Item 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project No. 11021

Agenda Item No. 10

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer% r Na Landon Kern, Assistant City Engineer (�,_ L�
FOR: City Council Meeting of January 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project - Project No. 11021 RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council:

1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project - Project No. 11021; and

2. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and

3. Award and authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Contract with Dudek of Encinitas CA, in the not -to -exceed amount of $30,740 for Professional Services to support the regulatory agency permit application process for the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project - Project No. 11021; and

4. Approve a contract contingency amount of $2,000 and the amount of $1,500 for staff time, contract administration and project coordination for a total Professional Services cost in the amount of $34,240 for the project; and

5. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to administer the terms of the contract; and

6. Find that the public interest will not be best served by a formal proposal process, waive the formal solicitation of proposals/qualifications, and award the Professional Services contract to Dudek.

BACKGROUND:

The Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Project (Project) site is identified in the City's Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) Update, prepared in 2010, as a suitable location for a local detention basin facility for the Wildwood Creek drainage system. The Project will provide multiple benefits including flood protection, groundwater recharge opportunities and erosion/sediment control within Wildwood Creek. The Project is proposed to be a flow -through retention/detention basin with an estimated capacity of 25 acre-feet. In addition, the Project will reduce erosion, sedimentation and downstream flooding along Wildwood Creek thus providing additional protection for the existing U11

City Council Meeting of January 24, 2022
Award — Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project - Project No. 11021
native habitat (specifically oak trees) along Wildwood Canyon Road, Wildwood Canyon City Park, and other private and public properties.

On January 20, 2015, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) Board approved and authorized their staff to prepare and submit a joint grant application, on the City of Yucaipa's behalf, requesting funding for the construction of the Project. City staff assisted with the preparation and submittal of the grant application. On January 26, 2015, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-03 providing support for the submission of the application for the Project by Valley District, through its WaterSMART Conservation Program. City Council also approved an amendment to the FY2014/2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that transferred the amount of $154,000 from the Wilson II Basin Project to the Project as the required local match funding component for the Project.

In February of 2015, the Bureau of Reclamation provided clarification to the City that the WaterSMART Grant program required a local match of 50% for the grant funding. With a total grant funding request in the amount of $454,000, staff had initially understood that the requested grant amount was in the amount of $308,000 and that the City's local match would be $154,000.

Staff informed the Bureau of Reclamation that the City was willing to provide the 50% match in the amount of $227,000. City Council subsequently approved staff s recommendation to amend the FY2014/2015 CIP to add additional funding in the amount of $73,000 to the Project from the Unallocated Drainage Facilities Fee Fund balance.

In May of 2015, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that the City and Valley District's joint WaterSMART grant application was recommended for approval and award. On September 14, 2015, City Council approved and authorized the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to receive the grant funding in the amount of $227,000.

On October 23, 2017, City Council awarded and authorized the Mayor to execute a contract with Dudek, in the amount of $206,890 for professional engineering design and environmental review services for the Project. The design of the Project has since been completed pending the completion of the environmental review and regulatory agency permitting process.

DISCUSSION:

The CEQA analysis, prepared by the City's consultant, CASC Engineering and Consulting under the City Council awarded on -call Environmental Services Contract, concluded that there is no evidence to indicate that this project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

The draft Initial Study was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, and no substantive comments were received within the initial 30-day comment period. As a result, staff recommends that City Council find that the construction of the proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation measures implemented and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The filing of a Notice of Determination for the MND also allows the City to finalize the application for the required resource agency permits (Army Corp, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, Regional Water Resources Control Board) required to complete the construction of the Project.
.e

City Council Meeting of January 24, 2022
Award — Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project - Project No. 11021
During the pre -application discussions with the regulatory agencies, it was determined that the development of a Conceptual Mitigation Plan would be required to support the regulatory permitting process. The conceptual mitigation plan will serve as the initial step in the development of a formal Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). The HMMP will define the mitigation approach for the necessary Project impacts to the environment.

Another requirement of the regulatory agencies is a tree inventory within the area of potential impacts for the Project. It is estimated that as many as 100 trees will need to be inventoried. The trees will be inventoried for species, height, canopy spread to drip line and trunk diameter. Dudek will prepare an Oak Tree Report and an associated Tree Location Exhibit of individual tree locations using information collected. The Oak Tree Report will provide tree preservation and maintenance guidelines and identify necessary mitigation for tree impacts in the project area per City of Yucaipa standards.

Since Dudek has completed similar work for the City in the past and has the background information, knowledge and understanding of the Project, City staff requested a proposal from Dudek to complete the Conceptual Mitigation Plan and the Oak Tree Report.

Staff feels that Dudek is qualified to complete the work based on their past performance and submits that asking for additional proposals from other environmental review firms to complete the required professional services will not be cost effective. As a result, staff recommends City Council find that the public interest will not be best served by a formal proposal process, waive the formal solicitation of pro_ posals/qualifications, and award the Professional Services contract to Dudek.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total estimated Project costs are included below:

Amount
Design
Contract
$206,890
Design
Contract Contingency
20,689
Proposed
Design Contract Administration/Staff Time/Grant Coordination 20,689
Total Design Costs to Date:
$248,268
Proposed
Professional Services Contract (1)
$30,740
Proposed
Contract Contingency (1)
2,000
Proposed
Contract Administration/Staff Time (1)
1,500
Total Estimated Costs for Regulatory Agency Reports:
$34,240
Total Estimated Project Costs:
$282,508
(1) Pail ofthis Council action.

Available Funding
WaterSMART Grant Program Funds
$ 227,000
Drainage Facilities Fee Funds
227,000
Total Funding Available:
$454,000
The total estimated cost for the engineering and environmental review phases of the Project is in the amount of $282,508. Environmental documentation, permitting, project administration and construction are included in the scope of work approved by the WaterSMART grant for the Project. The work associated with the proposed recommendations are within the approved grant scope of work and are considered partially reimbursable through the WaterSMART grant. With the available and identified funding included in the table above, there is sufficient funding available to accommodate staff's recommendations.

Attachment: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Agreement with DUDEK
f
Approved by:
-92-

Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Upper Wildwood Creek Basin 4
Yucaipa, California
Lead Agency:
crry OF
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Prepared By:

C At$ C
Engineering and Corm dting
CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
1470 E. Cooley Dr.

Colton, CA 92324
(909) 783-0101 Ext. 5370
September 13, 2021
-93-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE — ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...................................................................4

1.1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................4

1. Project Title.........................................................................................................................4

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: ...................................................................................... 4 4. Project Location..................................................................................................................4

5. Project Applicant's Name and Address: ............................................................................. 4 6. General Plan Designation...................................................................................................4

7. Zoning Designation.............................................................................................................4

8. Project Description.............................................................................................................4

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: .................................................................................. 6 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): .................................................................................................. 6 11. Have California Native American tribes............................................................................7 Figure 1-1: Regional Vicinity Map...........................................................................................8 Figure 1-2: Aerial Imagery Map...............................................................................................9 Figure 1-3: General Plan land Use........................................................................................10 Figure1-4: Site Plan.............................................................................................................11

1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected..................................................................12

1.3 Determination...............................................................................................................12

1.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...........................................................................13 CHAPTER TWO — INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND SUBSTANTIATION .............................15 I. Aesthetics........................................................................................................................15 II. Agricultural resources.......................................................................................................18 III. Air Quality........................................................................................................................20 Table 3-1 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB.......................................21 IV. Biological Resources: ...................................................................................................... 25 Table 4-1: Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Study Area..................27 Table 4-1: Summary of Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters within the Project Site .............34 V. Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................38 VI. Energy — Would the project: ........................... ................................................................ 43 VII. Geology and Soils..........................................................................................................46 Vill. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................50 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................54 Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 2 ends

X. Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................................... 58 XI. Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................62 XII. Mineral Resources.........................................................................................................64 XI11. Noise............................................................................................................................. 65 XIV. Population and Housing................................................................................................67 XV. Public Services..............................................................................................................68 XVI. Recreation....................................................................................................................70 XV11. Transportation/Traffic...................................................................................................71 XV111. Tribal Cultural Resources...........................................................................................75 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.......................................................................................77 XX. Wildfire.. ......................................................................................................................... 79 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................................................................81 Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 3 ends

-95-

CHAPTER ONE - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1.1 Project Summary

1. Project Title: Upper Wildwood Creek Basin 4

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Yucaipa, 34272 Yucaipa Blvd. Yucaipa, CA 92399

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Benjamin Matlock, City Planner, (909) 797-2489

4. Project Location: South of Wildwood Canyon Road and east of Oak View Drive at the confluence of Wildwood Creek and Oak Glen Creek. Coordinates: 34°00'50.83" north latitude and 116'59'57.87" west longitude.

5. Project Applicant's Name and Address:

City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399

6. General Plan Designation: Open Space (OS)

7. Zoning Designation: Open Space (OS)

8. Project Description: The City of Yucaipa (City) proposes the construction of a multi- purpose flood control basin within the existing Wildwood Creek. The basin is proposed to be a flow -through basin with a capacity of approximately 25 acre-feet (Project). The approximately

6.30-acre Project Site is owned by the City and is located south of Wildwood Canyon Road and east of Oak View Drive at the confluence of Wildwood Creek and a smaller canyon tributary, Oak Glen Creek ("Project Site") within the City. The Project Site has a General Plan Designation and Zoning Designation of Open Space. The approximate center of the site corresponds to 34°00'50.83" north latitude and 116°59'57.87" west longitude. The Project site is bisected by Wildwood Creek and bound by Wildwood Canyon Road to the north and open space to the south.

Wildwood Creek is an ephemeral stream. The proposed Project on Wildwood Creek is upstream of the newly completed Wildwood Creek Basin and extends approximately 3,500 feet east Mesa Grande Drive to an upstream master plan basin (Wildwood Basin 4) location at the confluence of two canyon tributaries. The section of creek has little or no channel improvements and has incised slopes that continue to degrade and undermine after significant storm events. The intent of restoration in this area would be to re-establish the existing creek attributes partially or fully, including the preservation of numerous mature oak trees adjacent to the degrading creek bed absent any improvements in this area.

Stormwater runoff is collected in Wildwood Creek's 773-acre tributary area and is conveyed through the natural, unimproved creek. The proposed Project will construct an approximately Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 4 ends

25-acre-foot retention basin along Wildwood Creek to capture and recharge a portion of this storm water runoff that is ultimately conveyed to the Santa Ana River, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. The captured runoff will collect in the proposed Wildwood Basin 4 and percolate into the Wildwood groundwater basin. Recharged stormwater will increase local groundwater supplies, while offsetting and decreasing the dependence on supplemental water supplies (i.e., State Water Project). The Project will capture and recharge approximately 250 acre-feet of stormwater during an average rainfall year.

The proposed Project is referred to as the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin (4) Project and is identified in the City of Yucaipa's adopted 1993 Master Plan of Drainage and the updated version dated July 2012 as a critical component of the infrastructure identified for Wildwood Creek. The Project is part of a larger Wildwood Creek Watershed Management Plan to promote and provide groundwater recharge from natural stream flows, debris control, improved downstream water quality, and environmental restoration and enhancements. Upon completion, the proposed Project will attenuate storm water flows, sedimentation, and downstream flooding risk, thus providing protection for the existing habitat and infrastructure, including oak trees, Wildwood Canyon Road, Wildwood Canyon Park, and other public/private infrastructure. Storm flows from Wildwood Creek are ultimately conveyed to the Santa Ana River, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Project will be a multi -purpose flood control basin with appurtenant channel and necessary street improvements to allow safe access into the basin from Wildwood Canyon Road. Site improvements will include restoration of the unimproved section of Wildwood Creek. The intent of restoration in this area would be to re-establish the existing creek attributes partially or fully, including the preservation of numerous mature oak trees adjacent to the degrading creek bed absent any channel improvements in this area. The project will include required street improvements along Wildwood Canyon Road to allow easy and safe ingress/egress from the basin area. Therefore, the Project site includes the areas proposed for the channel grading in addition to a temporary stockpile of excess soil, a temporary grading area for daylight access, and temporary construction access (Figure 1-4, Site Plan).

The basin is designed within Wildwood Creek and extends from its confluence with a smaller tributary for approximately 700 feet downstream, with grouted rock riprap grade control structures on both upstream and downstream ends. The downstream grade control structure will be approximately 90 feet wide and will form the basin spillway system. The upstream grade control structure will extend the entire creek width and will be reinforced with a similar width of the approximately 90 feet of loose riprap on the upstream side. This will help dissipate flow velocities and control erosion as the tributary flows enter the basin. The basin bottom surface area will be approximately 2.2 acres from upstream to downstream. The basin side slopes will be 3:1 on the downstream, 2:1 on the north and south sides, and 3:1 on the upstream. The main basin outlet pipe will be a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe. The Project will aim to re-establish the existing creek attributes fully or partially, including preservation of numerous mature oak trees adjacent to the degrading creek bed. The basin will be a local flood control facility operated and maintained by the City and in partnership with the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District who will maintain and monitor the basin for compensatory mitigation measures.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 5 ends

-97-

Access to the basin from Wildwood Canyon Road will be via a 15-foot-wide access road that runs on the north side of the basin, and with extensions to the top of both grade control structures. Access to the basin invert will be using a 15-foot-wide concrete access ramp located on the north side of the basin and a vehicular turnaround at the basin bottom.

Improvements will also include required street improvements along Wildwood Canyon Road to allow easy and safe ingress/egress from the basin area.

Upper Wildwood Creek Basin (4) Project Goals:
• Construct a spillover detention basin to provide flood control, groundwater recharge, and habitat preservation/restoration as part of the Wildwood Creek Watershed Management Program.
• Provide non -point source polluting control (local and coastal) benefits by detaining silt and debris from entering into lower Wildwood Creek Channel. • The facility may enable further improvements to Wildwood Creek to be natural improvements in lieu of reinforced concrete lined channels. • Filter the water before entering additional watercourses. • Provide storm water groundwater recharge and groundwater basin storage of non -potable water.
• Provide a passive recreational component consisting of "natural" trails surrounding basin area. The basin spillway will be used as a crossing for the creek to access an existing trail system south of the Project area.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

North: To the north of the Project Site are Single Family Residential uses.

South: To the south of the Project Site is vacant land designated as Open Space and further south is vacant land designated as Rural Living.

East: To the east of the Project Site is vacant land designated as Open Space and farther east is Rural Living.

West: To the west of the Project Site is vacant land designated as Open Space and farther west is land designated as Park. Single Family Residential uses lie southwest.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit; construction run-off permits, Storm Drain MS4 Permit)
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 6 ends

11. 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, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
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 21080.3.2.) 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.

The City, Lead Agency, commenced the AB 52 process by transmitting letters of notification to the California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area on August 12, 2020. The Lead Agency received two responses, from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians on August 19, 2020, and October 5, 2020, respectively. The Lead Agency conducted consultation with these two tribes regarding the Project and the results of consultation have been incorporated into this Initial Study. No other responses have been received at this time. Consultation will continue through grading operations as required by AB 52.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 7 ends

EI Monte
l n+P im
�l.11
5:Irta Ana
H 1111fJ I1CJ:o l
Reach
;purrs. CSR, County
FIGURE 1-1: REGIONAL VICINITY MAP
Karxl"o
f unr,nn�.�
nnrarin
O
1-orara
gar t
0I:clor V ajo- I' [C n:I 11
siGJ!"f4'igS
tngara Vlgm
L city of VJuip.
14 . _i City of Y-Icaip
0 u 10
u /'� ---I MI138
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 8 ends

u
victcroilla
Ifl]
+ Iran
ti`/r w
rill .�..
can gFrnlrl P�nry7 •+
rdllwral r-,rar
Tjl,oun
Hi,rr and ..
!:L41 !•
nedlana
r-- ••I YUSalpe .
r Riverside -
:ia a
eanrrq - :ief"NIW
cached elelry
Marne: PaIrDestrt Indio
i 5
9 r �5, l�\
a
i,lil^'i id
r: A 7 A— _I hl: ii.
rlSUI C 1-1. 1\C61U110I V 1%A1111y
UPPER WI LDWOOD BASII\14 - CITY OF
YUCAJ PA, COU14TY OF SAN BERNARDINO
-100-

V a 67 ,
06 ,,..jm �� ,
ON
\ 7�•

FIGURE 1-3: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
Source;ESRI, County ofSan Otrnardlna,City ofYucaipa Figure 1.-3: General Plan Land Use & Zone �� x UPPER WI LDWOOD BASIN 4 -CITY OF
0 500 1 .000 2A00 YUCAIPA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Y..ruu„i. rau mJt:�,n�.+llu.F Feet
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 10 ends

-102-

1: t
FIGURE 1-4: SITE PLAN
PLAN
GRAPHIC `WAU:

D U D E K � ;� •• to
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 11 ends

r7-
M
-103-

1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ®
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture and Forestry
®
Air Quality
Resources
®
Biological Resources
®
Cultural Resources
®
Geology/Soils
®
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
❑
Energy
ElHydrology/Water
Quality
❑
Land Use/Planning
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Noise
Materials
❑
Population/Housing
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Recreation
®
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Public Services
❑
Utilities/Service Systems
®
Mandatory Findings of
®
Tribal Cultural
Resources
®
Wildfire
_Significance

1.3 Determination
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 will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 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 has been 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 "potentially 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 adequately 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.

Benjamin Matlock Date
Planning Manager/City Planner
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 12 ends

-104-

1.4 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, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the Project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 13 ends

-105-

used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 14 ends

-1 06-

CHAPTER TWO - INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND SUBSTANTIATION Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
I. Aesthetics — Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the pro'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
❑
®
❑
❑
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
❑
®
❑
❑
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
❑
®
❑
❑
accessible vantage point). If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
❑
❑
®
❑
nighttime views in the area?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. • Chapter 4 — Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space • Chapter 6 — Transportation Element
- Figure T-4 Scenic Highways

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 • Section 3.1 — Aesthetics

3. Yucaipa Municipal Code
• Division 4, Chapter 4 Wildwood Canyon, Section 86.0401 General Provisions

4. California Department of Transportation, 2019. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. 2019. Available on-line at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug20l 9_a11 y.xlsx

5. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project, San Bernardino County, California. DUDEK.

September 13, 2019. (Appendix A)
Findings of Fact: The City's physical setting in the valley and foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains affords scenic views of the San Bernardino Mountains, Crafton Hills, and other undeveloped hilly areas to the northeast. There are no state -designated scenic highways in or near the City. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is a 16-mile portion of SR- 38 that crosses the San Bernardino Mountains southeast of Big Bear Lake. This portion of SR- 38 is approximately 11 miles northeast of the City, but the segment of SR-38 that continues Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 15 ends

-1 0%-

south from the San Bernardino Mountains toward the northern boundary of the City and intersects with 1-10 to the west is considered an "Eligible State Scenic Highway — Not Officially Designated" by Caltrans. (Caltrans 2019)
The City's General Plan identifies four main circulation corridors in Yucaipa as scenic highways:

Yucaipa Boulevard, Bryant Street, Oak Glen Road, and Wildwood Canyon Road. (Yucaipa 2016) Scenic tree resources, such as oak woodlands, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, and southern riparian forests are found within the City and potentially along the City's scenic highways as well. (PlaceWorks 2014) Policy PR-4.7, Scenic Resources, of the City's 2016 General Plan states that the City will "Protect Yucaipa's scenic resources, including scenic corridors along roads and views of the hillsides, prominent ridgelines, canyons, and other significant natural features, to the extent practical." (Yucaipa 2016) Additionally, the General Plan notes that "Yucaipa is actively restoring its ephemeral creeks and channels" which is consistent with the intent of the proposed Project. (Yucaipa 2016) Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The City's General Plan Figure T-4, Scenic Highways, identifies four main circulation corridors in Yucaipa as scenic highways: Yucaipa Boulevard, Bryant Street, Oak Glen Road, and Wildwood Canyon Road. (Yucaipa 2016) The proposed Project is located on a section of Wildwood Creek that directly borders Wildwood Canyon Road. The scenic visual of the Project area shows deeply incised northern and southern slopes that continue to degrade after significant storm events. (Appendix A) The proposed Project is consistent with General Plan Policy PR-4.5, Creek Preservation and Restoration. While the proposed retention basin will have impacts on the scenic vista, implementation of Mitigation Measures 1310- 2, 81O-3, 1131O4 and 1131O-5 would reduce impacts to native vegetation, including oak trees and special -status vegetation communities. These mitigation measures are described in detail in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study. With incorporation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), there are no state -designated scenic highways in or near the City. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is a 16-mile portion of State Route (SR) 38 that crosses the San Bernardino Mountains southeast of Big Bear Lake.

This portion of SR-38 is approximately 11 miles northeast of the City, but the segment of SR-38 that continues from the San Bernardino Mountains toward the northern boundary of the City and intersects with 1-10 to the west is considered an "Eligible State Scenic Highway — Not Officially Designated" by Caltrans. This segment of State Route 38 is located over 5 miles northwest of the proposed Project. The City's General Plan Figure T-4, Scenic Highways, identifies four main circulation corridors in the City as scenic highways: Yucaipa Boulevard, Bryant Street, Oak Glen Road, and Wildwood Canyon Road. (Yucaipa 2016) Impacts to the Wildwood Canyon Road, a local scenic highway, Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 16 ends

will be mitigated with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 131O-2, 1131O-3, 1131O-4, and 13I0-5. These mitigation measures would reduce impacts to native vegetation, including oak trees and special -status vegetation communities, and are described in detail in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study. With incorporation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project is located in a nonurbanized area and is comprised of vacant land designated for Open Space. The Project Site is surrounded by Single Family Residential uses to the north and Open Space to the east, south, and west. The proposed Project consists of the construction of a multi -purpose flood control basin to maintain and preserve Wildwood Creek, consistent with General Plan Policy PR-4.5, Creek Preservation and Restoration.

Creek Preservation is intended to protect the integrity of natural drainage channels and creeks for aesthetic, recreational, and wildlife value. Mitigation Measures 1131O-2, 113I0-3, 1131O-4 and 1131O-5 are incorporated to reduce potential impacts to native vegetation, including oak trees and special -status vegetation communities, to a less than significant level. Visual impacts during construction would be temporary and insignificant.

Development of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial difference in the character or visual quality of the Project Site or surrounding area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact: Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact night-time views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars.

Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources, as well as reflective surfaces. The proposed Project does not involve any land uses that are associated with sources of light. Temporary lighting may be used during construction of the Project, however, impacts would be temporary and insignificant. The Project is required to comply with the City's Development Code which contains general design standards that ensure new development will not have an impact on surrounding land uses. For these reasons, lighting and glare impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 17 ends

-1 09-

II. Agricultural 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 the information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State's inventory of forest land, including the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would theproject:
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
nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
❑
❑
❑
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined by
Public Resource Code section
122220(g)), timberland (as defined by
❑
❑
❑
Public Resource Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104 ?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -forest
❑
❑
®
❑
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
❑
❑
®
❑
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest
use?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. • Chapter 2 — Community Design and Land Use
• Chapter 3 — Housing and Neighborhoods

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 • Section 3.2 — Agricultural and Forestry Resources

3. Yucaipa Municipal Code
Division 9, Plant Protection and Management
Division 12, Chapter 1 Definitions, Section 812.01070 Agriculture Land, Prime Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 18 ends

-110-

4. California Department of Conservation (CDC), California Important Farmland Finder (CIFF), 2016
Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use?
No Impact: The California Department of Conservation's (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) identifies and maps significant farmland. Farmland is classified using a system of five categories including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance or Potential, and Grazing Land. The classification of farmland is determined by a soil survey conducted by the Natural Resources Conservations Service (NRCS) which analyses the suitability of soils for agricultural production. Based on the Important Farmland Finder, an interactive GIS application, the Project Site is classified as "Grazing Land" (CDC, 2016; County of San Bernardino, 2016). The Project Site does not include a change of zone or change of general plan designation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact: The Project site is designated as and zoned for Open Space (OS) land uses. There are no properties zoned for agricultural land uses in the Project's vicinity.

Therefore, implementation of the Project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Furthermore, no areas in the City are under a Williamson Act Contract. (PlaceWorks 2014) As such, no impact would occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resource Code section 122220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resource Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))?
No Impact: There are no lands located within the City that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (PlaceWorks 2014) Therefore, the Project has no potential to conflict with any areas currently zoned as forest, timberland, or Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. As such, no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 19 ends

-111-

Less than Significant Impact: The City does not possess any designated forest land; thus, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Under Division 9 (Plant Protection and Management) of the City's municipal code, the oak woodland and riparian forests are protected in the City. Therefore, removal permits and city approval is required for the removal of any mountain forest and valley trees, riparian plants, or oak trees. (PlaceWorks 2014) As such, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
Less than Significant Impact: As previously discussed under Section II (a), the Project Site is classified as "Grazing Land" by the California Department of Conservation and does not meet the definition of Farmland (i.e., "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance"). The Project Site contains no active agricultural uses under existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not convert areas on the subject property classified as Farmland to non-agricultural use. A less than significant impact would occur. As previously discussed under Section II (c), the City does not contain areas zoned for forest land. Therefore, the Project will not result in the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. A less than significant impact would occur.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
-impact
Ill. Air Quality — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
®
❑
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under
❑
®
❑
❑
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
❑
❑
®
❑
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
❑
❑
®
❑
substantial number of people?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. • Chapter 7 — Public Safety, Air Quality and Climate Change Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 20 ends

-112-

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 Section 3.3 — Air Quality
Regulatory Setting: The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis -Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. The Project Site is located within the SCAB, a 6,745-square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare.

The determination of whether a region's air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state and federal standards. The U.S. EPA has set National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and monitoring requirements for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria pollutants," including Ozone (03), Particular Matter (PM) (including both PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause regional and/or localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards, such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Currently, the SCAB is in nonattainment for Ozone (03) and PM2.5 under state and federal air quality standards, and PM10 under state air quality standards. The attainment status of criteria pollutants in the SCAB are shown in Table 3-1 below. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires areas that are not attaining the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to develop and implement an emission reduction strategy that will bring the area into attainment in a timely manner. The SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. The most recent AQMP for the SCAB was published in 2016. The SCAQMD has developed regional and localized significance thresholds (LST) for criteria pollutants, which indicate that any Projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the 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.

Table 3-1 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB Criteria Pollutant
State Designation
Federal Designation
03 —1-hour standard
Nonattainment
—
03 — 8-hour standard
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
PM10
Nonattainment
Attainment
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
c0
Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
NO,
Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
S02
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Pbl
Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
" = The national 1-hour O, standard was revoked effective June 1S, 2005. -113-

Discussion of Impacts
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact: The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) establishes thresholds for criteria pollutants; projects that exceed any of the indicated daily thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact, and are not in compliance with the AQMP. The primary purpose of the air quality plans is to bring an area that does not attain federal and state air quality standards into compliance with those standards pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

The proposed Project would not involve changes in land use intensity or additional traffic volumes throughout the City. The Project's predominant criteria air pollutant emissions are associated with construction activities, including exhaust emissions from diesel and gasoline powered construction equipment use, including worker vehicle trips, and earthwork activities, e.g., grading, trenching, and cut and fill activities. Construction equipment generates exhaust emissions that include oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). Earthwork activities generate PM (PM10 and PM 2.5) emissions as a result of ground disturbance. Overall, the Project's construction generated emissions would be short-term and intermittently generated. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and would not have operational emissions.

The proposed Project would not create emissions that would exceed those assumed in the AQMP and would therefore be consistent with the AQMP. Impacts related to air quality plan consistency would be less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated:

Short Term Construction Impacts
Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 22 ends

-114-

site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off -site.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from grading and construction is expected to be short- term and would cease upon completion of the proposed improvements. Most of the fugitive dust from ground disturbance is composed of inert silicates, which are less harmful to health that the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOx and Sox combining with ammonia. The greatest amount of fugitive dust is expected to be generated during site excavation and grading.

Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance that a serious health problem. Of particular concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions.

During construction, the contractors would be required to comply with regional rules, which assist in reducing short-term construction -related air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures, in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the development area of the proposed improvements. The applicable control measures target various construction operations such as backfilling, clearing and grubbing, crushing, cut and fill, demolition, earth -moving activities, bulk material import and export, construction staging, stockpiles/bulk material handling, trenching, and loading.

Earthwork in various quantities would be necessary for the creek -bed restoration and construction of the retention basin. There would be no demolition, only the temporary clearing of vegetation for creek restoration.

Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the Project Site, and emissions on -site as the equipment is used. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would ensure proper compliance with SCAQMD's Rule 403, as well as limiting the amount of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) emitted by the construction equipment. Therefore, due to the short-term nature of construction emissions and the identified mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Long -Term Operational Emissions
Long-term air quality impacts generally involve mobile source emissions generated from project -related traffic and stationary source emissions. As the Project consists of creek restoration with no stationary source or trip -generating land uses, no long-term emissions would occur.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long - Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 23 ends

-115-

term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities. The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The sensitive receptors near the proposed Project Site are the nearest occupied residential uses, located approximately 100 feet (30 meters) to the north.

Construction related impacts would be reduced by the Air Quality requirements for Rule 403 including, but not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the lots, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would ensure proper compliance with SCAQMD's Rule 403, as well as limiting the amount of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) emitted by the construction equipment. Construction related impacts would be short-term and intermittently generated, therefore, with implementation of mitigation impacts would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project does not involve a land use that is typically associated with odor generating land uses. During construction, the various diesel -powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site may create odors from exhaust emissions. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project boundaries. Therefore, impacts related to creation of objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people will to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation:
(III.)
(b, c)
AQ-1 During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular water or other dust preventative measures using the following procedures, as specified in SCAQMD Rule 403:
• Water material excavated or graded sufficiently to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Water at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. • Water or securely cover material transported on -site or off -site sufficiently to prevent generating excessive amounts of dust.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 24 ends

-116-

• Indicate these control techniques in project specifications. Compliance with the measure will be subject to the City.
• Prevent visible dust from the Project from emanating beyond the property line, to the maximum extent feasible.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soils, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer. • Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.

AQ-2 During the site preparation and grading phases, the Construction Contractor shall use off -road diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
IV. Biological Resources: Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
❑
®
❑
❑
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
®
❑
El
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
❑
®
❑
❑
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
❑
®
❑
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
❑
®
❑
❑
ordinances protecting biological
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 25 ends

-11%-

resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
❑
❑
❑
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
SnurcPs�

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. • Chapter 4 — Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 • Section 3.4 — Biological Resources

3. Yucaipa Municipal Code
• Division 9, Chapter 4, Riparian Plant Conservation
• Division 9, Chapter 3, Mountain Forest and Valley Tree Conservation • Division 9, Chapter 5, Oak Tree Conservation

4. Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP), Governing Documents

RCHCA,CA

5. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project, San Bernardino County, California. DUDEK.

September 13, 2019. (Appendix A)

6. Jurisdictional Water Delineation Report for Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project, San Bernardino County, California. DUDEK.

September 13, 2019. (Appendix C)
Findings of Fact: The Project Site is presently vacant and is designated as Open Space on the City's General Plan Land Use Map. DUDEK conducted literature review and a field reconnaissance -level survey in April 2019 to identify the potential for special status plant and wildlife species to occur within the Project Site and a 200-foot buffer around the Project boundary.

Vegetation
Based on the results of the literature review and the field reconnaissance -level survey conducted in April 2019, four non -listed special -status species were determined to have a moderate to high potential to occur: (1) white-bracted spineflower (Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca), (2) Hall's monardella (Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii), (3) San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum), and (4) Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parry/).

Therefore, focused surveys were conducted for these target species on May 17 and July 16, 2019, during the known blooming periods for these species. The survey area for special -status plant species consisted of suitable habitat within the study area, where accessible. Surveys for special -status species were conducted by walking meandering transects throughout suitable habitat within the study area, where accessible. Focused special -status plant surveys conformed to CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009), and USFWS General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (Cypher 2002). A total of 102 Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 26 ends

-11g-

species of native or naturalized plants, 69 native (68%) and 33 non-native (32%), were recorded within the study area. (Appendix A)
Table 4-1: Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Study Area Vegetation Community/Land Cover
Acreage
Vegetation Communities
Arrow Willow Thickets

0.29 Birch Leaf Mountain Mahogany -Holly Leaf Cherry Chaparral

5.70 California Buckwheat Scrub

1.46 Chamise Chaparral

0.95 Coast Live Oak Woodland

3.96 Non -Native Grassland

1.90 Non -Natural Land Covers
Disturbed Habitat

0.26 Non -Vegetated Channel or Floodway

2.32 Urban/Developed

4.40 Total*

21.24 `Total may not add due to rounding
Arrow Willow Thickets
The arrow willow thickets alliance is dominated or co -dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) in the tall shrub or low tree canopy. This community has an open to continuous canopy cover. Emergent trees may be present at a low cover and the herbaceous layer is variable. This vegetation community typically occurs along stream banks and benches, and slope seeps. Within the study area, this vegetation community is dominated by arroyo willow and is located within the eastern portions of study area within Wildwood Creek and an unnamed tributary to Wildwood Creek. Arroyo willow was the dominant tree/shrub in the canopy, occupying approximately 50% to 75% absolute cover. Black willow (Salix gooddingii) and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) was also present at a low cover. A few scattered California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) are also present at low covers, but comprise less than 5% of the absolute cover. The understory is sparse, primarily consisting of bare ground and leaf litter. Few annual forbs such as California mustard (Caulanthus lasiophyllus) and Douglas' sagewort (Artemisia douglasiana) are present at low covers (Appendix A).

Birch Leaf Mountain Mahogany -Holly Leaf Cherry Chaparral The birch leaf mountain mahogany —holly leaf cherry chaparral association is co -dominated by birch leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides var. betuloides) and holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) in the shrub canopy. The shrub canopy is typically two tiered, and open to continuous with a sparse or grassy herbaceous layer. This association occurs on ridges and upper slopes on all aspects. This community is located south of Wildwood Creek along north - facing slopes. Coast live oak was observed along the lower slopes, immediately adjacent to Wildwood Creek, but based on aerial imagery it appears this community transitions into a co - dominated canopy of birch leaf mountain mahogany and holly leaf cherry, and also contains a mix of toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). A low cover of emergent coast live oak may also be present (Appendix A).

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 27 ends

-119-

California Buckwheat Scrub
The California buckwheat scrub alliance contains California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) as the dominant or co -dominant species within the shrub canopy. This community contains a continuous or intermittent canopy. Emergent trees may be present at a low cover and the herbaceous layer is variable and may include various grasses. This alliance occurs on upland slopes, channels and washes, and flooded arroyos on well -drained, coarse, and moderately acidic to slightly saline soils. Within the study area, this vegetation community is dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum) with a low cover of blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) and scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum).

The shrub layer comprises approximately 75% absolute cover, with California buckwheat occupying approximately between 50% to 75% absolute cover, with blue elderberry scale broom occupying between less than 1 % absolute cover. This vegetation community is located within the northern portion of the study area, south of Wildwood Canyon Road (Appendix A).

Chamise Chaparral
The chamise chaparral alliance is dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) in the shrub canopy. The shrub canopy is typically intermittent to continuous with a sparse herbaceous layer. This alliance occurs on varied topography. Within the study area, this vegetation community is dominated by chamise with a lower cover of California buckwheat. Chamise occupies 50% to 75% absolute cover, with California buckwheat occupying approximately 5% to 15%. This community is located only within the buffer, north of Wildwood Canyon Road (Appendix A).

Coast Live Oak Woodland
The coast live oak woodland alliance is dominated or co -dominated by coast live oak in the tree canopy. The tree canopy is typically open to continuous, with a sparse or grassy herbaceous layer. This alliance occurs on alluvial terraces, canyon bottoms, stream banks, slopes, and flats on deep, sandy, or loamy soils. Within the study area, this vegetation community is dominated by coast live oak with additional lower cover of toyon, birchleaf mountain mahogany, and poison oak within the understory. This community is located north and south of Wildwood Creek along upper slopes. Areas of coast live oak woodland along the southern banks of Wildwood Creek appear to be affected by erosion and scouring (Appendix A).

Non -Native Grassland
Within the study area, non-native grasslands encompasses areas immediately north and south of Wildwood Canyon Road. Plant species observed in the study area within this community include compact brome (Bromus madritensis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), redstem stork's bill (Erodium cicutarium), Eastwood's fiddleneck (Amsinckia eastwoodiae), and Indian hedgemustard (Sisymbrium orientale) (Appendix A).

Disturbed Habitat
Within the study area, disturbed habitat encompasses the dirt access road south of Wildwood Canyon Road. While the disturbed habitat within the study area was composed primarily of bare ground, a low cover of plant species observed in the study area within this land cover include compact brome, redstem stork's bill, and Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus) (Appendix A).

Non -Vegetated Floodplain or Channel
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 28 ends

-120-

Within the study area, non -vegetated floodplain or channel encompasses Wildwood Creek and the unnamed tributary to Wildwood Creek. This land cover type is subject to frequent scouring associated with annual storm events. While the non -vegetated floodplain or channel within the study area was composed primarily of bare ground and a sandy substrate, a low cover of plant species observed in the study area within this land cover type include flatspine bur ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), mulefat, and scale broom.

While scale broom was present, it occupied less than 1% absolute cover; therefore, it was not mapped as a community (Appendix A).

Wildlife
Eighteen bird species were detected within the study area: hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), California scrub -jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), California quail (Callipepla californica), blue -gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern rough -winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Nuttall's woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), song sparrow (Melospiza melodic), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus) (Appendix A).

No active bird nests were observed within the study area during the reconnaissance survey; however, the native scrub vegetation within the study area and surrounding the project site provides habitat for nesting birds. Additionally, coast live oaks present provide suitable cavities for potential nesting acorn woodpecker and Nuttall's woodpecker, and the vertical banks of the channel also provide potential nesting for bank swallows. No amphibian species were observed and no amphibian species are expected to occur. One reptile species was observed during the survey: common side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Five mammal species were detected during the survey: coyote (Canis latrans), domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris), domestic horse (Equus caballus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus [Otospermophilus] beecheyi), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). One invertebrate species was observed during the survey:
painted lady (Vanessa cardui) (Appendix A).

Special Status Wildlife Species
No special -status wildlife species were incidentally detected within the study area during the 2019 reconnaissance survey or 2019 focused special -status plant surveys. One listed species, state -threatened Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) has a low potential to nest within the study area. Four other non -listed species have a high potential to occur within the study area:
southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), Blainville's horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). Three other non -listed species have a moderate potential to occur within the study area: red diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and purple martin (Progne subis) (Appendix A).

Swainson's Hawk
Swainson's hawk is a state -listed threatened species. Swainson's hawks forage in open habitats dominated by grasses, as well as some open shrublands and open, small woodlands (Bechard et al. 2010). Generally, Swainson's hawks nest in scattered trees along stream courses, rivers, or in open woodlands within foraging habitat (Bechard et al. 2010). Suitable oak woodland habitat along Wildwood Creek is present within the study area. This species was recorded Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 29 ends

-121-

approximately 2 miles from the study area; however, this record is from 1900 and considered extirpated (Appendix A). Therefore, this species has a low potential to occur within the study area.

Southern California Legless Lizard
Southern California legless lizard is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. Legless lizards in California were traditionally considered one species; however, are now considered five species (Pappenfuss and Parham 2013), with all species in California recognized by CDFW as Species of Special Concern. This species is a small slender lizard with no legs and eyelids. This species inhabits moist, warm, sandy or loose, loamy soils with sparse vegetation within coastal dunes, stabilized dunes, beaches, dry washes, valley -foothill, chaparral, scrubs, pine, oak, and riparian woodland. Suitable habitat for this species (i.e., sandy loose soils and oak woodlands) is present within the study area. Additionally, there are several records of this species within the vicinity of the study area (Appendix A); thus, southern California legless lizard has a high potential to occur within the study area.

Blainville's Horned Lizard
Blainville's Horned Lizard is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. This flat -bodied lizard inhabits open areas with loose, sandy soil within a variety of habitats, including annual grasslands, coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill woodlands, riparian habitat, and coniferous forests. Horned lizards (genus: Phrynosoma) mainly feed on ants, and are therefore often found near ant hills or nests. Suitable habitat for this species (i.e., loose, sandy soils within coastal scrub, woodland, and grassland habitat) is present within the study area. Additionally, this species was recorded approximately 4 miles from the study area (Appendix A). Therefore, this species has a high potential to occur within the study area.

White-tailed Kite
White-tailed kite is a California Fully Protected species that occurs in California, Texas, Florida, Oregon, Washington, and the middle portions of North America. The white-tailed kite is commonly associated with agriculture areas, but it also inhabits low -elevation grasslands, savannah -like habitats, open sage scrub, meadows, wetlands, and oak woodlands, particularly in areas with a dense population of voles. Riparian areas adjacent to open space areas are typically used for nesting, where kites prefer dense, broad -leafed deciduous trees for nesting and roosting. Suitable habitat for this species (i.e., oak woodlands and a minimal amount of riparian habitat) is present within the study area. Additionally, this species was recorded less than 1 mile from the study area (Appendix A). Therefore, this species has a high potential to nest within the study area.

Yellow Warbler
Suitable habitat for this species (i.e., oak woodlands and a minimal amount of riparian habitat) is present within the study area. Additionally, this species was recorded less than 1 mile from the study area (CDFW 2019). Therefore, this species has a high potential to nest within the study area. Suitable habitat for this species (i.e., oak woodlands adjacent to Wildwood Creek and a minimal amount of riparian habitat) is present within the study area. Additionally, this species was recorded approximately 5 miles from the study area (Appendix A). Therefore, this species has a high potential to occur within the study area.

Red -Diamond Rattlesnake
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 30 ends

-122-

Red -diamond rattlesnake is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. It is distributed along coastal San Diego County, north through western Riverside County and into the southernmost portion of San Bernardino County from sea level up to 3,000 feet in chaparral, woodland, and arid desert habitats in rocky areas and dense vegetation. Suitable habitat for this species (i.e., woodland and grassland habitats) is present within the study area. Additionally, this species was recorded approximately 8.5 miles from the study area (Appendix A). Therefore, this species has a moderate potential to occur within the study area.

Loggerhead Shrike
Loggerhead shrike is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. Preferred habitats for the loggerhead shrike are open areas that include scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other structures that provide hunting perches with views of open ground, as well as nearby spiny vegetation or built structures (such as the top of chain -link fences or barbed wire) that provide a location to impale prey items for storage or manipulation. Loggerhead shrikes occur most frequently in riparian areas along the woodland edge, grasslands with sufficient perch and butcher sites, scrublands, and open -canopied woodlands, although they can be quite common in agricultural and grazing areas, and can sometimes be found in mowed roadsides, cemeteries, and golf courses. Loggerhead shrikes occur only rarely in heavily urbanized areas.

For nesting, the height of shrubs and presence of canopy cover are most important. The study area contains suitable open nesting habitat with scattered shrubs and trees. The nearest known occurrence is approximately 10 miles from the study area (Appendix A). Therefore, this species has a moderate potential to occur within the study area.

Purple Martin
Purple martin is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. Purple martins are wildly distributed throughout California in forest and woodland areas at low to immediate elevations, occurring in mesic regions near wetlands and other water bodies. The study area contains suitable oak woodland habitat. The nearest known occurrence is approximately 5 miles from the study area (Appendix A). Therefore, this species has a moderate potential to occur within the study area.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project is located in an area designated as Open Space that is undeveloped and within an existing drainage course. According to the California Natural Diversity Database, the Yucaipa quad, which consists of the City of Yucaipa; parts of Redlands, Highland, and Calimesa; and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County, includes a number of threatened or endangered species, such as the southern mountain yellow -legged frog, Swainson's hawk, coastal California gnatcatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, Stephen's kangaroo rat, lesser long -nosed bat, Santa Ana River woollystar, and the slender -horned spineflower. (PlaceWorks 2014).

Special Status Plants
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 31 ends

-123-

No special -status plant species were detected within the study area during the 2019 focused special -status plant surveys (Appendix A). Therefore, the Project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to special -status plant species.

Special Status Wildlife
One listed species, Swainson's hawk, has a low potential to occur within the study area.

Four other non -listed species have a high potential to occur within the study area:
southern California legless lizard, Blainville's horned lizard, white-tailed kite, and yellow warbler. Three other non -listed species have a moderate potential to occur within the study area: red diamondback rattlesnake, loggerhead shrike, and purple martin (Appendix A).

Birds
The proposed Project would permanently impact approximately 1.22 acres of suitable habitat (i.e., oak woodlands) for Swainson's hawk and purple martin, 1.35 acres of suitable habitat for white-tailed kite and yellow warbler (i.e., oak woodlands and riparian habitat), and 2.3 acres of suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike (i.e., open nesting habitat with scattered shrubs and trees). Due to the amount of adjacent and nearby habitat (e.g., Wildwood Creek, Wildwood Canyon State Park, San Bernardino National Forest), loss of fragmented habitat is considered less than significant. However, direct mortality of individuals of Swainson's hawk, purple martin, white-tailed kite, yellow warbler, and loggerhead shrike would be considered significant absent mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Nesting Birds) would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Indirect impacts to Swainson's hawk, purple martin, white-tailed kite, yellow warbler, and loggerhead shrike that could occur during construction include an increase in human activity, construction noise, and dust in the immediate vicinity of an active nest that could result in significant harassment and nest abandonment, causing take of the nest.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure B1O-2 (General Avoidance and Minimization Measures) would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Reptiles
Three special -status reptiles have a moderate or high potential to occur within the proposed development footprint and surrounding Project Site: California legless lizard, Blainville's horned lizard, and red diamondback rattlesnake. Direct impacts could occur through crushing of individuals during grading, entombment of burrowing species, and removal of habitat. Most reptile species exhibit a "flight" response to disturbance, resulting in temporary displacement, or if disturbance is constant, permanent displacement. The proposed project would result in the direct removal of 4.15 acres of suitable habitat; however, suitable habitat for all of the reptile species will be available adjacent to the affected region, and individuals of these species would be expected to move away from construction activities. Entombment of individuals would be avoided through implementation of Mitigation Measure 131O-2 (i.e., implementation of best management practices, such as covering open trenches). Direct impacts to the few individuals that may be crushed or otherwise harmed by construction activities would be less than significant.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 32 ends

-124-

With incorporation of Mitigation Measures 1310-1 and 1310-2, direct or indirect impacts through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project is located in an area designated as Open Space that is undeveloped and within an existing drainage course. Riparian habitats occur along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors. One special -status vegetation community as defined by the CDFW (2018) occurs within the study area: arroyo willow thickets. (Appendix A) The proposed Project would result in 0.13 acres of permanent impacts and

0.06 acres of temporary impacts to this special -status vegetation community. Therefore, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 1310-3 (Special -Status Vegetation Communities Mitigation) is included to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. c) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project would construct a multipurpose flood control basin within Wildwood Creek. A Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report was prepared for the proposed Project by DUDEK on September 13, 2019, to assess impacts to wetlands (Appendix A). The results of the jurisdictional delineation concluded there are two jurisdictional waters within the study area, Wildwood Creek and an unnamed tributary to Wildwood Creek. Both features support an ordinary high water mark and ultimately flow to the Santa Ana River, which flows to the Pacific Ocean; therefore, these meet the definition of non -wetland waters of the United States under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) totaling 1.00 acres. Both features also contain a clearly defined bed and bank; therefore, are a streambed under the jurisdiction of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) totaling 3.02 acres.

The proposed project would construct a multipurpose flood control basin and necessary street improvements to allow safe access into the basin from Wildwood Canyon Road.

Impacts to jurisdictional waters within the grading limits would be permanently impacted as a result of project implementation. Temporary impacts would also occur within areas immediately adjacent to the grading limits that would be utilized for construction related activities. The impacts to jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 4-1.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 33 ends

-125-

Table 4-1: Summary of Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters within the Project Site Non -Wetland Waters of
Vegetation
the United States and
Streambed (CDFW)
Feature
Community/
State (ACOE/ RWQCB)
(Acres)
Land Cover
(Acres/ Linear Feet)
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Arroyo Willow
_
_
_
<0.01
Thickets
California
Buckwheat
-
-
-

0.31 Scrub
Wildwood
Disturbed
Creek
Habitat
-
-
-
<0.01
Non -
Vegetated

0.10/ 248

0.64/ 849

0.28 1.28
Floodplain or
Channel
Arroyo Willow

0.01/ 68

0.01/ 58

0.06 0.13
Thickets
California
Unnamed
Buckwheat
-
-
-
-
Tributary
Scrub
Non -
Vegetated
<0.01/ 10
<0.01/ 24

0.01 0.02
Floodplain or
Channel
Total*

0.11/ 327

0.65/ 941

0.34 1.73
'Acreage may not total due to rounding
Project implementation would result in greater than 300 linear feet and/or greater than 0.5 acres of permanent impacts to federal and state jurisdictional waters. Therefore, ACOE requires an individual permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (404 permit) prior to discharging fill into waters of the United States. A Water Quality Certification is required from the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (401 Certification) for any federal action, including a 404 permit; therefore, an application for a 401 Certification must be submitted to the RWQCB. A notification of a Streambed Alteration Agreement to CDFW is also required prior to modification of jurisdictional streambeds. Thus, Mitigation Measure 131O-6 is identified to require coordination with the ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW regarding their jurisdiction over the on -site drainages.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 requires that the Applicant implement/comply with mitigation measures required by the resource agencies regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure 131O-6, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means as a Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 34 ends

-126-

result of the Project. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated "islands" of wildlife habitat. Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. The proposed Project is located in an area designated as Open Space that is undeveloped and within an existing drainage course.

Nesting Birds
Construction of the proposed Project could result in direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, including the loss of nests, eggs, and fledglings if ground -disturbing activities occur during the nesting season (generally February 15 through August 31). Construction activities during this time may result in reduced reproductive success and may violate the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. If construction (including any ground -disturbing activities) occurs during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to grading activities and impacts to nests avoided. Thus, Mitigation Measure 131O-1 (Nesting Birds) is incorporated to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. No significant impacts to nesting birds would occur.

Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites
Wildlife movement within the study area is likely due to the location along Wildwood Creek; however, the remainder of the study area and the surrounding environment consist of rural development and open oak woodland habitat that likely function as open habitat, but do not function as a corridor for wildlife. Construction within the proposed project area could have both a direct and indirect impact on wildlife movement. Wildlife may be deterred from the construction area due to increased human presence, loud noises, and physical disruptions of habitat. However, construction will be temporary, and wildlife would be able to use temporary construction areas freely after work crews are gone. In addition, since the project is linear, typical construction methods would not impede wildlife movement over a large area at any one time. Furthermore, the proposed basin is a flow - through basin and wildlife movement would be able to continue through Wildwood Creek and the unnamed tributary after construction has been completed. Therefore, impacts to movement of native wildlife species and from impediments to use of native wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project would result in the removal of vegetation within 200 feet of the bank of a stream and oak trees. Riparian areas are a protected resource under Division 9, Chapter 4 (Riparian Plant Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 35 ends

-127-

Conservation) of the Development Code in the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code a tree or plant removal permit is required to be issued prior to the removal of any riparian vegetation within 200 feet of the bank of a stream. (City of Yucaipa 2019) Therefore, prior to the issuance of any grading permits, approval from the City must be obtained prior to the removal of any trees within 200 feet of the bank of a stream that meet the requirements as described per Section 89.0315 of the City's Municipal Code. Oak trees are a protected resource under Division 9, Chapter 5 (Oak Tree Conservation) of the City's Development Code a valid oak tree permit is required to be issued prior to the removal of any oak tree. (City of Yucaipa 2019) Therefore, prior to the issuance of any grading permits, an oak tree report will be prepared pursuant to the City's Oak Tree permit application, per Section 89.0515 of the City's Municipal Code. The oak tree report will assess each tree's overall health and a rating will be assessed. Impacted oak trees require replacement and/or relocation to offset the impacts associated with the loss of a tree at a 1:1 ratio. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (Tree or Plant Removal Permit) and Mitigation Measure B1O-5 (Oak Tree Permit and Mitigation) (i.e., implementation of oak tree report, permit, and mitigation to impacted oak trees) would reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. Further, the slope stabilization that would result from the Project would result in additional protection of the oak trees located downstream of the Project area.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact: The City is not a part of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Thus, the Project Site does not overlap any Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved plan. The project would not impede any Habitat Conservation Plans and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation:

IV. (a, d)
BIO-1: Nesting Birds
To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, if ground -disturbing and/or vegetation clearance activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season (typically February 15 through August 31), a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project site and a 500-foot buffer around the project site. Surveys shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of activity and shall be conducted between dawn and noon.

If an active nest is detected during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist. The buffer (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special -status species) shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 36 ends

-128-

be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. (a)
BIO-2: General Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during proposed project construction activities.
• Construction limits of the proposed project shall be clearly flagged so that adjacent native vegetation is avoided.
• Staging and storage areas for spoils, equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants, and solvents shall be located within the designated impact area or adjacent developed areas.
• Nighttime construction shall be minimized to the extent possible. However, if nighttime activity (e.g., equipment maintenance) is necessary, then the speed limit shall be 10 mph.
• At the end of each workday, potential wildlife pitfalls (i.e., trenches, bores, and other excavations) shall be backfilled, covered, or sloped to the extent feasible to reduce potential for wildlife to become trapped. Open trenches shall be checked at the start of the day to ensure that wildlife have not become entrapped. Wildlife entrapped in a trench should be removed and relocated out of harm's way. • In order to reduce the spread of invasive plant species, landscape plants within 200 feet of native vegetation communities shall not be on the most recent version of the Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory ( http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php).
(b)
1131O-3: Special Status Vegetation Communities
A minimum of 1:1 mitigation shall be achieved through preservation, enhancement, or rehabilitation through an approved in -lieu fee program, mitigation bank, or permittee responsible mitigation. Because arroyo willow thickets community is within a California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdictional streambed, mitigation may be done concurrently with mitigation for impacts to streambed and would be subject to applicable agency conditions.
(e)
BIO-4: Tree or Plant Removal Permit
Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a tree or plant removal permit shall be obtained in accordance with procedures detailed in Chapter 3, Mountain Forest and Valley Tree Conservation, of Division 9 of the City of Yucaipa Development Code.

BIO-5: Oak Tree Permit and Mitigation
Prior to issuance of any grading permits, an Oak Tree report shall be prepared pursuant to the City of Yucaipa's Oak Tree Permit application, per Section 89.0515 of the City's Municipal Code. The Oak Tree report shall include an assessment of the tree's health, condition, and a rating will be assessed. Impacted oak trees shall include relocation and/or replacement at a 1:1 ratio, or as required by the Oak Tree Permit. (c)
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 37 ends

-129-

131O-6: Jurisdictional Resources
Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding their jurisdiction over the on -site drainages. The placement of fill materials within any of these jurisdictional features would require permitting pursuant to Section 404 and 401 of the federal Clean Water Act and a Section 1600 under State codes.

The Project Applicant shall be obligated to implement/comply with applicable mitigation measures required by the resource agencies regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions. The ratios at which ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW may require permanent impacts to be mitigated vary from 1:1 (no net loss) to as high as 3:1. The jurisdictional areas of the ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW are not additive areas because the jurisdictional areas on the site may be within the jurisdiction of one or more of these agencies. Therefore, the permits and associated jurisdictional replacement requirements would identify which mitigation areas apply to the corresponding jurisdiction.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
V. Cultural Resources — Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
❑
❑
®
❑
pursuant to 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
❑
®
❑
❑
resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
❑
®
❑
❑
those outside of formal cemeteries?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 8 — Public Services and Facilities

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.5 — Cultural Resources

3. City of Yucaipa Municipal Code
a. Division 5, Chapter 3, Article 3. Cultural Resources Preservation (CP) Overlay District, Section 85.030315 Development Standards
Findings of Fact: The City has a rich array of cultural resources dating back to the area's first inhabitants more than 10,000 years ago. Cultural resources consist of places, sites, structures, artifacts, and landscapes that are considered important for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. Resources may be historical, paleontological, archaeological, architectural, or archival in nature.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 38 ends

-130-

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments. There are two types of resources: vertebrate and invertebrate. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations.

Paleontological sites are areas that show evidence of prehuman activity. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. While the sites are important indications, the geologic formations are the most important, since they may contain important fossils.

The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system is a scale for determining the sensitivity of a particular rock formation for fossils. The PFYC system classifies rock units on a scale of 1 to 5— extremely low to very high likelihood of finds. The General Plan EIR shows Yucaipa's geologic units according to this scale. Based on this scale, Figure PR-6, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Sensitivity, notes that areas within the community that have moderate -patchy sensitivity for fossils. The Project Site is located in an area that is identified as a "Cultural Sensitivity Area".

Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
Less than Significant Impact: Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally, a resource is considered "historically significant" if it meets one of the following criteria:

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Although there are no sites in the City listed on the state or federal registers of historic places, the City has a number of structures that are of local significance. (Placeworks 2014) No known historical resources are located in the Project Area. According to the City General Plan, the Project Site is located within an Overlay District identified as "Cultural Sensitivity". However, the scope of work is located within the channel area of Wildwood Creek which has been subject to substantial erosion. Due to the disturbed conditions of the site, there is a low likelihood that the area would yield any information important in prehistory or history. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 39 ends

-131-

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Archaeological resources are prehistoric or historic evidence of past human activities, including structural ruins and buried resources. Project development would involve ground disturbance on the site within and around the creek channel. Due to the disturbed nature of and lack of identified cultural resources on the Project Site, it is not anticipated that unknown cultural resources exist on - site.

In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American contacts on August 12, 2020, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the Project. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) requested consultation on August 19, 2020.

Additionally, a response letter was received from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (SBLI) requesting consultation on October 5, 2020. No other responses were received to the date of preparation of this Initial Study.

Resulting from consultation with the SMBMI and the SBLI, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are identified to reduce potential impacts to archaeological or cultural resources to a less than significant level. Based on the preceding, pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: There are no known human remains on the Project Site. A review of historic aerial photos and maps at historicaerials.com was conducted and did not identify possible cemeteries in the area, and therefore a low likelihood exists that human remains could be uncovered during ground - disturbing activities. However, there is a possibility that unidentified human remains could be discovered during Project construction. Consistent with State law, if at any time during grading human remains are found, the Project is to be conditioned to halt work and make contact with the San Bernardino County Coroner's Office. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is identified to require notification to SMBMI and further reduce cultural impacts to the disturbance of human remains, specifically Native American remains. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation:

V.
(b)
CUL-1 Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
Due to the heightened cultural sensitivity of the proposed Project area, an archaeologist with at least 3 years of regional experiencing and Tribal monitors representing the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and/or the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians shall be Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 40 ends

-132-

present for all ground -disturbing activities that occur within native or uncertified fill soil of the proposed project area (which includes, but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting, clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching, compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage and irrigation removal and installation, hardscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.].

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide the City evidence of agreements with the consulting tribe(s), or an agreement with an individual tribal monitor(s) designated by their respective tribe, for tribal monitoring. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of A1352. A sufficient number of archaeological and Tribal monitors shall be present each work during the ground disturbance activities day to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage.

A Monitoring and Treatment Plan that is reflective of the project mitigation shall be completed by the archaeologist at the direction of the City and disseminated to the SMBMI, the SBLI, and Lead Agency for review. Once all parties review and agree to the plan, it shall be adopted by the Lead Agency — the plan must be adopted prior to the construction of the Project. Any and all findings will be subject to the protocol detailed within the Monitoring and Treatment Plan.

CUL-2 Treatment of Cultural Resources
If a cultural resource is discovered during project implementation, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended 60 feet around the resource(s) and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed.

A research design shall be developed by the archaeologist that shall include a plan to evaluate the resource for significance under CEQA criteria. Representatives from the SMBMI, the SBLI, the applicant and the Lead Agency shall confer regarding the research design, as well as any testing efforts needed to delineate the resource boundary. Following the completion of evaluation efforts, all parties shall confer regarding the archaeological significance of the resource, its potential as a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR), and avoidance (or other appropriate treatment) of the discovered resource.

Should any significant resource and/or TCR not be a candidate for avoidance or preservation in place, and the removal of the resource(s) is necessary to mitigate impacts, the research design shall include a comprehensive discussion of sampling strategies, resource processing, non-destructive analysis, and reporting protocols/obligations. Removal of any cultural resource(s) shall be conducted with the presence of a Tribal monitor representing the SMBMI and the SBLI, unless otherwise decided by the tribes. All plans for analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the applicant, the SMBMI and the SBLI prior to implementation, and all removed material shall be temporarily curated on -site.

It is the preference of the SMBMI and the SBLI that removed cultural material be reburied as close to the original find location as possible. However, should reburial within/near the original find location during project implementation not be feasible, then a reburial location for future reburial shall be decided upon by the SMBMI, the SBLI, the landowner, and the Lead Agency, and all finds shall be reburied within this location.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 41 ends

-133-

Additionally, in this case, reburial shall not occur until all ground -disturbing activities associated with the project have been completed, all monitoring has ceased, all cataloguing and basic recordation of cultural resources have been completed, and a final monitoring report has been issued to Lead Agency, CHRIS, the SMBMI and the SBLI. All reburials are subject to a reburial agreement that shall be developed between the landowner, the SMBMI and the SBLI outlining the determined reburial process/location, and shall include measures and provisions to protect the reburial area from any future impacts (vis a vis project plans, conservation/preservation easements, etc.).

Should it occur that avoidance, preservation in place, and on -site reburial are not an option for treatment, the landowner shall relinquish all ownership and rights to this material and confer with the SMBMI and the SBLI to identify an American Association of Museums (AAM)-accredited facility within the County that can accession the materials into their permanent collections and provide for the proper care of these objects in accordance with the 1993 CA Curation Guidelines. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository shall be developed between the landowner and museum that legally and physically transfers the collections and associated records to the facility. This agreement shall stipulate the payment of fees necessary for permanent curation of the collections and associated records and the obligation of the Project developer/applicant to pay for those fees.

All draft records/reports containing the significance and treatment findings and data recovery results shall be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency, the SMBMI and the SBLI for their review and comment. After approval from all parties, the final reports and site/isolate records are to be submitted to the local CHRIS Information Center, the Lead Agency, the SMBMI and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.
(c)
CUL-3 Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains/Funerary Objects In the event that any human remains are discovered within the project area, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended 100 feet around the resource(s) and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. The on -site lead/foreman shall then immediately who shall notify SMBMI, the applicant/developer, and the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency and the applicant/developer shall then immediately contact the County Coroner regarding the discovery. If the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner shall ensure that notification is provided to the NAHC within twenty-four (24) hours of the determination, as required by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 (c). The NAHC-identified Most Likely Descendant (MLD), shall be allowed, under California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 (a), to (1) inspect the site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains and funerary objects shall be treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity. The MLD, Lead Agency, and landowner agree to discuss in good faith what constitutes "appropriate dignity" as that term is used in the applicable statutes. The MLD shall complete its inspection and make recommendations within forty-eight (48) hours of the site visit, as required by California Public Resources Code § 5097.98.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 42 ends

-134-

Reburial of human remains and/or funerary objects (those artifacts associated with any human remains or funerary rites) shall be accomplished in compliance with the California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 (a) and (b). The MLD in consultation with the landowner, shall make the final discretionary determination regarding the appropriate disposition and treatment of human remains and funerary objects. All parties are aware that the MLD may wish to rebury the human remains and associated funerary objects on or near the site of their discovery, in an area that shall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The applicant/developer/landowner should accommodate on -site reburial in a location mutually agreed upon by the Parties.

It is understood by all Parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code § 6254 (r).

Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
VI. Energy — Would theproject:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impacts due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
❑
❑
®
❑
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or Local
plan for renewable energy or energy
❑
❑
❑
efficiency?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 7 — Public Safety

2. City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan Annex. City of Yucaipa. September 2015. Accessed online at http://www.yucaipa.org/wp-
content/uploads/disaster prep/Yucaipa—Climate—Action_Plan_Annex.pdf Findings of Fact:

If the Project creates inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation activities or conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, then the Project would create a significant energy impact. Energy resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum -based fuel supplies and distribution systems. This analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the Projects, with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 43 ends

-135-

unnecessary consumption of energy. A general definition of each of these energy resources are provided below:

Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves several system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on -site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands.

Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas satisfies almost one-third of the State's total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet.

Petroleum -based fuels currently account for a majority of the California's transportation energy sources and primarily consist of diesel and gasoline types of fuels. However, the state has been working on developing strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade California has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation sector, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Accordingly, petroleum -based fuel consumption in California has declined.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would impact energy resources during construction activities from the combustion of fossil fuels used for worker vehicles and construction equipment and temporary construction lighting. The Project would consume energy resources during construction in three (3) general forms:

1. Petroleum -based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g., hauling of demolition material to off -site reuse and disposal facilities);

2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and,

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

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 44 ends

-136-

All construction equipment is subject to the CARB In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation. This regulation, which applies to all off -road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater, limits unnecessary idling to 5 minutes, requires all construction fleets to be labeled and reported to CARB, bans Tier 0 equipment and phases out Tier 1 and 2 equipment (thereby replacing fleets with cleaner equipment), and requires that fleets comply with Best Available Control Technology requirements, which would increase construction equipment fuel efficiency. These limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment, and the requirements that equipment must be properly maintained (CCR Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485), would result in fuel savings. Due to the temporary nature of construction, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, there are no policies at the local level applicable to energy conservation specific to the construction phase. The proposed Project does not include construction of buildings or land uses associated with significant energy use during operation. Operation of the retention basin would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact: The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency are CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and California's Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard, the State of California is transitioning to renewable energy through the California's Renewable Energy Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. Executive Order S-1408, signed in November 2008, expanded the state's renewable portfolios standard (RPS) to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS-40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. Senate Bill 350 also set a new goal to double the energy -efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which supersedes the SB 350 requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for public owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. The bill also established a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end -use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100 the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon - free electricity target.

The statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the Project. Additionally, the Project does not include any buildings, thus, it would not be conditioned to comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and CALGreen. The City has a locally adopted Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, however, the proposed Project does not include the development of any buildings or land use that would generate traffic. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 45 ends

-137-

conflict or obstruct plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency and no impact would occur.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
VII. Geology and Soils— Would theproject:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
❑
❑
®
❑
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault. Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
❑
❑
®
❑
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
❑
❑
®
❑
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
❑
❑
®
❑
potentially result in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
❑
❑
®
❑
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
❑
❑
❑
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
❑
®
❑
❑
geologic feature?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Srn irr.Ps-
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 46 ends

-138-

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 7 — Public Safety
• Figure S-1, Geologic Hazard Overlay District

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.6 — Geology and Soils

3. Geotechnical Investigation Report, Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project. Converse Consultants. January 16, 2019. (Appendix B) Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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.

Less than Significant Impact: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as "Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones," around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet).

The proposed site is situated in a seismically active region. As is the case for most areas of Southern California, ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with nearby and more distant faults may occur at the project site. During the life of the project, seismic activity associated with active faults can be expected to generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. The Project Site is not located within a currently designated State of California or San Bernardino County Earthquake Fault Zone. (Appendix B) There are no known active faults projecting toward or extending across the Project Site. The potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of nearby major faults is not known with certainty but is considered low. The San Andreas -San Bernardino, San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley, San Jacinto -San Bernardino and Pinto Mountain faults are respectively, 3.2 miles, 9.8 miles, 13.7 miles, and 16.2 miles away from the Project Site. Because there are no known faults located on the Project Site and the nature of the Project, there is a very low potential for the proposed Project to expose people or structures to adverse effects related to ground rupture. A less than significant impact would occur.

Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact: As described above, the Project Site is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 47 ends

-139-

ground shaking during the lifetime of the proposed Project. The Project does not consist of the development of any structures or buildings which would cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact: Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to temporary loss. Soil liquefaction is a geologic hazard that occurs during strong seismic ground shaking, most commonly in saturated unconsolidated poorly graded low -cohesion soils. During a strong seismic event, the soils experience a temporary loss of strength causing settlement of the ground surface. Soil liquefaction generally occurs in submerged granular soils and non -plastic silts during or after strong ground shaking. There are several general requirements for liquefaction to occur and they are as follows:
• Soils must be submerged.
• Soils must be loose to medium -dense.
• Ground motion must be intense.
• Duration of shaking must be sufficient for the soils to lose shear resistance.

Based on review of hazard maps, the project site is not located within a designated zone of liquefaction susceptibility. (Appendix B) The site has negligible potential for liquefaction -induced settlement under current groundwater conditions with groundwater deeper than 30 feet below ground surface. The site has the potential for up to approximately 1.0 inch of liquefaction -induced settlement if a large earthquake occurs when the near -surface soil is saturated, such as during significant surface flow in the channel. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant impact: Seismically induced landslides and slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after large earthquakes. According to Figure S-1, Geologic Hazard Overlay District, in the City's General Plan, the Project Site is located in an area identified as "Generally Susceptible" to landslides.

Currently, the creek walls rise at least 15 feet above the current creek bed nearly vertically and show signs of undermining in some areas. (Appendix B) The site is within an area designated as having low to moderate susceptibility to landsliding by San Bernardino County. The area around the Project Site includes developed land and vegetated open space. The proposed Project will require grading and will remove some vegetation including trees. The amount of vegetation which will be removed is not large enough to induce substantial landsliding. Due to the density of the vegetation (well established trees), and the relatively low slope of the developed land to the north, the Project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects related to landslides. A less than significant impact would occur. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 48 ends

-140-

Less than Significant Impact: Construction activities associated with the Project would involve earth movement and the exposure of soil, which would temporarily increase erosion susceptibility. In the long-term, development of the Project would reduce the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil that currently occurs every storm season. Development within the City is required to prepare an erosion control plan to minimize erosion during grading and construction, and such plan is required to be prepared in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards. In addition, the Project's excavation and grading activities will be required to be carried out pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that requires adoption of an appropriate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion from storm water runoff. Based on the preceding, impacts to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil will be less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than Significant Impact: Refer to the discussion of Section VI ((a)(iii)) and (iv) for a discussion of hazards associated with liquefaction and landslide hazards. As noted, landslide hazards are not anticipated to affect or result from the Project, and the site is in an area of low potential for liquefaction -related hazards. (Appendix B) Seismically induced lateral spreading involves lateral movement of earth materials over a deeper layer which has liquified due to ground shaking. It differs from a slope failure in that ground failure involving a large movement does not occur due to the flatter slope of the initial ground surface. Lateral spreading is characterized by near vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved over the liquefied soils. Due to the low risk of liquefaction under the current groundwater conditions, lateral spreading is not considered a risk. Lateral spreading of the channel banks toward the channel centerline may occur if a large earthquake coincides with historically high groundwater levels, such as when near -surface soils are saturated due to significant surface water flow in the channel.

The Yucaipa Basin is in overdraft and thus has a low to moderate potential for ground subsidence throughout the community. Isolated cases of ground subsidence have occurred in the past. (Yucaipa 2016) Subsidence (defined as the settlement of native materials from the equipment load applied during grading) would depend on the construction methods including type of equipment utilized. However, the proposed Project does not consist of any structures or buildings which would be susceptible to instability due to subsidence.

Thus, any minor subsidence which occurs during construction of the Project would be insignificant.

The Project Site's potential for lateral spreading or collapse is currently unknown, but will be evaluated in a site -specific geotechnical evaluation. The site -specific geotechnical evaluation also will evaluate the Project Site's potential for subsidence and liquefaction hazards. Further, the Project would be required to comply with the requirements of a final City -approved geotechnical report, and applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (CBC) that would act to minimize any unstable soils, unstable geologic units that may be encountered. On this basis, the potential for the Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 49 ends

-141-

Project to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is less than significant. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact: Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper mitigation measures, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs - on -grade could result. Based on the exploratory borings and laboratory test results, the subsurface soil at the Project Site consisted primarily of unconsolidated alluvial sediments.

While the Project would be located on soil with expansion potential, the Project does not consist of building any structures or buildings which would create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. e) Would the project 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 Project does not involve land uses requiring septic services. The proposed Project would not require the use of septic tanks. No impact would occur. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: As discussed in Section V., Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, the Project area has no previously recorded cultural and/or paleontological resources. However, the potential to discover buried archaeological deposits remains. Thus, the Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 identified in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study are applied to require archaeological and tribal monitoring during ground disturbing activities to evaluate discoveries, if any, that occur and to stipulate how discoveries are to be treated with respect to the tribes. With incorporation of mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
Vlll. Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Would theproject:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
❑
®
❑
❑
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
❑
❑
®
❑
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 50 ends

-142-

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 7 — Public Safety

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.7 — Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, prepared by the California Air Resources Board, November 2017.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf

4. City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan Annex, San Bernardino Association of Governments, September 2015. http://www.yucaipa.org/wp- content/uploads/disaster_prep/Yucaipa_Climate Action_Plan_Annex.pdf Findings of Fact: The Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) aimed at the reduction of air pollutant emissions. Those that are directly and indirectly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of GHG emissions include:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill (AB) 32) • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (Senate Bill (SB) 375)
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles.
• California Building Code (Title 24 California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent (%) less by 2020.
• Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078 — also referred to as RPS). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 % by 2010 and 33% by 2020.
• California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (SB 32). Requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Greenhouse gases are gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation. In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 51 ends

-143-

that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use Projects.

Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, as of November 2019, the SCAQMD Board had not yet considered or approved the Working Group's thresholds. SCAQMD's Working Group's thresholds were prepared prior to the issuance of Executive Order B-3015 on April 29, 2015, that provided a reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This target became law through passage of AB 197 and SB 32 in September 2016. However, to date no air district or local agency within California has provided guidance on how to address AB 197 and SB 32 with relation to land use Projects. In addition, the California Supreme Court's ruling on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (Cleveland v. SANDAG), Filed July 13, 2017 stated:

SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or implementation measures to achieve its goal. In its response to comments, the EIR said: "It is uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should play in achieving the EO's 2050 emissions reduction target. A recent California Energy Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major `decarbonization' of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency.

Although, the above court case was referencing California's GHG emission targets for the year 2050, at this time it is also unclear what role land use strategies can or should play in achieving the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This analysis relied on the SCAQMD Working Group's recommended thresholds. Therefore, the Project would be considered to create a significant cumulative GHG impact if it would exceed the annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.

As described in Section III, Air Quality, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is implemented to require the Project to use energy and fuel efficient vehicles and equipment. The Project would use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials. The Project would generate temporary and intermittent emissions during construction, the impacts of which were analyzed in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not have an indirect or direct impact on the environment from the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 52 ends

-144-

CARB Scoping Plan
CARB's Scoping Plan is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is to return to 1990 emission levels by year 2030 (CARB 2017). The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects.

Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance -based and efficiency -based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.

On December 24, 2017, CARB adopted the Final 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update to address the new 2030 interim target to achieve a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030, established by SB 32 (CARB 2017). Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. Also, new buildings are required to comply with the latest applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Code (CALGreen). While measures in the Scoping Plan apply to state agencies and not the proposed Project, the Project's GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016. The RTP/SCS identifies multimodal transportation investments, include bus rapid transit, light rail transit, heavy rail transit, commuter rail, high-speed rail, active transportation strategies (e.g., bike ways and sidewalks), transportation demand management strategies, transportation systems management, highway improvements (interchange improvements, high - occupancy vehicle lanes, high -occupancy toll lanes), arterial improvements, goods movement strategies, aviation and airport ground access improvements, and operations and maintenance to the existing multimodal transportation system.

The RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas, provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit, abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike and pursue other forms of active transportation, and preserve more of the region's remaining natural lands (SCAG 2016). The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as forecasted development that is generally consistent with regional -level general plan data. The projected regional development, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network identified in the RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 53 ends

-145-

travel -related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region.

The RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. The Project would be an infill development Project in the City and would be located in a developed area that currently consists of other commercial centers in the vicinity. Serving the local community could contribute to reducing the vehicle miles traveled by providing the local community with closer options for commerce. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS, and no impact would occur.

Climate Action Plan
The City of Yucaipa adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address requirements under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The CAP presents the greenhouse gas inventory for the City, identifies the effectiveness of California, regional, and countywide initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, and concludes with City strategies to achieve GHG targets for the City. The proposed Project would not conflict with or impede implementation of the CAP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials — Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
❑
❑
®
❑
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
❑
❑
®
❑
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
❑
❑
❑
substances, or waste within one -quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
❑
❑
❑
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 54 ends

-146-

e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
❑
❑
❑
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
❑
❑
®
❑
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
❑
❑
®
❑
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. • Chapter 7 — Public Safety
- Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 • Section 3.8 — Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3. Yucaipa Valley Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Sturdivan Emergency Management Consulting. 2020. Accessed online at
http://documents.yvwd.dst.ca.us/emergency/hmp/200831 yvwd-hm p. pdf

4. City of Yucaipa Emergency Operations Plan. November 2012. Accessed online at http://yucaipa.org/wp-content/uploads/disaster_prep/EOP.pdf

5. Envirostor, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2019. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

6. Heliports in California, United States of America. Accessed online on June 3, 2021 at https://www.airnay.com/airports/us/CA?type=H&use=R

7. FHSZ Viewer, The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), accessed May 18, 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
Discussion of Impacts
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: Within the vicinity of the Project Site are single-family residences to the north, and vacant open space to the east, south, and west. The Project Site contains a portion of the Wildwood Creek and proposes to restore and improve the site with a 25 acre-foot flow through retention basin. Construction of the proposed Project would require the use and transport of materials such as soils, gravel, rock, and concrete. However, equipment used at the site during construction activities could use substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 55 ends

-147-

gasoline from typical construction equipment, and would therefore have the potential to discharge hazardous materials during construction. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state requirements, which the Project construction activities are required to strictly adhere to. The use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials must comply with existing regulations established by several agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the EPA, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program.

This amount of hazardous material discharge during construction is expected to be less than significant, and the Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, ordinances, and procedures. Additionally, through the implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP, off -site discharge of pollutants during construction and operation of the Project would be reduced to a less than significant level. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: As mentioned in Section IX(a), any handling activities associated with hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Both short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local agencies and regulations with the policies and programs established by agencies such as the EPA, Department of Transportation, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cal/OSHA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. Adherence to the applicable policies and programs of these agencies would ensure that any transport or interaction with hazardous materials would occur in the safest possible manner, reducing the opportunity for the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Any handling of hazardous materials would be limited in both quantities and concentrations. Based on the preceding, impacts would be less than significant.
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 closest schools to the Project Site are Wildwood Elementary School and Green Valley High School, both approximately 1.15 miles southwest of the site. As previously mentioned, handling activities associated with hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Construction of the Project is anticipated to handle and use diesel fuel and gasoline. Any handling of hazardous materials would be limited in both quantities and concentrations. Given that there are no schools within one -quarter mile of the proposed Project, no impact would occur.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 56 ends

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: Government Code Section 65962.5 describes that before an application for a development project is completed, the Applicant and/or Lead Agency shall indicate whether the site is included on any of the lists compiled pursuant to that section and identify which list(s). According to the Cortese List (DTSC, EnviroStor 2019), the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Nor are there any hazardous materials sites listed in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard and no impact would occur. 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 nearest airports are the Redlands Municipal Airport approximately 9.30 miles northwest and the Banning Municipal Airport approximately 10.5 miles southeast.

There are no know private airports or heliports in the vicinity of the Project Site. (airnay.com 2021) The Project Site is not within an airport influence area or safety zone.

Given the Project Site's distance from the airports, the Project will not create a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project Area. Thus, no impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact: The City's General Plan Public Safety Element identifies several plans implemented to protect the community. These include the City's Master Plan of Drainage, the Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City's Emergency Operations Plan, and fire service planning through the City of Yucaipa Fire Department and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). The proposed Project will conform with adopted emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans.

According to Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes, of the City's General Plan Safety Element, Wildwood Canyon Road is identified as a "Local Evacuation Route". The proposed Project would not impact access to users traveling along Wildwood Canyon Road. Any impacts during construction of the Project would be temporary and short-term.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact: Impacts associated with wildland fires are also addressed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this Initial Study. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard, particularly within areas adjacent to open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels. According to Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes, of the City's General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site has a Hazard Designation of "Fire Safety Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 57 ends

-149-

Review Area 1 (Very High Fire Severity)". This designation corresponds to the very high to extremely high fire hazard severity zones established by CALFire. The proposed Project does not involve construction of any buildings which would be subject to fire code, additionally, the proposed retention basin will not be constructed with flammable materials. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. A less than significant impact would occur.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality — Would the
ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
❑
❑
®
❑
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
❑
❑
®
❑
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
❑
❑
®
❑
on- or off -site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
❑
❑
❑
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
❑
❑
❑
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
❑
❑
❑
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
❑
❑
®
❑
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
❑
❑
®
❑
groundwater management Ian?
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 58 ends

-150-

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 8 — Public Services and Utilities
i. Figure S-2b, Floodplain Safety Overlay District

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.9 — Hydrology and Water Quality

3. Yucaipa Municipal Code
a. Title 13, Chapter 13.04, Article II. General Conditions and Prohibitions b. Title 13, Chapter 13.04, Article V. Construction Requirements

4. FEMA Flood map Service Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed May 19, 2021.

Findings of Fact:

Ensuring the long-term supply of water is one of the most critical issues facing the City and communities throughout California. Desert climates, declining groundwater resources, and state and federal laws have made it increasingly challenging to maintain reliable sources of water.

The Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and other laws require public agencies to achieve water quality standards to protect public health and the beneficial uses of California's waterways.

The City's water service is provided by four water purveyors— Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD), South Mesa Mutual Water Company, Western Heights Water Company, and Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department. The City's water infrastructure includes more than 200 miles of water mains, 22 pressure zones, 15 booster stations, water reservoirs, treatment plants, and more than 26 million gallons of water storage capacity. The City's water supply is derived from three primary resources —groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. A small fraction of the City's overall water supply is derived from the Oak Glen, Birch, and Back Canyon creeks and tributaries. The two private utilities and Redlands continue to derive the majority of water resources from groundwater. Reliance on groundwater has significantly declined in recent years due to the prolonged drought, requiring water to be imported from outside the basin in order to meet the needs of the community.

The Yucaipa Valley is underlain by three primary water basins —the Yucaipa, San Timoteo, and Beaumont groundwater basins, with the first providing the vast majority of water to the community. Although water levels are the highest in years, the Department of Water Resources has classified the Yucaipa basin as a "medium priority basin." Discussion of Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than Significant Impact: Future construction activities on the Project Site will include the improvements to a section of Wildwood Creek, specifically the construction of a flow -through water retention basin of approximately 25 acre-feet. Pollutants of concern during construction include trash, sediment, oil, grease, fuel, and potentially metals. During construction activities, excavated soil will be exposed. However, the current conditions of the site have an existing condition of high erosion potential due to large seasonal flows of Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 59 ends

-I51-

stormwater through the creek. Ultimately, the Project will restore the waterway and reduce sedimentation, erosion, and increase water quality.

As a standard condition of approval, the Project would be required to provide compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) criteria, including submittal and approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would identify methods to control erosion and prevent off -site discharge of pollutants during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact: Development of the proposed Project would increase the amount of captured runoff and support local groundwater supplies by constructing a retention basin. Additionally, the Project will enhance water quality and reduce sedimentation by slowing the velocity of stormflows. The Project would require water supplies during construction for erosion control and dust control. However, the demand for water during construction will be insignificant to impede sustainable groundwater management of the underlying water basin. impinge on, nor would otherwise affect, designated recharge areas. Furthermore, as a standard condition of approval, the Project would be required to provide compliance with the NPDES criteria, including submittal and approval of a SWPPP and a WQMP, which would identify methods to control erosion and prevent off -site discharge of pollutants during construction. Therefore, the Project would not significantly contribute to groundwater depletion, nor interfere with groundwater recharge. Based on the preceding discussions, the Project's potential impacts to groundwater availability, quality, or recharge capabilities, are considered less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces , in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; Less than Significant: The proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The proposed Project will prevent sedimentation and erosion downstream and will restore the natural drainage pattern within Wildwood Creek through the use of a flow - through retention basin. The basin will provide the energy dissipation needed to prevent erosion due to high flow velocities generated by large storms.

Adherence to the Project -specific SWPPP and WQMP would ensure that construction impacts of the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite. In addition, the Project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, regarding fugitive dust, which would reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air and minimize the potential for wind erosion. At the completion of construction, the Project would consist of a Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 60 ends

-152-

retention basin and would therefore not be prone to substantial erosion. The proposed Project will not alter Wildwood Creek in a way that would increase erosion or siltation.

Impacts would be less than significant.
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
No Impact: Development of the proposed Project would increase the amount of captured runoff and reduce flows and velocities of surface runoff by constructing a retention basin.

According to Figure S-2b, Floodplain Safety Overlay District, of the City's General Plan Public Safety Element, the Project Site is located in an area designated as "Floodplain Review Area 1 (100 Year Flood Area). Wildwood Creek is an area that is susceptible to urban flooding. (Yucaipa 2016) However, the proposed Project will reduce the risk and hazard of urban flooding once constructed by slowing the velocity of water flows and increasing percolation to the groundwater basin. Therefore, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite. No impact would occur.
iii) or, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No Impact: As described above, the proposed Project would reduce the velocity of stormwater flows through Wildwood Creek and would decrease runoff water flows. The Project would not create or contribute runoff water and would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No impact would occur.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact: As described in Section IX((c)(iii)), the Project Site is located in an area designated as "Floodplain Review Area 1 (100 Year Flood Area)". Wildwood Creek is an area that is susceptible to urban flooding. (Yucaipa 2016) The proposed Project would reduce the velocity of stormwater flows through Wildwood Creek and would decrease runoff water flows. The Project would reduce risks and hazards associated with seasonal flooding along Wildwood Creek. The Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project Site is located in an area designated as "Floodplain Review Area 1 (100 Year Flood Area)" according to the City's General Plan.

Wildwood Creek is an area that is susceptible to urban flooding. (Yucaipa 2016) As a standard condition of approval, the Project would be required to provide compliance with NPDES criteria, including submittal and approval of a SWPPP and a WQMP, which would identify methods to retain the incremental increase in storm water flood on -site to meet historic flows, control erosion, and prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants. During construction and project operation, the project would utilize various structural and non - Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 61 ends

-153-

structural best management practices (BMPs) per the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure potential impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant. Based on the preceding, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact: On May 22, 2017, the City Council, adopted Resolution 2017-18, approving a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to form the Yucaipa Sub -Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (YGSA) with the Cities of Calimesa and Redlands; the South Mesa Water Company; the South Mountain Water Company; the Western Heights Water Company; the Yucaipa Valley Water District; the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; and the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. The MOA was formally adopted by all agencies party to the Agreement, and was submitted to the State Department of Water Resources by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) provides the YSGA broad powers in the implementation of the YGSP and collaborative management of the Yucaipa Groundwater Sub -Basin. This includes the adoption of rules, regulations, ordinances and resolutions as may be necessary to manage and protect the basin. One of the many goals of the YSGA is the development of groundwater recharge projects. The City, in cooperation with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and other partners and stakeholders have developed and constructed projects that capture and recharge storm flows for replenishment of the Yucaipa Basin. Future projects will also be developed to allow for active groundwater recharge opportunities. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the efforts of the YGSA.

The City is a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater permittee and participates with 20 other municipal agencies in the San Bernardino Valley region to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residents, businesses, students, and governments in preventing and reducing stormwater pollution. Keeping pollutants out of stormwater is an integral component of a sustainable groundwater management program.

Under the MS4 permit, the City requires new development to design and implement WQMPs that meet the San Bernardino County Technical Guideline threshold. As part of this project, a WQMP will be required to be reviewed and approved as part of the City's standard Condition of Approval. Implementation of the various structural and non- structural BMPs for the WQMP, and demonstrating that Low Impact Development (LID) concepts have been utilized, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Based on the preceding, a less than significant impact would occur.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning — Would theproject:

A Physically divide an established 1 ❑ 1 ❑ ❑
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 62 ends

-154-

community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
❑
❑
❑
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 2 — Community Design and Land Use

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.10 — Land Use Planning
Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact: According to the City's General Plan, the Project Site is designated as Open Space and is located within a Floodplain Review Area. The proposed Project is comprised of vacant land. Therefore, no established communities exist within the Project Site, nor does the Project propose or require elements or operations that would divide an off -site community. Based on the preceding, the Project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact: The proposed Project would construct a multipurpose flood control basin, which is consistent with the City's General Plan and the City's Master Plan of Drainage.

The proposed Project Site has a General Plan Land Use designation as Open Space and is identified as an area for proposed improvements in the Master Plan of Drainage. The proposed Project aligns with the environmental goals of the General Plan and Master Plan of Drainage.

SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan
As previously described in detail in Section III, Air Quality, the Project would not conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial environmental impact due to a conflict with the 2016 AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant.

In conclusion, because the Project will not conflict with any of these Plans, the Project will not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. A less than significant impact would occur.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 63 ends

-155-

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XII. Mineral Resources —Would theproject:
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
Ian, specific plan or other land use Ian?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.11 — Mineral Resources
Findings of Fact: The City does not contain any nonfuel mineral resources of statewide or regional importance. (PlaceWorks 2014) The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies the regional significance of mineral resources in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The State Geologist is responsible for classifying areas within California that are subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses.

Furthermore, the State Geologist is also responsible for classifying mineral resource zones (MRZ) to record the presence or absence of significant mineral resources in the state based on CGS data.

Discussion of Impacts
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?
Less than Significant Impact: The City General Plan indicates the entire City is within an MRZ-3 (Mineral Resource Zone 3) classification, in which the significance of mineral deposit cannot be evaluated. Therefore, the Project Site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally -or locally- important mineral resources. As the Project Site is within an area of undetermined mineral resource significance, it is unlikely that the site would be considered viable for mineral extraction. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. Impacts would be less than significant.
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: Please refer to the response above. The Project Site is not located within an area designated to contain locally important mineral resources. The Project Site is within an area of undetermined mineral resource significance, identified as zone MRZ-3. The City's General Plan does not identify any locally -important mineral resource recovery sites. Thus, there is a low potential for the loss of availability of a Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 64 ends

-156-

locally -important mineral resource recovery site. A less than significant impact would occur.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XIII. Noise — Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial, temporary, or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
El
El
E
11 excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
®
❑
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
❑
El
❑
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 7 — Public Safety
i. Figure S-6, Noise Hazard Overlay District

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.12 — Noise

3. Yucaipa Municipal Code
a. Division 7, Chapter 9, Section 87.0905 Noise
Findings of Fact:

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Many excessive sources of noise (e.g., freeways) are also often accompanied by vibration. Noise and vibration sensitivity varies throughout the day or evening, at different locations, and among receptors. Unlike most cities in southern California, the City of Yucaipa is far from many urban noise sources —airports, railroads, and heavy industry. Yet the City's noise and vibration environment still varies throughout the community.

While the North Bench and Wildwood Canyon have more localized noise sources, commercial centers or business districts experience higher levels of noise from business, roads, and traffic.

Interstate 10 is the largest source of noise and vibration, the contours of which extend for some distance from the freeway. (Yucaipa 2016)
Discussion of Impacts
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 65 ends

-157-

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial, temporary, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact: The Project area is adjacent to residential land uses, located approximately 100 feet north. The City's General Plan identifies the need to evaluate sensitive land uses within the 60 dBA decibel range. The Project Site is located adjacent to the boundary of the 65 dBA decibel range along Wildwood Canyon Road and a small portion of land extends into the 65 dBA and 60 dBA ranges. Because the proposed Project is not associated with land uses that involve noise generation during operation, the ambient exterior noise levels within and near the Project Site would not be significantly impacted.

Construction Effects:

The City's Municipal Code Section 87.0905, Noise, describes that temporary construction, repair, or demolition activities are exempt noise sources between 7am and 7pm, except Sundays and Federal holidays. Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and other equipment that when combined can reach high levels. Construction noise is expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Basin Construction
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. The construction vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project Site boundaries. As previously stated, temporary construction noise is exempt from the land use review procedures and requirements regarding noise in the City. The Project would not generate any noise during operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact:

Construction Effects:

Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground -borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and dimmish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity depends on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of receiver buildings.

The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 66 ends

-158-

damage at high levels. Ground -borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (i.e. plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet.

Ground -borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The proposed Project would generate ground -borne vibration during site clearing and grading activities. However, the groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would not be considered excessive. As described in Section XII(a) above, construction activities are exempt from the City's noise regulations pursuant to Development Code Section 87.0905, provided they occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday except on Holidays. The potential impacts associated with construction vibration would be less than significant.

Operation of the Project would not create any groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Thus, impacts are less than significant.
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 nearest airports are the Redlands Municipal Airport approximately 9.30 miles northwest and the Banning Municipal Airport approximately 10.5 miles southeast.

There are no know private airports or heliports in the vicinity of the Project Site. (airnay.com 2021) The Project Site is not within an airport influence area or safety zone.

Given the Project Site's distance from the airports, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XIV. Population and Housing — Would the pro'ect:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
❑
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
❑
❑
❑
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 3 — Housing and Neighborhoods

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 67 ends

-159-

a. Section 3.13 — Population and Housing
Discussion of Impacts
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)?
No Impact: The Project does not propose new residential development and would not directly contribute to population growth within the City. The Project will incorporate minor infrastructure improvements and will remain designated as Open Space. Therefore, no impact on population growth will occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: No houses currently exist within the Project Site, and the Project does not propose uses or activities that would otherwise displace housing assets or persons. Based on the preceding, the proposed Project would have no impact related to displacement of housing or displacement of people.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XV. Public Services — Would theproject:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service rations, response
times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
ii) Police protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
iii) Schools?
❑
❑
❑
iv) Parks?
❑
❑
❑
v) Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 68 ends

-160-

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 8 — Public Services and Utilities

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.14 — Public Services
Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact: Fire protection services to the Project Site are provided by CAL Fire. The Project Site is served by the Wildwood Fire Station (Station No. 3), located at 34259 Wildwood Canyon Rd, approximately 3.2 miles west of the Project Site. Additional services in the vicinity are the Cal -Fire Station, located 2.92 miles northwest of the Project and the Crafton Fire Station located 5.4 miles northwest of the Project Site. (Yucaipa 2016) Thus, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts to fire protection facilities would be less than significant. ii) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact: Police protection services to the Project Site are provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. The Project Site is served by the City of Yucaipa Police Station, located at 34144 Yucaipa Blvd, approximately 3.6 miles to the northwest of the Project Site. The Project does not include buildings and would not have long-term employees at the Project Site. During construction, there will be workers at the Project Site, which may result in a short-term increase in demand for police protection services. The Project is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would receive adequate police protection service, and would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts to police protection facilities would therefore be less than significant. iii) Schools?
No Impact: Nearby schools include Wildwood Elementary School and Green Valley High School, both approximately 1.15 miles southwest of the site. Development of the Project Site as proposed by the Project would not create a direct demand for public school services, as the subject property would contain non-residential uses that would not generate any school -aged children requiring public education. The proposed Project is not expected to draw new residents to the region and would therefore not Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 69 ends

-161-

indirectly generate school -aged students requiring public education. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. There would be no impact to public schools and no further analysis of this subject is required. iv-v) Parks and Other public facilities?
No Impact: The Project would not create a demand for public park facilities and would not result in the need to modify existing or construct new park facilities. As discussed under (ii) and (iii) above, the Project would not create a demand for other public facilities/services, including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, and animal shelters. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect other public facilities or require the construction of new or modified public facilities and no impact would occur.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XVI. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
❑
❑
❑
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
❑
❑
❑
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 4 — Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.15 — Recreation

3. California Government Code § 66477
Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact: The Project proposes to construct a multi -purpose flood control basin within Wildwood Creek. The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 70 ends

-162-

use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park, thus, no impact would occur, and no further analysis of this subject is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact: The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off -site recreation facilities. Additionally, the Project would not expand any existing off -site recreational facilities. Thus, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur with implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, no impact would occur, and no further analysis of this subject is required.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XVII. Transportation/Traffic — Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
❑
❑
®
❑
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
❑
❑
❑
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
❑
❑
❑
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
®
❑
❑
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016,
a. Chapter 6 — Transportation
i. Figure T-1, Transportation Network
b. Chapter 7 — Public Safety
i. Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes
Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.16 — Transportation/Traffic
Findings of Fact:

Performance Standards
Level of Service
Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 71 ends

-163-

Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operations and quality of traffic flow along roadways and at intersections. Level of service grades range from 'A' to `F', with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing extremely congested and restricted operations. Six LOS grades are used to address the level of service afforded by roads.

Senate Bill (SB) 743
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is the State mandated performance metric for environmental analyses pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to describe the overall amount of travel in the city based on distance and is directly related to fuel consumption, air pollution, and GHG emissions. VMT is defined as the total mileage traveled by all vehicles.

Although VMT relates specifically to automobiles, it is able to capture the effects of development patterns such as land use mix and density along with transit, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure improvements by reflecting their impacts on vehicle trip generation and trip lengths. Efforts to reduce VMT may include locating housing and jobs near transit stations, implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies such as commute trip reduction programs, transit system improvements, or providing facilities for modes of transportation other than single occupant vehicles. Introducing a greater mix of land uses can also reduce VMT in that residents may have better access to resources and opportunities such as entertainment, shopping, parks and recreation, and jobs, thus reducing the length of their trips.

Congestion Management Plan
San Bernardino Association of Governments prepares a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) to monitor the performance of the regional transportation system, develop programs that address congestion and improve air quality, and integrate transportation and land use planning.

The CMP designates LOS standards for the regionally significant roadways, identifies performance metrics for multimodal transportation systems, identifies standards for transit routing and frequency, and provides a consistent method for analyzing impacts of land uses on the transportation system.

The City implements the CMP land use/ transportation analysis program, participates in monitoring programs, and assesses improvements and costs required to mitigate potential impacts to the CMP network. In the City of Yucaipa, the following roadways are identified by SANBAG as being part of the regional CMP network:
• Bryant Street and Oak Glen Road
• Bryant Street and Yucaipa Boulevard
• Bryant Street and Wildwood Canyon Road
• Bryant Street and County Line Road
• Oak Glen Road and Yucaipa Boulevard
• 14th Street and Yucaipa Boulevard
Complete Streets Act of 2008
General plans of California cities and counties are required under the Complete Streets Act to include planning for complete streets: that is, streets that meet the needs of all users of the Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 72 ends

-164-

roadway, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of public transit, motorists, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016. The RTP/SCS identifies multimodal transportation investments, include bus rapid transit, light rail transit, heavy rail transit, commuter rail, high-speed rail, active transportation strategies (e.g., bike ways and sidewalks), transportation demand management strategies, transportation systems management, highway improvements (interchange improvements, high -occupancy vehicle lanes, high -occupancy toll lanes), arterial improvements, goods movement strategies, aviation and airport ground access improvements, and operations and maintenance to the existing multimodal transportation system.

The overarching strategy in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas, provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit, abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike and pursue other forms of active transportation, and preserve more of the region's remaining natural lands (SCAG 2016). The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as forecasted development that is generally consistent with regional -level general plan data.

The Projected regional development, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network identified in the RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel -related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region. The RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS.

Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact: Wildwood Canyon Road is considered a "Controlled/Limited Access Collector" road according to the City's General Plan Transportation Element Figure T-1, Transportation Network. The proposed Project will add additional traffic along area roadways during the construction phase. However, this traffic will be minimal and temporary in nature. Wildwood Canyon Road will remain open to vehicle and mon-motorized modes of transportation during construction. The proposed Project would have no impacts to the circulation systems once completed. Thus, there would be no long-term impacts that could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 73 ends

-165-

subdivision (b)?
No Impact: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) pertains to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and whether the land use project will generate vehicle miles traveled in excess of an applicable threshold of significance. The proposed Project consists of a creek restoration project to construct a flow -through retention basin. Operation of the Project would not create any traffic. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. No impact would occur. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact: A significant impact would occur if the proposed Project substantially increased an existing hazardous design feature or introduced incompatible uses to the existing traffic pattern. The proposed Project does not include any sharp curves or traffic intersection crossings. No impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: A significant impact would occur if the design of the proposed Project would not satisfy emergency access requirements of the City of Yucaipa Fire Department and CalFIRE or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the Project Site or adjacent uses. Development of the retention basin would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way along Wildwood Canyon Road. However, during construction, contractor access to the Project Site would be provided by Wildwood Canyon Road.

According to Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes, of the City's General Plan Element Public Safety, Wildwood Canyon Road is a "Local Evacuation Route". Since contractor access would occur on Wildwood Canyon Road, emergency access could be temporarily impaired. However, the majority of construction operations will not coincide with or directly near Wildwood Canyon Road. There is a flat area off the roadway adjacent to the construction area which will provide space for equipment staging. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant by requiring a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be established by the City prior to construction activities. A less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation:

XVI I
(e)
TRANS-1 Short-term mitigation to roadway use shall be mitigated by a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be established by the City prior to construction of any improvements. This TMP shall consist of prior notices, adequate sign - posting, detours, phased construction, and temporary driveways where necessary. The TMP shall specify implementation timing of each plan element (prior notices, sign posting, detours, etc.) as determined appropriate by the City Engineer. Prior detours and warning signs shall be established to ensure public Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 74 ends

-166-

safety. The TMP shall be devised so that construction shall not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. Construction activities shall proceed in a timely manner to reduce impacts.

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources — Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
❑
❑
®
❑
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1 k , or
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code section
❑
®
❑
❑
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Snur .

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 7 — Public Safety
b. Chapter 8 — Public Services and Facilities

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.17 — Utilities and Service Systems

3. City of Yucaipa Municipal Code
a. Division 5, Chapter 3, Article 3. Cultural Resources Preservation (CP) Overlay District, Section 85.030315 Development Standards
Findings of Fact: As of July 1, 2015, Public Resources Code Sections 21080.1, 21080.3.1, and 21080.3.2 require public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes recognized by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources. This law does not preclude agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated with their jurisdictions.

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.1(d), a lead agency is required to provide formal notification of intended development Projects to Native American tribes that have requested to be on the lead agency's list for receiving such notification. The formal notification is Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 75 ends

-167-

required to include a brief description of the Project and its location, lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation for tribal cultural resources.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project Site is designated for Open Space and is undeveloped and vacant. According to the City General Plan, the Project Site is located within an Overlay District identified as "Cultural Sensitivity". No tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), have been identified or associated with the Project Site. In addition, the integrity of the creek channel and surrounding banks has been badly altered from erosion during seasonal storm events. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). The Cultural Resources Analyst representing the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) stated that the cultural landscape of Wildwood Canyon is of cultural importance to the SMBMI in an email to the City. The proposed Project would not have substantial impacts, temporary or permanent, to the quality of the cultural landscape. No mitigation measure were requested regarding the significance of historical resources from any Native American tribes. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project and no mitigation is required.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project does not contain any known resources determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. It is possible that tribal cultural resources exist at depth given the prehistoric occupation of the region, thus, mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 from Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study have been incorporated to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources that may be encountered during Project implementation to a less than significant level.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 76 ends

-168-

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems — Would theproject:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
❑
❑
®
❑
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
❑
❑
❑
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
❑
❑
❑
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
❑
❑
®
❑
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reductiongoals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
❑
❑
®
❑
regulations related to solid waste?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Cni irrac-

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 7 — Public Safety
b. Chapter 8 — Public Services and Facilities

2. Initial Study City of Yucaipa General Plan Update, PlaceWorks, October 2014 a. Section 3.17 — Utilities and Service Systems
Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project involves the construction of a Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 77 ends

-169-

water quality retention basin with approximately 25 acre-feet of capacity along Wildwood Creek. The Project will increase groundwater percolation and water quality, while mitigating flood hazard and risk. The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. A less than significant impact would occur.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? No Impact: The proposed Project involves the construction of a water quality retention basin with approximately 25 acre-feet of capacity along Wildwood Creek. The Project will increase groundwater percolation and water quality, while mitigating flood hazard and risk. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, no long-term use of water or new post -construction water demands are anticipated. Negligible amounts of water would be utilized during construction for air quality measures only. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact: The proposed Project involves the construction of a water quality retention basin with approximately 25 acre-feet of capacity along Wildwood Creek. The Project will increase groundwater percolation and water quality, while mitigating flood hazard and risk. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, no long-term generation of wastewater or new post -construction wastewater demands are anticipated. The Project would have no impact to wastewater treatment providers. No impact would occur.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact: Although vegetation clearing would be initiated during construction, the proposed Project does not involve a solid waste generating land use, and therefore would not be subject to federal, state, or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Vegetation would be removed off -site with other construction debris and sent to an approved landfill. A less than significant impact would occur. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact: Although vegetation clearing would be initiated during construction, the proposed Project does not involve a solid waste generating land use, and therefore would not be subject to federal, state, or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Vegetation would be removed off -site with other construction debris and sent to an approved landfill. A less than significant impact would occur.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 78 ends

-170-

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XX. Wildfire — If located in or near a State Responsibility Area ("SRA"), lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, or other hazardous fire areas that may be designated by the Fire Chief, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
❑
®
❑
❑
evacuation Ian?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
❑
❑
®
❑
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
❑
❑
❑
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of
❑
❑
®
❑
runoff, post -fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, adopted April 11, 2016. a. Chapter 7 — Public Safety
Findings of Fact: Wildland fire is a critical concern in the City of Yucaipa. Expansive open areas are susceptible to destructive wildland fires, which can be exacerbated by dry weather and Santa Ana winds. The National Fire Plan designates the City as a "community at risk" of high wildland fire hazard. (CAL FIRE 2014) Vegetation fuel types in the City include annual grasses and a variety of brush with low fuel moisture that are highly susceptible to and capable of carrying fire.

Responsibility for wildland fire prevention and suppression includes the city, state, and federal government. The federal government has the primary responsibility in Wildwood Canyon, Yucaipa Hills, and National Forest. These "federal responsibility areas" (FRA) total 8% of the acreage within the City and sphere of influence. Areas where the State of California has primary responsibility (called "State Responsibility Areas" or "SRA") comprise 17%, primarily in the Crafton Hills and El Dorado Ranch Park. Local responsibility areas comprise most of the developed areas in the City. According to CAL FIRE, half of the City is designated as a very Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 79 ends

-1%1-

high fire severity zone (VHFZ) based on fuels, terrain, and weather. These lands are characterized by fire -prone land cover— primarily valley grasslands, mixed chaparral, and shrub communities.

Discussion of Impacts
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Wildwood Canyon Road is designated as a "Local Evacuation Route" on Figure S-5, Evacuation Routes, of the City's General Plan Public Safety Element. Additionally, the Project Site is located in a "Very High Fire Severity Zone", identifying lands that are vulnerable to fire. A significant impact would occur if the design of the proposed Project would substantially impair emergency access requirements of the City of Yucaipa Fire Department and CalFIRE or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the Project Site or adjacent uses. Development of the retention basin would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way along Wildwood Canyon Road. However, during construction, contractor access to the Project Site would be provided by Wildwood Canyon Road. Since contractor access would occur on Wildwood Canyon Road, impacts to emergency access could be temporarily impaired. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant by requiring a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be established by the City prior to construction activities. A less than significant impact would occur. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project Site is located in a "Very High Fire Severity Zone" according to the City's General Plan. The proposed Project does not involve land uses that have occupants. A limited number of people would be on -site during construction of the Project, however, the nature of the Project would not expose them to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. A less than significant impact would occur.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impact would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project will change the nature of drainage for Wildwood Creek by slowing the velocity of flows during storm events and increasing groundwater percolation. However, the Project would not increase the risk of downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

A less than significant impact would occur.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 80 ends

-1 %2-

Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
❑
®
❑
❑
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California History or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
❑
®
❑
❑
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
❑
❑
®
❑
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Impacts
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California History or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project would not substantially impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, and would not result in excessive light or glare. The Project Site is located within an undeveloped area designated for Open Space with natural habitat. The proposed Project would not significantly impact any sensitive plants, plant communities, fish, wildlife, or habitat for any sensitive species with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 131O-1 through 131O-6. Construction phase mitigation would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls, nesting birds, special status vegetation, trees, plants, and bats to less than significant levels.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 81 ends

-173-

As described in Section IV, adverse impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. Construction -phase procedures would be implemented in the event any important cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during grading, consistent with Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3.

Furthermore, the analysis provided in Section III and VIII concludes that impacts related to emissions of criteria pollutants, climate change, and other air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are implemented to reduce fugitive dust and criteria pollutant emissions during the construction phase.

Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to Sections I through XX, no evidence is presented that the proposed Project would degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts related to degradation of the environment, biological resources, and cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed Project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public systems, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short- term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long-term, due to the permanent land use changes and operational characteristics involved with the proposed Project. The analysis in Section III related to air quality found that impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2; therefore, the Project would not contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts. Additionally, the analysis in Section IV found that no individual impacts to sensitive species or migratory birds would occur with incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through 1131O-6. The Project would have no other impacts on biological resources and would not result in localized or regional cumulative impacts.

Loss of on -site archaeological resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the County of Riverside and the City. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 are incorporated to reduce impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources, as well as buried Native American remains. Implementation of the mitigation measures would eliminate any potential loss of important local archaeological information or Native American remains that may be buried at the Project Site; therefore, the proposed Project would have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important local or regional archaeological knowledge.

The Project would have temporary impacts to traffic in the Project area during the construction phase. Traffic conditions were analyzed in Section XVII and found to be less than significant with the incorporation of a Traffic Management Plan. With incorporation of TRANS-1, the proposed Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to local and regional transportation facilities would not be considerable.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 82 ends

-174-

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact: Based on the analysis of the Project's impacts in the responses to items I through XX, there is no indication that this Project could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. While there would be a variety of temporary adverse effects during construction, these would be less than significant. There are no long-term effects related to traffic, noise, hazardous materials, emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, increased demand for water use, wastewater disposal, and electricity use, or increased demand on emergency response services.

Environmental effects would result in less than significant impacts. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant.

Upper Wildwood Basin 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 13, 2021

Page 83 ends

-175-

CI T Y OF
7 CITY OF YUCAIPA
34272 YUCAIPA BLVD.

YUCAIPA, CA 92399
(909) 797-2489 PHONE
(909) 797-9203 FAX

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

FOR PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE UPPER WILDWOOD CREEK BASIN

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT -PROJECT NO. 11021
On this 241h day of January 2022, the City of Yucaipa, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Cam, and Dudek, hereinafter referred to as Consultant, hereby mutually agree as follows:

I. Scope of Agreement
A. Engagement of Consultant
The City hereby engages the Consultant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement to perform the consultant services set forth in Section III for environmental consulting services for the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project -Project No. 11021
B. Agreement Documents
The complete Agreement includes all of the Agreement documents including, but not limited to, the Consultant's "Technical and Cost Proposal" Exhibit "A" hereto, this Agreement and all other documents, texts and other items incorporated by reference in any of the herein -above -named Agreement documents. The specific terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control and have precedence over any contradictory or inconsistent terms and conditions included in the aforementioned Agreement documents and shall be controlling in questions of interpretation.

C. Severability of Provisions
If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby if such remainder would then continue to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law.
-176-

City of Yucaipa
D. Standard of Performance
The Consultant agrees to perform professional services required by this Agreement in a professional and competent manner consistent with accepted professional standards.

All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of professional care to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant's field of expertise.

Consultant represents that it has the professional skills, experience, and knowledge necessary to perform the work agreed to be performed under this Agreement and acknowledges that City relies upon the professional skills of Consultant to do and perform Consultant's work in a skillful and professional manner, and Consultant thus agrees to so perform the work.

Acceptance by City of the work performed under this Agreement does not operate as a release of Consultant from such professional responsibility for the work performed. It is further understood and agreed that Consultant is apprised of the scope of work to be performed under this Agreement and Consultant agrees that the work can and shall be performed in a fully competent manner.

H. Commencement of Work
The Consultant shall commence work under this Agreement on the date specified in a `Notice to Proceed' issued by the City.

A. Term of Agreement
The services of Consultant are to commence upon execution of this Agreement and shall continue until all authorized work is approved by the City, or until the earlier termination of the agreement pursuant to section XIV.

B. Failure to Perform
Failure of the Consultant to commence the work within the time allowed may result in the Agreement being terminated by the City.

C. Compliance with Laws
In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States, the State of California, the Municipal Code and Ordinances of City. Consultant warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in strict compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, and practices.

III. Scope of Work
Consultant shall timely perform the services and tasks set in the "Schedule A" section of the Consultant's project proposal (Exhibit "A" attached hereto) for environmental

Page 2 of 15 ends

-177-

City of Yucaipa
consulting services for the Upper Wildwood Creek Basin Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project -Project No. 11021. No change from this scope of work shall be made unless authorized in writing by the City's designated representative.

IV. Independent Consultant
The performance of Consultant's services hereunder shall be in the capacity of an independent Consultant and not as an officer, agent, or employee of City. In consideration for the compensation paid to Consultant by City, Consultant agrees that City shall not be liable or responsible for any benefits, including, but not limited to, worker's compensation, disability, retirement, life, unemployment, health or any other benefits for Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, Consultants or subcontractors, and Consultant agrees that it shall not sue or file a claim, petition or application therefore against City or any of its officers, employees, agents, representatives or sureties, and shall defend and indemnify City from all claims, causes of action, liability and damages arising therefrom.

V. Interest of Consultant
Consultant (including principals, associates and professional employees) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant's services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.

Consultant may be a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act, and, if so, notified by the City, will comply with all reporting and requirements of the City with respect to Consultant's financial interests.

VI. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement.

For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement, without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

VII. License
Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications,

Page 3 of 15 ends

-178-

City of Yucaipa
insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature, which are legally required of Consultant and its sub -consultants to practice their profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any license, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession.

Consultant shall obtain and maintain a City Business License during the performance of this Agreement.

VIII. Failure to Perform Work
If Consultant should be adjudged bankrupt or should make a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; if a receiver should be appointed on account of insolvency of Consultant; if Consultant should refuse or should fail, except in cases for which an extension of time is provided specifically by City to supply adequate properly skilled workers or proper materials to perform its obligations under this Agreement within the time herein required, in a good work manner; or if Consultant should fail to make prompt payment to subcontractors, or for material or labor, or disregard laws, ordinances or the instructions of City or its duly authorized engineers, inspectors or representatives, or otherwise violate any provision of this Agreement; then City, upon the certification of its designated representatives that sufficient cause exists to justify such action may, without prejudice to any other right or remedy and after giving Consultant five (5) days written notice, terminate this Agreement and finish the work by whatever methods it may deem appropriate and expedient. In such case, Consultant shall not be entitled to receive any further payment except for such work as City deems had been satisfactorily completed prior to termination.

IX. Assignment and Subcontracting
The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of the City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of the City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor.

Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of the City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law.

X. Ownership of Work Product
It is understood by and agreed between the parties that all documents, records, drawings, designs, specifications, computer programs, written materials, notes, plans and other materials produced or prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall become

Page 4 of 15 ends

-179-

City of Yucaipa
and are the property of City and shall be delivered to City immediately upon completion of the services provided for herein, or upon termination of this Agreement.

Consultant shall submit all such documents and records in both hard copy and electronic data formats.

The City will not under any circumstances cause or allow the use of any electronic engineering and surveying data received from Consultant for the purpose of performing land surveying and/or civil engineering as defined in California Business and Professions Code Sections 8736 and 6731.1 respectively, whether following termination or suspension of this Agreement or otherwise, by any person or company that is not a duly licensed and qualified Civil Engineer and/or Land Surveyor in the State of California. In addition, such electronic engineering and surveying data is not being prepared by Consultant for the purpose of being used in, or in connection with, any type of GPS-guided grading equipment, and City agrees not to cause or allow such use on the project except by a duly licensed and qualified Civil Engineer and/or Land Surveyor Disputed/Unauthorized Work XI. Disputed Work
In any case where the Consultant deems extra compensation is due for work or services not clearly covered in this Agreement, or not ordered in writing by the City as extra services, the Consultant shall immediately notify the City in writing of its intention to make claim for such extra compensation before the Consultant begins the work on which the Consultant bases the claim.

If such notification is not given, and/or if the City is not afforded an opportunity to negotiate the appropriate fee for such extra services, the Consultant is deemed to have agreed to waive the claim for such extra compensation.

Such notice by the Consultant to the City shall not in any way be construed as proving the validity of the claim. The claim must be approved, in writing, by the City.

Work done in the absence of or without the knowledge of the City or any work done without written authority from the City, will be considered as unauthorized and at the expense of the Consultant, and will not be paid for by the City.

Should any dispute arise respecting the value of any work omitted or of any work which Consultant may be required to do or respecting the amount of any payment to Consultant during the performance of the Agreement, the dispute shall be decided by the City Engineer of City, subject to the final approval of the City Council.

XII. The City's Responsibilities
A. Budget Limitations
The City shall provide full information as to the requirements of the project, including budget limitations and scheduling.

B. Legal Services

Page 5 of 15 ends

City of Yucaipa
PAIOOO,*
The City shall furnish legal advice and services required for the project.

C. Administrative Procedures
The City shall notify the Consultant of administrative procedures required and shall specify, in writing, representatives, if any, authorized to act in its behalf.

The City shall review documents submitted by the Consultant and shall promptly render decisions pertaining thereto to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of the project. The Consultant shall observe the procedure of issuing any orders to Consultants only through the City. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as a delegation by the City of its powers of inspection under all applicable codes, laws and ordinances nor of its power to enforce compliance with the same.

D. Representative
The City shall designate a representative authorized to act on the City's behalf with respect to the Project.

The designated representative shall render decisions in a timely manner pertaining to documents submitted by the Consultant in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Consultant's services.

XIII. Consultant's Compensation
A. Basic Service
The Consultant will perform these services for a not to exceed amount of $30,740.00. Compensation for services performed and shall be in accordance with Consultant's "Cost Proposal" included in Exhibit `A' and as specified in Section III of this agreement. Any work considered to be outside of the scope contained herein will be accomplished as "Extra Work" on a Time and Materials basis in accordance with the "Cost Proposal." If the scope of services is adjusted, additional fees may be negotiated, in writing, and in accordance with this Agreement.

B. Method of Payment
Consultant will complete the work outlined herein and invoice City monthly on a percentage of completion basis in accordance with the Schedule of Fees.

Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, and a description of any reimbursable expenditure.

City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City Staff. When payments made by the City equal ninety percent (90%) of the maximum fee provided for in this Agreement, no further

Page 6 of 15 ends

-181-

City of Yucaipa
payments shall be made until the final work under this Agreement has been accepted by City.

C. Limitation
No payment for any work performed by the Consultant shall exceed the limits established in foregoing provisions of this Agreement.

D. Extra Work
At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work, which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from City.

XIV. Termination of Agreement
A. Termination
This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon written notice to the other party, in the event of a substantial failure of performance by such other party, or if the City should decide to abandon or indefinitely postpone the proj ect.

Upon termination, all materials, documents and work product produced pursuant to this Agreement by or for Consultant and/or in Consultant's possession, including, but not limited to, the drawings, calculations, and specifications which include hard copies, tapes, drawings, diskettes, and electronic medium (the "Plans") shall immediately become the property of the City.

B. Payment Upon Termination
XV. Insurance
In the event of such termination the City shall pay to the Consultant as full payment for all services performed that amount which has been previously approved and actually incurred by Consultant at the time of termination, which amount shall not exceed the reasonable value of the work completed according to the schedule established pursuant herein.

The Consultant shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.

Minimum Scope of Insurance
Consultant shall provide insurance in scope, amounts and coverages as required

Page 7 of 15 ends

-182-

City of Yucaipa
by City, including, but not limited to, the following:

A. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 0001)
B. Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto)
C. Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employers' Liability Insurance
D. Errors and Omissions liability insurance appropriate to the consultant's profession. Architects' and engineers' coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability.

Minimum Limits of Insurance
Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:

A. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an "occurrence" basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

B. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non -owned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

C. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

D. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriates to the Consultant's profession, with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. If coverage is canceled or non -renewed, and not replaced with another claims -made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase "extended reporting" coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the Entity for review.

If the Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Entity requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Entity.

Page 8 of 15 ends

-183-

City of Yucaipa
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

The Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant's insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 0104 13 as respects the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Consultant shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self -insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, Consultant shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to Entity a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the Entity by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the Entity has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. However, the Workers' Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Entity for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

Self -Insured Retentions
Self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Entity. The Entity may require the Consultant to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self -insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or Entity.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a

Page 9 of 15 ends

City of Yucaipa
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the Entity.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the Entity with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to Entity before work begins. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant's obligation to provide them. The Entity reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that Entity is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.

Special Risks or Circumstances
Entity reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

XIX. Indemnification Consultant's Responsibility
A. Indemnity for Design Professional Services.

Where the services to be provided by Consultant under this Agreement are design professional services, as that term is defined under Civil Code Section 2782.8, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that actually or allegedly arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant and its agents in the performance of services under this contract, but this indemnity does not apply to liability for damages for bodily injury, property damage or other loss, arising from the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct by the City, its officers, official employees, and volunteers. If it is finally adjudicated that liability is caused by the comparative active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, then Consultant's indemnification and defense obligations shall be reduced in proportion to the established comparative liability of the City and shall not exceed the Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault.

As respects all acts or omissions which do not arise directly out of the performance of design professional services, including but not limited to those acts or omissions normally covered by general and automobile liability insurance, Consultant agrees to indemnity, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers officials, employees and volunteers for an against any claim, demands, losses, liability of any kind or nature arising out of or in connection with the Consultant's performance or failure to perform under the terms of this contract, excepting those which arise out of the active negligence, sole negligence or willful

Page 10 of 15 ends

-185-

City of Yucaipa
Pool***
misconduct of the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers.

B. Other Indemnities
In connection with any and all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, costs or expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs of defense (collectively, "Damages" hereinafter) not covered by Section XIX.A, Consultant shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the Indemnitees with respect to any and all Damages, including but not limited to, Damages relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement, except for such loss or damage arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the parties. Consultant shall defend Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any such Damages with counsel of City's choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys' fees and experts' costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant's duty to defend pursuant to this Section XIX.B shall apply independent of any prior, concurrent or subsequent misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions of Indemnitees."
XX. Work Performance
All work shall be conducted and completed in accordance with all current, applicable state and federal laws, including, but not limited to Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. where applicable; local laws, ordinances and regulations; and all maps, plans and specifications on file with city. Where any such construction/design has been partially completed prior to this Agreement, consultant agrees to complete them in accordance with this paragraph.

XXI. Worker's Compensation
By executing this Agreement, the Consultant hereby certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code and will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement.

XXII. Audit
Consultant shall allow City to inspect its records with respect to services performed pursuant to this Agreement, upon giving reasonable notice. Consultant shall maintain any books, records, or other documents relating to the work performed for period of at least (3) years from the completion of the services performed pursuant to this Agreement.

XXHL Default
In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are violated by Consultant or by any approved subcontractor under any subcontract on the Project, City may terminate this

Page 11 of 15 ends

:•

City of Yucaipa
Agreement by serving written notice on Consultant of its intention to terminate and, unless within five (5) days after the serving of such notice such violation shall cease, this Agreement shall terminate. As to violations of the provisions of this Agreement, which cannot be remedied or corrected within five (5) days, this Agreement shall, at the option of City, cease and terminate upon the giving of such notice.

In the event of any such termination for any of the reasons above -mentioned, City may take over the work in progress and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise on the account and at the expense of Consultant; Consultant shall be liable to City for any excess cost incurred in the event of any such termination; and City may take possession of and utilize such materials and appliances as may be on the site of work and necessary in completing the work.

This clause shall not be construed to prevent the termination of this Agreement by City pursuant to other provisions of this Agreement.

XXIV. Non -Discrimination
Consultant shall declare that he/she does not discriminate in his/her employment with regard to age, handicap, race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

XXV. Drug Free Workplace
Consultant agrees to comply with the City's Drug Free Workplace Policy.

XXVI. Attorney Fees
In the event of any action between City and Consultant seeking enforcement of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be awarded, in addition to damages, injunctive or other relief, reasonable costs and expenses and reasonable attorney's fees.

XXVII. Waiver
No waiver or failure to exercise any right, option or privilege under the terms of this Agreement on any occasion shall be construed to be a waiver of any other right, option or privilege or any other occasion.

XXVIII. Assignments
Neither this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due or to become due thereunder may be assigned by the Consultant without the prior written consent and approval of the City.

The City and Consultant hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants and conditions contained herein.

XXIX. Successors and Assigns
It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement shall be binding upon the City

Page 12 of 15 ends

-187-

City of Yucaipa
and its successors and upon the Consultant, its partners, successors, executors and administrators.

XXX. Notices
All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed to the below listed addresses, or to such other addresses as may be designated by written notice.

These addresses shall be used for delivery of service or process.

A. Address of Consultant is as follows:

Dudek
605 Third Street
Encinitas, Ca. 92404
Attn: Megan Enright
(760)479-4281
B. Address of City is as follows:

City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399
(909) 797-2489 Fax (909) 790-9203
Attn: Fermin Preciado, P.E., Director of Development Services/City Engineer
(909) 797-2489, ext. 254
XXXI. Controlling LawNenue
California law shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement; any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be brought in San Bernardino County.

XXXII. Authority to Enter Agreement
Consultant warrants that it has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver and perform the Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal right, power, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

XXXIII. Professional Services for other Projects
The City reserves the right to expand or add to the scope of work for the consultant to include professional services for other city projects and/or request proposals for future similar services.

Page 13 of 15 ends

City of Yucaipa

SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

David Avila, Mayor
Jennifer Crawford,
Assistant City Manager/
Clerk
City of Yucaipa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Date Joseph Monaco
President/Chief Executive Officer
Date
City Fermin Preciado, Director of
Development Services/ City
Engineer
City of Yucaipa,
David M. Snow, City Attorney
City of Yucaipa

FUNDS AVAILABLE/
INSURANCE APPROVED:

Andrew Hamilton
Finance Manager
City of Yucaipa
Date
ilaLe

Page 14 of 15 ends

City of Yucaipa
Attachment(s):Exhibit "A"

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

TECHNICAL AND COST PROPOSAL

Page 15 of 15 ends

M!1

DUDEK

MAIN OFFICE
605 THIRD STREET
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
T 800.450.1818 F 760.632.0164
November 10, 2021
Michael R. Seal
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, California 92399-9950
Subject: Proposal to Provide Environmental Consulting Services for the Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project, City of Yucaipa, California Dear Mr. Seal:
12918
Dudek is pleased to provide the City of Yucaipa this proposal for environmental consulting services for the Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project (Project) located in the City of Yucaipa, California. Work proposed includes permitting coordination and development of a conceptual mitigation plan for submittal with the regulatory agency permit pre -application packages.

Scope of Work
Task 1: Conceptual Mitigation Plan for On -Site Restoration Dudek will develop a Mitigation Concept Plan for on -site restoration in support of the regulatory permitting pre - application process. The Mitigation Concept Plan will serve as a preliminary step in development of the formal Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and assist in permitting approvals. The Mitigation Concept Plan will describe the mitigation approach through on -site habitat restoration; outline mitigation requirements; identify appropriate vegetation communities (with acreages) to restore, enhance, or establish (as appropriate); and describe a brief implementation plan, which will include plant palettes for revegetation, and maintenance and monitoring requirements to promote successful restoration. A conceptual site plan delineating proposed mitigation areas by mitigated vegetation communities and site photos will also be included with the Mitigation Concept Plan.

Assumptions
■ The Mitigation Concept Plan will be used as a preliminary step in the permitting process and development of an agency -approved HMMP. This task does not include the development of a formal HMMP, which may be required if the Mitigation Concept Plan is approved. A formal HMMP, which can be provided as a separate task, will provide necessary detail regarding all off -site and on -site permittee-responsible mitigation for the proposed Project.

Costfor Task 1.................................................................................................................................................. $6,600.00

TO: MICHAEL R. SEAL
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE WILDWOOD CREEK BASIN 4

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT, CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA Task 2: Prepare Permit Applications
Dudek is requesting funds to prepare the permit applications. The primary reason additional funds are necessary is because the site plan changed and the impact calculations had to be re -analyzed and figures had to be revised.

Costfor Task 2................................................................................................................................................... $ 7,500.00 Task 3: Additional Permitting Coordination
To process the permit applications, it is assumed that 20 hours of Megan Enright's time will be needed.

Costfor Task 3.................................................................................................................................. ..... $4,900.00 TOTALCOST......................................................................................................................................................$19,000.00 Cost Proposal
Dudek will complete the scope outlined above, including direct costs, on a time -and -materials basis in an amount not to exceed $19,000.

We thank you very much for considering Dudek for this work. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 760.479.4281 if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
z M&- -, 1� S -, & �, /,
Megan E ight
Contract Manager
DUDEK
12918
NOVEMBER 2021
-192-

Attachment A
2021 Dudek Schedule of Charges
-193-

DUDEK
2021 STANDARD SCHEDULE OF CHARGES

ENGINEERING SERVICES
Project Director........................................................................... $295.00/hr
Principal Engineer III................................................................... $275.00/hr
Principal Engineer II.................................................................... $265.00/hr
Principal Engineer I..................................................................... $255.00/hr
Program Manager....................................................................... $240.00/hr
Senior Project Manager.............................................................. $240.00/hr
Project Manager......................................................................... $235.00/hr
Senior Engineer III...................................................................... $230.00/hr
Senior Engineer II...................................................................... $220.00/hr
Senior Engineer I....................................................................... $210.00/hr
Project Engineer IV/Technician IV ............................................... $200.00/hr
Project Engineer III/Technician III ................................................ $190.00/hr
Project Engineer II/Technician II .................................................. $175.00/hr
Project Engineer I/Technician I .................................................... $160.00/hr
Senior Designer.......................................................................... $180.00/hr
Designer..................................................................................... $170.00/hr
Assistant Designer...................................................................... $165.00/hr
CADD Operator III...................................................................... $160.00/hr
CADD Operator II....................................................................... $150.00/hr
CADD Operator I........................................................................ $135.00/hr
CADDDrafter............................................................................. $125.00/hr
CADD Technician....................................................................... $115.00/hr
Project Coordinator..................................................................... $140.00/hr
Engineering Assistant................................................................. $120.00/hr

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Project Director........................................................................... $245.00/hr
Senior Specialist IV..................................................................... $230.00/hr
Senior Specialist III..................................................................... $220.00/hr
Senior Specialist II...................................................................... $200.00/hr
Senior Specialist I....................................................................... $190.00/hr
Specialist V................................................................................. $180.00/hr
Specialist IV................................................................................ $170.00/hr
Specialist III................................................................................ $160.00/hr
SpecialistII................................................................................. $145.00/hr
Specialist I.................................................................................. $130.00/hr
AnalystV.................................................................................... $120.00/hr
AnalystIV................................................................................... $110.00/hr
AnalystIII.................................................................................... $100.00/hr
AnalystII....................................................................................... $90.00/hr
AnalystI........................................................................................ $80.00/hr
Technician V............................................................................... $100.00/hr
TechnicianIV................................................................................ $90.00/hr
Technician III................................................................................ $80.00/hr
Technician II................................................................................. $70.00/hr
Technician I.................................................................................. $60.00/hr
Compliance Monitor...................................................................... $95.00/hr

DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES
GISProgrammer I....................................................................... $185.00/hr
GIS Specialist IV......................................................................... $160.00/hr
GIS Specialist III......................................................................... $150.00/hr
GIS Specialist II.......................................................................... $140.00/hr
GIS Specialist I........................................................................... $130.00/hr
Data Analyst III........................................................................... $100.00/hr
Data Analyst II.............................................................................. $90.00/hr
Data Analyst I............................................................................... $80.00/hr
UAS Pilot.................................................................................... $100.00/hr

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Principal/Manager....................................................................... $195.00/hr
Senior Construction Manager ..................................................... $180.00/hr
Senior Project Manager.. ............................................................ $165.00/hr
Construction Manager................................................................. $155.00/hr
Project Manager......................................................................... $145.00/hr
Resident Engineer ................... ....................................... ........... $145.00/hr
Construction Engineer..................... ............................. ............... $140.00/hr
On -site Owner's Representative.................................................. $140.00/hr
Construction Inspector III............................................................ $130.00/hr
Construction Inspector II............................................................. $120.00/hr
Construction Inspector I.............................................................. $110.00/hr
Prevailing Wage Inspector.......................................................... $135.00/hr

HYDROGEOLOGY/HAZWASTE SERVICES
Project Director............................................................................$285.00/hr Principal Hydrogeologist/Engineer II............................................$265.00/hr Principal Hydrogeologist/Engineer I.............................................$250.00/hr Sr. Hydrogeologist IV/Engineer IV ............................................... $235.00/hr
Sr. Hydrogeologist III/Engineer III................................................$220.00/hr Sr. Hydrogeologist II/Engineer II..................................................$205.00/hr Sr. Hydrogeologist I/Engineer I....................................................$190.00/hr Hydrogeologist VI/Engineer VI .................................................... $180.00/hr
Hydrogeologist V/Engineer V.......................................................$170.00/hr Hydrogeologist IV/Engineer IV.....................................................$160.00/hr Hydrogeologist III/Engineer III ...................................................... $150.00/hr
Hydrogeologist II/Engineer II .......... ...................... ........................ $140.00/hr
Hydrogeologist I/Engineer I..........................................................$130.00/hr Technician...................................................................................$100.00/hr

DISTRICT MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS
District General Manager.............................................................$195.00/hr District Engineer..........................................................................$185.00/hr Operations Manager...................................................................$160.00/hr District Secretary/Accountant....................... ............................... $120.00/hr
Collections System Manager.......................................................$135.00/hr Grade V Operator....................................................... ................. $125.00/hr
Grade IV Operator ................................. ...................................... $110.00/hr
Grade III Operator.......................................................................$100.00/hr Grade II Operator......................................................................... $75.00/hr
Grade I Operator.......................................................................... $70.00/hr
Operator in Training...................................................................... $65.00/hr
Collection Maintenance Worker ................................................... $75.00/hr

CREATIVE SERVICES
3D Graphic Artist ................... ...................................................... $180.00/hr
Graphic Designer IV....................................................................$160.00/hr Graphic Designer III ......................... ............................................ $145.00/hr
Graphic Designer II .............. ........................................................ $130.00/hr
Graphic Designer I.......................................................................$115.00/hr

PUBLICATIONS SERVICES
Technical Editor III.......................................................................$145.00/hr Technical Editor II........................................................................$130.00/hr Technical Editor I.........................................................................$115.00/hr Publications Specialist III .................................... ................. ......... $105.00/hr Publications Specialist II................................................................ $95.00/hr Publications Specialist I................................................................ $85.00/hr Clerical Administration.................................................................. $90.00/hr Forensic Engineering - Court appearances, depositions, and interrogatories as expert witness will be billed at 2.00 times normal rates.

Emergency and Holidays - Minimum charge of two hours will be billed at 1.75 times the normal rate.

Material and Outside Services - Subcontractors, rental of special equipment, special reproductions and blueprinting, outside data processing and computer services, etc., are charged at 1.15 times the direct cost.

Travel Expenses - Mileage at current IRS allowable rates. Per diem where overnight stay is involved is charged at cost
Invoices, Late Charges - All fees will be billed to Client monthly and shall be due and payable upon receipt. Invoices are delinquent if not paid within 30 days from the date of the invoice. Client agrees to pay a monthly late charge equal to 1 % per month of the outstanding balance until paid in full.

Annual Increases - Unless identified otherwise, these standard rates will increase 3 % annually.

The rates listed above assume prevailing wage rates does not apply. If this assumption is incorrect Dudek reserves the right to adjust its rates accordingly.

D U Q E K -194- Effective January 1, 2021

July 22, 2021
Michael R. Seal
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, California 92699
Subject: Proposal for the Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Mr. Seal:

The following scope of work includes preparation of a cultural resources survey to be completed with the intent of satisfying CEQA (City) requirements and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). For the purposes of this scope, we assume that the project area of potential effects (APE) consists of less than 5 acres of undeveloped land. The scope of work also includes a tree inventory with the limits of impact.

Scope of Work
Task 1 Cultural Resources Technical Study
Dudek's cultural resources investigation will include an inventory of all cultural resources within the APE. Dudek will request a records search for a 1-mile radius around the proposed project area at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) to obtain information on previously recorded cultural resources and investigations. We anticipate direct costs for the records search to be no more than $700.00. The exact turnaround and capacity of this information center to run records searches varies based on institutional COVID-19 restrictions, with searches commonly taking up to 8-10 weeks to return results.

Upon written notice to proceed, we will also initiate correspondence with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a search of the Sacred Lands File for any known Native American resources identified within the APE. As part of the results of this search, the NAHC will provide a contact list of tribal individuals and organizations that may have additional information concerning resources in the vicinity. As assembly bill (AB) 52 appears to have been completed, it is not anticipated the City will require additional support for CEQA compliant tribal outreach.

However, USACE Guidelines do require contacting all NAHC contacts (by letter and phone). If, having reviewed the record of AB 52 outreach, additional tribal engagement is required to meet USACE Guidelines, Dudek will conduct this outreach.

Following archival research, Dudek will complete an intensive pedestrian survey of the APE. This is anticipated to require one archaeologist no more than 1 day of survey. We assume no Native American monitor will be necessary during the survey. Dudek assumes that no archaeological or built environment resources (buildings over 45 years D U D E K 1 July 2021
-195-

Mr. Michael R. Seal
Subject: Proposal for the Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project, San Bernardino County, California
in age) resources will be identified within the APE. Should such resources be encountered, additional documentation sufficient to prepare and Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Site Record Forms will be required. This is considered the minimum standard of recordation recommended by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Dudek will work with you to prepare an additional cost and scope to support these or additional needed efforts.

Dudek will document the results of the cultural resources investigation in a USACE compliant report. This report will include a project location and description, regulatory context, review of geomorphic information for suitability to support unanticipated cultural resources, a summary of records search results and NAHC search, a discussion of impacts to cultural resources, and recommended mitigation. Attachments will include an APE map and other figures, confidential records search information, record of tribal engagement, and resumes of key staff.

The following cost estimate includes all direct and indirect costs including all labor, equipment, materials, and reproduction costs.

Costof Task 1.................................................................................................................................................... $5,190.00 Task 2 Tree Inventory
Individual tree location mapping will be conducted using a Trimble Pathfinder Pro XH Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with H-Star Technology. The Pro XH receiver provides resource grade accuracy that will be suitable for impact analysis. Digital tree location information will be stored and managed in the field using a Trimble ProXH datalogger directly connected to the Pro XH receiver. Tree attribute data (species, trunk diameter, height, canopy spread, health and structural condition), collected simultaneously with feature positions, will also be linked to tree location information and stored in the datalogger.

Following field data collection, raw tree location and attribute information will be uploaded and managed utilizing Trimble GPS Pathfinder Office (v. 3.10) software. Raw data files will then be differentially corrected, managed, and exported in appropriate Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) formats, suitable for further spatial analysis and/or exhibit preparation.

Dudek estimates that there may be as many as 100 trees on the property that will require inventory and assumes that one field day will be required to complete this task. Should the effort require more field days, Dudek will notify you of the situation and request authorization for a budget amendment.

We will measure size (height, canopy spread to drip line and trunk diameter), determine tree health/structural condition, and evaluate preservation, removal, replacement, or relocation potential for all oak trees measuring 2- inches in trunk diameter or greater measured at four and a half feet above grade. All other tree species measuring 8 inches in trunk diameter or greater will be included in the inventory as well. Each mapped and assessed tree will be tagged with an aluminum tree tag identifying it with a unique tree number corresponding to GPS mapping data.

Representative site photographs will be collected for inclusion into the Report. We will reduce all tree attribute information to useable summaries and provide an electronic Excel table of this information to be used in preparation of the Arborist Report.

D U D E K 2 July 2021
ME

Mr. Michael R. Seal
Subject: Proposal for the Wildwood Creek Basin 4 Groundwater Recharge and Water Management Project, San Bernardino County, California
Dudek will prepare an Oak Tree Report and an associated Tree Location Exhibit of individual tree locations using collected tree information. The report will include the tree inventory and evaluation information required by the City and will summarize our methods and observations, provide a discussion of the site and its trees, discuss expected tree impacts from the proposed grading or road improvements, and identify necessary mitigation for tree impacts.

Mitigation for tree impacts in the Project Site will adhere to City of Yucaipa standards. The Oak Tree Report will also address tree preservation and maintenance guidelines for trees that are to be protected on or adjacent to the disturbance areas. The report will include a tree information matrix including each tree on site as well as a GIS based tree location map that indicates which trees will be impacted (removed or encroached upon) by the Project.

One review/revision cycle with the team is included in this task. We will provide an electronic PDF and Word copy of the first draft report for review. The final Oak Tree Report will be provided in PDF and hard copy format. Up to three (3) hard copy reports are included in this scope of work.

Costof Task 2..................................................................................................................................................... $6,550.00 TOTALCOST......................................................................................................................................................$11,740.00 We greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a proposal for this work. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions regarding the above scope of work and cost estimate.

Sincerely,
egg Enright
Principal/Biologist
DUDEIK
-197-
July 2021

Yucaipa City CouncilJanuary 24, 2022

Yucaipa City Council
January 24, 2022