Upland City Council
June 9, 2025

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Table of Contents Page ii

3.3.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 3-58

3.3.13 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 3-59

3.3.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 3-66

3.3.15 Public Services ....................................................................................................... 3-69

3.3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 3-73

3.3.17 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................... 3-73

3.3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 3-78

3.3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................. 3-81

3.3.20 Wildfire .................................................................................................................. 3-85

3.3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 3-86

4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 4-1

5.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS ...................................... 5-1

5.1 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................................................. 5-2

5.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................... 5-3

5.6 NOISE ...................................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.7 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 5-6

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX C: CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D: GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION INVESTIGATION APPENDIX E: GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F: PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX G1: DRAINAGE STUDY
APPENDIX G2: PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G3: 15TH STREET BASIN MODIFICATIONS REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX G4: 15TH STREET BASIN MODIFICATIONS – SPILLWAY AND BYPASS ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX G5: SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION – NEW BASIN
APPENDIX H: NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX I: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location .............................................................................................. 2-8 Figure 2: Project Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 3a: Conceptual Grading Plan .................................................................................................. 2-10 Figure 3b: Conceptual Grading Plan – Cross Sections ....................................................................... 2-11 Figure 3c: Conceptual Basin Modification Plan ................................................................................. 2-12 Figure 4a: Land Use Plan ................................................................................................................... 2-13

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Table of Contents Page iii
Figure 4b: Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 5a: Architectural Renderings – Spanish Style ......................................................................... 2-15 Figure 5b: Spanish Style – Details ...................................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 6a: Architectural Renderings – Italianate Style ...................................................................... 2-17 Figure 6b: Italianate Style – Details ................................................................................................... 2-18 Figure 7a: Architectural Renderings – French Country Style ............................................................ 2-19 Figure 7b: French Country Style – Details ......................................................................................... 2-20 Figure 8a: Central Open Space Plan .................................................................................................. 2-21 Figure 8b: Pocket Park Plans ............................................................................................................. 2-22 Figure 9: Connectivity Plan ................................................................................................................ 2-23 Figure 10a: Master Plan of Circulation .............................................................................................. 2-24 Figure 10b: Street Cross-Sections ...................................................................................................... 2-25 Figure 11a: Primary Community Entry .............................................................................................. 2-26 Figure 11b: Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................ 2-27 Figure 12: Water Master Plan ........................................................................................................... 2-28 Figure 13: Sewer Master Plan............................................................................................................ 2-29 Figure 14: Storm Drain Master Plan .................................................................................................. 2-30 TABLES
Table 2.2A: Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting ..................................................................... 2-2 Table 3.3.3A: Tentative Project Construction Schedule .................................................................... 3-11 Table 3.3.3B: Diesel Construction Equipment Utilized by Construction Phase ................................. 3-12 Table 3.3.3C: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions without Mitigation .............................. 3-13 Table 3.3.3D: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions with Mitigation ................................... 3-14 Table 3.3.3E: Construction Localized Impact Analysis....................................................................... 3-15 Table 3.3.3F: Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Summary ....................................................... 3-15 Table 3.3.8A: Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual) ..................................................... 3-34 Table 3.3.8B: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction .................................................................................................................................. 3-35 Table 3.3.10A: General Best Management Practices ........................................................................ 3-44 Table 3.3.11A: Proposed Project’s Consistency with the City’s General Plan ................................... 3-53 Table 3.3.11B: SCAG Demographic Forecasts ................................................................................... 3-56 Table 3.3.13A: Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary ........................................................ 3-60 Table 3.3.13B: Maximum Noise Levels, LN (dBA) .............................................................................. 3-62 Table 3.3.13C: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................... 3-65 Table 3.3.13D: Unmitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ........................................... 3-65 Table 3.3.13E: Mitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................ 3-66 Table 3.3.14A: Existing and Future Jobs/Housing Ratios .................................................................. 3-68

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Acronyms and Abbreviations Page iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ADT Average Daily Trip
amsl above mean sea level
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BACM Best Available Control Measure
BANL Base Ambient Noise Levels
BMP Best Management Practice
Btu British thermal unit
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CALUCP Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDS continuous deflection separator
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 Methane
City City of Upland
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide-Equivalent Gases
dBA A-weighted decibels
DCV Design Capture Volume
DIF Development Impact Fee
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DR Design Review
DTSC (California) Department of Toxic Substances Control EAR Environmental Assessment Review
EIR Environmental Impact Report

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Acronyms and Abbreviations Page v
EPA (United States) Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
ft3 cubic feet
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
GPCD gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
GWh Gigawatt-hour
HPLV High Pressure Low Volume
HUD (United States Department of) Housing and Urban Development HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
IS Initial Study
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LF linear feet
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT Metric Ton
MWD Metropolitan Water District
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
ND Negative Declaration
NDDB Natural Diversity Data Base
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx Nitrogen Oxides

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Acronyms and Abbreviations Page vi
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
O3 Ozone
PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PPV peak particle velocity
RCB round catch basin
RCP reinforced concrete pipe
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAWCo San Antonio Water Company
SB Senate Bill
SBCFD San Bernardino County Fire District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMBMI San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SP Site Plan
SPR Specific Plan
SRA Source Receptor Area
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TT Tentative Tract
UPD Upland Police Department
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB velocity in decibels
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Acronyms and Abbreviations Page vii
WDIN Waste Discharge Identification Number
WFA Water Facilities Authority
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
ZC Zone Change

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Introduction and Purpose Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 1.0 of this Initial Study (IS) describes the purpose, environmental authorization, the intended uses of the IS, documents incorporated by reference, and the processes and procedures governing the preparation of the environmental document. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Upland (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has primary responsibility for compliance with CEQA and consideration of the proposed Villa Serena Specific Plan Project (Project or Proposed Project).

The IS is organized as follows:

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

Section 2.0 Project Description provides a detailed description of the Proposed Project.

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

Section 4.0 References provides a list of references cited in the body of the document.

Appendices Includes the technical material prepared to support the analyses contained in the Initial Study.

1.2 PURPOSE
The discretionary land use entitlements associated with the Project include Site Plan (SP) No. 18-10, Design Review (DR) No. 18-14, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 18-04, Zone Change (ZC) No. 18- 04 Tentative Tract (TT) 18-03, Specific Plan (SPR) 18-02 and Environmental Assessment Review (EAR No. 0700 for an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for approval and adoption by the City of Upland, respectively. Because of these discretionary actions to be considered by the City, CEQA requires that the Proposed Project be reviewed to determine the environmental effects that would result if the Project were approved and implemented. The City is the Lead Agency and has the responsibility for preparing and adopting the associated environmental document prior to consideration of the approval of the Proposed Project. The City has the authority to make decisions regarding discretionary actions relating to implementation of the Proposed Project.

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

As established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c), the purposes of an IS are to:

1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 through 15387.

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Introduction and Purpose Page 1-2
• Provide the Lead Agency (i.e., the City of Upland) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND); or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND);
• Enable an Applicant or Lead Agency to modify a Project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the Project to qualify for an ND or MND; • Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required; • Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a Project; • Provide a factual basis for finding in an ND or MND that a Project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
• Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and
• Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the Project.

1.3 AUTHORIZATION
According to Section 15002(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the basic purposes of CEQA are:
• Inform government decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities;
• Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; • Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in Projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governing agency finds the changes to be feasible; and
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the Project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

1.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY
The City formally initiated the environmental process for the Project with the preparation of this IS.

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

CEQA 2 permits the incorporation by reference of all or portions of other documents that are generally available to the public. The IS has been prepared utilizing information from the City of Upland planning and environmental documents, technical studies specifically prepared for the Project, and other publicly available data. The documents utilized in the IS are identified in Section

3.0 and are hereby incorporated by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Upland, Development Services Department.

2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Introduction and Purpose Page 1-3

1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 20-day public review period. Written comments regarding this IS should be addressed to:

Joshua Winter
Associate Planner, Planning Division
City of Upland, Development Services Department
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, California 91785
(909) 931-4143
[email protected]
After the 30-day public review period, consideration of comments raised during the public review period will be taken into account and addressed prior to adoption of the MND by the City.

1.6 LIST OF PREPARERS

1.6.1 City of Upland
Joshua Winter
Associate Planner
City of Upland, Development Services Department

1.6.2 LSA Associates, Inc.

Lynn Calvert-Hayes, AICP, Principal in Charge
Carl Winter, Associate/Project Manager
Dionisios Glentis, Environmental Planner
Steven Dong, Senior Editor
Meredith Canterbury, Senior GIS/Graphics Specialist
Maria Perez, Administrative Assistant/Document Production

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Project Description Page 2-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 OVERVIEW
The Villa Serena Specific Plan is a proposal by Frontier Communities (Applicant) to develop a gated residential community on approximately 9.2 acres (Site or Project Site) located north of 15th Street and approximately 0.25 mile east of North Campus Avenue in the City of Upland (City) (Figure 1).

The Site is an infill site surrounded by single-family residential uses to the south and west, the Upland Hills Country Club and residential community to the north, and residential uses to the east. A Southern California Edison substation is located northwest of the Site. The Project consists of the development of 65 single-family detached residential units at a density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre and on-site active and passive recreational amenities to be provided within the common area open space.

The proposed development envisions single-family housing styles common to those traditionally found in the City. The Site’s architecture, influenced and inspired by Spanish, Italianate, and French Country styles, echoes the classic architecture of the Southern Californian region. The Project integrates styles, elements, and a mix of materials from both established and newer residential communities located near the Site. The residential units have been designed to reflect the massing and scale of existing neighboring homes by using similar proportions, heights, and footprints allowing for the new community to comfortably blend with the existing neighborhood and the community at large.

Construction of Project roadways and infrastructure is planned to connect to existing facilities located adjacent to the Site. The Proposed Plan utilizes existing circulation and transportation facilities reducing the need for construction of additional arterial and major roadway extensions or improvements to serve the Site. The Site is within walking and biking distance to existing recreational and commercial facilities, which can help reduce automobile trips. Sierra Vista Park and Upland Memorial Park are located approximately 0.5 mile west and 0.8 mile south of the Site, respectively. The Colonies Crossroads Center, providing grocery, restaurants, personal services, entertainment, and home goods, is located within approximately one mile north of the Site.3 A commercial center, including a Walmart Neighborhood Market, is located on Foothill Boulevard, approximately 0.75 mile south of the Site.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING SETTING
The Project Site constitutes a portion of a the existing 15th Street flood control detention basin which is bounded by residential uses and the Upland Hills Country Club on the north, and single- family residential uses on the east, west, and south (Figure 2). The City has determined the 9.2-acre portion of the flood control detention basin comprising the Site to be a surplus parcel. The remaining 11.1 acres of the flood control detention basin as adequate for continued flood control operations pursuant to completion of modifications to portions of the basin made as part of the Project. Maintenance access for the flood control facilities will be provided by a gated entry to the basin located at the eastern edge of the Site. Table 2.2A shows the Proposed Project surrounding land uses, General Plan and zoning designations.

3 Via 15th Street, Alta Avenue, 14th Street, and Campus Avenue, travel distance to this center is approximately 2.0 miles.

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Project Description Page 2-2
Table 2.2A: Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
Direction Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Project Site Flood Control/Recharge Basin Existing Proposed Existing Proposed PU-FC/R Villa Serena SP PB-FC SP
North Multi-family Residential and
Golf Course SP SP
East Flood Control Basin PU-FC/R PB-FC
South Single-family Residential SFR-L and SFR-M RS-7.5 and RS-10 West Single-family Residential SFR-L RS-7.5
PU-FC/R = Public Utilities--Flood Control/Recharge
PB/FC = Public/Flood Control
SP = Specific Plan
SFR-L = Single-Family Residential (Low - 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre) SFR-M = Single-Family Residential (Medium - 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre) RS-7.5 (RS-7,500) = Single-Family Residential (7,500 square-foot lot) RS-10 (RS-10,000) = Single-Family Residential (10,000 square-foot lot)

2.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS

2.3.1 General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
The Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) changing the General Plan Land Use Map designation for the Site from Public Flood Control/Recharge (FC/R) to Villa Serena Specific Plan (SP), allowing residential land use development at a density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre consistent with the surrounding residential single-family low (SFR-L) and single-family medium (SFR-M) located south of the Site and the Upland Hills Country Club SP located north of the Site. Adoption by the City of the Specific Plan by ordinance will change the City’s zoning map for the City from Public (PB-FC) to “Villa Serena Specific Plan.”
Adoption of the Villa Serena Specific Plan (Specific Plan) implements the General Plan land use designation of SRF-M through the establishment of Site specific zoning regulations for the development of the Project Site. The Specific Plan is a comprehensive plan for development of the residential and private/common open space land uses and the necessary infrastructure improvements to serve the Site. The Specific Plan establishes the development regulations and design criteria for development of the Site as well as the procedures and requirements enabling City review and approval of development within the Project thereby ensuring that the City’s General Plan, as amended for the Site, is implemented.

2.3.2 Demolition and Grading
The grading operation will generally consist of demolition, clearing, grubbing, and moving of surface soils to construct streets, building pads, and driveways. Grading within the Site will attempt to balance cut/fills for the Site (Figures 3a-b).

A portion of the remaining 11.1 acres proposed for the modified basin will be graded to create a new basin footprint filling the western edge of the remaining basin. A new berm will be created be- tween the basin and Site. From the top of the berm, a new slope will be graded to the bottom of the modified basin proposed to be at an approximate elevation of 1,410 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Modifications to the bottom of the remaining basin will be made from the toe of the new slope to a point approximately 900 linear feet to the east, by grading the bottom of the basin in this area to an elevation of approximately 1,410 feet from an existing elevation of 1,414 to 1,415 feet.

The excess cut material generated can be utilized as fill for the proposed new berm located at the

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Project Description Page 2-3
westerly edge of the new basin as well as for fill within the proposed Project Site. The remainder of the existing basin will be untouched by the Project. Total earthwork for the Project is estimated to be approximately 46,000 cubic yards of cut and 87,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in import of roughly 41,000 cubic yards.

Grading plans will be reviewed and approved by the City’s Land Development and Transportation Division of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. All grading plans and activities will conform to the City grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements.

2.3.3 Design Elements
The Project will result in the development of 65 single-family detached residential dwelling units designed around a private two-way street system with pedestrian walkways linking residences to on-site common area open space and to existing adjacent roadways connecting to existing nearby recreational amenities and commercial services (Figures 4a-b). Residential lot sizes will range in size from 3,337 to 5,048 square feet. Residential units will be designed to front onto private streets with floor plans designed to present an “architecture forward” image so that the residence and not the garage is the predominant view from the street. Residential design incorporates human-scale details to promote a pedestrian friendly character for the community. Such details include the use of enhanced entries, a mix of materials and textures, and authentic detailing on elements such as windows, porches, doors, and lighting.

The Project provides a strong community identity for residents and visitors through a unified approach to Site design, architecture, and landscape design elements. The landscaped private street and street adjacent walkways link residences to common area open space encouraging neighborly interaction.

Design. Three separate and distinct architectural styles influenced by thematic architecture found within California have been selected for the Site. These styles are influenced and inspired by the themes of each style, all represented in historical California architecture.

Spanish. Spanish style architecture is a style that evolved from the architecture of the early Spanish colonies of North and South America, retaining the forms and textures of its cultural origin and updating them to fit a more modern context. This regional expression combines the basic forms of traditional Spanish and Mexican architecture with local styles prevalent at the time, such as Mission and Arts and Crafts to create architecture with a fine sense of detailing and a rich palette of materials. This style can borrow from both the hacienda and bungalow, and can be represented in a variety of interpretations as seen throughout the Southland. Some distinguishing features of this historic style include plaster walls, chimneys with distinctive hoods, low-pitched clay tile roofs and decorative wrought iron. Decorative tile, terra cotta pavers, finials and wood decks or balconies are also employed to add color, texture, and accent to this Southern California aesthetic (Figures 5a-b).

Italianate. The Italianate style as interpreted and conceived by Southern California architects of the early 20th century adapted the grand formal elegance of the Italian Renaissance estate with a localized approach to detailing and scale. Composed primarily of stacked two-story forms, the front elevations of these homes display a distinct organization of windows and doors, with a centrally located, articulated entry. Key identifying features of this style include low-pitched hip

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Project Description Page 2-4
roofs, decorative eave brackets, horizontal banding, round columns, and arched elements, particularly above rectangular windows. Southern California architects also used awnings, decorative shutters, and wrought iron to achieve a regional aesthetic while retaining strong connections to the style’s origins (Figures 6a-b).

French Country. French Country architecture is derived from a mixture of European influences.

After the adoption of stone and brick veneer techniques of the 1920s, the look became extremely popular across the country. Although the style is looked upon as a small plan form, it is considered one of the most recognized styles in suburban America. The French Country style emphasizes an asymmetrical plan and roof form, and details emphasize specific portions of the home such as the entry, gable end components with corbels, shutters, and window shelves.

Stone veneer or gable end siding are incorporated for texture and color accompaniments. This style has a steeper roof slope than other styles which provides for a diverse street scene (Figures 7a-b).

2.3.4 Common Area Open Space
The Project provides approximately one acre (42,266 square feet) of common area open space. A

0.75-acre recreation area is planned with a community pool, pool house with restrooms, and areas improved with picnic tables, a children’s play area, and barbeque and picnic areas. Four individual pocket parks totaling 9,526 square feet are planned for passive recreation uses by residents. The smallest pocket park is approximately 1,700 square feet and the largest is approximately 3,550 square feet. The pocket parks are accessible from Project sidewalks and will include shady landscape areas with benches, picnic tables, and children’s play areas (see Figure 4b and Figures 8a-b).

2.3.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity
The Project includes a private two-way street system with sidewalks on both sides of the street providing pedestrian connectivity throughout the Site. The connection of the Project street and walkway system to 15th Street is detailed in Figure 9. From the project site, Sierra Vista Park and Upland Memorial Park are located approximately 0.5 mile west and 0.8 mile south of the Site, respectively. The Colonies Crossroads Center, providing grocery, restaurants, personal services, entertainment, and home goods, is located within biking distance from the Site.4 A commercial center, including a Walmart Neighborhood Market, is located on Foothill Boulevard, approximately

0.75 mile south of the Site.

2.3.6 Circulation
Vehicular access to the Site is provided from 15th Street at two locations. A primary gated community entry for the Project is located at the eastern Project boundary adjacent to existing residential uses. A second gated entry is provided from 15th Street at the western boundary of the Project. An internal private two-way street system provides primary circulation within the Site serving residential dwellings and the common area open space. The width of the private two-way street will vary from 26 to 38 feet. On-street parking is permitted in designated segments of the street. A 5-foot wide sidewalk with adjacent wedge curb is provided on both sides of the street where homes front both sides of the street. In instances where the sides of homes are also adjacent to the street a 5-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk is provided on the same side of the street. Where

4 Via 15th Street, Alta Avenue, 14th Street, and Campus Avenue, travel distance to this center is approximately 2.0 miles.

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Project Description Page 2-5
the centrally located common area open space fronts the street on one side and residential units front the street on the opposite side a 5-foot wide sidewalk is provided on both sides of the street.

Emergency vehicle access is provided at both Project entries along 15th Street. Enhanced paving materials are planned to be installed at the main Project entry and in three locations along Street A (Figures 10a-b). All streets within the Site are planned as private roadways.

Maintenance crews serving the remaining Upland Basin flood control and detention basin are provided vehicular access through the Project’s street system. A service road and gate are located at the easterly boundary of the Project Site for maintenance vehicles to access the basin.

Ultimate right of way improvements for 15th Street include 40 feet of paved travel area with a five- foot wide sidewalk and an eight foot wide landscaped parkway on each side of 15th Street (total right-of-way of 66 feet). The developer will construct an additional eight feet of travel area, a new five-foot wide sidewalk and an eight-foot wide landscaped parkway within the existing right-of-way adjacent to the Site.

2.3.7 Landscaping
Landscape design encompasses “hardscape” elements such as entry monuments, signage, walls, fences, gates, paving, recreation and picnic equipment, as well as “softscape” elements such as trees, shrubs, vines and ground cover. All landscape elements should be compatible with the scale of the adjacent architecture and the surrounding space. Water conservation and long-term maintenance should be kept in mind when selecting specific plant material. Hydrozoning (grouping plants with similar water requirements) will be required.

Primary Entry. The Project’s primary entry (Figure 11a) will include the following:
• Use of large specimen canopy trees to anchor each side of the entry drive and enhanced paving at the entry drive.
• A 6-foot high tubular steel fence and gate and a 6-foot high stone veneer monument wall with pilasters on each side with architectural detailing to match the monument wall. • Parkway trees within the 15th Street right of way adjacent to the Site. • A variety of accent trees and shrub masses planted in a series of layers (foreground, mid ground, background at the Project entry, and along 15th Street adjacent to the Site) to help define borders and plant groupings while combining interesting foliage textures and color. • Accent lighting for landscape and monumentation.

Interior Streets. Streetscape design (Figure 11b) within the interior of the Site will be consistent in character and should help to promote pedestrian circulation within the community. Streetscapes are designed to provide a clear delineation between pedestrian and vehicular travel areas. Shrubs, low groundcovers, and “California Friendly” ornamental grasses are used to the greatest extent possible to reduce maintenance and conserve resources. The planting plan for streets includes informal plantings of trees, shrubs, groundcovers, and grasses. Uniformed spacing of trees is avoided in order to create an interesting and inviting pedestrian experience while also offering visual interest to motorists encouraging them to slow driving speeds and observe their surroundings. The following design criteria apply to streetscape design for the Project.

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Project Description Page 2-6
• Landscape treatments of each street shall be consistent throughout the length of the street in the neighborhood.
• Landscape treatments shall generally utilize street trees planted at intervals of 50 feet on center as feasible. Street trees shall be placed a minimum of eight feet from street light standards. • Street tree planting as described below shall generally utilize one or two primary species for each street with a limited number of add additional species to be used as accent planting.

Walls and Fencing. Walls and fences will be designed to complement and reinforce landscape design in establishing the image and theme of the community. Community walls constructed as part of the Project will be decorative in nature. Community perimeter walls constructed as part of the Project, interior community return walls and the community entry wall along 15th Street will be constructed of split face block. Use of decorative caps and pilasters to help enhance the perimeter appeal of the walls is required. All perimeter walls shall be constructed within the boundaries of the Site. Rear yard property walls constructed will be decorative split face block with accent pilasters at intervals along the wall. Vinyl fencing may be used along interior residential property lines.

2.3.8 Infrastructure
Water. Water service to the Site is provided via an existing 10-inch diameter water main located in 15th Street. The Project includes construction of a network of eight-inch diameter on-site water mains adequate to provide for the domestic and fire protection water requirements (Figure 12).

Wastewater. Existing off-site sewer facilities available to serve the Site include an existing eight-inch diameter sewer main located in 15th Street adjacent. The Project includes the construction of an on- site network of new eight-inch sewer mains and the relocation of one existing eight-inch off-site sewer main connecting to the on-site system (Figure 13).

Drainage. The Site’s existing drainage generally drains from east to west as part of a regional detention basin consisting of an essentially flat bottom, with 3:1 side slopes. The proposed drainage will convey flows from the residential lots and streets into a storm drain collection system on Site, which includes street flow. Runoff will then be passed through an underground infiltration basin and outlet into a new 12-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box culvert which outlets into the detention basin (Figure 14).

Basin Modifications.5 The Project includes modifications (including relocation of existing basin infrastructure) to the existing basin to accommodate the residential Site and maintain a fully operational flood control and retention facility on the remaining 11.1 acres of the basin area (see Figure 3c). The 9.2-acre area proposed for residential development will be graded to fill this portion of the existing basin. Modifications to the basin include:
• Extension of the basin inlet, located in the northwest corner of the existing basin, to the new eastern edge of the Site. New storm drain improvements will consist of a combination of 12’ × 8’ and 10’ × 9.5’ RCBs. The improvements will extend approximately 1,900 linear feet (LF) from west to east along the southern edge of the Site and outlet through a new headwall in the

5 The proposed basin and outlet modifications are assessed in the project-specific hydrology reports (Madole 2017) and 15th Street Basin Technical Memoranda (Q3 Consulting, July 31, 2018, and September 10, 2019).

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Project Description Page 2-7
modified basin. The modified inlet will also pick up two existing smaller inlets tributary to the basin within the Site as follows:
o An existing local inlet pipe located approximately 300 feet east of the Site eastern boundary is anticipated to be a 36” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) routed through the Site to the new inlet.
o An existing concrete trapezoidal channel located approximately 60’ west of the eastern edge of the Project Site will be picked up in an approximately 48” diameter pipe and routed through the Site into the new inlet round catch basin (RCB). • Extension 6 of approximately 1,800 LF of the basin outlet from the western edge of the Site to the eastern edge of the Site. This extension is proposed to be an 84” RCP to account for the design outlet as well as the spillway flows and includes a new outlet structure in the basin. The proposed pipe will extend from the southeast corner of the Site west to the main Project entry, then south into 15th Street and west along 15th Street connecting to the existing outlet pipe.

Easements will be granted to the City for all basin infrastructure proposed to be located within the Site.
• To satisfy San Bernardino County criteria and City Public Works Department comment, the project has provided an emergency spillway alternative.7 The existing basin would be retrofitted to accommodate a trapezoidal emergency spillway with a crest at an elevation of 1,426.6 feet amsl. The emergency spillway, having a base of 16 feet and a top width of 48.4 feet, would be installed at the end of Grove Avenue. Combined with the proposed box weir outlet system, potential impacts associated with project development would be minimized. The box weir outlet system would be designed to pass through the 200- or 500-year storm, with the emergency spillway providing discharge capacity for larger events.

Water Quality. The Project provides for on-site storm water retention and infiltration to mitigate an 85th percentile storm. This is accomplished by passing the on-site runoff through a continuous deflection separator (CDS) unit for pretreatment and then an underground infiltration basin to infiltrate runoff from the majority of the Site. The underground infiltration basin is proposed to be 23 × 123 feet and will have dual 72-inch perforated pipes encased in gravel. In addition, there are two Modular Wetland Systems, one located at each Project entry, to treat on-site areas that are not tributary to the underground basin.

6 To potentially reduce the sizes of new pipes, the Project conducted an analysis of basin bypass alternative, which would divert flows (low- or high-level flows) directly to the existing outlet pipe system. The bypass alternative did not satisfy the requirements associated with the existing system; therefore, this alternative was not carried forward. 7 A box-weir system with a 144-inch diameter outlet pipe was also determined capable of handling the design discharge. While this system would not require the new open channel emergency spillway in the basin, it could not be accommodated at this location.

N
C
A
M
P
U
S

A
V
E
JA
S
P
E
R

S
T
N
C
A
M
P
U
S

A
V
E
E 15th ST
§¨¦210
Project Location
BASE LINE RDE 16th ST
19th ST
SA
P
P
H
I
R
E

S
T
LEGEND
Project Site
Area of Off-Site Improvements
SanBernardinoCounty
RiversideCountyOrangeCounty
LosAngelesCounty
ÃÃ142
ÃÃ91
ÃÃ71
ÃÃ57
ÃÃ60
ProjectLocation
§¨¦210
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
§¨¦10
SOURCE: RCA (2018); Google (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ProjLocation.mxd (10/17/2018)
FIGURE 1
Villa Serena Specific PlanRegional and Project Location Project Vicinity
0 625 1250
FEET

SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL

NURSERYUSES

ELECTRICALSUBSTATION

STORMWATERBASIN

UPLAND HILLSCOUNTRY CLUB

RESIDENTIAL &GOLF COURSE

UPLAND HILLSCOUNTRY CLUB

U P L A N D HILLS D R
15TH ST
MONT
E
VE
RDE
AV

AU G U S T A D R

A RMA ND O ST

ARTURO ST
DI
E
G
O

W
Y
CA
R
L
O
S

W
Y

HILDITA CT

ISABELITA CT

GERTRUDITA CT

JUANITA CT

S A I N T A N D R E W S D R
FE
R
N
A
N
D
O

A
V
13 T
H

A
V
AL
T
A

A
V

W I N G ED FOOT DR
16TH ST
LEGEND
Project Site
Area of Off-Site Improvements
SOURCE: RCA (2018); Google (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ProjectSetting.mxd (10/17/2018)
FIGURE 2
Villa Serena Specific PlanProject Setting
0 175 350
FEET

SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ConceptualGradingPlan.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 3a
Villa Serena Specific PlanConceptual Grading Plan

A-A
B-B
C-C
D-D
SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ConceptualGradingPlan_CrossSections.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 3b
Villa Serena Specific PlanConceptual Grading Plan - Cross Sections

SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2019)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ConceptualBasinModPlan.mxd (7/22/2019) FIGURE 3c
Villa Serena Specific PlanConceptual Basin Modification Plan

SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\LandUsePlan.mxd (10/17/2018)
FIGURE 4a
Villa Serena Specific PlanLand Use Plan

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (8/30/2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ConceptualSitePlan.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 4b
Villa Serena Specific PlanConceptual Site Plan

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ArchRenderings_SpanishStyle.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 5a
Villa Serena Specific PlanArchitectural Renderings - Spanish Style

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\SpanishStyleDetails.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 5b
Villa Serena Specific PlanSpanish Style - Details

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ArchRenderings_ItalStyle.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 6a
Villa Serena Specific PlanArchitectural Renderings - Italianate Style

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ItalStyleDetails.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 6b
Villa Serena Specific PlanItalianate Style - Details

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ArchRenderings_FrenchCountryStyle.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 7a
Villa Serena Specific PlanArchitectural Renderings - French Country Style

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\FrenchCountryStyle_Details.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 7b
Villa Serena Specific PlanFrench Country Style - Details

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\CentralOpenSpacePlan.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 8a
Villa Serena Specific PlanCentral Open Space Plan

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\PocketParkPlans.mxd (10/17/2018)
FIGURE 8b
Villa Serena Specific PlanPocket Park Plans

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ConnectivityPlan.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 9
Villa Serena Specific PlanConnectivity Plan

SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\MasterPlan_ofCirculation.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 10a
Villa Serena Specific PlanMaster Plan of Circulation

SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2019)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\StreetCrossSections.mxd (7/22/2019) FIGURE 10b
Villa Serena Specific PlanStreet Cross Sections

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2019)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\PrimaryCommunityEntry.mxd (7/22/2019) FIGURE 11a
Villa Serena Specific PlanPrimary Community Entry

SOURCE: Bassenian/Lagoni (2019)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\ConceptualLandscapePlan.mxd (7/22/2019) FIGURE 11b
Villa Serena Specific PlanConceptual Landscape Plan

SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\WaterMasterPlan.mxd (10/17/2018)
FIGURE 12
Villa Serena Specific PlanWater Master Plan

SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\SewerMasterPlan.mxd (10/17/2018)
FIGURE 13
Villa Serena Specific PlanSewer Master Plan

SOURCE: Proactive Engineering Consultants (2018)
I:\FTR1801\GIS\MXD\IS\StormDrainMasterPlan.mxd (10/17/2018) FIGURE 14
Villa Serena Specific PlanStorm Drain Master Plan

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-1

3.0 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below (☒) would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. As detailed on the following pages, no immitigable Potentially Significant Impact associated with the development or operation of the Project was identified. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials ☐ Recreation
☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Transportation/Traffic ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.2 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

Signature

Date

Printed Name Title

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-2

3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like the one involved (e.g., the Project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on Project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as Project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address Site-specific conditions for the Project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a Project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-3
9) The analysis of each issue should identify (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
10) Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and Project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-4

3.3.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Upland General Plan, there are no designated scenic views or vistas within the City.8 Policy CC-1.6 of the Community Character Element of the City’s General Plan requires development to enhance public view corridors of the San Gabriel Mountains, where feasible.9
Existing landscaping and residential structures situated on the golf course adjacent to the north of the Project Site currently obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the Project Site. Single- family residential uses occur south of the Project Site, across 15th Street, and development of 65 single-family residential homes on the Project Site north of 15th Street would not reach the height of the mature trees situated on the golf course adjacent to the north already obstructing views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Additionally, the Project Site contains a raised earthen berm with vegetation that further obstructs views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the south. Therefore, views from south of the Site would not be significantly altered from what currently exists.

In accordance with Policy CC-1.6 of the Community Character Element of the City’s General Plan, development of the Proposed Project would introduce people [to the Site] who would have access to public view corridors of the San Gabriel Mountains, to the extent they occur through the golf course landscaping and existing residential uses, that would otherwise not be available to the public if the Site were to remain a flood control channel. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. No officially designated state scenic highways are located within the City. Roads of local scenic and historical interest include Euclid Avenue (State Route 83), Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66), Mountain Avenue, and Benson Avenue.10 None of these roadways are located within the view shed of the Project Site.

Since no officially designated state scenic highways are located within the City, the Project would not substantially affect scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

8 Section 5.3 Aesthetics, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Page 5.3-6, City of Upland, September 2015.
9 Chapter 3 Community Character Element, City of Upland General Plan, Pages CC-2 and CC-3, City of Upland, September 2015. 10 Section 5.3 Aesthetics, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Pages 5.3-2 and 5.3-3, City of Upland, September 2015.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-5
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publically accessible vantage
points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and serves as a flood control basin (15th Street Basin).

Surrounding land uses comprise a golf course with residential uses adjacent to the north, a private residential community to the west, 15th Street beyond which are single-family residential uses to the south, and an extension of the existing 15th Street Basin beyond which are single-family and multifamily residential uses to the east.

The Project Site contains a raised earthen berm with vegetation, a basin to convey storm water flows, and earthen utility roads. Proposed improvements to the Project Site include rough grading and construction of curb and gutter, lighting, drainage, landscaping, and 65 single-family residential units in accordance with Section 2: Development Plan, Section 3: Development Regulations, and Section 4: Design Criteria of the Villa Serena Specific Plan.11 Goal LU-6 of the General Plan Land Use Element prescribes Policy LU-6.1 to ensure that development is attractive and promotes harmony in the visual relationships and transitions between newer and older buildings and Policy LU-6.2 to control the location, concentration and operations of land uses that have potential impacts on surrounding development through effective design principles, adequate buffering, and enforcement of regulatory documents. The new community planned as part of the Specific Plan incorporates the traditional housing styles of the City, while also reflecting the architecture of recently built neighborhoods in the Project vicinity. The use of Spanish roof tiles, gable end details, and delicate metal rails reflects the classic Spanish style of the historical Upland communities, while the vertical corner details, symmetry, and arched openings of the Italianate style, and the corbels, stone siding, and steep roof pitches of the French Country architectural style capture the details of the past and present styles of Upland homes.

Construction of new Project roadways and infrastructure is planned to connect to existing facilities located adjacent to the Project Site. The proposed plan utilizes existing circulation and transportation facilities, reducing the need for construction of additional arterial and major roadway extensions or improvements to serve the Project Site. Gateway design features will be constructed with drought-tolerant street trees, decorative landscaping, architectural features, welcome signs, decorative lighting, and other streetscape design techniques in accordance with Policy CC-4.1 of the Community Character Element of the City’s General Plan 12 to provide a pleasant and integrated appearance.

The Site is located in an urbanized area. Project’s development of the flood control detention basin

11 Villa Serena Specific Plan. Frontier Communities. October 2018. 12 Chapter 3 Community Character Element, City of Upland General Plan, Page CC-4, City of Upland, September 2015.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-6
with Single Family Residential – Medium (SFR-M) uses between existing single-family homes to the south and west and the golf course with multifamily homes (duplexes) to the north is consistent with the planned implementation of the SFR-M land use in transition zones between lower-density residential uses and higher-density commercial, industrial, and multifamily residential land uses, as detailed in the General Plan. Accordingly, no significant degradation to the visual character of the Site or the surrounding area would occur. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and serves as a flood control basin (15th Street Basin), and the Proposed Project will develop the Site with 65 single-family, detached residential units as an infill Project surrounded by a golf course with residential uses adjacent to the north, a private residential community to the west, 15th Street beyond which are single-family residential uses to the south. The Project also includes an extension of the existing 15th Street Basin to the east of the proposed residential dwellings. The Proposed Project includes porch and threshold lighting on the residential units for both ambience and security, as well as street and pedestrian lighting at entrances, exists, pathways, and parking areas that would be commensurate with surrounding residential ambient day and nighttime illumination in the area. To reduce potential impacts from light or glare to less than significant levels, lighting will be shielded to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties in accordance with Section 17.14.030, General Standards of the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, outdoor lighting will comply with the State of California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards outdoor lighting requirements. If a conflict between the requirements of Chapter 17.14, Outdoor Lighting of the City Municipal Code and the State of California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards arises, that which produces the least glare shall apply, and light that results in glare is prohibited.

Additionally, the Proposed Project would not utilize high gloss or reflective materials that would cause glare or reflection from the Project Site. The Project would be subject to review and condition by the Development Services Department through the City’s plan check process to ensure compliance with Chapter 17.14, Outdoor Lighting of the City Municipal Code. Through adherence to applicable City standards, the Project would not generate excessive light or glare. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-7

3.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. Farmland maps are compiled by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), pursuant to the provisions of Section 65570 of the California Government Code. These maps utilize data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey and current land use information and use eight mapping categories to represent an inventory of agricultural resources within San Bernardino County.

As classified by the FMMP, the Project Site is designated as “Urban and Built-up Land.” As no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance13 is located on site, no conversion of any such farmland would occur. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local government to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agriculture or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The purpose of the Williamson Act is to encourage property owners to continue to farm their land and to prevent the premature conversion of farmland to urban uses.

The Project Site is currently functioning as a flood control basin and is surrounded by urban development. There are no Williamson Act properties within the City or the City’s Sphere of Influence,14 and the Project Site is not located within a Williamson Act contract area or an area

13 California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Bernardino County Important Farmland 2016, Sheet 2 of 2. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanBernardino.aspx (accessed July 23, 2018). 14 Section 5.11 Agricultural Resources, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Page 5.11-5, City of Upland, September 2015.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-8
zoned for agriculture.15 Therefore, the Proposed Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or with a Williamson Act Conservation Contract. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The City does not contain forestry-related or timberland zoning. No forest land is located within or near the Project Site; therefore, no rezoning of forest land would occur. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.2c, the City does not contain forestry- related or timberland zoning. No forest land is located within or near the Project Site; therefore, no conversion of forest land would occur. Because the Project will have no impact on loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No mitigation is required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. As no agricultural uses exist on-site, the Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of agricultural land to a non-agricultural use. Similarly, no forestry uses exist on site. In the absence of land designated for agricultural use or forestry use, no impact would occur. No mitigation is required.

3.3.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

15 California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, Sheet 2 of 2. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/ (accessed July 23, 2018).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-9
are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which has a 20-year horizon for the Basin. The SCAQMD and SCAG must update the AQMP every three years.

The current regional air quality plan is the Final 2016 AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD on March 10, 2017.16 The Final 2016 AQMP proposes policies and measures currently contemplated by responsible agencies to achieve federal standards for healthful air quality in the Basin and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin that are under SCAQMD jurisdiction. The 2016 AQMP also addresses several federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2016 AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the 2012 AQMP for the Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard.17 The Basin is currently a federal and State nonattainment area for particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), and ozone (O3).

The 2016 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of sulfur oxides (SOx), directly-emitted PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Consistency with the AQMP for the Basin means that a Project would be consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. For a Project to be consistent with the AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, the pollutants emitted from the Project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality, or the Project must already have been included in the AQMP projections. However, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented and shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, a Project may be deemed consistent with the AQMP. The AQMP uses the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the AQMP is based on the local General Plan, Projects that are deemed consistent with the General Plan are found to be consistent with the AQMP.

The City’s General Plan is consistent with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan Guidelines and the SCAQMD AQMP. However, the Proposed Project includes a GPA from Public Utilities--Flood Control/ Recharge (PU-FC/R) to Villa Serena Specific Plan (SP). The City’s General Plan and the AQMP assumed the current Public Utilities--Flood Control/Recharge designation in its air quality emission estimates.

The emissions associated with the proposed Single-Family Residential-Medium Density development were not included in the City’s land use projections; therefore, the AQMP also does not anticipate emissions from the Proposed Project’s land uses.

Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency for Project development proposals that differ from the land use designation assumed within the Basin’s 2016 AQMP is affirmed when a Project: (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation; and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. Consistency review is presented below:

16 Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management District, March 2016. 17 Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, February 2013.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-10

1. The Project would result in short-term construction and long-term pollutant emissions that are less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as demonstrated in response to Checklist Question 3.3.3b; therefore, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and would not cause a new air quality standard violation.

2. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant Projects. Significant Projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal Sites, and offshore drilling facilities; therefore, the Proposed Project is not defined as significant.

As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.13a, the Project is located in a predominantly developed area and would include the construction of 65 single-family residential dwelling units. The latest statistical figures published by SCAG for the City’s average household size assume 2.9 persons per housing unit,18 so the Proposed Project could increase the City’s population by approximately 189 persons.

The City’s 2012 jobs-to-housing ratio is well above the San Bernardino County job/housing ratio but slightly lower than the SCAG regional job/housing ratio; therefore, the City may be considered “jobs balanced” relative to the greater SCAG region. By 2040, however, the City’s jobs-to-housing is expected to exceed both the County’s and SCAG’s jobs-to-housing ratios, as detailed in Table 3.3.13A, meaning the City would be relatively “jobs rich” and “housing poor,” and additional housing within the City would be required to balance the jobs-to- housing ratio at the local level. By developing housing, the Project would support the balance of jobs to housing in the City so that residents would not have to travel far to work.

Therefore, a balanced jobs-to-housing ratio generally fulfills several key issues and policies of the AQMP through the reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in order to reduce vehicle emissions.

Through adherence to standard SCAQMD regional rules required for all development activity with the Basin that assist in reducing air pollutant emissions, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook establishes suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted.

According to the Handbook, any Project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air

18 Profile of the City of Upland. Page 3. Southern California Association of Governments Local Profiles Report 2017. May 2017.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-11
quality impact:
• 55 lbs. per day of VOC (volatile organic compounds) (75 lbs./day during construction); • 55 lbs. per day of NOx (oxides of nitrogen) (100 lbs./day during construction); • 550 lbs. per day of CO (carbon monoxide) (550 lbs./day during construction); • 150 lbs. per day of PM10 (particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or smaller) (150 lbs./day during construction)
• 55 lbs. per day of PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or smaller) (55 lbs./day during construction); and
• 150 lbs. per day of SOx (oxides of sulfur) (150 lbs./day during construction).

The following analysis is based on the Air Quality Analysis prepared for the Project (refer to Appendix A of this Initial Study).19
Construction Emissions. Air quality impacts would occur during Site preparation and construction.

Major sources of emissions include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as by soil disturbances from grading and filling. Grading and construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles transporting the construction crew. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing, exposure of soils, and cut and fill operations.

Emissions during grading and construction activities would vary as construction activity levels change. For the purposes of analyzing construction emissions, the Project will be constructed in five phases, as detailed in Table 3.3.3A.

Table 3.3.3A: Tentative Project Construction Schedule
Phase Number Phase Name Number of Days
1 Site Preparation 10
2 Grading 20
3 Building Construction 230
4 Paving 20
5 Architectural Coating 20
Source: Table 3-2, Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018. (Appendix A).

Construction is expected to commence in December 2019 and will last through December 2020.

According to information provided by the Applicant, the Project Site is expected to require an estimated 40,000 cubic yards of import. Table 3.3.3B lists the anticipated construction equipment to be used during Project construction under each Project phase.

The duration of construction activity and associated construction equipment assumptions were entered into the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 2016.3.2. The construction calculations prepared for the Project assume that dust control measures (e.g., watering a minimum of three times daily) would be employed to reduce emissions of fugitive dust during Site grading.

19 Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018 (Appendix A).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-12
Furthermore, all construction would need to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the reduction of emission of fugitive dust and SCAQMD Rule 1113 regarding the use of only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints as a matter of regulatory policy.

Table 3.3.3B: Diesel Construction Equipment Utilized by Construction Phase Construction Phase Off-Road Equipment Type
Off-Road Equipment Unit
Amount
Hours Used per
Day
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 4 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Grading
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Excavators 1 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Welders 1 8
Paving
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Pavers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
Source: Table 3-3, Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018 (Appendix A).

Among the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust must be controlled so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Adherence to Rule 403 is a standard requirement for any construction activity occurring within the SCAQMD. Adherence to applicable provisions of Rule 403, including the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) can reduce fugitive dust emissions by 50 percent or more. These measures may include, but are not limited to:
• All clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid- morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project Site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

Among the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1113, only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints comprising no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used during construction of the Project.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-13
Table 3.3.3C identifies the maximum daily emissions associated with construction activities assuming the Project would incorporate the applicable provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403 to control fugitive dust and SCAQMD Rule 1113 to reduce VOCs.

Table 3.3.3C: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions without Mitigation Year
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions, lbs./day
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2019 5.94 111.75 28.68 0.24 11.04 6.75
2020 49.91 14.12 15.21 0.02 0.92 0.74
Maximum Daily Emissions 49.91 111.75 28.68 0.24 11.04 6.75 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No No No
Source: Table 3-4, Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018 (Appendix A).

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
As detailed in Table 3.3.3C, Project construction activities have the potential to exceed numerical thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of NOx, and mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is required to reduce emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) to within the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD.

AQ-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits and/or construction permits, the Applicant shall provide to the City verification that all off-road diesel construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP) to be used for the Project shall comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards during all construction phases. During construction, the City shall ensure that all construction equipment be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.

As detailed in Table 3.3.3D, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, all Project construction-source emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels.

Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) are developed based upon the size or total area of the emissions source from the construction equipment activities, the ambient air quality levels in each source receptor area (SRA) in which the emission source is located, and the distance to the sensitive receptor. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a Project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA. For the Proposed Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST is SRA 32 (Northwest San Bernardino Valley).

The SCAQMD LST methodology presents mass emission rates for each SRA, Project sizes of 1, 2, and 5 acres, and nearest receptor distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1640 feet (25, 50, 100, 200, and

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-14
500 meters). For Project sizes between the values given, or with receptors at distances between the given receptors, the methodology uses linear interpolation to construct new data points within the range of the values given or distances measured in order to determine the thresholds.

Table 3.3.3D: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions with Mitigation Year
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions, lbs./day
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2019 2.91 87.30 36.05 0.24 9.10 5.04
2020 49.91 14.12 15.21 0.02 0.92 0.74
Maximum Daily Emissions 49.91 87.30 36.05 0.24 9.10 5.04 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Table 3-5, Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018 (Appendix A).

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
Localized significance is determined by comparing the on-site-only portion of the construction emissions with emissions thresholds derived by the SCAQMD to ensure pollutant concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors would be below ambient air quality standards established by the SCAQMD. Based on the SCAQMD recommended methodology and the construction equipment planned, the Proposed Project could actively disturb approximately 3.5 acres per day during the Site preparation, and 2.5 acres per day during the grading phase of construction. Since the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to 5 acres per day for both the Site preparation phase and the grading phase, the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining impacts.

The nearest sensitive receptors in proximity to the Project Site are single-family residential uses located approximately 10 feet to the west of the Project construction limits. For instances where sensitive receptors are located within 82 feet of Project boundaries, SCAQMD methodology explicitly states LSTs for receptors at 82 feet should be used to determine impacts. Table 3.3.3E lists the emissions thresholds for SRA 32 that would apply during Project construction and indicates that none of the construction emission rates would exceed the LSTs for the existing sensitive receptors in proximity to the Project Site. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

As detailed in Tables 3.3.3D and 3.3.3E, with implementation of the applicable provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403 to control fugitive dust and SCAQMD Rule 1113 to reduce VOCs, as well as Mitigation Measure AQ-1, emissions generated through construction of the Proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for regional construction emissions or LSTs for the existing sensitive receptors in proximity to the Project Site. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Operational Emissions. Long-term (operational) air pollutant emissions are those associated with area sources, stationary sources, and mobile sources involving any Project-related changes. Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, hearths, and landscaping. Energy sources include natural gas consumption for heating and cooking. Mobile-source emissions usually result from vehicle

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-15
trips associated with a Project. Vehicle trip rates used to calculate Project operation emissions are garnered from the Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (refer to Section 3.3.16 and Appendix I).

Table 3.3.3E: Construction Localized Impact Analysis
On-Site Site Preparation Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 68.11 23.14 10.84 6.69
SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 220 1,713 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
On-Site Grading Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 45.25 17.10 5.10 3.08
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 187 1,392 8 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Table 3-8, Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018 (Appendix A).

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day

NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size

Table 3.3.3F: Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Summary Operational Activities - Summer Scenario
Pollutant Emissions, lbs/day
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 3.70 1.16 5.93 0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy Source 0.06 0.51 0.22 0.00325 0.04 0.05
Mobile 1.55 9.73 18.66 0.07 4.64 1.28
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 5.31 11.40 24.80 0.08 4.80 1.44 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Operational Activities - Winter Scenario
Pollutant Emissions, lbs/day
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 3.70 1.16 5.93 0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy Source 0.06 0.51 0.22 0.00325 0.04 0.05
Mobile 1.36 9.79 16.35 0.06 4.64 1.28
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 5.12 11.46 22.50 0.07 4.80 1.44 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Table 3-6 Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018 (Appendix A).

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-16
Long-term emissions were calculated for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 expected to be generated through operation of the Proposed Project. As detailed in Table 3.3.3F, calculated Project- related emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for any criteria pollutants. No significant long-term regional air quality impact would occur.

The Proposed Project involves the construction and operation of 65 single-family residential dwelling units on 9.16 acres. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a Proposed Project if the Project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods of time queuing and idling at the Site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The Proposed Project does not include such uses. Accordingly, no long- term localized significance threshold analysis is required due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions. Therefore, the proposed operational activity would not result in a locally significant air quality impact.

Areas with high vehicle density (e.g., congested intersections and parking garages) have the potential to create high concentrations of CO known as CO “hotspots.” A Project’s localized air quality impact is considered significant if CO emissions create a hotspot where either the California 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the federal and state 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm is exceeded. This typically occurs at severely congested intersections (level of service [LOS] E or worse). Based on the Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (refer to Section 3.3.16 and Appendix I), all study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service for all Project scenarios. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to create a CO hotspot. Potential impacts from CO emissions are considered less than significant.

The Proposed Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel), and Rule 1186/1186.1 (Street Sweepers). As stated previously, Best Available Control Measures are not mitigation, as they are standard regulatory requirements applicable to all Projects in the Basin. Notwithstanding, credit for implementation of SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1113 have been incorporated in the emissions calculations presented above.

Tables 3.3.3D through 3.3.3F demonstrate that compliance with applicable regulatory policy designed to reduce emissions, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, will reduce emissions of criteria pollutants to levels below SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Cumulative construction-related quality cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentration-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Sensitive receptors include but are not limited to residential land uses, schools, hospitals, resident care facilities, daycare facilities, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be affected by poor air quality.

The Project Site is currently functioning as a flood control basin and is surrounded by urban

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-17
development. The nearest sensitive receptors in proximity to the Project Site are single-family residential uses located approximately 10 feet to the west of the Project construction limits. For instances where sensitive receptors are located within 82 feet of Project boundaries, SCAQMD methodology explicitly states LSTs for receptors at 82 feet should be used to determine impacts.

Table 3.3.3E lists the emissions thresholds for SRA 32 that would apply during Project construction and indicates that none of the construction emission rates would exceed the LSTs for the existing sensitive receptors in proximity to the Project Site.

According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a Proposed Project if the Project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods of time queuing and idling at the Site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The Proposed Project entails the development of 65 single-family residential dwelling units and does not include development of any uses that would emit substantial amounts of pollutants from stationary sources or that would attract mobile sources that may spend long periods of time queuing and idling at the Site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). Accordingly, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is required due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions.

Therefore, the proposed operational activity would not result in a locally significant air quality impact.

Both short-term (i.e., construction) and long-term (i.e., operational) LST air quality impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Objectionable odors may be emitted during the operation of diesel- fueled equipment during construction of the Project. However, these odors would be short term in duration and are expected to be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction Site. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, and Title 13, Section 2449(d)(d) of the California Code of Regulations, require the Applicant to include implementation of standard control measures for fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. Additionally, operators of off-road vehicles (i.e., self-propelled diesel-fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up that were not designed to be driven on road) are required to limit vehicle idling to five minutes or less. Therefore, operation of diesel-fueled equipment would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors on a permanent basis. During construction, on-site activities (e.g., laying asphalt) could create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the Project boundaries. SCAQMD Rule 1108 identifies standards regarding the application of asphalt. Adherence to this rule is a standard for all development, and temporary odor impacts would be less than significant. Long-term odors are not expected to occur because the Project involves development and operation of 65 single-family residential dwelling units in an area of the City currently comprising residential uses for the majority of the immediately surrounding land uses. The Project does not include uses commonly associated with long-term operational odors such as landfills, heavy manufacturing facilities, and rail yards. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to odors and no mitigation is required.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-18

3.3.4 Biological Resources
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is currently vacant and serves as a flood control basin (15th Street Basin). Surrounding land uses are comprised of a golf course with residential uses adjacent to the north, a private residential community to the west, 15th Street beyond which are single-family residential uses to the south, and an extension of the existing 15th Street Basin beyond which are single-family and multifamily residential uses to the east.

A Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B) consisting of a literature review, records search, general biological survey, and habitat assessment for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) was conducted for the Project Site and included coverage of the proposed footprint of the relocated flood control basin adjacent to the east of the Project Site. The literature review and records search included the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) Rarefind 5 (2017) for the Ontario, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute quadrangle. The general biological survey and habitat assessment for burrowing owl was conducted on July 10, 2018, and focused on general Site conditions, vegetation, potential jurisdictional waters, and suitability of habitat for various special-status species including the burrowing owl.

No sensitive biological resources (e.g., sensitive species and critical habitats) have been documented in the immediate area according to the CDFW NDDB. No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the survey.

Vegetation on the Project Site consists primarily of buckwheat shrubland community comprised of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), California broomsage (Lepidospartum squamatum), California yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum), brome grasses (Bromus sp.), annual bursage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), and schismus (Schismus barbatus). On the northern border of the Site is a row of non-native trees that encroaches onto the Site from the adjacent golf course.

Wildlife common to urban areas was observed throughout the Project Site, including cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus auduboni), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), ravens (Corvus corax), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), alligator lizard (Elgaria sp.), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and western whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus tigris). Additionally, coyotes (Canis latrans), which are very common in the region, are expected to occur on site.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-19
As indicated above, a habitat assessment was conducted for the burrowing owl in conjunction with the general biological survey to determine if the Site supports suitable habitat for burrowing owl.

The Project Site does not contain habitat suitable to support burrowing owl, so a focused survey for burrowing owl is not required. Additionally, no sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, or critical habitats for sensitive species) were observed on the Site during the field investigations for any other candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not expected to result in loss of suitable habitat for any special-status species with potential to occur.

Nesting bird species observed are protected by California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800, and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703–711). These laws regulate the take, possession, or destruction of the nest or eggs of any migratory bird or bird of prey such as burrowing owl. Vegetation, including trees, may provide nesting habitat for birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3515), and construction activities may adversely affect such birds. This is a potentially significant impact, and mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that burrowing owl and nesting bird pre-construction clearance surveys be conducted prior to any ground-disturbing activities.

BIO-1 A Burrowing owl and nesting bird pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted within three days prior to ground-disturbing activities. The survey shall encompass the entire area of Project-related ground disturbance. If no active avian nests and no burrowing owls are found during the clearance survey, no additional mitigation will be required.

If a special-status species is located during the survey, consultation with the local California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) representative shall occur to determine what avoidance actions are required. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre- construction clearance survey, construction activities shall be redirected around the nest(s).

As determined by the City Planning Division, a qualified biologist shall delineate the boundaries of any such buffer area. The buffer shall be sufficient to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. For listed and raptor species, this buffer may be expanded to up to 500 feet from the active nest at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with the City Planning Division and CDFW.

The biologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction if it occurs within an established avian buffer or if new nesting activity occurs and a new buffer is required.

Encroachment into buffers around active nests must be conducted only at the discretion of the biologist. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area may occur or resume at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with the City Planning Division and CDFW. Upon completion of construction monitoring, the biologist shall prepare a report of findings documenting the results of the recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable State and federal laws pertaining to the protection of nesting birds. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-20
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on burrowing owls, nesting birds, and any other species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
b) Have a substantially adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The Project Site and adjoining areas were evaluated for the presence of sensitive habitats including riparian habitats as part of the Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment.

No riparian vegetation or other sensitive habitats were observed during the July 2018 surveys; therefore, no impact on such habitats would occur. No mitigation is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment did not identify any wetland habitat on-site or in adjoining areas. Therefore, no impact on such habitat would occur. No mitigation is required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is surrounded by residential development and a golf course dominated by habitats that have been altered by Site development and ornamental landscaping. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the removal of native buckwheat shrubland community that could support nesting activities and provide periodic roosting or perching opportunities for birds including burrowing owls. Protection for burrowing owls and other migratory nesting birds is provided through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

Due to the developed nature of the properties surrounding the Project Site, connectivity of natural habitats does not occur on-site or in the immediate vicinity, and the Project Site does not act as a wildlife corridor or contain nursery sites. Little or no local wildlife movement is expected to occur through the Project Site except for nesting or foraging birds and small reptile and small mammal (rodent/coyote) species. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts to movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-21
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. City Municipal Code Section 12.24.100, Tree removal - Permit prohibits tree removal within the City without a permit from the City Manager. On the northern border of the Site is a row of non-native trees that encroaches onto the Site from the adjacent golf course. Any trees to be removed during construction of the Project would occur in accordance with Section 12.24.100 of the City Municipal Code. Additionally, all street tree plantings will occur pursuant to City Municipal Code Chapter 12.26, Tree Care to ensure implementation of the Proposed Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including any tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The City, and therefore the Project Site, is not located within the jurisdiction of any Habitat Conservation Plan area or Natural Community Conservation Plan area;20 therefore, no impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is required.

3.3.5 Cultural Resources
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please refer to the response to Checklist Question

3.3.5b below.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, Site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.21 CEQA mandates that Lead Agencies consider a resource to be “historically significant” if it meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). Such resources meet this requirement if they are (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States, (2)

20 Section 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Page 8 -2, City of Upland, September 2015.
21 Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(j).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-22
associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history, (3) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values, and/or (4) have yielded, or have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

A Project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for the Project Site and included a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), communication with Native American tribal representatives, an archaeological and historical records search, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project Site and proposed footprint of the relocated flood control basin adjacent to the east of the Project Site (Appendix C).

The NAHC indicated the SLF did not include any known cultural resources on the Project Site or immediate vicinity. Notification of the Proposed Project was disseminated to the 10 Native American Tribes listed with the NAHC. Two Tribes, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation replied. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians stated the Project Site is within Serrano ancestral territory, but the location and condition of the Site does not concern the Tribe. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation expressed interest in the Project and wishes to consult with the City. Additional discussion of Native American consultation with the City for this Project is provided in Section 3.3.17 of this Initial Study.

The records search conducted on June 26, 2018, at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) revealed nine cultural resources investigations have been conducted within one-half mile of the Project Site, two of which encompassed the Project Site. The records search also revealed three cultural resources were previously recorded within one-half mile of the Project Site, but none of those resources is located within or adjacent to the Project Site. The three cultural resources recorded within one-half mile of the Project Site include a prehistoric groundstone assemblage (P-36-000899), a water conveyance system and associated structures (P-36-006255), and Base Line Road (P-36-015497).

The pedestrian survey of the Project Site failed to identify any prehistoric or historical archaeological remains or built-environment resources. Results of the survey indicate that the surface of entire Project Site has been disturbed by the establishment of a flood control basin. Nevertheless, five shovel test pits were excavated, each to a depth of approximately one foot (30 centimeters), to further examine the Project Site for the presence of buried cultural resources. The shovel test pits failed to identify any prehistoric or historical archaeological remains or built-environment resources. Therefore, the likelihood of any historical or archaeological resources occurring on the Project Site is low.

Despite the low likelihood any cultural resources are present at the Project Site, there remains some potential for the Proposed Project to unearth previously undocumented cultural resources during earthwork activities associated with construction. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and is required in the event that unanticipated cultural resources are unearthed on the Project Site.

CUL-1 In the event that pre-contact cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the of the find (within a 100-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of the Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-23
continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resource Department shall be contacted as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1, if any such find occurs and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regard to significance and treatment.

If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to the SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed in Mitigation Measure TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

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

With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. There is no evidence to suggest the Project Site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the [San Bernardino] County Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the Site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Because State regulations address unanticipated discoveries of human remains, mitigation measures intended to reiterate such an effort are not required. Adherence to State regulations required for all development Projects will ensure potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

3.3.6 Energy
Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. During project operation, electricity would be the main form of energy consumed on the site. Electricity would be used for building heating and cooling, lighting, and water

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-24
heating. The project would demand a total of 434,460 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and 1.636 million British thermal units (Btu) of natural gas on an annual basis.

The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the CCR, known as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is updated every three years, and compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by local governments. The California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) adopted Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (also referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen) in 2010 as part of the State’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy consumption from residential and nonresidential buildings. CALGreen code covers the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. The City has adopted both the CBC and CALGreen Code as pertaining to energy conservation standards.

The project would comply with the CALGreen Code requirements and Title 24 efficiency standards, which would further improve energy efficiency during operation. Electricity is provided in the State through a complex grid of power plants and transmission lines and is delivered locally by Southern California Edison. In 2017, California’s in-state electric generation totaled 194,727 gigawatt-hours (GWh); the State’s total system electric generation, which includes imported electricity, totaled 285,488 GWh.22 Population growth is the primary source of increased energy consumption in the State; due to population projections, annual electricity use is anticipated to increase by approximately 1 percent per year through 2027.23 The project’s electricity usage would total less than 0.00006 percent24 of electricity generated in the State in 2018, which would not represent a substantial demand on available electricity resources. The project’s usage of natural gas is less than

0.00013 percent of total natural gas consumed in the State (2017).

Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Consumption of energy resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project would be comparable to other developments in the City. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be required to comply with CBC and CALGreen Code in accordance with Title 11 (Zoning and Development) of the City Municipal Code pertaining to energy conservation standards in effect at the time of construction. These regulations include provisions related to building insulation and design aimed at minimizing energy consumption.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable plans related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

22 Total System Electric Generation. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/ total_system_power.html (accessed April 5, 2019).
23 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/electric_generation_capacity.html (accessed October 7, 2019). 24 0.120 GWh (proposed project) ÷ 194,727 GWh (generated in State in 2018) = < 0.00005 percent.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-25

3.3.7 Geology and Soils
Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
(iv) Landslides?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact.
(i) According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.25 The Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation (Appendix D) identify the Sierra Madre fault approximately 2.6 miles to the north and the Red Hill-Etiwanda fault approximately 5.3 miles to the northeast as the nearest active faults in relation to the Project Site.26 In the absence of any on-site faults, the potential for ground rupture is considered less than significant.
(ii) Like all of Southern California, the Project Site could be subject to strong ground shaking resulting from large earthquakes. The extent of ground shaking associated with an earthquake is dependent upon the size of the earthquake and the geologic material of the underlying area. All future construction and development within the Project Site would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the California Building Code (CBC) at the time of construction and the City’s adopted building codes pursuant to City Municipal Code Title 15, Buildings and Construction.

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, the CBC establishes minimum standards for building design in the State, and it is consistent with or more stringent than Uniform Building Code requirements. Local codes are permitted to be more restrictive than Title 24, but are

25 Section 5.08 Geology and Soils, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Exhibit 5.8-1, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map, City of Upland, September 2015. 26 Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for Proposed Single-Family Residential Development, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1045-121-02 & 1045-151-34, Upland Colonies 59, North of East 15th Street, Upland, San Bernardino County, California. Page 5.

GeoTek, Inc. July 2018 (Appendix D).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-26
required to be no less restrictive. The CBC is designed and implemented to improve building safety, sustainability, and consistency, and to integrate new technology and construction methods to construction Projects throughout California.

Chapter 16 of the CBC regards General Design Requirements, including regulations governing seismically resistant construction (Chapter 16, Division IV) and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapter 18 and Appendix Chapter 33 regard Site demolition, excavations, foundations, retaining walls, and grading, including requirements for seismically resistant design, foundation investigations, stable cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control. The procedures and limitations for the design of structures are based on-site characteristics, occupancy type, configuration, structural system height, and seismic zoning. Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (CCR, Title 8).

Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the City Municipal Code incorporates, by reference, the design and construction standards of the most current edition of the CBC. State law requires the design and construction of new structures comply with current CBC requirements which address general geologic, seismic (including ground shaking), and soil constraints for new buildings.

Accordingly, the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation details proper engineering design and construction recommendations to be implemented through development of the Proposed Project as Standard Condition G-1 in conformance with the most current edition of the CBC and Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the City Municipal Code. Implementation of Standard Condition G-1 would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions: No mitigation is required; however, the following Standard Condition is a regulatory requirement implemented as a routine action conditioned by the City that would ensure impacts related to seismic activity remain less than significant.

Standard Condition G-1: Prior to the approval of grading and/or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City for review and approval that on-site structures, features, and facilities have been designed and will be constructed in conformance with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the CBC at the time of construction and the recommendations cited in Section 5 of the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation. Geotechnical recommendations include, but are not limited to, remedial earthwork and/or ground improvement to provide a sufficient layer of engineered fill or densified soil beneath the structural footings/foundations, as well as proper surface drainage devices and erosion control. Verification testing must be performed upon completion of ground improvements to confirm that the compressible soils have been sufficiently densified. This condition shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Division.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-27
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant would be required to prepare and submit detailed grading plans pursuant to Section 15.52 , Grading Restrictions, of the City Municipal Code.

These plans would be prepared in conformance with applicable standards of the City for compliance with the most current edition of the CBC at the time of construction, pursuant to Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the City Municipal Code and as modified by the City (Standard Condition G-1).

Proper engineering design and construction in conformance with the most current edition of the CBC at the time of construction and Project-specific geotechnical recommendations (Standard Condition G-1) would ensure potential impacts from strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
(iii) No portion of the City has been evaluated for potential seismic-related ground failure (liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides).27 Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine-to-medium-grained alluvial soils in areas where the groundwater table is within 50 feet of the surface. Shaking suddenly causes soils to lose strength and behave as a liquid. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, lateral spreading, and flow failures or slumping.

The Site is not located within a designated liquefaction hazard zone. The depth to groundwater is greater than 100 feet below existing grade. Therefore, liquefaction is not considered to be a hazard at the subject Site due to the great depth to groundwater (greater than 50 feet) and the current geologic hazard mapping.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant would be required to prepare and submit detailed grading plans as specific improvements and developments are proposed pursuant to Section 15.52, Grading Restrictions, of the City Municipal Code. These plans would be prepared in conformance with applicable standards of the City for compliance with the most current edition of the CBC at the time of construction. Implementation of Standard Condition G-1 (compliance with the current edition of the CBC and recommendations cited in Section 5 of the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation) would ensure development proposed as part of the Project would be protected from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(iv) Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project area and the absence of adjacent hillside areas, the risk of landslides is considered negligible for design purposes. The 3:1 slopes proposed within the modified basin have been evaluated and were determined to be “grossly stable and geotechnical suitable.”28 All proposed retaining walls would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Retaining and Garden Wall Design and Construction criteria specified in the Section 5 of the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation pursuant to Standard Condition G-1. Detailed grading plans would be reviewed and approved by the City pursuant to Section 15.52, Grading Restrictions, of the City Municipal Code to ensure appropriate design features are implemented. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

27 Section 5.8 Geology and Soils, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Page 5.8-2, City of Upland, September 2015.
28 Slope Stability Evaluation – New Basin, Tentative Tract 20245, Upland, San Bernardino County, California, GeoTek, Inc., September 16, 2019.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-28
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. On-Site soils include Soboba stony loamy sand (SpC), 2 to 9 percent slopes, which is excessively drained and has a low runoff class.29 Furthermore, the City’s General Plan EIR identifies this type of soil as exhibiting only slight erosional tendencies.30 Construction activities have the potential to expose bare soil to wind and/or water which could result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. In order to address the potential for erosion, the Project is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during the construction phase that would reduce erosion in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations.

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

The Project must also comply with the City’s grading permit requirements, pursuant to City Municipal Code Chapter 15.52, Grading Restrictions, which would ensure that construction practices include measures to protect exposed soils such as covering stockpiled soils and use of straw bales and silt fences to minimize off-site sedimentation. In addition, ultimate buildout of the Project Site would cover its surface with asphalt, concrete, and landscaping materials. Pursuant to Standard Condition G-1, the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation includes post- construction considerations that include provisions for landscape maintenance and planting in order to control surface drainage and runoff and maintain a suitable vegetation cover to minimize erosion.

Compliance with state and federal requirements, as well as with City grading permit requirements and Standard Condition G-1, would ensure that the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. No mitigation is required. (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the Project, and potentially result in on-site or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. No portion of the City has been evaluated for potential seismic-related ground failure (liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides).31 Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine-to-medium-grained alluvial soils in areas where the groundwater table is within 50 feet of the surface. Shaking suddenly causes soils to lose strength and behave as a liquid.

Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, lateral spreading, and flow failures or slumping.

Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once

29 Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed October 1, 2018). 30 Section 5.08 Geology and Soils, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Table 5.8-1, Exhibit 5.8-3, City of Upland, September 2015.
31 Section 5.8 Geology and Soils, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Page 5.8-2, City of Upland, September 2015.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-29
liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the seismic inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements, and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.

Factors that contribute to slope failure and landslides include slope height and steepness, shear strength and orientation of weak layers in the underlying geologic units, and pore water pressures.

Ground subsidence is typically a gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement, although fissures (cracks and separations) can result from lowering of the ground surface. Most of the damage caused by subsidence is the result of oil, gas, or groundwater extraction from below the ground surface. Ground subsidence may occur as a response to natural forces such as earthquake movements, which can cause abrupt elevation changes of several feet or densification of low density granular soils during an earthquake event that may cause several inches of settlement.

Hydrocompaction, or soil collapse, typically occurs in recently deposited Holocene (less than 11,000 years before present time) soils that were depo sited in an arid or semi-arid environment. Soils prone to collapse are commonly associated with man-made fill, wind-laid sands and silts, and alluvial fan and mudflow sediments deposited during flash floods. Sudden substantial settlement may occur when saturated, collapsible soils lose their cohesion. An increase in surface water infiltration (such as from irrigation) or a rise in the groundwater table, combined with the weight of a building or structure, may initiate settlement, causing foundations and walls to crack.

According to the 2008 Western Municipal Water District Cooperative Well Measuring Program, the groundwater depth within the City generally ranges from approximately 80 feet to 400 feet below ground surface.32 The Site is not located within a designated liquefaction hazard zone. Accordingly, the potential for seismic-induced liquefaction and lateral spreading at the Project Site is low.

Additionally, the relatively flat topography of the Project area and the absence of adjacent hillside areas reduce the risk of landslides to negligible. All proposed retaining walls would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Retaining and Garden Wall Design and Construction criteria specified in the Section 5 of the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation pursuant to Standard Condition G-1. There are no known landslides at the Site, nor is the Site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Proposed Project operations do not include oil, gas, or groundwater extraction, which could result in ground subsidence, and on-site soils (i.e., Soboba stony loamy sand (SpC)) are excessively drained and have a low runoff class with little water-retention capacity.)33 Therefore, the potential for hydrocompaction, or soil collapse, is considered low.

The existing on-site slopes appear to be inclined at ratios of about 3:1 (horizontal:vertical). Although the proposed grades for the Site have not been provided, the existing basin is expected to be filled so that the proposed residential unit buildings will be close to adjacent development Site grades.

32 Ibid. page 5.8-12.
33 Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed October 1, 2018).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-30
Therefore, cuts and fills up to about 15 feet in thickness are expected. Site balance areas would be available during grading operations in order to adjust Project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork construction, and subsidence on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 feet may occur. The 3:1 slopes proposed within the modified basin have been evaluated and were determined to be “grossly stable and geotechnical suitable.”34 In order to ensure construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not significantly affect life or property from a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, the Applicant would be required to prepare and submit detailed grading plans as specific improvements and developments are proposed prior to the issuance of grading permits pursuant to Chapter 15.52, Grading Restrictions, of the City Municipal Code. These plans would be prepared in conformance with applicable standards of the City for compliance with the most current edition of the CBC at the time of construction. Furthermore, implementation of Standard Condition G-1 (compliance with the current edition of the CBC and recommendations cited in Section 5 of the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation) would ensure an adequate layer of engineered fill would be appropriately compacted beneath all structural foundations to protect against the potential for ground subsidence.

Through compliance with the CBC, City Municipal Code, and Standard Condition G-1, development proposed as part of the Project would be protected from unstable geologic units or soil that could result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-a-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils generally have a significant amount of clay particles that can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The extent of shrink/swell is influenced by the amount and kind of clay in the soil. The occurrence of these soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stability. As stated previously, on-site soils (i.e., Soboba stony loamy sand (SpC)) are excessively drained and have a low runoff class with little water-retention capacity.35 On- Site soils possess a “very low” expansion potential. Therefore, these soils have a low potential for expansion when wetted.

Typically, measures to protect life and property from potentially expansive soils include over-excavating on-site native and non-native soils, and replacing them with properly compacted fill. The Applicant would be required to prepare and submit detailed grading plans as specific improvements and developments are proposed prior to the issuance of grading permits pursuant to Section 17.50.040, Application Submittal and Review, of the City Municipal Code. These plans would be prepared in conformance with applicable standards of the City for compliance with the most current edition of the CBC at the time of

34 Slope Stability Evaluation – New Basin, Tentative Tract 20245, Upland, San Bernardino County, California, GeoTek, Inc., September 16, 2019.
35 Ibid.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-31
construction. Implementation of Standard Condition G-1 (compliance with the current edition of the CBC and recommendations cited in Section 5 of the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation) would ensure development proposed as part of the Project would be protected from expansive soil. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The Proposed Project will connect to an existing sewer system; therefore, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of septic tanks or wastewater treatment facilities.

No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or Site or unique geologic
feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Upland lies upon a relatively shallow stratum of Holocene alluvium, under which [older] late Pleistocene sediments are buried. The City’s General Plan EIR states the City in general has a low paleontological potential for Holocene Epoch (less than 10,000 years old) sediments and a moderate paleontological potential for late Pleistocene Epoch (10,000 years to 120,000 years old) sediments.36 Under these conditions, it is unlikely that shallow excavation would uncover any fossiliferous materials; however, excavation reaching depths of 15 feet or more may expose paleontological resources.37 Adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the potential impact on unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the maximum depth of ground-disturbing activities shall be provided to the City. If ground disturbance in excess of 15 feet is required, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained. Upon review of Project materials, the qualified paleontologist shall identify those areas of the Site that require monitoring.

In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the qualified paleontologist shall halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area shall be established around the find within which construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. The buffer area parameters will be determined by the Project paleontologist in consultation with the City and Project proponent, but shall not be less than 100 feet. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. The paleontologist shall determine the need for paleontological construction monitoring in the vicinity of the find thereafter.

36 Section 5.09 Cultural Resources, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Page 5.9-16, City of Upland, September 2015.
37 Ibid. Page 5.9-18.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-32
All paleontological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist. At the paleontologist’s discretion, and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing and evaluation of the find. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the paleontologist and the City to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources.

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) shall be considered the preferred treatment measure. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include the implementation of paleontological data recovery/salvage excavations to remove the resource from the Project Site along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis of the fossil specimens.

Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated for final repository. Any fossils collected shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Bernardino County Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository and/or school.

Following the completion of the above measures, the paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the Project proponent to the City, the San Bernardino County Museum, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and required mitigation measures. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

3.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the “determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data,” and further states that an “ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” Currently, there is no statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions threshold used to determine potential GHG emissions impacts of a project. Air districts in the state are still developing and revising threshold methodology and thresholds. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-33
GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency. This concept is equivalent to the existing consistency determination requirements in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15125(d), or 15152(a). The SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general development projects. The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses. For purposes of this analysis, the SCAQMD Tier 3 Option 2 approach of a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide-equivalent gases (CO2e) per year for all non-industrial projects is utilized in order to determine the significance for the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions.

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, with the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) occurring during the Project’s operation (as opposed to during its construction). A Site-specific Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix E) was prepared to calculate GHG emissions during construction and operation of the Proposed Project. These calculations are based on compliance with all mandates imposed by the State of California and the SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of GHG emissions. In particular, the Pavley Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standards, and Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) will be in effect for the Senate Bill (SB) 32 target year of 2020, and therefore are accounted for in the Project’s emission calculations.

Construction Emissions: The Project would result in short-term emissions of GHGs during construction. GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and vendor vehicles, which typically use fossil-based fuels for operation. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

For construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. The SCAQMD recommends calculating the total greenhouse gas emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year project life, and then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The annual construction-related GHG emissions amortized over 30 years is 25.63 MT of CO2e gases.

Operation Emissions: Long-term operation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from various source categories. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities including landscaping and maintenance of the Project Site. Energy-source emissions would occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity and natural gas by the Proposed Project.

Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include Project-generated vehicle trips associated with residential occupancy of the Site, as detailed in the Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Appendix I) and in Section 3.3.17 of this Initial Study. Waste generated by the Project and water

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-34
used also would result in GHG emissions.

Table 3.3.8A lists the estimated GHG emissions associated with operation of the Project and includes the estimated construction emissions of GHGs amortized over 30 years.

As detailed in Table 3.3.8A, the Project would result in GHG emissions of 1,415.62 MT CO2e per year.

This emission level is less than the SCAQMD Tier 3 Option 2 GHG threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year for all non-industrial Projects. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Table 3.3.8A: Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual) Source
Pollutant Emissions, MT/year
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Construction emissions amortized over 30 years 25.50 0.01 0.00 25.63 Operational Emissions - - - -
Area Sources 16.96 0.00139 0.00029 17.08
Energy Sources 291.06 0.00963 0.00354 292.36
Mobile Sources 1,006.83 0.05 0.00 1008.19
Waste Sources 15.73 0.93 0.00 38.97
Water Usage 28.80 0.14 0.00354 33.39
Total CO2e (All Sources) 1,415.62
SCAQMD Threshold (CO2e) 3,000
Significant? No
Source: Table 3-1: Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018. (Appendix E).

Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding.

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
MT/yr = metric tons per year
N2O = nitrous oxide
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. SB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 level by 2020. As part of this legislation, CARB was required to prepare a “Scoping Plan” that demonstrates how the State will achieve this goal. The Scoping Plan was adopted in 2011, and in it, local governments were described as “essential partners” in meeting the statewide goal, recommending a GHG reduction level 15 percent below 2005–2008 levels, depending on when a full emissions inventory is available, by 2020.

CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan Update November of 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update provides strategies for achieving the 2030 target established by Executive Order B-30-15 and

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-35
codified in SB 32 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). Applicable reduction strategies are presented in Table 3.3.8B.

Table 3.3.8B: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Consistency Analysis
Pavley Motor Vehicle Standards
(AB 1493) T-1 Consistent: Residents would purchase and operate vehicles in compliance with incumbent CARB vehicle standards, as required by law.

Limit High Global-Warming-
Potential Use in Consumer
Products
H-4
Consistent: Residents would purchase and operate consumer products that would comply with incumbent regulations, as required by law.

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
Systems - Reduction from Non-
Professional Servicing
H-1
Consistent: Residents would be prohibited from performing air conditioning repairs and required to use professional servicing.

Tire Pressure Program T-4 Consistent: Motor vehicles driven by residents would maintain proper tire pressure when vehicles are serviced, as required by law.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Consistent: Motor vehicles driven by residents would use fuels that are compliant with incumbent standards, as required by law.

Water Use Efficiency W-1
Consistent: The Project will be required to incorporate water-reducing or water-saving toilets, showerheads, and irrigation systems, as well as drought-tolerant landscaping.

Green Buildings GB-1
Consistent: As required, Project facilities would be constructed in compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings).

Air Conditioning Refrigerant Leak
Test During Vehicle Smog Check H-5 Consistent: Motor vehicles driven by residents would comply with leak test requirements during smog checks, as required by law.

Energy Efficiency Measures
(Electricity) E-1
Consistent: As required in accordance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), the Project would incorporate green building construction practices and utilization of energy-efficient appliances.

Energy Efficiency (Natural Gas) CR-1
Consistent: As required in accordance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), the Project would incorporate green building construction practices and utilization of energy-efficient appliances.

Greening New Residential and
Commercial Construction GB-1
Consistent: As required, Project facilities would be constructed in compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings).

Source: Table 3-2: Upland Colonies Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Upland. Urban Crossroads. August 2018. (Appendix E).

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update recommends local plan level GHG emissions reduction goals and builds on the 2008 Scoping Plan in order to achieve the 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2030. CARB recommends that local governments aim to achieve a communitywide goal to achieve emissions of no more than 6 metric tons CO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than 2 metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050. CARB identified reduction measures to achieve this goal as set forth in the CARB Scoping Plan.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-36
Therefore, Projects that are consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan are also consistent with the communitywide goal for GHG emissions reduction. As summarized in Table 3.3.8B, the Proposed Project is consistent with applicable CARB Scoping Plan GHG emissions reduction measures.

Additionally, the Project would not actively interfere with any future County-mandated, State- mandated, or federally-mandated retrofit obligations enacted or promulgated to legally require development countywide, statewide, or nationwide to assist in meeting state-adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, including that established under Executive Order B-30-15 or SB 32 because it does not interfere with the state’s implementation of GHG reduction plans described in the CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan, including the state providing for 12,000 MW of renewable distributed generation by 2020, the California Building Commission mandating net zero energy homes in the building code after 2020, or existing building retrofits under AB 758.

In September 2015, the City adopted the Upland Climate Action Plan (CAP), under which the City selected a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions by at least 16 percent from 2008 levels by the year 2020.38 The City’s CAP details the following five strategies to accomplish its GHG reduction goal:

1. Transportation and Land Use Strategy: Promote a balanced transportation system that promotes the use of public transportation and bicycles, reduces congestion, and helps encourage residents to engage in healthy and active lifestyles.

2. Energy Use and Conservation Strategy: Reduce energy consumption throughout all sources within the City, and incorporate clean, renewable energy sources.

3. Water Use and Efficiency Strategy: Conserve and protect water resources and promote efficiency.

4. Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy: Manage solid waste generation and diversion.

5. Municipal Strategy: Reductions that the City can implement to reduce municipal emissions.

Step 1 in determining whether a Project is consistent with the City’s CAP is determining if the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan growth projections, which are the basis of the City’s GHG emissions inventory (this includes consistency with the planned land use, zoning, and development intensity of a particular Site). If a Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan growth projections, it is reasonable to conclude that Project’s GHG emissions have been accounted for in the CAP.

However, the Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from Public Utilities--Flood Control/Recharge (PU-FC/R) to Villa Serena Specific Plan (SP). The City’s General Plan and the CAP assumed the current PU-FC/R land use designation in its GHG emission estimates. The emissions associated with the proposed SFR-M development were not included in the City’s land use projections; therefore, the CAP also does not anticipate emissions from the Proposed Project’s land uses.

If the discretionary Project is not consistent with the Upland General Plan’s year 2035 growth projections, the Project is not necessarily inconsistent with the CAP. The CAP includes General Plan

38 City of Upland Climate Action Plan. City of Upland. September 2015.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-37
growth assumptions and depicts the opportunity areas where the General Plan would focus growth.

The following steps must be performed to determine consistency:

Step 2: Consider the extent to which the Project supports or includes applicable strategies and measures, or advances the actions identified in the CAP.

Step 3: Consider the consistency of the Project with the emission reduction targets set by the CAP.

Step 4: Consider the extent to which the Project would not interfere with the implementation of CAP strategies, objectives, measures, or actions.

A Project that can justify its consistency with any of these steps can be deemed consistent with the CAP by the decision-making body. In accordance with Step 2 and Step 4, the Proposed Project would incorporate design features to comply with the CAP’s five strategies established to attain its GHG reduction goal.

In accordance with the CAP’s Objective B: Maximize Land Use Efficiency, the Project is consistent with transportation and land use Measure T-7: Residential Density. The Proposed Project would increase residential density on the flood control basin, which would help the City to increase residential land use density goals in the CAP. Furthermore, The City’s 2012 jobs-to-housing ratio is well above the San Bernardino County job/housing ratio but slightly lower than the SCAG regional job/housing ratio; therefore, the City may be considered “jobs balanced” relative to the greater SCAG region. By 2040, however, the City’s jobs-to-housing is expected to exceed both the County’s and SCAG’s jobs-to- housing ratios, as detailed in Table 3.3.13A, meaning the City would be relatively “jobs rich” and “housing poor,” and additional housing within the City would be required to balance the jobs-to- housing ratio at the local level. By developing housing, the Project would support the balance of jobs to housing in the City so that residents would not have to travel far to work. Therefore, a balanced jobs-to-housing ratio generally fulfills several key issues and policies of the City’s CAP through the reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled in order to reduce GHG emissions.

In accordance with the CAP’s Energy Use and Conservation Strategy, the Project would incorporate energy efficiency measures for all Project buildings such as increased insulation and installation of energy-efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems, appliances, equipment, and control systems pursuant to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings).

In accordance with the CAP’s Water Use and Efficiency Strategy, the Project would comply with the City’s water reduction requirements pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 13.16.050, Conservation program-High shortage stage, through installation of water-reducing or water-saving toilets, showerheads, and irrigation systems, as well as drought-tolerant landscaping.

Finally, in accordance with the CAP’s Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy, construction of the Project would result in recycling at least 60 percent of all construction materials and utilization of “green building materials” for at least 10 percent of the Project in accordance with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-38
Program.

Compliance with the CARB Scoping Plan and the City’s CAP’s GHG emissions reduction strategies would foster, among other benefits, reductions in vehicle miles traveled, energy and water consumption, waste generation, and associated GHG emissions. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Potential hazardous materials such as fuel, paint products, lubricants, solvents, and cleaning products may be used and/or stored on Site during construction of the Proposed Project. These materials are typical of materials delivered to construction sites. Due to the relatively small scale of anticipated Site improvements (i.e., development of 65 single-family residential units and relocation of a flood control basin adjacent to the east of the Project Site), only limited quantities of these materials are expected to be used during construction, so they are not considered hazardous to the public at large.

The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction will be regulated by the San Bernardino County Fire District, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), which regulates the transport of hazardous materials and waste in connection with construction of the Project and would require carriers to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by truck and rail on State highways and rail lines, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR.

Occupation of the proposed residential uses is expected to utilize relatively small amounts of hazardous materials, such as chemicals associated with fuel for landscape maintenance equipment, solvents, cleaning products, pesticides/fertilizers, and other similar chemicals. These materials are substantially similar to household chemicals and solvents already in general and wide use throughout the City and in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws would ensure potential impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are less than significant. No mitigation is required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the likely release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-39
Less Than Significant Impact. A Project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the purposes of identifying recognized environmental condition or historical recognized environmental conditions on the subject property (Appendix F). “Recognized environmental condition” is interpreted as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental conditions. “Historical Recognized environmental condition” means an environmental condition which in the past would have been considered a recognized environmental condition, but which may or may not be considered a recognized environmental condition currently. If a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred in connection with the property, with such remediation accepted by the responsible regulatory agency (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent), this condition shall be considered a historical recognized environmental condition.

The Project Site and up to a one-mile radius encompassing the Project Site were evaluated via the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database,39 the DTSCs EnviroStor database,40 and the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List.41 Additional database review of federal and state environmental records was conducted in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.

According to the Phase I ESA, no evidence or indication of RECs, or conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the Site has been identified. An on- site reconnaissance confirmed the Project Site serves as a flood control and groundwater recharge basin. Visual evidence of hazardous substances or wastes was not observed during the Site reconnaissance, and no pungent or acrid odors were observed emanating from the Site. Based on readily available historic information, the Site appears to be vacant land from before 1938 to at least 1966. The existing basin can be observed beginning in 1975. The surrounding properties appear to have been historically vacant land or generally utilized for residential development. The residences to the south of East 15th Street can be observed in 1959.

The Project Site appears on the Phase I ESA database report obtained for this assessment. The Site is listed with the SWRCB California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) database as Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Groundwater Recharge Basin Operations and Maintenance. This listing tracks

39 GeoTracker Database. State Water Resources Control Board. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/ ?CMD=runreport&myaddress=upland+memorial+park (accessed June 14, 2018). 40 EnviroStor Database. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ ?myaddress=upland+memorial+park (accessed June 14, 2018). 41 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). California Department of Toxic Substances Control. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&Site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status =ACT,BKLG,COM,COLUR&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+(CORTESE) (accessed June 14, 2018).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-40
information regarding places of environmental interest, manages permits and other orders, tracks inspections, and manages violations and enforcement activities. The place/project type is listed as “dredge/fill site.” No records of violations were reported for this listing. No other pertinent information is provided. Based on the historic use of the Site and status of its listing, the Project Site does not represent a recognized environmental condition.

None of the adjacent properties appear on the Phase I ESA database report. Five facilities are listed on the database report within the various search distances specified by ASTM E 1527-13; however, none of these facilities represent an environmental condition that would be of concern to the Project Site due to their status listings, distances, and/or locations (hydro-geologically down-or cross-gradient).

Through compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including but not limited to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations implemented by Title 13 of the CCR, hazards to the public and the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The City currently has no plans to develop any new schools within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. The nearest existing school in proximity to the Project Site is the Foothill Knolls STEM Academy of Innovation (elementary school), located at 1245 Veterans Court, approximately

0.5 mile (2,640 feet) south of the Project Site. Other schools in proximity to the Project Site are the Sierra Vista Elementary School (253 E 14th Street) and the Saint Mark’s Episcopal School (330 E 16th Street), approximately 0.55 mile to the southwest and northwest, respectively. In the absence of existing or proposed schools exist within one-quarter mile of the Project Site, no impact would occur. No mitigation is required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List has been compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Materials Data Management Program. The DTSC compiles information from subsets of the following databases to make up the Cortese List:

1. The DTSC list of contaminated or potentially contaminated hazardous waste sites listed in the California Sites database, formerly known as ASPIS, is included;

2. The California State Water Resources Control Board listing of leaking underground storage tanks

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-41
is included; and

3. The California Integrated Waste Management Board list of sanitary landfills that have evidence of groundwater contamination or known migration of hazardous materials (formerly WB-LF, now AB 3750).

A review of the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List revealed no properties in Upland or neighboring Rancho Cucamonga are listed. The nearest property listed on the Cortese List is the GE Engine Services Test Cell Facility (GE Aircraft) located at 2264 E. Avion Place, Ontario, approximately 5.2 miles to the southeast and downgradient of the Project Site. Based on the distance and location (down gradient) of this facility, past operations at this property are unlikely to have adversely affected the Project Site.

According to the Phase I ESA, no evidence or indication of RECs, or conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the Site has been identified. The analysis provided in response to Checklist Questions 3.3.9a and b concludes none of the adjacent properties appear on the Phase I ESA database report. Additionally, none of the five facilities listed on the database report within the various search distances specified by ASTM E 1527-13 represent an environmental condition that would be of concern to the Project Site due to their status listings, distances, and/or locations (hydro-geologically down-or cross-gradient). Therefore, no impact related to the Cortese List or other governmental databases would occur. No mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
Project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The closest airport in proximity to the Project Site is Cable Airport, located approximately

2.6 miles to the west. As detailed in Map 3A of the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CALUCP), the Project Site is not within any of the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones.42 Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection and emergency medical response services are being provided by the San Bernardino County Fire District (SBCFD). The nearest fire station to the Project Site is San Bernardino County Fire Station 164 located at 1825 N Campus Avenue (approximately 1.0 mile northwest of the Project Site). The next nearest fire station to the Project Site is San Bernardino County Fire Station 161 located at 475 North 2nd Avenue (approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the Project Site). The City maintains mutual aid agreements with surrounding cities (e.g., Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Montclair, and Claremont), which allow for the services of nearby fire

42 Map 3A, Compatibility Policy Map, Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. City of Upland, 2014.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-42
departments to assist the City during major emergencies.

The Project would be designed and operated per applicable standards required by the City for new development with regard to public safety. Policy PFS-2.11 of the City’s General Plan requires new development to be accessible to emergency vehicles and not impede the ability of service providers to provide adequate emergency response.43 As detailed in the Site-specific Fire Master Plan, the Project Site includes a primary ingress/egress gate and a secondary access along the western end of the Project Site that will provide residential entry/exit and also facilitate entry/exit for emergency vehicles. All driveway entryways and curves will include adequate turn radii for residents and emergency response vehicles, and the Proposed Project will include a C10 fire alarm, a “Knox” key system at the perimeter gate, and an “Infrared Automatic Gate System” to ensure immediate fire department access to the Project Site in the event of an emergency in accordance with Policy PFS-

2.11 (Emergency Vehicle Access) of the City’s General Plan.

Additionally, General Plan Policies PFS-2.9 and PFS-2.10 require new development, including the Proposed Project, to incorporate adequate emergency water flow, fire-resistant design and materials, early warning systems and evacuation routes, and to identify and mitigate any fire hazards during the development review process.44 Fire hydrants will be incorporated approximately 250 feet apart along the entire length of the Project Site, and the Proposed Project design will be submitted to the SBCFD for review and approval prior the issuance of building permits. Furthermore, the Project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) used to fund capital costs associated with constructing new public safety structures and purchasing equipment for new public safety structures. Adherence to the emergency access measures required by the City would ensure a less than significant impact related to implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation is required. g) Expose people or structures, directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. Exhibit 5.14-1 of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Element in City’s General Plan EIR identifies the Project Site to be outside any fire hazard zone.45 The Project Site is adjacent to a groomed golf course and residential uses. The Project Site is not located near a wildland area. Due to the existing and surrounding urban development, no impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is required.

43 Chapter 7 Public Facilities and Services Element, City of Upland General Plan, Page PFS-3, City of Upland, September 2015. 44 Ibid.
45 Section 5.14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, City of Upland Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Exhibit 5.14-1. City of Upland, September 2015.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-43

3.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The City is a co-permittee under Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order number R8-2010-0036, NPDES Permit No.

CAS618036, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS4 permit. The San Bernardino County Water Quality Management Plan was developed to implement compliance with the MS4 permit. Construction of the proposed 65 single-family residential units and associated infrastructure improvements such as reconfiguration of the flood control basin (15th Street Basin) will require ground-disturbing activities that could result in eroded soils and other pollutants entering the storm drain system. Pollutants, such as sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, toxic organics, trash and debris, and contaminants, may be conveyed by storm runoff from impermeable surfaces (e.g., streets, parking lots, athletic courts). The City implements National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for surface water discharge for all qualifying activities, including all development projects.

The Project Site is in excess of one acre; therefore, it is required to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit, which includes the submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) application to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the receipt of a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDIN) from the SWRCB, and the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction discharges. An SWPPP is a written document that describes the construction operator’s activities to comply with the requirements in the NPDES permit. The SWPPP is intended to facilitate a process whereby the operator evaluates potential pollutant sources at the Site and selects and implements Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to prevent or control the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. During the construction period, the Project would use a series of BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation. These measures may include the use of gravel bags, silt fences, hay bales, check dams, hydroseed, and soil binders. The construction contractor would be required to operate and maintain these controls throughout the duration of construction activities.

In addition, the construction contractor would be required to maintain an inspection log and have the log on-site to be reviewed by the City and representatives of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

An NPDES permit would generally specify an acceptable level of a pollutant or pollutant parameter in a discharge (for example, a certain level of bacteria). The permittee may choose which technologies to use to achieve that level. Some permits, however, do contain certain generic BMPs.

Table 3.3.10A lists BMPs for runoff control, sediment control, erosion control, and housekeeping that may be used during the construction of the Proposed Project.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-44
Table 3.3.10A: General Best Management Practices
Runoff Control Sediment Control Erosion Control Good Housekeeping • Minimize clearing
• Preserve natural
vegetation
• Stabilize drainage
ways
• Install perimeter
controls
• Install sediment
trapping devices
• Inlet protection
• Stabilize exposed soils
• Protect steep slopes
• Complete construction
in phases
• Create waste collection
area
• Put lids on containers
• Clean up spills
immediately
Source: National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-stormwater#edu (accessed October 10, 2018). More detailed Best Management Practices are available at this web site.

The implementation of NPDES permits ensures that the State’s mandatory standards for the maintenance of clean water and the federal minimums are met. Soil erosion and sedimentation impacts would be reduced to less than significant through implementation the BMPs detailed in an SWPPP and periodic inspections by RWQCB staff.

To ensure adherence and compliance with the NPDES permit, the following mitigation measures are required.

HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall file and obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in order to be in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit for discharge of surface runoff associated with construction activities. Evidence that this NOI has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger’s Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. The NOI shall address the potential for an extended and discontinuous construction period based on funding availability. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and Planning Division as appropriate.

HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City of Upland of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a surface water control plan and erosion control plan citing specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion during the entire demolition, grading, and construction period. In addition, the SWPPP shall emphasize structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sediment and non-visible discharges from the Site. The SWPPP will include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the Site during demolition and construction phase to ensure National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance. The SWPPP will be kept on site for the duration of Project demolition and construction and will be available to the local RWQCB for inspection at any time. Project BMPs may include (but shall not be limited to) the following:
• Sediment discharges from the Site may be controlled by the following: sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles and temporary basins (if deemed necessary), and other discharge control devices. The construction and condition of the BMPs will be periodically

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-45
inspected during construction and repairs will be made when necessary as required by the SWPPP.
• Materials that have the potential to contribute to non-visible pollutants to storm water must not be placed in drainage ways and must be contained, elevated, and placed in temporary storage containment areas.
• All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other earthen material shall be protected in a reasonable manner to eliminate any discharge from the Site. Stockpiles will be surrounded by silt fences and covered with plastic tarps. • In addition, the construction contractor shall be responsible for performing and documenting the application of BMPs identified in the SWPPP. Weekly inspections shall be performed on sandbag barriers and other sediment control measures called for in the SWPPP. Monthly reports and inspection logs shall be maintained by the contractor and reviewed by the City of Upland and the representatives of the State Water Resources Control Board. In the event that it is not feasible to implement specific BMPs, the City of Upland can make a determination that other BMPs will provide equivalent or superior treatment either on or off site.

This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and Planning Division as appropriate.

All new development in the City is required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce water pollution impacts from the operation of the developments. WQMPs include BMPs for source control, pollution prevention, Site design, low impact development (LID) implementation, and structural treatment control BMPs. On-site and off-site LID BMPs will treat storm water runoff from the Site at mitigated rates.

Under existing conditions, the Project Site is 100 percent pervious, and storm water drains through an on-site flood control basin from east to west where runoff enters a culvert that conveys storm water off-site through the municipal sewer system underneath 15th Street. The Proposed Project would convert approximately 55 percent of the Project Site into impervious surfaces, but it would maintain the existing drainage pattern generally from the east to west by directing flows along a reconfigured 84” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain used to dewater the 15th Street Basin.

The existing RCP storm drain inlet is located approximately 200 feet northwest of the Fernando Avenue and 15th Street intersection. Upon Project buildout, on-site runoff from the Project Site will be collected and conveyed by a proposed on-site storm drain system to the relocated 15th Street Basin outlet located east of the Project Site, as detailed in the Project-specific Drainage Plan (Appendix G1) and described below.

The relocated 15th Street Basin will measure approximately 1,056 feet long by 120 feet wide with an approximate 21-foot depth below grade at the western end and a 7-foot depth below grade at the eastern end. The on-site runoff will be collected by grated inlets within each lot and two curb inlets and conveyed to a proposed 12-foot by 8-foot round catch basin (RCB) which will discharge into the

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-46
relocated 15th Street Basin. A section of the existing storm drain will be removed and replaced with a proposed 84” RCP storm drain along the southern boundary of the Project Site that will parallel the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain. The relocated 84” RCP storm drain will be used to dewater the relocated 15th Street Basin. A proposed 30-inch RCP storm drain line will convey runoff from an existing 48-inch RCP storm drain and flows from Drainage Area A. This proposed 30-inch RCP storm drain line will be constructed 260 feet east of the western Project Site boundary. The 30- inch RCP storm drain will connect to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain. To satisfy San Bernardino County criteria and City Public Works Department comment, the Project has provided an emergency spillway alternative. The existing basin would be retrofitted to accommodate a trapezoidal emergency spillway with a crest at an elevation of 1,426.6 feet amsl. The emergency spillway, having a base of 16 feet and a top width of 48.4 feet, would be installed at the end of Grove Avenue. Combined with the proposed box weir outlet system, potential impacts associated with Project development would be minimized. The box weir outlet system would be designed to pass through the 200- to 500-year storm, with the emergency spillway providing discharge capacity for larger events. While the installation of the emergency spillway at the end of Grove Avenue is necessitated by San Bernardino County criteria, as the box weir outlet system can accommodate flows well in excess of the 100-year storm event, it is unlikely flows over the emergency spillway would occur during foreseeable storm events.

Storm water runoff conveyed through the relocated 84” RCP storm drain used to dewater the relocated 15th Street Basin would continue to flow downstream to Cucamonga Creek and discharge to Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River, through the Prado Basin Management Zone, and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. Cucamonga Creek and Reach 3 list heavy metals as EPA-approved 303(D) listed impairments to water quality, which are the pollutants of concern of the Proposed Project.

To address potential water contaminants and other impairments (such as increased storm water volume from conversion of pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces) to downstream waters, the Proposed Project is required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local water quality regulations. Development of the Proposed Project would include three drainage areas (DA 1 though DA 3) to manage storm water runoff and direct it into appropriate LID BMPs. According to a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)46 prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix G2), DA 1 would manage runoff from 10,751 square feet of the Project Site, DA 2 would manage runoff from 357,360 square feet of the Project Site, and DA 3 would manage runoff from 48,796 square feet of the Project Site. DAs 1 and 3 will route storm water flows to proposed modular wetland units, while DA 2 will convey storm water flows through an on-site, underground infiltration chamber to be pretreated and infiltrated. All three drainage areas will outlet to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain which will discharge into the relocated 15th Street Basin.

As detailed in the preliminary WQMP, development of the Project would require DAs 1 through 3 to respectively capture a minimum of 737 cubic feet (ft3), 18,155 ft3, and 2,879 ft3 of storm water

46 Water Quality Management Plan for Tract Number 20245. Form 4.3-2. Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-47
runoff in order to ensure post-development storm water runoff does not exceed pre-development storm water runoff volumes.47 Due to conflicts with existing and proposed utilities, as well as a lack of useable space on site to support infiltration, LID BMPs to serve DAs 1 and 3 will be comprised of biofiltration modular wetland units sized to treat a minimum 0.05 cubic feet per second (cfs) for DA 1 and 0.11 cfs for DA 3.48 The on-site underground infiltration chamber LID BMP is designed and shall be constructed to capture 18,217 ft3 of storm water runoff for infiltration49 prior to discharging overflow to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain which will discharge into the relocated 15th Street Basin. According to the WQMP, the design capture volume (DCV) of the proposed underground infiltration chamber LID BMP would satisfy the estimated detention volume needed post-development for the Project.

To ensure the treatment capacity and DCV of the proposed LID BMPs serving DAs 1 through 3 would satisfy the treatment and detention volumes needed post-development for the Project, Mitigation Measure HYD-3 is proposed.

HYD-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City of Upland for review and approval. Prior to grading permit approval, the Project shall provide evidence that the Project design features identified in the Final WQMP have been fully incorporated into the Project plans. In accordance with the Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans prepared for the County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Number CAS618036, Order Number R8-2010- 0036, the Final WQMP shall confirm performance standard calculations for each of the Project Site’s drainage areas. Specifically, the Final WQMP shall detail low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) designed to retain the Project Site’s minimum storm water treatment capacity and design capture volume to ensure post- development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration for the 2-year frequency storm shall not exceed that of the pre-development condition by more than five percent.

The proposed LID BMPs specified in the Final WQMP shall be incorporated into the grading and development plans submitted to the City for review and approval. Periodic maintenance of any required BMPs, including landscaped areas, during Project occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the WQMP. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and Planning Division as appropriate.

The Final WQMP would be reviewed and approved as a routine action during the processing of the Project by the City; therefore, it is reasonable that the required measures and features detailed in the Final WQMP to safeguard the existing drainage pattern of the Site and area would be

47 Ibid. Form 4.2-1. Performance standard calculations are preliminary and will be confirmed upon submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan to the City.
48 Ibid. Form 4.3-8. Performance standard calculations are preliminary and will be confirmed upon submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan to the City.
49 Ibid. Table I: Drainage Area 2 BMP Infiltration Time Design Calculations. Performance standard calculations are preliminary and will be confirmed upon submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan to the City.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-48
incorporated into the Proposed Project. Adherence to Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3 and measures included in the SWPPP, NPDES permit, and WQMP would reduce potential surface and groundwater quality impacts to a less than significant level. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Domestic water for the City and the Project Site is provided by the City of Upland and San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo). The majority of the City’s water comes from the Cucamonga, Chino, and Six Basins 50 groundwater basins, as well as surface water from the SAWCo, recycled water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), and imported surface water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD).51 Although the Project Site’s existing land use designation is Public Utilities--Flood Control/Recharge, and the Project includes a proposed GPA to Villa Serena Specific Plan (SP), the Project would reconfigure the existing on-site 15th Street Basin adjacent to the east in order to maintain adequate local flood control and recharge potential. The reconfigured 15th Street Basin will measure approximately 1,056 feet long by 120 feet wide with an approximate 21-foot depth below grade at the western end and a 7-foot depth below grade at the eastern end. The on-site runoff will be collected by grated inlets within each lot and two curb inlets and conveyed to a proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB, which will discharge into the 15th Street Basin. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-3, storm water runoff would be infiltrated on site at volumes that would not exceed the predevelopment condition by more than five percent, and any storm water overflow from all three on-site DAs would outlet to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain which will discharge into the reconfigured portion of the 15th Street Basin.

The Project does not propose direct additions to or withdrawals of groundwater. Furthermore, the proposed construction does not reach depths that would impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Additional Project design features incorporated into the Project to maximize groundwater infiltration, such as roof downspouts draining into pervious, landscaped areas and maintenance of existing surface flows across the Project Site into biofiltration modular wetland units and an underground infiltration basin, would further facilitate groundwater recharge. Periodic maintenance of any required modular wetland units and infiltration basin and landscaped areas during Project occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the WQMP. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-3, no net change in the amount of water recharged into local groundwater would occur; therefore, potential impacts related to the management, quality, availability, and recharge would be reduced to a less than significant level.

50 The Six Basins are comprised of the Ganesha, Live Oak, Pomona, Lower Claremont Heights, Upper Claremont Heights and Canyon Basin.
51 Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Table 3-2: IEUA Retail Agencies Projected Water Supply (AF). June 2016.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-49
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that
would:

i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site currently functions as a flood control basin (15th Street Basin), and construction of the proposed 65 single-family residential units and associated infrastructure improvements will require modification of the remaining portion of the 15th Street Basin east of the proposed development. Development of the Proposed Project (buildings and pavement) would alter the amount of existing pervious surface area and the amount of generated runoff. Construction would disturb paved and/or vegetated surfaces and expose on-site soils to erosion and siltation potential. Modification of the remaining portion of the 15th Street Basin will result in 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) slopes with a maximum height of approximately 20 feet. Based on stability analysis, the proposed slopes the modified basin have been determined to “grossly stable and geotechnical suitable.”52 Pursuant to Mitigation Measure HYD-2, the Project Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City of Upland of an SWPPP prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The SWPPP shall include a surface water control plan and erosion control plan citing specific measures to control on- site and off-site erosion during the entire grading and construction period. In addition, the SWPPP shall emphasize structural and nonstructural BMPs to control sediment and non-visible discharges from the Site. The SWPPP shall include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the Site during both the demolition and construction phases to ensure NPDES compliance and that additional BMPs and erosion control measures will be documented in the SWPPP and utilized if necessary. The SWPPP shall address the potential for an extended and discontinuous construction period based on funding availability.

Through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-3, the Applicant shall prepare a Final WQMP to ensure storm water runoff would be infiltrated on-site at volumes that would not exceed the predevelopment condition by more than five percent, and any storm water overflow from all three on-site DAs would outlet to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain which will discharge into the modified 15th Street Basin described above. Additional Project design features incorporated into the Project, such as roof downspouts draining into pervious, landscaped areas and maintenance of existing surface flows across the Project Site into biofiltration modular wetland units and an underground infiltration basin, would further maintain the Site’s existing drainage pattern and prevent erosion and siltation. Periodic maintenance of any required modular wetland units and infiltration basin and landscaped areas during Project occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the WQMP. With implementation of Mitigation Measures

52 Slope Stability Evaluation – New Basin, Tentative Tract 20245, Upland, San Bernardino County, California, GeoTek, Inc., September 16, 2019.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-50
HYD-2 and HYD-3, impacts related to substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the Site or area or substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation would be reduced to a less than significant level. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on or off site?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the Project Site and modification of the remaining portion of the 15th Street Basin reduces the overall area of the existing basin, but the proposed improvements to the 15th Street Basin would provide the required storage volume by increasing the depth of the ponding in the basin. In the existing condition, the basin ponds to an elevation of 1,422.6 feet during a 100-year storm event. In the proposed condition, the basin would pond to an elevation of approximately 1,426 feet.53 This increased depth will provide

0.5 feet of freeboard between the emergency spillway crest and the 100-year water surface elevation. The emergency spillway shall be constructed for the 1,000-year event (1.35 × 100-year flow rate) in accordance with San Bernardino County Detention Basin Design Criteria, with the required freeboard to the top of the dam embankment to be above the 1,000-year water surface elevation. Using a 9-foot wide by 1.5-foot high opening, the maximum water surface elevation is projected to be 1,426.1 feet with a peak discharge of 246.7 cfs. This meets the peak discharge and maximum 100-year water surface elevation goals.

The existing basin would be retrofitted to accommodate a trapezoidal emergency spillway with a crest at an elevation of 1,426.6 feet amsl. The emergency spillway, having a base of 16 feet and a top width of 48.4 feet, would be installed at the end of Grove Avenue. Combined with the proposed box weir outlet system, potential impacts associated with Project development would be minimized.

The box weir outlet system would be designed to pass through the 200- to 500-year storm, with the emergency spillway providing discharge capacity for larger events. As the box weir outlet system can accommodate flows well in excess of the 100-year storm event, it is unlikely flows over the emergency spillway would occur during foreseeable storm events54.

Through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-3, the Applicant shall prepare a Final WQMP to ensure storm water runoff would be infiltrated on site at volumes that would not exceed the predevelopment condition by more than five percent, and any storm water overflow from all three on-site DAs would outlet to the proposed 12-foot by 8-foot RCB storm drain, which will discharge into the modified 15th Street Basin. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-2 and HYD-3, changes in the existing drainage pattern of the Site would not substantially increase the rate or amount surface runoff; therefore, on- or off-site flooding impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

53 15th Street Basin Modifications Review and Recommendations. Q3 Consulting. June 29, 2018, revised July 31, 2018 (Appendix G3). 54 15th Street Basin Modifications – Spillway and Bypass Alternatives. Q3 Consulting, September 10, 2019.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-51
iii) Create or contribute runoff that would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial amounts of
polluted runoff?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please refer to the Response to Checklist Question 3.3.10c(i) and (ii).
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within an area subject to flood hazards from a 100- year flood (1 percent annual flood), as identified by the City and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).55, 56
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the Project Site is located within the inundation zone of the San Antonio Dam, which is located 3.3 miles northwest of the Project Site.57 San Antonio Dam was designed to withstand the strongest possible earthquake that could occur in the area. Further, flooding that would occur from a dam breach would be reduced by the number and capacity of settling basins that are located south of the dam.58 Therefore, dam inundation is considered by the City to be an extremely remote possibility.59
The Project Site is not located near or adjacent to a lake or ocean; therefore, there is no potential for inundation of the Site by a seiche (a wave or oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin) or tsunami; therefore, no potential for inundation from these events would occur.

General Plan Policy SAF-2.13 requires the City to plan for the evacuation of people from areas subject to inundation from possible failure of the San Antonio Dam. In the event of an emergency, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan would be implemented. Due to limited potential for inundation of the site, compliance with the procedures identified in the Emergency Operations Plan, would reduce potential impacts related to the release of pollutants during any inundation event would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to the Response to Checklist Questions 3.3.10a and b.

55 City of Upland General Plan. Figure SAF-2 100-Year and 200-Year Flood Zones. City of Upland, September 2015. 56 Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8607H. National Flood Insurance Program. Panel 8607H. Map Revised August 28, 2008. 57 Section 5.13 Hydrology and Water Quality, City of Upland General Plan Final Program EIR. Pages 5.13-15 and 5.13-34. City of Upland, September 2015.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-52

3.3.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The Site is bounded on north by a golf course, on the west by a private residential community, on the south by 15th Street beyond, which are single-family residential uses, and on the east by an extension of the existing flood control basin beyond which are single-family and multifamily residential uses. Primary access to the neighborhood is along 14th Street north to Alta Avenue, Monte Verde Avenue, or Grove Avenue to 15th Street, as the adjacent golf course and private residential community already cut off access to the neighborhood from the north and west.

Access to the Project Site is proposed along 15th Street via a primary ingress/egress gate enhanced with streetscapes and an entry monument to impart a strong sense of arrival into the proposed community. A secondary access along the western end of the Project Site will provide residential entry/exit and also facilitate entry/exit for emergency vehicles. Both access points are proposed to be gated, and all interior streets are proposed to be privately owned and maintained by a homeowner’s association.

The Project is the development of residential uses consistent with the existing residential pattern of development surrounding the Project Site. Existing residential uses occur adjacent to the west and south, and additional residential uses occur within the golf course adjacent to the north and beyond the flood control basin adjacent to the east. None of the surrounding residential communities are interconnected, as they exist as enclaves independent and separate from each other. Furthermore, the existing flood control basin physically divides these communities currently. Development of the Proposed Project would fill in the flood control basin on site, relocate and expand the basin adjacent to the east in an area already serving as flood control, and represent a continuation of the existing residential uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or
regulation for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from Public Utilities--Flood Control/Recharge (PU-FC/R) to Villa Serena Specific Plan (SP). Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65450 et seq., Specific Plans provide detailed land use and infrastructure plans and policies for a certain geographic area and must be consistent with an applicable General Plan.

The proposed Specific Plan is a comprehensive plan for development of 65 single-family detached residential units at a density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre with on-site active and passive recreational amenities to be provided within the common area open space. Table 3.3.11A details the Proposed Project’s consistency with the General Plan goals and policies pertaining to land use.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-53
Table 3.3.11A: Proposed Project’s Consistency with the City’s General Plan City’s General Plan Policy or Goal Proposed Project’s Consistency with General Plan Goal or Policy Land Use Element Goal LU-1: A viable community with a mix of land uses and building types that offer a wide range of choices to live, work, shop and participate in civic, cultural, open space, and recreational opportunities.

Policy LU-1.2: Permitted Densities and
Intensities. Ensure existing and future
zoning designations correspond to the
permitted density and intensity ranges as
listed in Table LU-1 of the Land Use
Element.

Consistent. The Project’s development of the flood control detention basin with SFR-M uses between existing single-family homes to the south and west and the golf course with multifamily homes (duplexes) to the north is consistent with the General Plan’s intended implementation of the SFR-M land use in transition zones between lower-density residential uses and higher-density commercial, industrial, and multifamily residential land uses.

The Proposed Project’s contribution to growth would represent a negligible amount of the future growth forecast in the City (approximately 0.23 percent of the projected 2040 City population and 0.22 percent of the projected 2040 City households). The addition of 189 residents within the City would result in population growth within the City; however, this additional population is consistent with the City, County, and regional (SCAG) growth projections depicted in Table 3.3.10B.

Although the Project Site’s existing land use designation is PU-FC/R and zoning designation is PB/FC, the proposed GPA to SFR-M (4 to 10 dwelling units per acre) and zone change to SP, resulting in an increase in residential uses beyond that which was planned for by the City at General Plan buildout, would contribute to the balance of the City’s current and future jobs-to-housing ratio consistent with both the SCAG forecasts and the growth forecasts for the City, as detailed in Table 3.3.13A. The Project would accommodate overall planned growth in the City and the SCAG region, and it would contribute to meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement.

Policy LU-1.3: Strategic Growth.

Concentrate growth in strategic
locations that strengthens the City’s
economic base, offers new housing
opportunities, maximizes available and
planned infrastructure, and fosters the
development and use of transit and
multi-modal transportation. These areas
include Historic Downtown Upland,
Foothill Boulevard, the Southeast
Quadrant, College Heights, Mountain
Avenue, along the Interstate 10 corridor,
and in the 9th Street Industrial area.

Policy LU-1.4: Complete and Balanced
Community. Foster new land uses and
building types that contribute to City
revenues and increase employment while
also ensuring the provision of sufficient
housing, shopping, civic, cultural, open
space, and recreational opportunities.

Policy LU-1.5: Range of Housing Types and
Densities. Provide high-quality housing in a
range of types, densities, and unit sizes
that meets the housing needs of residents
of all income levels.

Policy LU-1.6: Jobs-Housing Match.

Encourage new employment opportunities
that match the range of housing types to
make it possible for people to live and
work in Upland.

Land Use Element Goal LU-4: A community whose land use patterns focus growth in ways that are supportable and environmentally responsible, including the implementation of smart growth practices and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy.

Policy LU-4.1: Infill Development.

Encourage mixed-use, infill development
on brownfields or underutilized parcels,
Consistent. The City has determined the 9.2 acre portion of the flood control detention basin comprising the Project Site to be a surplus parcel which can be used as a development Site for residential uses with the

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-54
particularly near public transit and
within the historic downtown.
remaining 11.1 acres of the flood control detention basin as adequate for continued flood control operations pursuant to completion of modifications to portions of the basin made as part of the Project. Access for flood control detention basin maintenance vehicles is provided through the Project Site with a gated entry to the basin located at the easterly edge of the Project boundary.

The City’s 2012 jobs-to-housing ratio is well above the San Bernardino County job/housing ratio but slightly lower than the SCAG regional job/housing ratio; therefore, the City may be considered “jobs balanced” relative to the greater SCAG region. By 2040, however, the City’s jobs-to- housing is expected to exceed both the County’s and SCAG’s jobs-to- housing ratios, as detailed in Table 3.3.13A, meaning the City would be relatively “jobs rich” and “housing poor,” and additional housing within the City would be required to balance the jobs-to-housing ratio at the local level. By developing housing, the Project would support the balance of jobs to housing in the City so that residents would not have to travel far to work. Therefore, a balanced jobs-to-housing ratio generally fulfills several key issues and policies of the AQMP and City’s CAP through the reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled in order to reduce vehicle GHG emissions.

Policy LU-4.2: Balance Commercial and
Residential Development. Strive to
balance commercial and residential
development within the City to provide
services for residents and a supportive
local clientele for businesses.

Policy LU-4.3: Jobs Housing Balance.

Encourage a balance between jobs,
workforce skills, and housing supply.

Policy LU-4.5: Infrastructure
Improvements. Preserve and maintain the
City’s infrastructure and give preference to
infrastructure improvements that support
or enhance desired land uses and Projects.

Land Use Element Goal LU-5: A community that facilitates options for the use of cars, walking, biking, and the use of public transportation.

Policy LU-5.5: Pedestrian Safety.

Encourage the creation of safe, walkable
environments that include elements such
as wide, smooth sidewalks, good lighting,
safe crosswalks, clear signage, curb bulb-
outs, curb cuts, street furniture, trees and
traffic-calming measures which allow
people of all ages and abilities to exercise
and safely access public transportation,
community centers, schools and goods and
services.

Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan is designed to provide for a pedestrian and bicycle friendly circulation system facilitating connectivity within the community and connecting to 15th Street where pedestrians and bicyclists can access public streets and sidewalks which connect to existing adjacent residential neighborhoods, a public Community Park, and to retail commercial centers in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Common area open space within the community offers active and passive recreational amenities for residents and a community gathering place for residents. Homes are planned to front onto streets, enabling residents to have their “eyes on the street,” promoting a safe hometown feel and encouraging interaction among neighbors.

Land Use Element Goal LU-6: A community that encourages complementary development and maintenance of existing development.

Policy LU-6.1: Quality Development.

Ensure that development is attractive
and promotes harmony in the visual
relationships and transitions between
newer and older buildings.

Consistent. The new community planned as part of the Specific Plan incorporates the traditional housing styles of the City, while also reflecting the architecture of recently built neighborhoods in the Project vicinity. The use of Spanish roof tiles, gable end details, and delicate metal rails reflects the classic Spanish style of the historical Upland communities, while the vertical corner details, symmetry, and arched openings of the Italianate style, and the corbels, stone siding, and steep roof pitches of the French Country architectural style capture the details of the past and present styles of Upland homes.

Construction of new Project roadways and infrastructure is planned to connect to existing facilities located adjacent to the Project Site. The proposed plan utilizes existing circulation and transportation facilities, reducing the need for construction of additional arterial and major roadway extensions or improvements to serve the Project Site.

The Project’s development of the flood control detention basin with SFR-M Policy LU-6.2: Compatibility of Uses.

Control the location, concentration and
operations of land uses that have potential
impacts on surrounding development
through effective design principles,
adequate buffering, and enforcement of
regulatory documents.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-55
uses between existing single-family homes to the south and west and the golf course with multifamily homes (duplexes) to the north is consistent with the planned implementation of the SFR-M land use in transition zones between lower-density residential uses and higher-density commercial, industrial, and multifamily residential land uses, as detailed in the General Plan.

Source: Land Use Element, City of Upland General Plan. City of Upland. September 2015.

As detailed in Table 3.3.11A, the Proposed Project is consistent with the above-referenced General Plan Land Use goals and policies, which are designed to enhance community services, reduce air pollution, GHG emissions, and traffic congestion by promoting quality development, fostering land use compatibility, and balancing the City’s jobs-to-housing ratio.

SCAG functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties, including San Bernardino County, wherein the Project is located. As the designated MPO, SCAG is federally mandated to research and plan for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. SCAG’s main responsibilities under state and federal law are preparing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

Although SCAG does not have formal regulatory authority and cannot directly implement land use decisions, SCAG guides land use planning for the southern California region through intergovernmental coordination and consensus building. SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the latest [2016–2040] Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016. The analysis of the Proposed Project’s impacts to the City’s growth forecast is based on the latest data provided in SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.60
Typically, growth-inducing potential of a Project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans and land use plans. Significant growth impacts could also occur if the Project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.3.14a, the City will need to accommodate a total of 1,589 units in various income categories, including 191 extremely low- income, 191 very low-income, 260 low-income, 294 moderate-income, and 653 above moderate- income housing units in order to meet its projected housing needs detailed in the RHNA.61 New single-family homes in the City are selling for over $500,000. In the vast majority of cases, these products are built on standard small lots with a density of 7 to 10 units per acre, and Sites zoned at such lower densities are assumed to be capable of only accommodating single-family homes affordable to above moderate-income households.62 Since the Project proposes single-family homes at a density of approximately 7.1 dwelling units per acre, the proposed residential units would contribute to meeting the City’s above moderate-income RHNA requirement.

60 Final 2016/2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Table 11 in Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix. Adopted April, 2016. Southern California Association of Governments. 61 Housing Element, 2013-2021. Table 4-1: Upland Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2013-2021. City of Upland General Plan. Housing Element Adopted January 27, 2014.
62 Ibid. Page 61.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-56
The latest figures provided by the California Department of Finance indicate the population of the City is approximately 77,017 persons.63 Development of the Proposed Project and other Projects in the City of Upland and in San Bernardino County would lead to increases in population, housing, and employment. The Proposed Project would involve development of 65 residential units (189 new residents).64 However, as detailed in Table 3.3.11B, SCAG estimates that there could be approximately 81,700 people, 28,900 households, and 43,500 jobs in the City by 2040. The Proposed Project’s growth would represent a negligible portion of the future growth forecasts in the City (approximately 0.23 percent of the projected 2040 City population and 0.22 percent of the projected 2040 City households). The addition of 189 residents within the City would result in population growth within the City; however, this additional population is consistent with the City, County, and regional (SCAG) growth projections depicted in Table 3.3.11B.

The General Plan does not specify or anticipate when complete buildout would occur, as long-range demographic and economic trends are difficult to predict. The designation within the General Plan of a Site for a certain use does not necessarily mean that the Site would be developed with that use during the planning period, as most development depends on property owner initiative. Although the Project Site’s existing land use designation is PU-FC/R and zoning designation is PB/FC, the proposed GPA to Villa Serena Specific Plan, resulting in an increase in residential uses beyond that which was planned for by the City at General Plan buildout, would contribute to the balance of the City’s current and future jobs-to-housing ratio consistent with both the SCAG forecasts and the growth forecasts for the City, as detailed in Table 3.3.14A. The Project would accommodate overall planned growth in the City and the SCAG region, and it would contribute to meeting the City’s RHNA requirement.

Table 3.3.11B: SCAG Demographic Forecasts
Demographic Characteristic 2012 2040
Population
City of Upland 74,700 81,700
San Bernardino County 2,068,000 2,731,300
Southern California Association of Governments⃰ 18,300,000 22,100,000 Households
City of Upland 25,900 28,900
San Bernardino County 615,300 854,300
Southern California Association of Governments⃰ 5,900,000 7,400,000 Employment
City of Upland 31,700 43,500
San Bernardino 659,500 998,100
Southern California Association of Governments⃰ 7,400,000 9,900,000

63 E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011–2018 with 2010 Census Benchmark. State of California Department of Finance. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed September 27, 2018). 64 The latest statistical figures published by SCAG’s Local Profiles Report for the City of Upland in May 2017 reveal the City’s average household size is 2.9 persons per housing unit. (2.9 × 65 housing units = 189 persons).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-57
Source: Final 2016/2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Table 11 in Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix. Adopted April, 2016. Southern California Association of Governments. ⃰ Rounded to the nearest hundred-thousand.

The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS analyzed the region’s transportation system, future growth projections, and potential funding sources in order in order to develop a long-term framework for transportation improvements and maintenance.65 The RTP includes policies and regulations set forth to ensure development within the SCAG regional area is within planned and forecast socioeconomic projections. As part of the RTP, SCAG developed an SCS, which was required by Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities Act of 2008. The SCS is intended to combine land use and transportation planning with the overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by vehicle travel.

The Project proposes residential uses on a property surrounded by low density and medium density residential uses. The City’s 2012 jobs-to-housing ratio is well above the San Bernardino County job/housing ratio but slightly lower than the SCAG regional job/housing ratio; therefore, the City may be considered “jobs balanced” relative to the greater SCAG region. By 2040, however, the City’s jobs-to-housing is expected to exceed both the County’s and SCAG’s jobs-to-housing ratios, as detailed in Table 3.3.14A, meaning the City would be relatively “jobs rich” and “housing poor,” and additional housing within the City would be required to balance the jobs-to-housing ratio at the local level. By developing housing, the Project would support the balance of jobs to housing in the City so that residents would not have to travel far to work. Therefore, a balanced jobs-to-housing ratio generally fulfills several key issues and policies of SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS through the reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled in order to reduce vehicle emissions. Additionally, the proximity of the Project Site within walking and biking distance to existing recreational and commercial facilities can help to reduce automobile trips to and from the Project Site. The connection of the Project street and walkway system to 15th Street provides for on-street bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the community and connectivity to 15th Street continuing bike and pedestrian access to commercial services located at North Campus Avenue and 19th Street, approximately one mile to the north of the Project Site, and to Sierra Vista Park located approximately one mile west of the Project Site and/or Red Hill Park located approximately one mile east of the Project Site.

Table 3.3.8A details the Project-specific GHG emissions, and the discussion in response to Checklist Question 3.3.8b concludes the Project is designed and will be implemented in accordance with the City’s CAP and will not conflict with the GHG and vehicle miles traveled reduction measures identified in State (AB 32), regional (SCAG RTP/SCS), and local (General Plan and CAP) plans adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating adverse environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

65 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. Southern California Association of Governments. April 2016.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-58

3.3.12 Mineral Resources
Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery Site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2).66 MRZ-2 is defined as:

Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral resources are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. Land included in MRZ-2 is of prime importance because it contains known economic mineral deposits.67 The State Geologist is responsible for identifying and calculating the amount of aggregate resources contained in areas classified as MRZ-2. The State Geologist further limits the aggregate resource calculations to areas within “Sectors,” areas classified as MRZ-2 that have current land uses deemed compatible with potential mining. Compatible land uses are defined as those that are non-urbanized or that have very low-density residential developments (one dwelling unit per ten acres or less), land without high-cost improvements, and land used for agriculture, grazing, or open space.

Urbanization and/or incompatible land uses are defined as improvements of high cost, such as high- density residential developments, intensive industrial developments, commercial developments, and major public facilities.

The identification of aggregate resources provides local governments information on areas that remain accessible for extraction. The criteria for identifying resource areas do not consider land use commitments that may restrict the accessibility to the resource; therefore, the amount of available resource may be overestimated. Through the development of local General Plans, it is expected that local jurisdictions will identify areas suitable for the extraction of aggregate and other materials.

The Site is currently designated for flood control, and the Project includes a GPA from PU-FC/R to Villa Serena Specific Plan and development of 65 single-family residential dwelling units in an area of the City currently developed primarily with residential uses. No mineral extraction or processing activity occurs on site or vicinity, nor is the Site designated for such uses in the General Plan or Zoning Code.68,69
Because the developed areas surrounding the Site contains a considerable amount of residential

66 Mineral Land Classification Map, Aggregate Resources Only, Claremont-Upland P-C Region. Ontario Quadrangle, Special Report 143 Plate 6.8. State of Calif. Dept. of Conservation, 1984. 67 Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, Department of Conservation State Mining and Geology Board. Page 4. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/guidelines/documents/classdesig.pdf (accessed July 30, 2018). 68 Chapter 1 Land Use Element, City of Upland General Plan, Figure LU-1: General Plan Land Use, City of Upland, September 2015. 69 Zoning Map. City of Upland Zoning Code Update. Map Date: September 14, 2015.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-59
land uses, sand and gravel operation on the Site would be incompatible with regards to noise, dust, truck traffic, and possibly vibration on the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the Project Site is not located within an area determined locally significant for aggregate resources.70 Therefore, impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery Site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

3.3.13 Noise
Would the Project:
a) Result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase 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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Section 9.40.020 of the City Municipal Code defines ambient noise as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding any intrusive noise. The Project Site is adjacent to single-family homes on three sides and a golf course with multifamily duplexes adjacent to the north. General ambient noise in the area includes roadway noise, lawn mowers, residents’ voices, etc. The Proposed Project would result in the development of single- family homes, which are substantially similar to the surrounding land uses and would result in similar noise sources.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix H) identified five sensitive receptors that could potentially be impacted.71 These receptors include single-family residential homes to the north, south, east, and west of the Project Site, as indicated below.

R1: Located approximately 158 feet north of the Project Site, R1 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) across an existing golf course from the Project Site.

R2: Located approximately 48 feet south of the Project Site, R2 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) of homes on 15th Street.

R3: Located approximately 83 feet south of the Project Site, R3 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) south of 15th Street.

R4: Located approximately 86 feet south of the Project Site, R4 represents the existing

70 Section 5.12 Mineral Resources, City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Exhibit 5.12-2: Local Mineral Resource Zone Map, City of Upland, September 2015. 71 Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis. Page 33. Urban Crossroads. July 20, 2018 (Appendix H).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-60
residential outdoor living areas (backyards) south of 15th Street.

R5: Located approximately 10 feet west of the Project Site, R5 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) adjacent to the western Project Site boundaries.

The nearest sensitive receptor is represented by location R5 which is approximately 10 feet west of the Project Site; the next-nearest sensitive receptor is represented by location R2 which is approximately 48 feet south of the Project Site.

Short-Term Noise Impacts: Section 9.40.100(M) of the City’s Municipal Code limits construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. The City’s General Plan and Municipal Code do not specify any upper limits for construction noise levels. However, General Plan Policy SAF-1.11 requires construction projects to adhere to the City’s construction hours and incorporate measures to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive uses.

Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project are expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations. Table 3.3.13A provides a summary of the construction noise levels at each receiver location for each construction phase.

No mitigation is required; however, the General Plan Environmental Impact Report indicates construction noise impacts are considered less than significant if construction activity is restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and the following noise abatement measures are implemented in accordance with General Plan Policy SAF-1.11.72 Accordingly, the following Standard Conditions are regulatory requirements implemented as routine actions conditioned by the City that would ensure short-term construction noise impacts remain less than significant.

Table 3.3.13A: Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Receiver
Location
Construction Stage Noise Level (dBA Lmax)
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coating Peak Activity1
R1 61.4 69.8 68.7 61.7 61.7 69.8
R2 70.7 79.1 77.9 71.0 71.0 79.1
R3 66.6 75.0 73.8 66.9 66.9 75.0
R4 61.3 69.7 68.5 61.6 61.6 69.7
R5 74.9 83.3 82.2 75.2 75.2 83.3
Source: Table 7-6. Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, July 20, 2018 (Appendix H). 1 Highest noise levels across all stages of Project construction.

Standard Condition N-1: Construction activities occurring as part of the Project shall be subject to

72 Final Program Environmental Impact Report: General Plan Update (GPU 08-03), Zoning Code Update (ZCU 08-03), Climate Action Plan, and Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update. SCH No. 2012041006. Section 5.7-Noise, Pages 5.7-22 and 5.7-23. City of Upland. September 2015.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-61
the limitations and requirements of Section 9.40.100(M) of the City Municipal Code, which states that construction activities may occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays. No construction activities shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Saturdays, Sundays, and City holidays except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days while the emergency continues, and which permit may be renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues. If the building inspector should determine that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and if he or she shall further determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, he or she may grant permission for such work to be done between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work. This standard shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Division.

Standard Condition N-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall incorporate the following standards as notes on the grading plan cover sheet to minimize construction noise:
• Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of large mobile equipment (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) which are capable of a minimum 5 A-weighted decibels (dBA) noise reduction. The dampening materials must be capable of the minimum 5 dBA noise reduction and can be made of commercially-available sound dampening materials, including but not limited to polyurethane foam and vinyl sheeting.
• Project construction activities shall comply with the City of Upland Municipal Code requirements.
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project Site

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-62
during all Project construction (i.e., to the northern center). • The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise.

This standard shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Division.

Although the construction noise associated with the Project would be higher than the ambient noise in the Project vicinity, it would cease to occur once construction activities are completed. Construction of the Proposed Project would need to occur in compliance with the permissible construction hours identified in the City’s Municipal Code. With implementation of Standard Conditions N-1 and N-2, short-term construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Noise Impacts: Long-term noise impacts in the Project vicinity may occur from traffic along 15th Street and the proposed residential uses. Peak hour or average noise levels do not completely describe a given noise environment because a peak noise may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable such as evening and sleeping hours. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) uses weighted averages of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, to represent a composite 24-hour noise level. The City uses CNEL to represent their exterior and interior noise standards.

The City’s General Plan Policies SAF-1.1 and SAF-1.3 and Table SAF-4 identify the exterior and interior noise levels standards for the Project. For single-family residential land use, the normally acceptable exterior noise level standard is 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) CNEL. For limiting noise from exterior noise sources, the noise insulation standards set an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed.

Chapter 9.40, Unnecessary Noise, of the City’s Municipal Code establishes base ambient noise levels (BANL) at residential properties to 55 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. It is unlawful for any person to create noise at noise-sensitive land uses that causes the sound level to exceed the following:
• The BANL for a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour; • The BANL plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; • The BANL plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; • The BANL plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or • The BANL plus 20 dBA for any period of time.

Table 3.3.13B lists the maximum residential noise levels.

Table 3.3.13B: Maximum Noise Levels, LN (dBA)

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-63
Receiving Land Use Time Period L50 L25 L8 L2 Lmax
Residential (single-family and multifamily) Day: 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m. 55 60 65 70 75 Night: 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m. 45 50 55 60 65
Commercial and Industrial Anytime 75 80 85 90 95
Source: Upland Municipal Code, Chapter 9.40, Unnecessary Noise.

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
L50, L25, L8, L2 = The fast A-weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level 50%, 25%, 8%, and 2% of a stated time period, respectively.

Lmax = The maximum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging.
dBA = A-weighted decibels.

Traffic Noise: Impacts from noise associated with traffic is based on information from the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Project (Appendix I). The baseline scenario and with-Project scenario are evaluated to determine potential traffic noise impacts on off-site sensitive land uses.

Guidelines included in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) handbook were used to evaluate highway traffic-related noise conditions along roadway segments in the Project vicinity. The typical vehicle mix for southern California roadways was used for traffic on these roadway segments.

On-site. To predict the future noise environment at residential lots within the Project Site, coordinate information was collected to identify the noise transmission path between the noise source and receiver. The coordinate information is based on the plotting of the residential building in relationship to 15th Street. The exterior noise level impacts at the outdoor living areas (backyards) and first-floor building façade were placed 5 feet above the pad elevation. All second-floor receivers were located 14 feet above the proposed finished floor elevation.

The on-site transportation noise level impacts indicate that the unmitigated exterior noise levels will range from 57.0 to 66.4 dBA CNEL. To satisfy the City’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for residential land use, the construction of minimum 6-foot high noise barriers is required for outdoor living areas (backyards) of lots adjacent to 15th Street. With the recommended noise barriers, the future exterior noise levels will range from 57.0 to 59.5 dBA CNEL, which will satisfy the City of Upland 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use. Because the proposed 6- foot high wall is a project feature, no significant on-site traffic noise impact would occur and not mitigation is required.73
Future exterior noise levels at the first-floor building façades are expected to range from 56.7 to

60.0 dBA CNEL. The first-floor interior noise level analysis shows that the City of Upland 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise level standard can be satisfied using standard windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 27. Future unmitigated noise levels at the second-floor building façades range from 56.7 to 64.9 dBA CNEL. The City’s 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise level standard can be satisfied using standard windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings

73 Table 5-1,. Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, July 20, 2018 (Appendix H).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-64
of 27. The installation of windows/sliding doors is a standard project feature; therefore, no on-site interior noise impact would occur. No mitigation is warranted.74 Off-site. For existing traffic volumes on 15th Street, this analysis uses the Average Daily Trip (ADT) volumes identified in the City of Upland General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Table 5.4- 4, were utilized for 15th Street. Based on this document, ADTs on 15th Street total approximately 14,100 vehicles, with 10 percent (1,410) of the vehicles utilizing the road during peak hours.

Generally, a doubling of traffic flow is required to generate a perceptible increase in traffic noise.

Per the Project-specific traffic impact analysis, the Project will generate 623 daily trips. Of these, 50 and 65 trips will occur within the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The traffic generated by the Project is substantially less than the level required to generate any perceptible increase in traffic noise on 15th Street. In the absence of a perceptible increase in noise levels on 15th Street, no long- term traffic noise impact to existing residential uses would occur. In the absence of a significant noise impact, no mitigation is warranted.

It is anticipated Project residences will install ground-level air conditioning (HVAC) units. This equipment typically generates noise levels ranging from 75 to 82 dBA equivalent at 3 feet. With each doubling of distance, noise would drop six dBA; therefore, at 6 feet, noise levels would range from 69 to 76 dBA; at 12 feet, noise levels would range from 63 to 70 dBA; and at 24 feet, noise levels would range from 57 to 63 dBA. The Project includes a perimeter wall which will provide an additional 5dBA of noise attenuation. The nearest sensitive receiver (R5) is located approximately 10 feet west of the Project Site. It is reasonable to conclude Project air conditioning units will be installed near each of the Project units and not at the property line; therefore, distance attenuation and the proposed perimeter wall will reduce noise from air conditioning units to approximately 52 to 58 dBA. This noise level is below the City’s exterior noise standard; therefore no impact to existing adjacent uses from Project air conditioning units will occur. In the absence of a significant impact, no mitigation is required.
b) Result in generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction Vibration Building Damage and Human Annoyance Potential: According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, it would take a minimum of 90 vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) (or 0.12 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV)) to cause damage to buildings extremely susceptible to vibration, and 94 VdB (or 0.20 in/sec PPV) to cause damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Regarding human annoyance, FTA guidelines allow up to 80 VdB for residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep.

Therefore, the FTA guidelines of 80 VdB for sensitive land uses provide a substantiated basis for determining the relative significance of potential Project-related vibration impacts due to on-site construction and operational activities.

Groundborne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate.

74 Tables 5-2 and 5-3, Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, July 20, 2018 (Appendix H).

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-65
Bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment generate approximately 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, as detailed in Table 3.3.13C.

Table 3.3.13C: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Vibration Decibels (VdB) at 25 Feet
Small Bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
Loaded Trucks 86
Large Bulldozer 87
Source: Table 4-5. Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, July 20, 2018 (Appendix H). 1 Highest noise levels across all stages of Project construction.

At distances ranging from 20 to 168 feet from primary Project construction activities, construction vibration levels are expected to range from 62.2 to 89.9 VdB, as detailed on Table 3.3.13D.

Table 3.3.13D indicates use of large mobile equipment such as a large bulldozer (greater than 80,000 pounds), loaded trucks, and jackhammers in proximity to sensitive receptor R5 would exceed the FTA threshold of 80 VdB for sensitive land uses. This would be a potentially significant impact, and mitigation is required.

Table 3.3.13D: Unmitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity (Feet)
Receiver Vibration Level (VdB)
Small
Bulldozer Jackhammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
Threshold
Exceeded?1
R1 168 33.2 54.2 61.2 62.2 62.2 No
R2 58 47.0 68.0 75.0 76.0 76.0 No
R3 93 40.9 61.9 68.9 69.9 69.9 No
R4 96 40.5 61.5 68.5 69.5 69.5 No
R5 20 60.9 81.9 88.9 89.9 89.9 Yes
Source: Table 7-9. Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, July 20, 2018 (Appendix H). 1 Does the highest vibration level exceed the FTA maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB? NOI-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project proponent shall provide evidence to the City that large loaded trucks, mobile equipment greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds, and jackhammers shall not be used within 50 feet of receiver location R5 (the existing residential outdoor living areas adjacent to the western Project Site boundaries) if occupied at the time of Project construction. During construction activities, smaller, rubber-tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Division.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receptors (receiver location R5) would be reduced to between 49 VdB and 78 VdB, as indicated in Table 3.3.13E, and construction-related vibration impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-66
Table 3.3.13E: Mitigated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity (Feet)
Receiver Vibration Level (VdB)
Small
Bulldozer Jackhammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
Threshold
Exceeded?1
R5 50 49.0 70.0 77.0 78.0 78.0 No
Source: Table 7-9. Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, July 20, 2018 (Appendix H). 1 Does the highest vibration level exceed the FTA maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB? Long-Term Groundborne Noise and Vibration from Vehicular Traffic: Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation and reduce noise, it is unusual for on-road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration impacts. When on-road vehicles cause such effects as the rattling of windows, the source is almost always airborne noise. Most problems with on-road vehicle-related noise and vibration can be directly related to a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. However, the Proposed Project would have roads with smooth pavement. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur. Additionally, once constructed, the Proposed Project would not contain uses that would generate groundborne vibration. Long-term vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the
Project expose people residing or working in the
Project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
No Impact. The closest airport in proximity to the Project Site is Cable Airport, located approximately

2.6 miles to the west. As detailed in Map 3A of the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CALUCP), the Project Site is not within any of the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones75 or within any of the Future Noise Impact Zones.76 Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the vicinity to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

3.3.14 Population and Housing
Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

75 Map 3A: Compatibility Policy Map, Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. City of Upland, 2014. 76 Ibid. Map 3E: Future Noise Impact Area.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-67
Less Than Significant Impact. The latest figures provided by the California Department of Finance indicate the population of the City is approximately 77,017 persons.77 As indicated in previously referenced Table 3.3.10B, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) anticipates population to continue to grow for the City and the overall Southern California region. SCAG projects the City’s population will grow to 81,700 persons by the year 2040.78 It should be noted that a Council of Governments (COG) is a regional planning and review authority whose membership includes representation from all communities in the designated region. SCAG is the designated COG for Southern California.

The extent to which the new jobs created by a project are filled by existing residents of the City is a factor that tends to reduce the growth-inducing effect of a project. The Proposed Project would create short-term construction jobs during the construction phase. It is anticipated these short-term positions would be filled by workers who, for the most part, would reside in the Project’s general vicinity; therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not generate a permanent increase in population within the Project’s vicinity.

The Project is located in a predominantly developed area and would include the construction of 65 single-family residential dwelling units. The latest statistical figures published by SCAG for the City’s average household size assume 2.9 persons per housing unit,79 so the Proposed Project could increase the City’s population by approximately 189 persons.

The ratio of jobs to housing units in the City is used by regional planning groups to balance regional traffic commutes to minimize freeway congestion, air pollutant emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions. The jobs-to-housing ratio measures the extent to which job opportunities in a given geographic area are sufficient to meet the employment needs of area residents. This ratio identifies the number of jobs available in a given region compared to the number of housing units in the same region. For example, a region with a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.5 would indicate that 1.5 jobs exist for every housing unit within that region. The standard used for comparison is the jobs-to-housing ratio of the SCAG region, which is currently 1.25 jobs for every household (Table 3.3.14A). This standard is used because most residents of the region are employed somewhere within the SCAG region. A City or sub-region with a jobs-to-housing ratio lower than the overall standard of 1.25 jobs for every household would be considered a “jobs poor” area, indicating that many of the residents must commute to places of employment outside the sub-region. Table 3.3.14A details the current and potential jobs/housing ratios for the City, County, and SCAG.

The City’s 2012 jobs-to-housing ratio is well above the San Bernardino County job/housing ratio but slightly lower than the SCAG regional job/housing ratio; therefore, the City may be considered “jobs balanced” relative to the greater SCAG region. By 2040, however, the City’s jobs-to-housing is expected to exceed both the County’s and SCAG’s jobs-to-housing ratios, meaning the City would be

77 E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011–2018 with 2010 Census Benchmark. State of California Department of Finance. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed September 27, 2018). 78 Final 2016/2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Table 11 in Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix. Adopted April, 2016. Southern California Association of Governments. 79 Profile of the City of Upland. Page 3. Southern California Association of Governments Local Profiles Report 2017. May 2017.

Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form Page 3-68
relatively “jobs rich” and “housing poor,” and additional housing within the City would be required to balance the jobs-to-housing ratio at the local level.

Table 3.3.14A: Existing and Future Jobs/Housing Ratios
2012 Ratio 2040 Ratio
City of Upland 1.22 1.51
San Bernardino County 1.07 1.17
Southern California Association of Governments 1.25 1.34 Sources: Data from Table 3.3.10B (SCAG Demographic Forecasts).

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of General Plans. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The RHNA for San Bernardino County is developed by SCAG and allocates to cities and the unincorporated county their “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs. The 5th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan, which covers the planning period from October 2013 to October 2021, was adopted by SCAG on October 4, 2012.

The projected housing needs in the RHNA are categorized by income levels (extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income) established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). According to the Allocation Plan and the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan, the City will need to accommodate a total of 1,589 units in various income categories during this time, including 191 extremely low-income, 191 very low-income, 260 low-income, 294 moderate-income, and 653 above moderate-income housing units.80 New single-family homes in the City are selling for over $500,000. In the vast majority of cases, these products are built on standard small lots with a density of 7 to 10 units per acre, and sites zoned at such lower densities are assumed to be capable of only accommodating single-family homes affordable to above moderate- income households.81 Since the Project proposes single-family homes at a density of approximately

7.1 dwelling units per acre, the proposed residential units would contribute to meeting the City’s above moderate-income RHNA requirement.

Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans and land use plans. Significant growth impacts could also occur if the Project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. Development of the Proposed Project and other projects in the City and in San Bernardino County would lead to increases in population, housing, and employment. The Proposed Project would involve development of 65 single-family residential units (189 new residents).

However, as detailed in previously referenced Table 3.3.11B, SCAG estimates that there could be approximately 81,700 people, 28,900 households, and 43,500 jobs in the City by 2040. The Proposed Project’s contribution to growth would represent a negligible amount of the future growth forecast in the City (approximately 0.23 percent of the projected 2040 City population and 0.22 percent of

80 Housing Element, 2013–2021. Table 4-1: Upland Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2013-2021. City of Upland General Plan.

Housing Element Adopted January 27, 2014.
81 Ibid. Page 61.