noise impact analyses.
The Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of ten decibelsto sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. While the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 decibels to sound levels during the evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. These additions are made to the sound levels at these time periods because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours, there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason the sound appears louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly. The City of Redlands relies on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation‐related impacts on noise sensitive land uses.
2.2 Tone Noise
A pure tone noise is a noise produced at a single frequency and laboratory tests have shown that humans are more perceptible to changes in noise levels of a pure tone. For a noise source to contain a “pure tone,” there must be a significantly higher A‐weighted sound energy in a given frequency band than in the neighboring bands, thereby causing the noise source to “stand out” against other noise sources. A pure tone occurs if the sound pressure level in the one‐third octave band with the tone exceeds the average of the sound pressure levels of the two contiguous one‐third octave bands by:
5 dB for center frequencies of 500 hertz (Hz) and above 8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz
15 dB for center frequencies of 125 Hz or less
2.3 Noise Propagation
From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2280 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from pointsources,such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward asit travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The noise drop‐off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop‐off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD.
2.4 Ground Absorption
The sound drop‐off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver. To account for this ground‐effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models, soft‐site and hard‐site conditions. Soft‐site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop‐off rate of 7.5 dBA/DD is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/DD drop‐off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. For line sources a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft‐site conditions compared to the 3.0 dBA/DD drop‐off rate for hard‐site conditions. Caltrans research hasshown that the use ofsoft‐ site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2281 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
3.0 GROUND‐BORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Ground‐borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground‐borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels damage to buildings may occur. Although ground‐borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground‐borne noise is an effect of ground‐borne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.
3.1 Vibration Descriptors
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Due to the typically small amplitudes of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as (Lv) and is based on the rms velocity amplitude. A commonly used abbreviation is “VdB”, which in this text, is when Lv is based on the reference quantity of 1 micro inch per second.
3.2 Vibration Perception
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB. Off‐ site sourcesthat may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment,steel‐ wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground‐borne noise or vibration.
3.3 Vibration Propagation
The propagation of ground‐borne vibration is not as simple to model as airborne noise. This is due to the fact that noise in the air travels through a relatively uniform median, while ground‐borne vibrations travel through the earth which may contain significant geological differences. There are three main types of vibration propagation; surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front,similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P‐waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push‐pull” fashion). P‐waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S‐waves, orshear waves, are also body wavesthat carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P‐waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side‐to‐side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.”
As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. As stated above, this drop‐off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2282 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
4.0 REGULATORY SETTING
The project site is located in the City of Redlands. Noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.
4.1 Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce Assisting state and local abatement efforts
Promoting noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was initially tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency prohibits exposure of workers to excessive sound levels. The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various operating agencies. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit noise is regulated by the FTA, while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Finally, the federal government actively advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.
Although the proposed project is not under the jurisdiction of the FTA, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual), prepared by the FTA, September 2018, is a guidance document from a government agency that has defined what constitutes a significant noise impact from implementing a project. The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies on the human effects and reaction to noise and a summary of the FTA findings for a detailed construction noise assessment are provided below in Table A.
Table A – FTA Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use Day (dBA Leq(8‐hour)) Night (dBA Leq(8‐hour)) 30‐day Average (dBA Ldn) Residential 80 70 75
Commercial 85 85 80(1)
Industrial 90 90 85(1)
Notes:
(1) Use a 24‐hour Leq (24 hour) instead of Ldn (30 day).
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2283 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by transportation sources, the City isrestricted to regulating noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
4.2 State Regulations
Noise Standards
California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model isthe “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix,” which allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.
California Noise Insulation Standards
Title 24, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise Insulation Standards) requires noise insulation in new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings(other than single‐family detached housing) that provides an annual average noise level of no more than 45 dBA CNEL. When such structures are located within a 60‐dBA CNEL (or greater) noise contour, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45‐dBA CNEL annual threshold. In addition, Title 21, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California Administrative Code requires that all habitable rooms, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of worship shall have an interior CNEL of 45 dB or less due to aircraft noise.
Government Code Section 65302
Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.
Vibration Standards
Title 14 of the California Administrative Code Section 15000 requires that all state and local agencies implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which requires the analysis of exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration. However, no statute has been adopted by the state that quantifies the level at which excessive groundborne vibration occurs.
Caltrans issued the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual in April 2020. The manual provides practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects.
However, this manual is also used as a reference point by many lead agencies and CEQA practitioners throughout California, as it provides numeric thresholds for vibration impacts. Thresholds are provided for both transient (i.e., mobile equipment) and continuous (i.e., pile driving) sources of vibration. The Guidance Manual provides thresholds for both building damage, where transient vibration sources may start to create damage to buildings at 0.5 inch persecond PPV and from human response, where transient vibration sources become distinctly perceptible at 0.24 inch per second PPV.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2284 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
4.3 Local Regulations
The City of Redlands General Plan and Municipal Code establishesthe following applicable policiesrelated to noise and vibration.
City of Redlands General Plan Implementing Policies
9.0e Use the criteria specified in GP Table 9.1 (see Table B) to assessthe compatibility of proposed land uses with the projected noise environment, and apply the noise standards in GP Table
9.2 (see Table C), which prescribe interior and exterior noise standards in relation to specific land uses. Do not approve projects that would not comply with the standards in GP Table
9.2. Table B – City of Redlands Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix Land Use
Categories Uses
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
<60 65 70 75 80 >85
Residential Single‐Family, Duplex, Multiple‐Family A C C C D D D Mobile Homes A C C C D D D
Commercial
Regional, District Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Commercial
Regional, Village,
District, Special
Commercial, Retail, Bank, Restaurant,
Movie Theatre
A A A A B B C
Commercial
Industrial,
Institutional
Office Building, Research and
Development, Professional Offices,
City Office Building
A A A B B C D
Commercial
Recreation
Institutional
Civic Center
Amphitheatre, Concert Hall,
Auditorium, Meeting Hall
B B C C D D D
Commercial
Recreation
Children’s Amusement Park, Miniature
Golf Course, Go‐cart Track, Equestrian
Center, Sports Club
A A A A B B B
Commercial
General, Special
Industrial,
Institutional
Automobile Service Station, Auto
Dealership, Manufacturing,
Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities
A A A A B B B
Institutional
General
Hospital, Church, Library, Schools,
Classroom A B C C D D
Open Space
Parks A A A B C D D
Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature
Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife
Habitat
A A A A B C C
Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A
Interpretation:
Zone A: Clearly Compatible. Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2285 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
Zone B: Normally Compatible. New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.
Zone C: Normally Incompatible. New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Zone D: Clearly Incompatible. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Table 7‐10 from City of Redlands General Plan, 2017.
Table C – City of Redlands Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use
Categories Uses
Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL)
Interior(1) Exterior(2)
Residential Single‐Family, Duplex, Multiple‐Family 45(3,5) 60 Mobile Homes ‐‐ 60(4)
Commercial,
Institutional,
Open Space
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 65(5)
Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant 55 ‐‐
Office Building, Research & Development,
Professional Offices, City Office Building 50 ‐‐
Amphitheater, Concert Hall, Auditorium, Meeting
Hall 45 ‐‐
Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 ‐‐
Sports Club 55 ‐‐
Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities 60 ‐‐ Movie Theatres 45 ‐‐
Hospital, School’s Classroom 45 ‐‐
Parks ‐‐ 60
Interpretation:
1 Indoor environment excluding: bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2 Outdoor environment limited to: private yard of single‐family as measured at the property line; multi‐family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside; mobile home park, hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; hotel and recreational area.. 3 Noise level requirement with closed windows, if they are used to meet natural ventilation requirement. 4 Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL. 5 Except those areas affected by aircraft noise.
See also Policy 9.0s.
Source: Table 9.2 from City of Redlands General Plan, 2017.
9.0f Require a noise impact evaluation based on noise measurements at the site for all projects in Noise Referral Zones (B, C, or D) as shown on GP Table 9.1 (see Table B) and on GP Figure
9.1 or as determined from tables in the Appendix, as part of the project review process.
Should measurements indicate that unacceptable noise levels will be created or experienced, require mitigation measures based on a detailed technical study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer (i.e., a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California with a minimum of three years experience in acoustics).
9.0i Require construction of barriers to mitigate sound emissions where necessary or where feasible, and encourage use of walls and bermsto protect residential or other noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads, commercial, or industrial areas.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2286 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
9.0s Require mitigation to ensure that indoor noise levels for residential living spaces not exceed 45 dB LDN/CNEL due to the combined effect for all exterior noise sources.
The Uniform Building Code (specifically, the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4, Sections T25‐28) requires that “Interior community noise levels (CNEL/LDN) with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL or LDN of a 45 dB in any habitable room.” The code requires that thisstandard be applied to all new hotels, motels, apartment houses and dwellings other than detached single‐family dwellings.
Policy 9‐s sets the maximum acceptable interior noise level at 45 CNEL. The Noise Referral Zones (65 CNEL) delineate areas within which tests to ensure compliance are to be required for new structures
9.0u Require all new residential projects or replacement dwellings to be constructed near existing sources of non transportation noise (including but not limited to commercial facilities or public parks with sports activities) to demonstrate via an acoustical study conducted by a Registered Engineer that the indoor noise levels will be consistent with the limits contained in the Community Noise Ordinance (see Table C).
9.0v Consider the following impacts as possibly “significant”:
An increase in exposure of four or more dB if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as clearly compatible for the affected land use, established in GP Table 9.1 [Table 7‐10] and GP Table 9.2 [Table 7‐11];
Any increase of six dB or more, due to the potential for adverse community response.
City of Redlands Municipal Code
The City of Redlands Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise.
Section 8.06.030 – General Noise Regulations
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully or negligently make, or cause to be made, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitivity in the area. The factors that may be considered in determining whether a violation of this chapter exists include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. The sound level of the objectionable noise;
B. The sound level of the ambient noise;
C. The proximity of the noise to residential living or sleeping facilities; D. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; E. The number of persons affected by the noise;
F. The time of day or night the noise occurs;
G. The duration of the noise;
H. The tonal, informative or musical content of the noise; I. Whether the noise is continuous, recurrent, or intermittent; J. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity; Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2287 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
K. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; L. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; and M. Whether the noise occurs on a weekday, weekend or a holiday.
Section 8.06.070 – Exterior Noise Limits
A. The noise standards for the categories of land uses identified in Table 1 (see Table D) of this section shall, unless otherwise specifically indicated, apply to all such property within a designated zone.
B. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
1. The noise standard for that land use specified in Table 1 of this section for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or
2. The noise standard specified in Table 1 of this section plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or
3. The noise standard specified in Table 1 of this section plus ten (10) dB for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or
4. The noise standard specified in Table 1 of this section plus fifteen (15) dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
5. The noise standard specified in Table 1 of this section plus twenty (20) dB or the maximum measured ambient level, for any period of time.
C. If the measured ambient level exceeds the allowable noise exposure standard within any of the first four (4) noise limit categories below, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be adjusted in five (5) dB increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under this category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
D. The ambient noise shall be measured at the same location along the property line utilized in subsection
8.06.06B of this chapter, with the alleged offending noise source inoperative. If the alleged offending noise source cannot be shut down, the ambient noise shall be estimated by performing a measurement in the same general area of the source but at sufficient distance that the noise from the source is at least ten (10) dB below the ambient in order that only the ambient level be measured. If the difference between the ambient and noise source is five (5) to ten (10) dB, then the level of the ambient itself can be reasonably determined by subtracting a one decibel correction to account for the contribution of the source.
E. In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech, hum, or is a repetitive noise such as a hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits set forth in Table 1 of this section shall be reduced by five (5) dB.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2288 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
Table D – City of Redlands Maximum Permissible Sound Levels By Receiving Land Use Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA) Single‐Family Residential Districts
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 50
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 60
Multi‐Family Residential Districts,
Public Space, Institutional
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 50
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 60
Commercial
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 60
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 65
Industrial Any time 75
Source: City of Redlands Municipal Code Section 8.06.070.
Section 8.06.080 – Interior Noise Standards
A. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound, or allow the creation of any noise, which causes the noise level when measured inside a neighboring receiving occupied building to exceed the following standards.
1. The noise standard for that land use specified in Table 2 (see Table E) of this section for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour.
2. The noise standard for that land use specified in Table 2 of this section plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour.
3. The noise standard for that land use specified in Table 2 of this section plus ten (10) dB for the maximum measured ambient noise level for any period of time.
Table E – City of Redlands Maximum Permissible Interior Sound Levels By Receiving Land Use Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA) Single‐Family Residential Districts Any time 45
Multi‐Family Residential Districts, Institutional, Hotels Any time 45 Commercial Any time 50
Industrial Any time 60
Source: City of Redlands Municipal Code Section 8.06.080.
B. If the measured ambient level exceeds the allowable exterior noise exposure standard in Table 1 (see Table D) of this chapter, the allowable interior noise exposure level shall be adjusted in five (5) dB increments as appropriate too reflect the ambient noise level.
Section 8.06.090 – Noise Disturbances Prohibited
The following acts, and the causing or permitting thereof, are declared to be in violation of this chapter:
F. Construction And/Or Demolition: Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between weekday hours ofsix o’clock (6:00) P.M. and seven o’clock (7:00) A.M., including Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work by public service utilities, the city or another government entity. All mobile Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2289 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
or stationary internal combustion engine powered equipment or machinery shall be equipped with exhaust and air intake silencers in proper working order, or suitable to meet the standards set forth herein.
G. Vibration: Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at one hundred fifty feet (150’) from the source if on a public space or public right of way.
Section 8.06.120 – Exemptions
A. Emergency Exemption: This chapter shall not apply to:
1. The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency such as, but not limited to, loudspeakers, horns, sirens, whistles or other similar devices which emit sound, only for the time required to make notification of the emergency condition; or
2. The emission of sound in the performance of emergency work or the temporary provision of essential services such as, but not limited to, utility system repairs or upgrades, infrastructure repairs,structuralrepairs and other unscheduled, infrequent and nonrecurring activities, required to protect persons and property from physical harm or loss of essential services.
B. Warning Devices: This chapter shall not apply to warning devices necessary for the protection of public safety. Police, fire and ambulance sirens and train horns are exempt from this chapter.
C. Outdoor Activities: This chapter shall not apply to occasional outdoor public gatherings, public dances, shows, and sporting and entertainment events conducted within city parks and city owned facilities, including events conducted at the Redlands Bowl, provided such events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the city.
D. School Activities: This chapter shall not apply to activities and operations conducted on the grounds of any public or private elementary, intermediate or secondary school or colleges and universities.
E. Hospital: This chapter shall not apply to activities and operations conducted within the grounds of the Redlands Community Hospital provided that said activities and operations are in compliance with the acoustical provisions of the hospital’s conditional use permit.
F. Minor Maintenance Of Residential Property: This chapter shall not apply to noise sources associated with the minor maintenance of residential property, provided such activitiestake place between the hours of seven o’clock (7:00) A.M. to eight o’clock (8:00) P.M. on weekdays, and seven o’clock (7:00) A.M. to eight o’clock (8:00) P.M. on weekends and legal holidays, and provided that such activities generate no more than ninety (90) dBA at or within the real property line of the residential property. Activities covered under this provision include, but are not limited to, maintenance of landscaping and minor repair of residential dwellings or ancillary structures.
G. Construction Activities: This chaptershall not apply to noise sources associated with new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or grading of any property provided such activities take place between the hours of seven o’clock (7:00) and six o’clock (6:00) P.M. on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activities taking place at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. All motorized equipment used in such activity shall be equipped with functioning mufflers.
H. Agricultural Operations: This chapter shall not apply to mobile noise sources associated with agricultural operations for use in maintenance, cultivation, planting and harvesting of agricultural areas provided said activities take place between the hours of seven o’clock (7:00) A.M. to eight o’clock (8:00) Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2290 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
P.M. on weekdays including Saturdays, with no activities taking place at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. All motorized equipment used in such activity shall be equipped with functioning mufflers.
I. Chapter Application: This chapter shall not apply to any activity in which state or federal law has preempted the regulation of such activity.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2291 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
5.0 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS
To determine the existing noise levels, noise measurements have been taken in the vicinity of the project site. The field survey noted that noise within the proposed project area is generally relatively low compared to the rest of the City. The primary noise sources in the project vicinity consist of vehicles operating on Helen Court and Helen Drive and from mechanical equipment associated with the telecommunications towers next to the existing water tank. The following describes the measurement procedures, measurement locations, noise measurement results, and the modeling of the existing noise environment.
5.1 Noise Measurement Equipment
The noise measurements were taken using a Larson‐Davis Model 831 Type 1 precision sound level meter programmed in “slow” mode to record noise levels in “A” weighted form as well as the frequency spectrum of the noise broken down into 1/3 octaves. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod five feet above the ground and were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring using a Larson‐ Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The noise level measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4‐2014 standard).
Noise Measurement Locations
The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Descriptions of the noise monitoring sites are provided below in Table F and are shown in Figure 3.
Appendix A includes a photo index of the study area and noise level measurement locations.
Noise Measurement Timing and Climate
The noise measurements were recorded between 3:25 p.m. and 4:04 p.m. on Monday, August 28, 2023.
During the noise measurements, the sky was clear (no clouds), the temperature was 103 degrees Fahrenheit, the humidity was 23 percent, barometric pressure was 27.68 inches of mercury, and the wind was blowing at an average rate of five miles per hour.
5.2 Noise Measurement Results
The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table F and the noise monitoring data printouts are included in Appendix B.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2292 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
Table F – Existing (Ambient) Noise Measurement Results
Site
No. Description
Primary Noise
Source
Start Time of
Measurement
Measured Noise Level
dBA Leq dBA Lmax
1 Located southwest of proposed reservoirs,
approximately 40 feet southwest of Helen
Court centerline and 20 feet north of fence for
home at 13202 Bruder Lane
Vehicles on
Helen Court and
mechanical
equipment
3:25 p.m. 46.8 58.8
2 Located north of proposed reservoirs at
Teddy’s Trailhead, approximately 15 feet north
of Helen Court centerline.
Vehicles on
Helen Court and
Helen Lane
3:49 p.m. 51.3 73.2
Notes: Noise measurements taken with a Larson‐Davis Model 831 Type 1 precision sound level meter on Monday, August 28, 2023.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2293 of 2362
Figure 3
Field Noise Monitoring Locations
LEGEND
2 Noise Monitoring Location
2 1
SOURCE: Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer.
N
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2294 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
6.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS
6.1 Construction Noise
The noise impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The FHWA compiled noise measurement data regarding the noise generating characteristics of several different types of construction equipment used during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston. Table G below provides a list of the construction equipment anticipated to be used for each phase of construction, which was obtained from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Sunset Reservoirs Project (Air Quality Analysis), prepared by Vista Environmental, October 2, 2023.
Table G – Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors Equipment Description
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Spec 721.560 Lmax at
50 feet2 (dBA, slow3)
Actual Measured Lmax
at 50 feet4 (dBA, slow3)
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozer 3 40 85 83
Tractor, Loader, or Backhoe 4 40 84 N/A
Grading
Excavators 1 40 85 81
Grader 1 40 85 83
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 40 85 82
Tractor, Loader or Backhoe 3 40 84 N/A
Building Construction
Crane 1 16 85 81
Forklift (Gradall) 3 40 85 83
Generator 1 50 82 81
Tractor, Loader or Backhoe 3 40 84 N/A
Welder 1 40 73 74
Paving
Paver 2 50 85 77
Paving Equipment 2 50 85 77
Rollers 2 20 85 80
Architectural Coating
Air Compressor 1 40 80 78
Notes:
1 Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. 2 Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the RCNM program. 3 The “slow” response averagessound levels over 1‐second increments. A “fast” response averagessound levels over 0.125‐second increments. 4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006 and CalEEMod default equipment mix.
Table G also shows the associated measured noise emissions for each piece of equipment from the RCNM model and measured percentage of typical equipment use per day. Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated according to the equipment noise levels and usage factors listed in Table G and through use of the RCNM. For each phase of construction, all construction Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2295 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
equipment was analyzed based on being placed in the middle of the project site, per the FTA Manual for a General Assessment, and is based on the rational that mobile equipment would likely move around the entire project site in a typical workday. As such, the middle of project site would provide the acoustical average noise level created over a typical workday. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis, all equipment was analyzed, instead of just the two nosiest pieces of equipment as detailed in the FTA Manual. The RCNM model printouts are provided in Appendix C.
6.2 Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table H gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. The data in Table H provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.
Table H – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate Vibration Level
(Lv)at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) Upper range
typical
1.518
0.644
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) Upper range
typical
0.734
0.170
105
93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Federal Transit Administration, September, 2020.
The construction‐related vibration impacts have been calculated through the vibration levels shown above in Table H and through typical vibration propagation rates. The equipment assumptions were based on the equipment lists provided above in Table G.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2296 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands
7.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to noise would occur if a proposed project is determined to result in:
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or 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.
7.2 Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards
The proposed project would not generate 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. The following section calculates the potential noise emissions associated with the temporary construction activities and long‐term operations of the proposed project and compares the noise levels to the City standards.
Construction‐Related Noise
The construction activitiesforthe proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of approximately 6.2 acres, building construction of the proposed reservoirs, paving of an onsite driveway and parking spaces, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is a single‐family home that is located as near as 280 feet south of the area that would be disturbed as part of the proposed project.
There are also single‐family homes as near as 730 feet northeast and 780 feet north of the area that would be disturbed as part of the proposed project.
Section 8.06.120(G) of the City’s Municipal Code exempts noise sources associated with new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or grading of any property from the City’s noise standards provided construction activities that occur do not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, with no activities occurring at any time on Sundays or federal holidays.
However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby residents.
In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds detailed above in Section 4.1 have been utilized, which shows that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise exceeds 80 dBA during the daytime at any of the nearby homes or school classrooms.
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 2297 of 2362
Sunset Reservoirs Project, Noise Impact Analysis
City of Redlands