Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Contracts & Agreements_255-2016
MODEL HOME AGREEMENT Tentative Tract No 18979 This Agreement is made and entered into this 7th day of December, 2016 by Redlands Pioneer, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose business address is 10621 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, ("Builder") and the City of Redlands, a municipal corporation ("City") RECITALS WHEREAS, Builder is the developer of certain real property for which Tentative Tract No 18979 has been approved and which is more particularly shown in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Property"), and WHEREAS, Builder desires to construct four (4) model homes on the Property prior to the recordation of a final map for Tentative Tract No 18979, and WHEREAS, Builder agrees to provide security to assure Builder's performance under this Agreement, in the form of cash, NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged the City of Redlands and Redlands Pioneer, LLC hereby agree as follows AGREEMENT Section 1 Model Homes Builder may construct four (4) model homes on the Property which shall be used solely for the purpose of display and sale of similar dwelling units to be constructed within Tentative Tract No 18979 Such model homes shall not be sold or occupied for residential purposes until a final map is recorded creating a separate legal lot for each model home Section 2 Builder's Obligations In the event a final map creating a separate lot for each model home is not recorded by December 31, 2017, Builder shall immediately demolish and remove such model homes including any access paving and parking lots, unless a written extension is granted in writing by City Section 3. Security The amount of security for the performance of this Agreement is Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000) in the form of cash (the "Security") The making of an application for an extension of time by Builder shall, upon granting of the application by City, constitute a waiver by Builder of all defenses of laches, estoppel, statutes of limitation, and other limitations of action in any action or proceeding filed by City within the period of four years immediately following the date to which the time of performance was extended 1 Section 4 City Remedies A If Builder fails to demolish and remove the model homes as required by this Agreement, or fails to comply with any other obligation contained herein, Builder shall be liable to City for any administrative expenses, costs and attorney's fees incurred in obtaining compliance with this Agreement and such expenses, costs and fees incurred in processing any action for damages or for any other remedies permitted by law B Upon default of any obligation hereunder, and at any time after any such default, City may make written demand upon Builder, to immediately remedy the default or complete the demolition of the model homes and removal work If the remedial activities or completion of work are not commenced within thirty days after such demand is made and are not thereafter diligently prosecuted to completion and fully completed within sixty days after the making of such demand (or such other time as may be contained in the demand), City may then complete or arrange for completion of all remaining work or conduct such remedial activity as in the sole judgment of City may be required, all at the full expense and obligation of Builder and all without the necessity of giving any further notice to Builder before City performs or arranges for the performance of any remaining work and whether or not Builder has begun any of the required work at the time In the event City elects to complete or arrange for completion of the remaining demolition and removal work, the Community Development Director, upon such election, may require all work by Builder to cease in order to permit adequate coordination by City for completing the remaining work C For the purpose of City or its contractor demolishing and removing the model homes and other improvements, Builder hereby grants an irrevocable right of entry to City, its officers, employees, agents and contractors to enter upon the Property and to demolish and remove the model homes and access paving in the event of a Builder Default Section 5 Release of Security Upon recordation of Final Tract Map 18979, Builder shall be deemed to have satisfied Builder's obligations under this Model Home Agreement ("Agreement") Within ten (10) days of recordation of Final Tract Map 18979, the City shall return the Security to Builder Upon such release, this Agreement shall become null and void and Builder and City shall have no further obligation to each other regarding this Agreement Section 6 Comphance with law It is agreed that all work done pursuant to this Agreement shall conform to the rules and regulations of City at the time work is actually done Demolition permits shall be obtained prior to the demolition of any model home Section 7: Attorney's Fees. In the event any action is commenced to enforce or interpret the terms or conditions of this Agreement the prevailing party shall, in addition to any costs and other relief, be entitled to the recovery of its reasonable attorney's fees Section 8 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and constructed in accordance with the laws of the State of California 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF Builder has caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first written above City of Redlands B Name Paul W. Foster Title Mayor ATTEST• eanne Donaldson,City Clerk Redlands Pioneer, LLC a Delaware limited liability company By Diversified Pacific Communities, LLC a Delaware limited liability company Its Manager By Matthe A ]or• . n, Managing Member 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 Project Title. Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 2 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Redlands Development Services Department 35 Cajon Street, Suite 20 Redlands, CA 92373 3 Contact Person and Phone Number Robert D Dalquest, AICP Assistant Director 909 798 7555 4 Project Location The 32 28 acre project site, APN's 0168-071-04, 05, 07, and 11, is located on the north side of San Bernardino Avenue, approximately 600 feet east of Judson Street 5 Project Sponsor's Name and Address. Diversified Pacific 10621 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 6 General Plan Designation The General Plan Designation of the project site is Very Low Density Residential 7 Zoning The project site is zoned A-1 (Agricultural) District The proposal includes a request to change the zoning district from A-1 to R -E (Residential Estate) District 8 Description of Project The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the 32 28 acre project site into fifty-five (55) lots for single family residential use and one (1) lettered lot for open space purposes As part of the entitlements to subdivide the property, the applicant is seeking approval of an Agricultural Preserve Removal to remove approximately 22 68 acres of the 32 28 acre project site from an agricultural preserve, the remaining 9 6 acres is not within an agricultural preserve The applicant has also submitted an application to rezone the subject property from A-1 (Agricultural) District to R -E (Residential Estate) District The residential lots within the proposed development will range from 14,030 to 17,126 square feet The project will require the subsequent approval and issuance of a demolition permit for two structures located on the site that are over fifty years of age The project will require approval of a Minor Exception Permit for a proposed block wall located along San Bernardino Avenue, as well as approval of a Residential Development Allocation pursuant to Title 19 of the Redlands Municipal Code (RMC) Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 1 of 55 This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is being recirculated pursuant to Section 15073 5 of the CEQA Guidelines The MND was processed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines but was not certified A Notice to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOA) was published on June 12, 2015 During the public hearings held by the City Council on July 7, 2015 and July 21, 2015, there were a number of issues raised by the public relative to safety and noise impacts due to the project site being within the Redlands Airport Influence Area, as well as, issues concerning the City's airport land use compatibility documents needing to be updated The City Council tabled consideration of the project and MND at the July 21, 2015 meeting and directed staff to engage the services of an airport consultant to study the land use compatibility issues within the airport influence area Subsequently, the City engaged the services of Coffman Associates who completed a comprehensive analysis (the "Coffman Study") of the airport land use compatibility issues within the airport influence area According to the Coffman Study, the helicopter activity at the Airport has consistently deviated from the City's required helicopter traffic pattern that is located 1,000 feet north of San Bernardino Avenue Instead, helicopters using the traffic pattern are often incorrectly operating south of, or along, San Bernardino Avenue, many of which would overfly the southern portion of the proposed project site Accordingly, the Coffman Study analyzed the "existing conditions" to examine whether a hazard is present as a result of the helicopter activity Continued improper helicopter traffic pattern activity would be in conflict with the proposed project and has the potential to exacerbate the existing environmental hazard by placing future users of the project under the existing helicopter flight pattern Thus, given the new information that was garnered from the Coffman Study, this revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration contains supplemental analysis that evaluates the existing conditions and whether the project would worsen those conditions and pose a potential significant impact affecting the project's future users 9 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The parcels to the north are located within Specific Plan 32 "Redland Aviation Park" Specific Plan and the 0 (Open Space) District These properties are currently vacant The parcels to the east are located within the A-1 (Agricultural) District and are comprised of a mix of single family residential development and vacant land The parcels to the south are located within the A-1 (Agricultural) District and the R -E (Residential Estate) District and are comprised of a mix of single family residential development to the south east, groves, and vacant land There is a 5 6 acre parcel, APN 0168-071-06, developed with a single family home that is surrounded by the proposed development on three side and fronts on San Bernardino Avenue The parcels to the west are located within the A-1 (Agricultural) District and the R -E (Residential Estate) District and are comprised of a mix of single family residential development and vacant land The subject property and contiguous properties are relatively flat with sheet flows generally traveling in a northwest direction towards the Santa Ana River 10 Other public agencies whose approval is required (e g, permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 2 of 55 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, Involving at least one Impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ® Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources Geology and Sods DETERMINATION. ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Matenals ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise On the basis of this initial evaluation ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation IZ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance find that the Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the 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 will be prepared I find that the Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the 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 1 find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately 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 Project, nothing further is required Robert D Dalquest, AICP Assistant Director City of Redlands May 4, 2015 (Revised May 10, 2016) Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 3 of 55 El LJ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e g the project falls outside a fault rupture zone) A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e g the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, 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 is 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 Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," 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 Analyses 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 Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 4 of 55 information sources for potential impacts (e g general plans, zoning ordinances) Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated 7) Supporting Information Sources A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats, however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected 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 Tess than significance Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 5 of 55 Issues I AESTHETICS Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and histone buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AESTHETICS Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I a) Caltrans identifies two eligible scenic highways within five miles of the proposed project site — the segment of State Route 210, between Interstate 10 Freeway and State Route 330, and State Route 330 through the San Bernardino Mountains These highways are identified as "eligible, not officially designated " The segment of State Route 210 is located approximately two and one half miles (2 5) from the proposed project site Furthermore, the proposed project abuts residential developments to the east and west and will not significantly stand out from surrounding development Because the site is located several miles to the east of State Route 210, and there is existing residential development between the project site and the State Route, the development will not have an impact on a scenic vista because it will not obstruct the view of the mountains from adjacent view sheds Therefore, no mitigation is required I b) The proposed project is located within an area of the City of Redlands that is directly adjacent to residential development The project site does not currently contain any scenic resources that could be impacted by the proposed project The site is generally flat and appears to have been regularly disked, and contains two structures that are remnants of a time when the property was utilized for agricultural purposes The project is not proposed to be located along a State scenic highway and will not substantially damage scenic resources The location of the proposed project is not in a historic district nor have the existing structures been designated as a historic The site and its environs do not contain any significant rock outcroppings Therefore, no mitigation is required 1 c) The proposed project would change the existing visual character of the property from containing two remnant structures that were utilized for agricultural purposes, to a Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 6 of 55 single family residential development with an orange grove planted along the northern side of the development, adjacent to Pioneer Avenue Although the change from vacant agriculturally zoned land to single-family residential would constitute a permanent change to the visual character of the site However, the project will dedicate open space areas and landscaping along Pioneer Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue, which will represent a visual improvement to these roadways Therefore, visual impacts from the proposed development would be less than significant, and is consistent with the general plan designation of the site Additionally, this project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or affect the quality of the site and Its surrounding area As part of the project, the applicant will need to obtain Residential Development Allocation (RDA) approval from the City Council, who will review the architecture and landscaping to ensure that there are no negative impacts from the project Therefore, no mitigation measures are required d) New sources of light associated with the project include security and street lighting similar to the existing residential developments to the west and southeast of the project site These new lights will have a less than significant impact on day or nighttime views, as they will be of a similar residential intensity as existing lights in the area and will be required to comply with the standards of the Redlands Municipal Code Therefore, no mitigation measures are required Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 7 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact II AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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 Dept of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board Would the project a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? ✓ Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 8 of 55 ✓ Issues 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? AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact incorporated Impact No Impact ✓ 11 a) According to the State Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, the project site contains mostly areas designated as "Grazing Land" and "Farmland of Local Potential" with a small area at the eastern edge that is designated "Farmland of Statewide Importance Approximately 22 68 acres of the project site is within an Agricultural Preserve for which the applicant is seeking removal The property today is a remnant Infill parcel within an area that is developed with non- agricultural uses The site contains two structures that are remnants of a time when the property, as well as the surrounding area, was at one time utilized for agricultural purposes The project site has not been farmed or irrigated in the last two biennial growing seasons (i e the last four years) Based on reviewing past aerial imagery on Google Earth, it was identified that the project area has not been farmed since prior to 2009 and that more than fifty percent (50%) of the property has not been farmed since prior to 1995 The primary farming that occurred on the property historically was citrus which has since been removed and the property has been fully disked Additionally, the proposal is consistent with the criteria found in Council Resolution No 3649 to remove property from the City s agricultural preserve The subject 32 28 acres is located in an area that has experienced substantial residential development The project site abuts residential developments to the east and west The Aviation Park Specific Plan (SP 32) is located to the north of the project site, however this property is currently undeveloped The properties to the south of the site are vacant or have existing orange groves and are zoned R -E (Residential Estate) District and A-1 (Agriculture) District This parcel should be considered a small island of agricultural land that does not have long-term viability regardless of the current development proposal As the project site has not contained citrus groves for many years, it will not be removing active citrus groves from production The project will develop approximately 8 89 acres for a detention basin for water quality management purposes and the planting of a new citrus grove as a landscaping buffer along Pioneer Street Therefore, no mitigation measures are required II b) A less than significant impact on agricultural uses would occur due to the proposed Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 9 of 55 single family residential subdivision According to Figure 5 1 "Agricultural Preserves" contained in the Master Environmental Assessment, Final Environmental Impact Report (MEA/EIR) for the City of Redlands General Plan, the project site is within an area designated in the City's General Plan as agricultural preserve and the current zoning for the property is A-1 (Agricultural) District The applicant has filed an Agricultural Preserve Removal application to remove the preserve designation from the property and a rezoning to change the zoning distract to R -E (Residential Estate) District for consistency with the general plan Adjacent properties have had the agricultural preserve designation removed, and this project site is a continuation of that trend and located at the edge of this agricultural preserve The subject properties will not conflict with the Williamson Act, as the properties are not involved in an active contract The property has not been utilized for agricultural purposes since prior to 2009 with the majority of the property not being utilized since prior to 1995 Therefore, no effect on agricultural land uses would occur No mitigation is required 11 c -d) The proposed project site is not located in an area considered forest land Forest land is defined by the California Public Resources Code (PRC Section 12220[g]) as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits The project site abuts existing residential development on the south, east, and a portion to the west The site does not contain any forest land or timberland for timber production Moreover, the site is not designated as forest or woodland by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and there are no such areas within the immediate vicinity of the site Therefore, no mitigation is required 11 e) The property is largely vacant and unimproved, aside from two structures that are remnant structures of a time when the property was utilized for agricultural purposes The property is not currently being used as farmland or agricultural purposes The project will not involve the conversion of forest land to non -forest use See 11 (a -d) above Therefore, no mitigation is required Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 111 AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations Would the project a) Conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable air quality plan" 4 Initial Study for Agncultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 10 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ✓ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ✓ quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? AIR QUALITY v An Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis was prepared by Kunzman and Associates (November 12, 2014) to evaluate potential short- and long-term air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project and to evaluate whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the South Coast Air Quality Basin (SCAB) is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard Ill a) Adoption of the proposed project involves the subdivision of the 32 28 acre project site into fifty five (55) lots for single family residences and one (1) lettered lot for open space purposes The proposed project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan According to the impact analysis, the project site is located in the SCAB within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 -square -mile area of the SCAB This area includes all of Orange County, Los Angeles County (except for Antelope Valley), the western urbanized portions of San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The AQMP for SCAB sets forth a comprehensive program designed to lead the SCAB into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Arr Quality Handbook, in order to determine consistency with the SCAQMD 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP) two main criteria must be addressed Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 11 of 55 1) Would the project 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) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projects utilized in the preparation of the AQMP, implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures, and be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Pursuant to the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis, prepared by Kunzman and Associates, construction impacts were evaluated as part of the project localized significant thresholds (LSTs) and determined to not exceed applicable standards established by the SCAQMD The 2010 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law Development that is consistent with the growth projections in a city's General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP The General Plan designation of the subject site is Very Low Density Residential, which allows up to 2 7 dwelling units per gross acre The average density of the project is 1 7 dwelling units per acre The residential land use has an operational trip rate greater than that of the residential agriculture land use and would result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips, and will not exceed any of the numerical thresholds (regional and LST) for both construction and operation The Impact Analysis indicates that the "construction -source emissions would not conflict with the Basin AQMP and will comply with all applicable SCAQMD construction -source emission rules and guidelines Project Construction source emissions would not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) " In order to insure construction -source emission rules and guidelines are implemented and not result in potential impacts, the following Mitigation Measure has been incorporated to ensure there is a less than significant impact Mitigation Measure No 1 • The Project applicant shall ensure that all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as detailed in Section IV, of the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis prepared (Kunzman and Associates, November 12, 2014) for Tentative Tract Map 18979, are complied with during construction and grading contractors limit the daily disturbed area to five (5) acres or less 111 b -e) With incorporation of mitigation measures addressed under Section 111 a, the proposed development would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality impact from a long term, operational perspective Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 12 of 55 Short -Term Emissions Regional Impacts Short-term air quality impacts are predicted to occur during grading and construction operations associated with implementation of the proposed project Temporary air emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM 2 5 would result from the following construction activities Including Grading, Building Construction, Paving (curb, gutter, flatwork, and parking lot), and Architectural Coatings The standard modeling methodology used to forecast construction emissions, CaIEEMod Version 2013 2 2, was used to forecast project -related construction emissions The construction -related criteria pollutant emissions for each site development phase is shown on Table 7 of the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis is reproduced here, presented below Table 7 Construction -Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions1 Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) ROG NOx CO SQ, PM10 PM2 5 Grading On-Site2 6 78 79 05 50 84 0 06 6 40 4 82 Off Sites 0 10 0 12 1 53 0 00 0 23 0 06 Total 6 87 79 16 52 37 0 06 6 63 4 88 Building Construction On Site 3 66 30 03 18 74 0 03 2 12 1 99 Off Site 2.42 12.45 33 62 0 06 4 08 1 24 Total 6 08 42 48 52 37 0 09 5 20 3 23 Paving On Site 2 42 22 39 14 82 0 02 1 26 1 16 Off Site 0 06 0 08 1 03 0 00 0 17 005 Total 2 49 22 46 15 85 0 02 1 43 1 21 Architectural Coating On Site 14 13 2 37 1 88 0.00 0 20 0 20 Off Site 0 25 0 30 3 93 0 00 0 64 0 17 Total 14 38 2 67 5.81 0 01 0 84 0 37 Total for overlapping phases4 22 95 67 61 74.03 0.12 8 47 4 80 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds no no no no no no Under the assumed scenarios, emission resulting from the Project will not exceed SCAQMD Thresholds Implementation of Mitigation Measure No 1 identified in Section III a will ensure that impacts from grading will be less that significant Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 13 of 55 Short -Term Emissions Local Impacts The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local air quality impacts created from construction -related fugitive dust, diesel emissions, toxic air contaminants, and construction related odors Table 8 of the Arr Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis is reproduced here, presented below, identifies that the disturbance area will not exceed five (5) acres each day Table 8 Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day' Activity Equipment Number Acres/8hr gay Total Acres Site Grading Graders 1 0 5 0 5 Scrapers 2 1 2 Rubber Tired Dozers I 0 5 0 5 Excavators 2 0 5 1 TractorsfLoaders/Backhoes 2 0 5 1 , Total per phase 270 - - 5 The emission thresholds for the project were calculated based on the Central San Bernardino Valley source receptor area (35), to determine allowable emissions for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2 5 at 25 meters Table 9 of the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis is reproduced here) presented below and shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur for the construction of the project Implementation of Mitigation Measure No 1 identified in Section III a will further ensure that impacts from grading will be less that significant Table 9 Local Construction Emissions at Closest Sensitive Receptors1 Phase On Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day} NOr Co PM10 PM2 5 Grading 79 05 50 84 6 40 4 82 Building Construction 30.03 18 74 2 12 1 99 Paving 22 39 14.82 1 26 1 16 Architectural Coating 2.37 1.88 0.20 0 20 SCAC.MD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less2 270 2,075 14 9 Exceeds Threshold? no no no no Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 14 of 55 Toxic Air Contaminants associated with diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations will occur as part of the proposed project However, due to the limited period of time associated with construction exposure to these emissions will not result in a short term substantial source of toxic air contamination During construction odor will be emitted associated with asphalt paving and diesel exhaust emissions These odors are short term in nature and will cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials Due to the short term nature of these impacts and the amount of materials being utilized no significant impacts associated with odors will occur Long -Term Emissions Emissions Dunnq Future Operations/Occupancy Air pollutant emissions associated with operations at the proposed project will be generated by mobile sources, area sources, and energy sources The data in Table 10 Table 8 of the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis is reproduced here, presented below, shows that emissions for the on-going operating activities for the proposed project would be below SCAQMD thresholds of significance Table 10 Operational Criteria Pollutants Regional Air Enlissionst Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) ROGs NOx CO 502 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 14.94 0.05 4.65 0.00 0,10 0.10 Energy Usage' 0.05 0.47 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.0-, Mobile Sources° 2.18 7 06 26.12 0.06 3.69 1.10 Total Emissions 17 17 7 58 30.96 0.06 4.02 1.23 sCAUMOThresholds 55 5o 550 150 150 Se c7:ceedsThreshold, no no no no no no Operations -Related Local Air Quality Impacts According to the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis, prepared for the project, the primary source of local air quality impacts on site will be the result of CO emissions from vehicles operated within the project site Due to the size of the development and an anticipated trip generation of 542 daily trips the CO emission on site will not exceed thresholds for hot spots Furthermore, operational odors for the project site will be a result of trash containment areas Due to the fact that these odors will be located throughout the development in small quantities the impact is less than significant Therefore, the project will have a less than significant localized impact during operational activity Cumulative Impacts The Project area is out of attainment for PM 10 (Particulate Material between 2 5 and 10 millimeters) In a regional analysis, the Project- specific evaluation of emissions Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 15 of 55 presented in the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis concludes that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure No 1 Project construction -source air pollutant emissions will not result in exceedances of regional thresholds Therefore, project construction -source emission would be considered less than significant Per SCAQMD significance guidance, these impacts at the Project level area also considered cumulatively less than significant impact persisting over the life of the Project As such, the Project will not result in a cumulative significant Impact Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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? Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 16 of 55 ✓ ✓ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Biological Resources IV a -c) The project site is not identified in the Biotic Resources Map, Figure 7 1 of the City's General Plan's MEAIEIR, as an area potentially containing biological resources However, properties within the vicinity of the project site have trapped San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats (SBKR) which is listed as a State and Federal endangered species As such, a Site Reconnaissance and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Suitability Assessment, was prepared for the subject project site by Michael Baker International A memorandum was prepared addressing the findings on September 23, 2014 A survey of the site was conducted on August 28, 2014 and found no SBKR burrows or signs of their presence on the property The memorandum also identified that the property has been weeded for several years and does not support native habitat Based on the total absence of SBKR Sign noted during the suitability assessment, lack of viable habitat for SBKR, it was determined that SBKR has a very low potential to occur on the subject property The site suitability assessment for SBKR and other potential biological resources (northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, silvery legless lizard and the Santa Ana River woollystar) was updated on March 7 2016 as a result of receiving a letter by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on March 1, 2016 The updated suitability assessment reconfirmed the 2014 results that no biological resources were presence, and the site does not contain suitable habitat for the specie listed above However, the updated suitability assessment did notice scattered rodent or squirrel burrows A few were smaller and based on their appearance it was decided to have a certified SBKR biologist conduct a suitability assessment to determine if it was either SBKR or Dulzura Kangaroo Rat (DKR) On March 29 2016 and March 30, 2016, SJM Biological Consultants conducted a comprehensive site check for SBKR The field check yielded no clear diagnostic signs of SBKR on the project site SJM Biological Consultants concluded that the absence of any observation of obvious signs of SBKR indicates an extremely low likelihood that SBKR is present on the project site In addition, the likelihood of any future colonization by SBKR is very low, due to the absence of obvious habitat in the immediately adjacent properties Therefore, it is concluded that there was no need to conduct trapping on—site Based on the project site not being identified in the Biotic Resources Map, Figure 7 1 of the initial Study for Agnculturai Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 17 of 55 City's General Plan's MEA/EIR, as an area potentially containing biological resources, the project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U S Fish and Wildlife Service Nor will 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 Wildlife or U S Fish and Wildlife Service As proposed, the project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means Therefore, no mitigation is required IV d) According to the Biotic Resources Map, Figure 7 1 of the City's General Plan MEAIEIR, the Santa Ana River is shown as the nearest wildlife corridor to the project site The project site is located a considerable distance to the south of the Santa Ana River and will not impact this wildlife corridors Since no impacts to wildlife movement are anticipated to result from the proposed project, no mitigation is required IV e) The proposed project would not cause a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources nor will the project will have an impact related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance Therefore, no mitigation is required IV f) Adoption of the proposed project will not cause a conflict with a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064 5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064 5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ✓ Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 18 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact incorporated Impact No Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ✓ 4 cemeteries? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074' Cultural Resources V a -c) The project is identified in the General Plan MEA/EIR Figure 10 1 as being located within a "Rural Historic and Prehistonc Archeological District " A Cultural Resources Investigation, dated February 2015, was prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc for the project Based on a field survey of the project site conducted by ECORP Consulting, one newly recorded historic period site containing two historic period structures associated with citrus farming were identified A preliminary evaluation of the site was performed and the site is not recommended to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources under any criteria During the field survey four (4) historic period isolated glass fragments were found, however, isolates are considered ineligible No Prehistoric sites or isolated finds were identified during this survey Furthermore, the archeological sensitivity of the project area is believed to be low However, Mitigation Measure No 2 has been included in the event archeological materials are encountered during construction activities Mitigation Measure No 2 requires that if prehistoric or historic resources over 50 years of age are encountered during land modification, then activities in the immediate area of the finds should be halted so that the archaeologist can assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act and/or the Federal National Environmental Policy Act V d) The site and vicinity are not known to have historically contained known human remains, and no conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found on the project site It is not anticipated that implementation of the project would disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries However, ground -disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation, have the potential to disturb human remains If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws The Native Amencan Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050 5-7055 describes the general initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 19 of 55 provisions regarding human remains, including the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site As required by state law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097 98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Redlands Police Department, notification of the Native Amencan Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant " If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains As this is existing law and a mandatory measure to manage an accidental exposure of human remains, no mitigation is required to ensure human remains can be properly managed if encountered on this project site The following mitigation measure has been incorporated to reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level Mitigation Measure No 3 requires that if human remains and/or "grave goods" (i e , funerary objects) are found within the project area, the City or its designee shall notify the City of Redlands Police Department and San Bernardino County coroner immediately, in any event not later than 24 hours after the time of discovery The coroner shall determine whether or not the circumstances, manner, and cause of death require further investigation as a crime scene If not, the coroner shall endeavor to determine if the remains are Native American This shall be accomplished in consultation with a physical anthropologist, human osteologist, or other qualified specialist if the coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not evidence of a crime, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) per CH&SC §7050 5(b) The NAHC would then immediately identify the persons or Tribe it believes to be to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American With the permission of the landowner, the most likely descendant (MLD) may inspect the site of the discovery and recommend means for treating or disposing of the human remains and any associated grave goods with appropriate dignity The MLD shall complete the inspection and make a recommendation within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation, or if the landowner rejects the MLD's recommendation and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner shall reinter the human remains and any associated items with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance (PRC §5097 98) if the human remains are not those of a Native American, the City shall consult with the coroner, a biological anthropologist or human osteologist, and a qualified historical archaeologist to develop an appropriate plan for treatment and to determine if historical research, further archaeological excavations, and/or other Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 20 of 55 studies may be necessary before a treatment plan can be finalized Also, if the remains are those of an identifiable individual and not evidence of a crime, the City shall notify the next-of-kin, who may wish to influence or control the subsequent disposition of the remains If the next-of-kin (for non -Indian remains) or MLD so requests, the City shall coordinate discussions among concerned parties to determine if reburial at or near the original site in a location not subject to further disturbance is feasible If a proximate reburial location is not feasible, then the City may continue to coordinate discussions until a final disposition of the remains is decided upon Following the initial discovery and identification of any human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony within the project area, no further archaeological excavation, recording, or analysis of such remains and/or objects shall occur until after the MLD has made a recommendation to the landowner with respect to the disposition of the remains and/or objects Thereafter, the City shall take into account the recommendation of the MLD, and shall decide on the nature of any archaeological excavation, recording, or analysis to be done of the discovered remains and/or funerary objects V e) Pursuant to AB 52, staff sent notices of the proposed project by certified mail on December 8, 2015 to four tribes who had requested notification under AB 52 (Morongo Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and Gabneleno Band of Mission Indians) No communication was received from Morongo Band of Mission Indians or San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians responded that they have no specific concerns for known cultural resources within the project vicinity However, staff did receive a response from the Gabneleno Band of Mission Indians within the required 30 -day time frame The tribe's response did not state their desire to consult on the project, nor did it imply that they want to discuss TCRs further, instead the response letter was a request to monitor during construction because they have unspecified concerns about the project's impacts to the tribe's cultural resources Although the response letter does not meet the requirements under AB 52 for responding within 30 days to indicate their desire to consult (21080 3 1(b)(2)), their response letter does state that "We do in fact have concerns regarding your project's potential impact to cultural resources" Staff attempted to contact the tribe to see if they would like to consult and provide any evidence that there may be known TCR's within the project vicinity Staff did not receive any response back from the Tribe Chairman Although no evidence was provided that the proposed project may have potential impacts to TCR's, the concerns expressed by the tribe create the possibility that there is the potential to impact TCR's, thus the following mitigation measure will be required to avoid potential impacts to TCR's Mitigation Measure No 4 requires a tribal monitor from the Gabneleno Band of Mission Indians to be present for all ground disturbing activities, including excavation and trenching The applicant shall contact Chairman Andrew Sales [(626) 926-4131] to arrange for a representative of the Tribe to monitor the site prior to ground disturbing activities Should the tribal monitor determine that the Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 21 of 55 potential for tribal cultural resources is low to none, then all monitoring may cease Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project a) Expose people or structures to 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-Pnolo 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 n) 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 sod 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 risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 22 of 55 ✓ Geology and Soils VI a -d) A Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by RMA GeoScience on August 15, 2014 for the project The project will not expose people or structures to adverse geological impacts since the location falls outside of the active Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (APEFZ), as depicted in Figure 4 6 of the MEA/EIR The closest known active and potentially active faults are the San Andreas Fault located approximately three (3) miles to the northeast and the San Jacinto fault located approximately five (5) miles to the southwest of the site The site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and will likely be subjected to strong to very strong seismically - related ground shaking during the anticipated life span of the project Structures within the site shall therefore be designed and constructed to resist the effects of strong ground motion in accordance with the current edition of the California Building Code (CBC) Pursuant to Figure 4 9 of the General Plan MEA/EIR and ground water measurement documentation prepared by RMA GeoScience, the site is not located within a mapped area prone to liquefaction, nor are ground water levels at a point where the site would be prone to liquefaction Pursuant to Figure 4 4, Landslide Potential, of the General Plan MEA/EIR, the site is not located in an area with generalized landslide potential Figure 4 5, Expansion Potential, of the General Plan MEA/EIR, indicates that the project site is not located within an area with generalizes soil expansion potential, which was further verified by onsite testing performed by RMA GeoScience And, Figure 4 3, Generalized Erosion Potential, of the General Plan MEA/EIR indicates that the project site is not located within an area of notable erosion potential, although grading of topsoils will occur as part of the proposed project In order to avoid potential impacts from soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction of the project Implementation of the following mitigation measures shall reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant Mitigation Measure No 5 shall require the project be developed in accordance with all the recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation prepared by RMA GeoScience for the subject property In addition, the proposed project will be constructed to adhere to all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to seismic design Mitigation Measure No 6 shall require that all permanent landscaping be installed prior to final occupancy, and, following construction, disturbed soils shall be landscaped, or otherwise treated (covered with gravel, mulch or hardscape, to protect soils from wind and water erosion Mitigation Measure No 7 shall require that the applicant to include a Soil Erosion Control Plan as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project site This section of the SWPPPIWQMP shall include measures designed to control wind and water erosion on the site during and after construction The Best Management Practices shall include measures including landscaping, initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 23 of 55 hardscaptng and incorporation of site retention facilities to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, minimize soil exposed to concentrated runoff and infiltrate surface runoff on the project site in accordance with the City's Stormwater Management ordinance (Section 15 54 160 of the municipal code VI e) The proposed residential development will be required to connect to and utilize the City's sewer system, therefore septic systems or packaged waste water treatment will not be used No mitigation is required Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V11 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project a) Generate 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 purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Greenhouse Gas Emissions VIi a) The project consists of a subdivision of the 32 28 acre project site into fifty five (55) lots for single family residential use and one (1) lettered lot for open space purposes An Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis was prepared (Kunzman and Associates, November 12, 2014) The Proposed project is anticipated to generate greenhouse gas emissions from areas sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment The data in Table 11 of the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis is reproduced here, presented below, shows that greenhouse gas screening threshold of 300 metric tons of CO2e will not be exceeded Thus, project -related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on environment, greenhouse gas and climate change Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 24 of 55 VII b) Table 11 Project -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions' Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year) Bio -0O2 NonBio-0O2 CO, CHT N20 CO2e Area Sources` 0 00 14 14 14 14 0 00 0 00 14 24 Energy Usage3 0 00 219 98 219 98 0 01 0 00 221 05 R Mobile Sources" 0 00 794 39 794 39 0 03 0 00 795 04 wastes 13 07 0 00 13 07 0 08 0 00 29 28 1>tfater6 1 14 20 54 21 67 0 12 0 00 25 06 Construction? 0 00 A177 41 77 0 01 0 00 41 89 Total Emissions 14 20 1,090 81 1,105 02 0 24 0 01 1,126 57 Screening Threshold 3 000 Exceeds Threshold? No Adoption of the proposed project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases The project site is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site In addition, the proposed design and construction of the Project is subject to California Energy Code requirements The California Air Resource Board (CARB) identified reduction measures to achieve the goal of AB 32 which are set forth in the CARB Scoping Plan The Greenhouse Gas Analysis identifies measures that have or will be developed under the Scoping Plan that would be applicable to the Project Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of AB 32 SB 375 requires local metropolitan planning agencies to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction targets through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning For Redlands, the SCS's Growth Forecast assumes 24,700 households in 2008, and anticipates 28,300 households in 2020, and 32,500 in 2035 Accordingly, the Project fits within this growth allocation The Project would be required to comply with all mandates imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District aimed at the reduction of air quality emissions Thus, no impact would occur in this regard Due to regulations already in place, no additional mitigation measures are required Issues VIII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 25 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ✓ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous matenals sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 26 of 65 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Involving midland fires, including where ✓ midlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with midlands? Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII a) The project is a residential development and will not result in the use or handling of hazardous materials No mitigation is required VIII b) Adoption of the proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment The proposed project is a residential development and no handling of hazardous materials is intended Hazardous materials may be present on-site during construction of the project Transportation and use of these materials will be regulated pursuant to the provisions of the State of California and the Coty of Redlands Fire Department No mitigation is required VIII c) Adoption of the proposed project will riot cause hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school The proposed project is residential and small in scope and will not handle hazardous materials, therefore the project poses no threat to Citrus Valley High School, which is within approximately seven hundred and seventy feet (770') of the southern boundary of the project site No mitigation is required VIII d) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962 5 and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment No mitigation is required VIII e) The project site is within the Redlands Airport Influence Area, approximately nine hundred and sixty (960) feet south of the Redlands Municipal Airport, and is located approximately 3 3 miles southeast of the San Bernardino international Airport The areas south of the airport are not impacted by fixed wing as the Airport Permit with Caltrans, Aeronautics Division, provides that all air traffic is to stay north of the runway, except overflight at higher altitudes (greater than 1,000 feet) which are considered a "common traffic pattern" or "other airport environs", and are either low risk or negligible risk The Redlands Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) indicates that the proposed project is located within Compatibility Zone B2 within the northerly 300 feet of the project site, and the remaining area within Compatibility Zone C, which Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 27 of 55 contains the proposed fifty-five (55) residential lots Compatibility Zone B2 allows residential development at a development density of 1 unit per two (2) acres of land The applicant has proposed the planting of an orange grove and construction of a detention basin for water quality management purposes within this 8 89 acre portion of property Compatibility Zone C allows for a residential density of up to six (6) dwelling units per acre The proposed project would provide a residential density of only 1 7 dwelling units per acres During the processing of the project and MND, there were a number of issues raised by the public relative to safety and noise impacts due to the project site being within the Redlands Airport Influence Area, as well as issues concerning the City's airport land use compatibility documents needing to be updated The project was tabled and no action was taken on the MND Subsequently, a study was prepared by Coffman Associates on behalf of the City which found that the helicopter flight activity at the Airport has consistently deviated from the mandated southerly flight path of maintaining 1,000 feet north of San Bernardino Avenue on a regular basis instead, helicopter activity are operating south of, or along, San Bernardino Avenue instead, helicopters using the traffic pattern are often incorrectly operating south of, or along, San Bernardino Avenue, many of which would overfly the southern portion of the proposed project site According to the Coffman Study, this "existing condition" resulting from helicopter flight activity which veers from the mandated southerly flight path poses a moderate to high risk Continued improper helicopter traffic pattern activity would be in conflict with the proposed project The helicopter traffic pattern was established with approval of City Council Resolution 6152 in May, 2003 However, the Airport Permit was not updated and does not currently identify a helicopter traffic pattern south of the Airport Staff submitted a modification to the Airport Permit in December 2015 to establish a helicopter traffic pattern south of the runway consistent with the approved helicopter traffic pattern under Resolution 6152 The modification to the Airport Permit was approved by Caltrans on February 11, 2016 This resolves an inconsistency with the ALUCP and the Redlands Municipal Code In addition, the City has committed prior to the start of construction of the project to conduct a pilot awareness program that will include a Updating the FAA's Airport Facility Directory for the Redlands Airport with the precise helicopter traffic pattern, b Provide this information on the Airport's web page, c Hold pilot meetings at regular intervals to discuss airport issues, and, d Promote the Airport and traffic patterns in all pertinent aviation publications In addition to the above, the City shall amend Chapter 12 56 of the Redlands Municipal Code which are the Airport Rules and Regulations, prior to the start of construction of the project The amendment will modify the traffic pattern exhibit by providing a precise helicopter traffic pattern with landmarks and/or ground references to clearly define the traffic pattern These actions are the responsibility of the City as owners of the Airport Collectively, the steps taken by the City noted above will address the safety issues caused by the existing conditions and will adequately address noise and safety issues to a level of less than significant and will be enforced Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 28 of 55 by the City No mitigation is required VIII f) The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area No mitigation is required VIII g) Adoption of the proposed project will not result in impairing implementation of, or physically interfering with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan The City of Redlands' Emergency Disaster Plan identifies a number of hazardous situations that the City personnel would respond to and outlines procedures to follow during such events Emergency response measures are based upon the basic Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) The proposed project would have no impact on the City's ability to implement the Emergency Disaster Plan No mitigation is required VIII h) According to Figure 15 1, Conceptual Fire Hazard Area, of the General Plan MEAIEIR, the project site is not within and area that will expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving midland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands Therefore no mitigation is required Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g , the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 29 of 55 ✓ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant issues Impact Incorporated Impact No impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase ✓ the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Hydrology and Water Quality ✓ ✓ ✓ IX a) Potential water quality impacts during construction activities include potential erosion/sedimentation and accidental hazardous material discharge during equipment and vehicle refueling, cleaning and repairs If not properly controlled, sedimentation or spilled hazardous substances could potentially be washed off-site during a rainstorm, blown off site during high winds, or could possibly percolate into the subsurface, where it could eventually reach the water table If loose soils, litter, vegetation debris or hazardous substances are allowed to flow off-site, nearby drainage inlets and storm drains could become clogged or could carry contaminated runoff into downstream waters, potentially resulting In adverse or significant water quality impacts Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 30 of 55 IX b) The depth to groundwater onsite has been estimated to be approximately ninety (90) to one hundred and twenty (120) feet below ground in 1991, according to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the subject site by RMA GeoScience, on August 15, 2014 The Geotechnical Investigation also identified that WeII# 01 S03W23A003S, located on San Bernardino Avenue approximately 0 25 miles from the site, identified water levels between 175 2 to 281 1 feet below ground between 1995 and 2008 With the proposed grading on-site, no groundwater extraction or discharge is anticipated during project construction Because grading and site preparation activities would disturb more than one acre of ground, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and enforcement The State Water Resources Control Board has issued General Construction Permit under the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a program created pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Such permits are intended to ensure compliance with applicable water quality, anti -degradation and beneficial use objectives, and typically entail the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet these requirements Such BMPs would typically include erosion, sedimentation, spillage, work area good housekeeping and waste control measures, tailored to site-specific conditions The applicant is also required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which identifies specific BMPs, such as on-site retention, landscaping and other materials to minimize direct rain on bare soil that will meet the performance standards identified in the City s Storm Water Management ordinance, Municipal Code section 15 54 160 Mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that the project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during grading and construction activities Mitigation Measure No 8 requires that the project be required to comply with the submitted Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared in accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Redlands and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board The project shall also provide the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the project site to stop "first flush" of accumulated pollutants from entering the City storm drain system The project -specific BMPs may also incorporate other measures such as bio-swales in planter areas which can also eliminate the "first flush" of accumulated pollutants on street surfaces BMPs can include onsite infiltration trenches, treatment units and detention basins that will reduce pollutant levels of onsite runoff The specific mix of BMPs will be reviewed and approved by the City Due to the size and scope of the proposed project, adoption of the proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level Therefore, no mitigation is required Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 31 of 55 IX c -d) Adoption of the proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, nor alter the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site A Water Quality Management Plan is required, as indicated in Mitigation Measure No 7 above, and a Drainage Study has been provided The developed site will include an on-site storm drainage system designed in accordance with the City's standards The applicant will pay impact fees for project drainage impacts No further mitigation is required IX e -f) As mentioned above, developed site runoff would be collected by an on-site storm drainage system designed in accordance with the City's standards Infiltration basins will be provided on-site for water quality purposes A Water Quality Management Plan is required for the development, as provided in Mitigation Measure No 7 The developed site would change the composition of site runoff from a mixture of soil sediments to a mixture of 'urban" pollutants Runoff flowing across the developed site would pick up a variety of water contaminants from landscape planters, driveways, trash receptacles, and rooftops Pollutants from such areas typically include oils, fuel residues, heavy metals (associated with gasoline and deposition of atmospheric particles), litter, fertilizers, and pesticides Studies by the U S Environmental Protection Agency have determined that a "first flush" rain storm producing one-half inch of runoff over a one-hour period is enough to wash off ninety (90) percent of the total accumulated pollutants on the street surfaces This means that the vast majority of polluted runoff from the project site would occur during the first period of a rainstorm, and that the level of contaminants contained in site runoff would decrease as the rains continue No significant water quality impacts are anticipated as a result of developed site runoff Therefore, no mitigation is required IX g -h) According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No 06071C8709H revised August 28, 2008 the project site is located within Zone X Zone X is defined as "Areas determined to be outside the 0 2% annual chance flood Therefore the project will not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area or redirect flows associated with a 100 -year flood Therefore, no mitigation is required IX i) Per Figure 6 3, Dam Inundation Area, of the MEAIEIR, the project site is located outside of the Seven Oaks Dam inundation area Therefore, no mitigation is required IX j) Adoption of the proposed project will not expose people to seiche hazards Therefore, no mitigation is required initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 32 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Land Use and Planning X a) The residential lots within the proposed development will range from 14,030 to 17,126 square feet Adoption of the proposed project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community No mitigation measures are needed X b) The density calculation for the project is calculated using the General Plan category of Very Low Density (0-2 7 units per acre) The allowable density of the project pursuant to the General Plan designation is a maximum of eighty seven (87) units The proposal as previously stated is for the development of the site with fifty five (55) units As such, the proposed project would comply with the density requirements of the General Plan The project will also be consistent with all applicable sections of the Municipal Code No mitigation measures are needed X c) As described previously in Section IV concerning biological resources, there are no conservation plans governing the use of the project site Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and no impacts would occur in this regard No mitigation is required Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 33 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated impact No Impact X1 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Mineral Resources XI a,b) According to the General Plan MEAIEIR (Section 8 0 Mineral Resources), the residential development is located within an area of known mining resource areas of value by the state A portion of the site is located within "Sector F -15-b" of the Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Area However, construction aggregate is located throughout this region within the jurisdictions of the City of Redlands, City of Highland, and the County of San Bernardino A plan, referred to locally as the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan was approved in 2009 by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District which establishes ongoing mining contracts within the upper Santa Ana River Area and identifies areas where mining can continue into the future The subject property is not located within the Wash Plan Therefore, mining of aggregate material is able to continue within the Upper Santa Ana River Area, while still allowing for development of lands known to be sources of construction aggregate Furthermore, the subject is located directly adjacent to existing residential development that would be impacted significantly if the site were to be utilized for the mining of Construction Aggregate Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, nor would it result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan No impacts to mineral resources would occur and no mitigation is required initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 34 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation S gnificant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XII NOISE. Would the project a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ✓ 4 noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or f 4 ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has riot 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? ✓ 4 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Noise V XII a-b,d)The site is located within an urbanized area developed with single family residences, and the Redlands Municipal Airport to the distant north The project will be consistent with the maximum exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL provided in the Noise Element of the Redlands General Plan A Norse Impact Analysis was completed for the project by Kunzman and Associates on April 1, 2015 The Noise Impact Analysis found noise levels from vehicles could reach up to 70 dBA CNEL, for lots that would be adjacent to San Bernardino Avenue, due to traffic noise level impacts To mitigate noise impacts from vehicular traffic, and comply with the maximum exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL, the following mitigation measure is required Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 35 of 55 Mitigation Measure No. 9 requires the construction of a sound barrier ranging in height from six (6) to seven (7) feet tall for lots adjacent to San Bernardino Avenue The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts should not be made All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filed with grout or caulking Approximately fifteen feet (15') of lots 7, 8, 21, 22, 35, and 36 will be placed in front of the sound attenuation wall and will be exposed to noise in excess of the Redlands Municipal Code standards Mitigation Measure No 9 has been applied to the project requiring the property line to be relocated to align with the proposed sound wall to not subject these lots to noise in excess of the City of Redlands development standards Mitigation Measure No 10 The property lines for lots 7, 8, 21, 22, 35, and 36 shall be relocated to the proposed location of the sound wall, fifteen feet (15') behind the back of sidewalk and shall create a common lot for landscaping between the sound wall and right-of-way To satisfy the City of Redlands 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standards, all lots shall be provided with the following items • Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation • Double -paned glass • Solid core doors with weather stripping and seals Lots 7 and 36 will also need to provide the following items to comply with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standards • Stucco or brick veneer exterior walls or wood siding w/one-half inch thick fiberboard underlayer • Glass portions of windows/doors not to exceed 20 percent of wall • Exterior vents facing noise source shall be baffled In order to meet the City of Redlands 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards, the Project shall adhere to the following Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure No. 11 In order to comply with the City of Redlands 45 DBA CNEL interior noise standards all homes shall be have air conditioning or mechanical ventilation, double -paned glass, and solid core doors with weather stripping and seals Lots 7 and 36 shall also have Stucco or brick veneer exterior walls or wood siding w/one-half inch thick fiberboard underlayer, flass portions of windows/doors not to exceed 20 percent of wall, and exterior vents facing noise source shall be baffled In terms of exterior noise impact from the Redlands Municipal Airport, the Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) established compatibility zones based on issues such as noise and safety impacts The ALUCP is consistent with the General Plan policies in terms of single family residential uses being acceptable in a noise environment that does not exceed 60dBA CNEL Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 36 of 55 The recommendations from the Coffman Report that relate to potential noise impacts from the helicopter flight pattern over areas south of the airport were • The future aviation forecast operations and corresponding noise exposure contours are noticeably different Specifically the helicopter training school exceeds the 2008 Airport Master Plan forecast by more than 100 percent with approximately 6,900 sorties, and, • Updated aviation forecasts should be developed based upon operation changes at Redlands Municipal Airport Updated 20 -year noise exposure contours should be prepared for the ALUCP update based upon updated aviation forecasts The Coffman Report included an analysis of the ambient noise environment of the area south of the airport Over a three-day average, one monitoring site located near Pioneer Avenue, east of Judson Street, was calculated to being 56 7 dBA CNEL for all sources and 45 1 dBA CNEL for Redlands Municipal Airport aircraft events At a second site placed at the spot where the homes in the Diversified Pacific project would be located, the three-day average for all events was calculated at 52 2 dBA CNEL and 45 6 dBA CNEL for aircraft events Thus, the proposed project would not be impacted from excessive noise exposure under existing conditions, and is consistent with the City of Redlands Noise Element of the General Plan and the Redlands Municipal ALUCP From a long term perspective, the Coffman Report found that this significant increase in helicopter activity at the airport may potentially increase ambient noise levels in the future than projected in the Airport Master Plan and the ALUCP The study recommended updating the 20 -year operational forecasts, and with this data update the 20 -year noise exposure contours for the surrounding area in order to evaluate long term noise impacts from operations at the airport Coffman Associates was contracted to perform this scope of work The subsequent study concluded that the existing conditions and the long term conditions depict the 60 dBA CNEL contour line more than 1,000 feet north of the closest home in the proposed project Thus, the project will not be impacted by the existing or future noise environment, and is well under the metric established in the General Plan relative to maximum exterior noise exposure for residential use The proposed project would generate short-term noise in association with site grading and construction -related vehicle/equipment operation during the construction period Noise levels that would be generated on and off-site would depend on the type and number of equipment in use, the time of day, and the amount of time that machinery and equipment are operated Site excavation would require only standard earthmoving equipment No ripping or blasting would be necessary to excavate the project site No piles will need to be driven to reach a stable rock foundation for any structures No ground borne vibration or noise impacts, therefore, would occur during construction The proposed project includes a single family residential development that is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 37 of 55 designation The project does not entail the use of machinery and equipment that would result in measurable vibration impacts off site Implementation of Mitigation Measure Nos 12 through 21 shall reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant Mitigation Measure No 12 shall limit all construction activities to the hours of 7 00 a m and 6 00 p m with no construction activities permitted on Sundays and Federal Holidays Mitigation Measure No 13 During all project site excavation and grading on- site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards Mitigation Measure No 14 The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site Mitigation Measure No. 15 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use Mitigation Measure No 16 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction Mitigation Measure No. 17 The project proponent shall mandate that the construction contractor prohibit the use of music or sound amplification on the project site during construction Mitigation Measure No. 18 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment Mitigation Measure No 19 Limit the use of heavy equipment or vibratory rollers and soil compressors along the project boundaries to the greatest degree possible It is acknowledged that some soil compression may be necessary along the project boundaries Mitigation Measure No 20 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other portable stationary noise sources shall be shielded and noise shall be directed away from sensitive receptors Mitigation Measure No 21 For the duration of construction activities, the construction manager shall serve as the contact person should noise levels become disruptive to local residents A sign should be posted at the project site with the contact phone number XII c) Adoption of the proposed project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 38 of 55 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity Construction of future single family homes would not significantly increase existing noise levels and is forecast to remain within the "normally acceptable" level, as identified in Section 14 0 (Noise) of the MEA/EIR No mitigation is required XII e -f) As discussed in the response to item VIII(e), the project site is located approximately nine hundred and sixty (960) feet south of the Redlands Municipal Airport and 3 3 miles southeast of the San Bernardino International Airport, measured parcel boundary to parcel boundary However, the project is located outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour area During the preparation of the Noise Impact Analysis the Kunzman and Associates took noise measurements at the Site During the time of the noise measurements an aircraft did take off from the Redlands Municipal Airport and did not exceed the noise thresholds established by the Redlands Municipal Code The project site is not within the direct approach or departure paths The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airport No mitigation is required Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact incorporated Impact No Impact XIII POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) ✓ or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ✓ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of V replacement housing elsewhere? Population and Housing XIII a -c) The project will not exceed official regional or local population projections, induce substantial growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, or displace substantial numbers of existing housing, especially affordable housing The 32 28 acre project site is largely vacant with the exception of two (2) structures that appear to have been previously utilized as part of the agricultural use The property is bounded by existing residential uses to the east and west The use and density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site Based on the density and number of units, this proposal would not result in a significant growth inducing impact, therefore no mitigation is required Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 39 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV PUBLIC SERVICES 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 ratios, 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? Public Services ✓ XIV a) The proposed project is not expected to significantly impact or result in a need for new or altered public services provided by the City of Redlands, the Redlands Unified School District, or other government agencies Police and fire protection for the project site will be provided by the City of Redlands The proposed project will not result in the need for new or additional public facilities The project will not induce significant residential growth requiring additional school facilities, nor will it generate the need for additional park land The applicant will be required to pay applicable development impact fees including the payment of a Park land in -lieu fee pursuant to Section 17 15 040 of the Redlands Municipal Code This in lieu fee will be utilized to develop or rehabilitate park or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision Development of the site may entail the storage of building equipment and materials on-site overnight directly related to construction activities The storage of equipment and materials could potentially result in their theft if adequate measures are not taken and impact police services The following mitigation measure will reduce any potential impact on police services to a less than significant level Mitigation Measure No 22 shall require a construction site security plan approved by the police department providing adequate security measures such as lights, video cameras, vehicle transponders, locks, alarms, trained Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 40 of 55 security personnel, fencing etc The nature of the measures will depend on the specific requirements of the site, and may vary with the different stages of construction The developer shall be responsible for the compliance of all sub- contractors working on the site Other impacts associated with new development are mitigated with the payment of development impact fees, and State established school fees Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XV RECREATION Would the project a) increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ✓ 4 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 have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Recreation XV a,b) The proposed project is for the subdivision of 32 28 acres of land into fifty five (55) residential lots and 1 lettered lot The project will cumulatively increase the demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks However, the project will be required to pay park development impact fees that will be utilized to develop or rehabilitate park or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision Therefore the project will not adversely affect existing or planned recreational facilities nor create a significant new demand for additional recreational facilities No mitigation is required Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 41 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking Into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and ✓ 4 non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to Intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? c) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e g , sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e g , farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Transportation / Traffic ✓ 4 ✓ ✓ XVI a,b,d) The project's site design includes access to the site from San Bernardino Avenue and an extension of Lucas Lane Regional access to the project site is provided by the 1-10 Freeway and 1-210 Freeway Local access is provided by various roadways in the vicinity of the site The primary east -west roadways which will be most affected by the project include Pioneer Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue The primary north -south roadway that will be most affected by the project is Judson Street The Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 42 of 55 General Plan refers to both San Bernardino Avenue and Judson Street as Minor Arterials with Pioneer Avenue being a Collector Street An analysis of existing traffic and transportation conditions and potential project - related traffic and transportation conditions is provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared April 20, 2015 by Kunzman and Associates The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzed forecast traffic impacts based on the proposed development, including existing conditions, existing plus project conditions, opening year 2016 conditions with and without the project, and forecast year 2035 conditions with and without the project Existing intersection traffic conditions were established through morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were collected by Kunzman and Associates in April 2015 The proposed project is anticipated to general a net total of approximately 524 daily trips with 41 occurring in the AM peak hour and 55 trips occurring within the PM peak hour EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT The results of the intersection operations analysis of existing conditions indicates that the existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS during the peak hours EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Traffic volumes for existing conditions with project were derived by adding forecast net new project -generated trips to existing PCE adjusted traffic volumes With the addition of project -generated trips, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to City of Redlands and CALTRANS performance criteria for "existing plus project" conditions during the weekday a m peak hour and p m peak hour As such, the impact at the study intersections is considered to be less than significant OPENING YEAR 2016 CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT The proposed project is expected to open in 2016 Therefore, the traffic study was required to analyze the forecasted traffic with and without the project for the year 2016 LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations both with and without the project with roadway and intersection geometncs consistent with existing conditions The traffic analysis identified that the study area intersections will operating at acceptable LOS during the peak hours without the project in the projects opening year HORIZON YEAR (2035) CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT As with the open year LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Horizon Year (2035) both with and without the project with roadway and intersection geometncs consistent with existing traffic conditions Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 43 of 55 With an all way stop at the Intersection of Judson Street and San Bernardino Avenue, the intersection will operate at a LOS F in the morning peak hour With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No 23 there will be a less than significant impact In addition the project will be required to implement the following mitigation measures to ensure there are no impacts to circulation as a result of the project and no hazardous situations are created as a result of the project Mitigation Measure No. 23 The proposed project shall provide a fair share contribution to the construction of intersection improvements for the intersection of San Bernardino Avenue and Judson Street as determined to be appropriate by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Mitigation Measure No 24 Construct San Bernardino Avenue from the west project boundary to the east project boundary as a Minor Arterial (72 to 88 foot right-of-way) at its ultimate half -section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary Mitigation Measure No 25 On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project Mitigation Measure No 26 Sight distance at the project access shall comply with standard California Department of Transportation and City of Redlands sight distance standards The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans shall demonstrate that sight distance standards are met Such plans must be reviewed by the City Engineer and approved as consistent with this measure prior to issue of grading permits With the mitigation measures noted above the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit And furthermore, the project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways XVI c) Access to the project site by residents will require ground transportation only No air traffic demand would be created or affected by this project No mitigation is required XVI e) The proposed project will have adequate emergency access for police and fire service and will have no impact on the emergency access to adjacent properties No mitigation is needed XVI f) The proposed project will not have any conflicts with any programs or policies that support alternative modes of transportation No mitigation is needed Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 44 of 55 Issues XVII UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects'? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? f) 9) Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ✓ ✓ ✓ XVII a) The proposed project will not impact wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board All sewage generated on-site will be discharged to sanitary sewer lines and conveyed into the City's collection and trunk sewer mains for treatment at the City's wastewater treatment facility The quality of sewage discharged from indoor plumbing fixtures would be similar to the quality of other residential dwelling units within the project vicinity that currently discharge to Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 45 of 55 the City's sewer system No exceedances of applicable water treatment standards are forecast as a result of this project No mitigation is required XVII b) The proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities which would cause significant environmental effects No mitigation is required XVII c) The proposed project will require future improvements to the City's storm water drainage system Any impacts to the storm water drainage system are mitigated with the payment of development impact fees established by the City of Redlands and paid at the time of building permit issuance This system insures that all Impacts to the City's storm water system are self -mitigating No additional mitigation measures are needed XVII d) The proposed project would increase the daily demand for potable water supplied by the City of Redlands, however, the City has the capacity to serve the project Relying upon the City's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) an assessment was prepared by the City of Redlands Municipal Utilities Department which concludes that the water supply is sufficient over the next 20 years with regard to reliability as described in the most recently adopted Urban Water Management Plan to meet demand for the project, together with existing and planned future uses consistent with the General Plan Local water mains and extensions, or payment of frontage charges, for existing mains are required for the project Impacts to the water service system are mitigated with the payment of development impact fees paid at the time of permit issuance Therefore, impacts to local water supply services would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are needed XVII e) The proposed project will not significantly impact wastewater service The City's wastewater treatment plant is more than sufficient to handle the proposed project Local sewer mains and extensions, or payment of frontage charges for existing mains, are required for the project Impacts to the sewer system are mitigated with the payment of development impact fees paid at the time of permit issuance No additional mitigation measures are needed XVII f,g) The City's California Street Landfill is currently being planned and permitted to provide capacity to approximately the year 2031 The remaining capacity of the landfill is estimated to be about 5 million cubic yards/tons Current average daily tonnage is estimated by the City to be about 300 tons per day, or about 109,500 tons per year The proposed project would not impact solid waste issues beyond that anticipated in the Redlands General Plan EIRIMEA, and would comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste The applicant would also be required to pay a development impact fee which would ensure that the project's potential incremental solid waste impacts are reduced to a less than significant level No mitigation is required Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 46 of 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVIII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) 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? Mandatory Findings of Significance ✓ ✓ XVIII a) As identified in Section VI, Biological Resources, the project site is not identified in the Biotic Resources Map, Figure 7 1 of the City's General Plan's MEA/EIR, as an area potentially containing biological resources However, properties within the vicinity of the project site have trapped San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats (SBKR) As such, a Site Reconnaissance and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Suitability Assessment, was prepared for the subject project site by Michael Baker International A memorandum was prepared addressing the findings on September 23, 2014 A survey of the site was conducted on August 28, 2014 and found no SBKR burrows or signs of their presence on the property The memorandum also identified that the property has been weeded for several years and does not support native habitat Based on the total absence of SBKR Sign noted during the suitability assessment, lack of viable habitat for SBKR, it was determined that SBKR has a very low potential to occur on the subject property Therefore, it was concluded that there was no need to conduct trapping on—site Based on the project site not being identified in the Biotic Resources Map, Figure 7 1 of the City's General Plan's MEA/EIR, as an area Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 47 of 55 potentially containing biological resources, the project will not 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 Nor will 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 U S Fish and Wildlife Service As designed the project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc ) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means Adoption of the proposed project will not cause a conflict with a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard Therefore, no mitigation is required XVIII b) Through the analysis of the Sections above no cumulative impacts were identified as part of the proposed project The project will not significantly impact the environment by itself and with the mitigation measures identified within this document will not be cumulatively significant Therefore, no mitigation is required XVIII c) Adoption of the proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly Therefore, no mitigation is required REFERENCES Arr Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis, Kunzman and Associates, November 12, 2014 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook California State Mining and Geology Board, Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Area, 2013 Cultural Resources Investigation, ECORP Consulting, Inc , February 2015 FEMA Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No 06071C8709H Geotechnical Investigation, RMA GeoSciences, August 15, 2014 Master Environmental Assessment / Final Environmental Impact Report for Redlands General Plan Noise Impact Analysis, Kunzman and Associates, April 1, 2015 Redlands General Plan Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 48 of 55 Redlands Municipal Code Site Reconnaissance and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Suitability Assessment, Michael Baker International, September 23, 2014 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Suitability Assessment, Michael Baker International, March 7, 2016 Site Check for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat SJM Biological Consultants, April 1, 2016 State of California, Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder Traffic Impact Analysis, Kunzman and Associates, April 20, 2015 Redlands Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Review prepared by Coffman Associates, dated November 2015 Redlands Municipal Airport Operational Forecast and Noise Exposure Contours prepared by Coffman Associates, dated December 30, 2015 Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 49 of 55 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Air Quality To mitigate the potential impacts identified in Section III a of the Environmental Checklist, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented Mitigation Measure No 1 The project applicant shall ensure that all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as detailed in Section IV, of the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis prepared (Kunzman and Associates, November 12, 2014) for Tentative Tract Map 18979, are complied with during construction and grading contractors limit the daily disturbed area to five (5) acres or less To be monitored by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department and Building and Safety Division Cultural Resources To mitigate the potential impacts identified in Section V a, b, d and e of the Environmental Checklist, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented Mitigation Measure No. 2 If prehistoric or historic resources over 50 years of age are encountered during land modification, then activities in the immediate area of the finds should be halted so that the archaeologist can assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act andlor the Federal National Environmental Policy Act To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No. 3 If human remains and/or "grave goods" (i e , funerary objects) are found within the project area, the City or its designee shall notify the City of Redlands Police Department and San Bernardino County coroner immediately, in any event not later than 24 hours after the time of discovery The coroner shall determine whether or not the circumstances, manner, and cause of death require further investigation as a crime scene If not, the coroner shall endeavor to determine if the remains are Native American This shall be accomplished in consultation with a physical anthropologist, human osteologist, or other qualified specialist If the coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not evidence of a crime, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) per CH&SC §7050 5(b) The NAHC would then immediately identify the persons or Tribe it believes to be to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American With the permission of the landowner, the most likely descendant (MLD) may inspect the site of the discovery and recommend means for treating or disposing of the human remains and any associated grave goods with appropriate dignity The MLD shall complete the inspection and make a recommendation within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 50 of 55 If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation, or if the landowner rejects the MLD's recommendation and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner shall reinter the human remains and any associated items with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance (PRC §5097 98) If the human remains are not those of a Native American, the City shall consult with the coroner, a biological anthropologist or human osteologist, and a qualified historical archaeologist to develop an appropriate plan for treatment and to determine if historical research, further archaeological excavations, andlor other studies may be necessary before a treatment plan can be finalized Also, if the remains are those of an identifiable individual and not evidence of a crime, the City shall notify the next-of-kin, who may wish to influence or control the subsequent disposition of the remains If the next-of-kin (for non -Indian remains) or MLD so requests, the City shall coordinate discussions among concerned parties to determine if reburial at or near the original site in a location not subject to further disturbance is feasible If a proximate reburial location is not feasible, then the City may continue to coordinate discussions until a final disposition of the remains is decided upon Following the initial discovery and identification of any human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony within the project area, no further archaeological excavation, recording, or analysis of such remains andlor objects shall occur until after the MLD has made a recommendation to the landowner with respect to the disposition of the remains and/or objects Thereafter, the City shall take into account the recommendation of the MLD, and shall decide on the nature of any archaeological excavation, recording, or analysis to be done of the discovered remains and/or funerary objects To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No. 4 requires a tribal monitor from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians be present for all ground disturbing activities, including excavation and trenching The applicant shall contact Chairman Andrew Salas [(626) 926-4131] to arrange for a representative of the Tribe to monitor the site prior to ground disturbing activities Should the tribal monitor determine that the potential for tribal cultural resources is low to none, then all monitoring may cease To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Planning Division and Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Geology and Soils To mitigate the potential impacts identified in Section IV b of the Environmental Checklist, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented Mitigation Measure No 5 The project shall be developed in accordance with all the Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443 Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 51 of 55 recommendations Included in the geotechnical investigation prepared by RMA GeoScience for the subject property In addition, the proposed project will be constructed to adhere to all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to seismic design To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division and Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Mitigation Measure No 6 All permanent landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy, and, following construction, disturbed soils shall be landscaped, or otherwise treated covered with gravel, mulch or hardscape, to protect soils from wind and water erosion To be monitored by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No 7 The applicant shall be required to include a Soil Erosion Control Plan as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project site This section of the SWPPPIWQMP shall include measures designed to control wind and water erosion on the site during and after construction These Best Management Practices shall include measures including landscaping, hardscaping and incorporation of site retention facilities to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, minimize soil exposed to concentrated runoff and infiltrate surface runoff on the project site in accordance with the City's Stormwater Management ordinance (Section 15 54 160 of the municipal code To be monitored by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Hydrology and Water Quality To mitigate the potential impacts identified in Section IX A of the Environmental Checklist, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project shall comply with the submitted Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared in accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Redlands and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board The project shall also provide the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the project site to stop 'first flush" of accumulated pollutants from entering the City storm drain system The project -specific BMPs may also incorporate other measures such as bio- swales in planter areas which can also eliminate the "first flush" of accumulated pollutants on street surfaces BMPs can include onsite infiltration trenches, treatment units and detention basins that will reduce pollutant levels of onsite runoff The specific mix of BMPs will be reviewed and approved by the City To be monitored by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Noise To mitigate the potential impacts identified in Section XII A, B, and D of the Environmental Checklist, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 52 of 55 Mitigation Measure No. 9 requires the construction of a sound barrier ranging in height from six (6) to seven (7) feet tall for lots adjacent to San Bernardino Avenue The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts should not be made All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filed with grout or caulking To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No 10 The property lines for lots 7, 8, 21, 22, 35, and 36 shall be relocated to the proposed location of the sound wall, fifteen feet (15') behind the back of sidewalk and shall create a common lot for landscaping between the sound wall and right-of- way To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division Mitigation Measure No 11 In order to comply with the City of Redlands 45 DBA CNEL interior noise standards all homes shall be have air conditioning or mechanical ventilation, double - paned glass, and solid core doors with weather stripping and seals Lots 7 and 36 shall also have Stucco or brick veneer exterior walls or wood siding wlone-half inch thick fiberboard underlayer, flass portions of windows/doors not to exceed 20 percent of wall, and exterior vents facing noise source shall be baffled To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division Mitigation Measure No. 12 Limit all construction activities to the hours of 7 00 a m and 6 00 p m with no construction activities permitted on Sundays and Federal Holidays To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No. 13 During all project site excavation and grading on-site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No 14 The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No. 15 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 53 of 55 Mitigation Measure No 16 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site dunng all project construction To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No 17 The project proponent shall mandate that the construction contractor prohibit the use of music or sound amplification on the project site during construction To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No 18 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No. 19 Limit the use of heavy equipment or vibratory rollers and soil compressors along the project boundaries to the greatest degree possible It is acknowledged that some soil compression may be necessary along the project boundaries To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No 20 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other portable stationary noise sources shall be shielded and noise shall be directed away from sensitive receptors To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Mitigation Measure No. 21 For the duration of construction activities, the construction manager shall serve as the contact person should noise levels become disruptive to local residents A sign should be posted at the project site with the contact phone number To be monitored by the Building and Safety Division, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, and Planning Division Public Services To mitigate the potential impacts identified in Section XIV A of the Environmental Checklist, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented Mitigation Measure No 22 shall require a construction site security plan approved by the Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121, Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 54 of 55 police department providing adequate security measures such as lights, video cameras, vehicle transponders, locks, alarms, trained security personnel, fencing etc The nature of the measures will depend on the specific requirements of the site, and may vary with the different stages of construction The developer shall be responsible for the compliance of all sub- contractors working on the site Other impacts associated with new development are mitigated with the payment of development impact fees, and State established school fees To be monitored by the Police Department Transportation / Traffic To mitigate the potential impacts identified in Section XVI a and b of the Environmental Checklist, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented Mitigation Measure No 23 The proposed project shall provide a fair share contribution to the construction of intersection improvements for the intersection of San Bernardino Avenue and Judson Street as determined to be appropriate by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director To be monitored by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Mitigation Measure No 24 Construct San Bernardino Avenue from the west project boundary to the east project boundary as a Minor Arterial (72 to 88 foot right-of-way) at its ultimate half -section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary To be monitored by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Mitigation Measure No. 25 On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project To be monitored by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Mitigation Measure No 26 Sight distance at the project access shall comply with standard California Department of Transportation and City of Redlands sight distance standards The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans shall demonstrate that sight distance standards are met Such plans must be reviewed by the City Engineer and approved as consistent with this measure prior to issue of grading permits To be monitored by the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Initial Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No 121 Zone Change No 443, Tentative Tract No 18979 Page 55 of 55 ...• -.s.. v,. '•••• 9...1..a .bw.i u....o un.nm . av1Ol4Ou+OrrnausJdo r... ...,. in>.,. wx m...v, N. x1.w1 .1r. ...m,�.v �... wee. w.i a[• a .11 Nm..'�'n..I. t/ x.0=1011 71 .c a.e a.w,a .....era... ,../. o.. tae.., au 0,,,,.. ,,u,„ „„,,,„i m.; s, n MON i�IVM xa Yuas O�n1]u .11.1"0 4n71.1 .�..:....v.[.,. C1 x.......e.9.....t....4.t .�...� .. [..w... .<...Nu er.ww.[...n. Li Ty n.,.n 9.a, v. .w.... . ...,.w ,. M<e w «•19.4 .w.� ,,,, �.1.1.1.4.1 .rw ox.r..r.nxn. x .. NW a .u.e >..mra, 1.0.C. ., , 9'. r.r n .n u.au xn..au xwr. a..w..nxc [un.unx w ma u..:vw n.v.orin,mn .2, KO ,mr..n, u,a.,w..,....,n term.. n..,....¢. aa.. . 19.i¢x.1,.JP:.. 1q _ MY, u.m. 1 .[ r rs � ena J...u1C 3.• 1.4. tt.rC �,r..sa re.,.nazuJ u '...-A'''''' u Laren'..`""l)u 1 iL„ . in4 �� �v.x-us�an Y6 . 1. u r.l ma'm.' s,rL01...-11.,..111./.31.1n -11 ,.0 i..11.1 AI.. ta.vu. 9.0., i •., m.w CIA IF ....n...n ne.....1•e. m e,lx..rm,¢ m t,JJs -, IN, Y. 1.1.re r.. ,w SA MIA I,. . IJH3111tivdS0 63N,WAS 1Jt31Morrama1 S31nx -mama 11 Na15are Vs ,41” wJ°.yei m sITrott a �ran..tirs.u.. un�w. am an 4, _ _ w n.Jw . vu Ju..a [ mu as wou rt. x�IW]WIWd]0 AS]JY9l ammo iAJO TI,f]x]7 0. (.1. ...ELM mrvrvrve mmarrar m Lunn ex, ...am rum. arm ntn m. tu„[w..0 4.,, a}e.¢. .0 .rvx-. ww.9avrd.nu @, i, �.'.N It _ .x�>.a,••,•19 wn[n[waw r........0�, .. on »... ...%>rW ...I.. :01 x'.'ewiwuv Lu.u. .tx.uo a»mn,x.v....a wear L.. two u.ueOs e<>r.I aw.M...,....., .,x..,.,.,..,,,r.,.�m,.9. �'°„� � M,¢...[.....w ... r [... ee., .ex.[....., [.. r, ..[. —v, e, a m. ,x wlriWu x. TI a. +w>w.xujui.u.n.a.x..ex� .wu.n .w.iew�<n _ a e •, 14„..n m x..an ,,.. ,. ,rnwcrx.wi,T,ams tax w y+--P �,>+, rwx rt e 9i Jac iYr . n,J n......W.O[x.. u.y -X¢x�aa...5e.,mx.i „¢..•e,a., r m ,ame. nw m'.uliw Ma nno%.m"a a.w wJJv,e.zttw a. . ..�.a... d un"6mn 9iu �••••aw. s..a"..74....'''"":0,4 .t.., smne...e..v..a t",x.m .,.., a¢.nn,, .wam:m ox+ .a..,n a (1113Y111{Vd306xIWM arJe &1:31011TItl3113n „,,,, 9. .w,m..,.,,,,e. .< w,w Al I.us..w .... .. rx lip' .�.�..._. .axd»a .,wa +.+... ww ...'.'.:;;� —_ a [-m .._,_,. _ .. _--__....... mgr - . 5C L C S 10 3 101 ONlN lltld [INV S34101-1 1 00 61661 ON 10V}11 SNYid DMOYH4 dSI02111d O!!V1Old ;10511 r �6w. w[, rata n.n° ...utw.o[ Will 11:13.N.1 I ,,e+l 1[41134f1- t] r3:t.11tl-rn1, tn.tu,.+e.n F1uYa.uICuJ pa ...mann Inert nV. SQNCZU3L1 40 ALM do„awmarre 311106.0.OT..IR snvu +k J ainnM ' `#�.xw �1. Vie. u the na mukau n 1.ra won in n c..m* J.l .1.1.1-1.1.00 ¢, cruor u. a. .e ¢..9. :n,..r 03WO SALIM1x "BMW Stl05.'iiSV • .., ...e......Ns. 1.1s 0 m-,..............11...... [xa. ax O Wall NO11a11NJ 1401 xu.¢.amx n•.rwa. xyr,,,.•. e.w;m ...wuaw vrm .x..0 vc m m .,...tw,ana[ .n,aa..1.3 u..... ton. 11.r..astn . •_ A An A uel":1owvw'Xv=TZuri uira r0,1ai¢uaxifin.,7xw0wc"wx o-nnw-i�� „maw -iiWWn avw ru n tOI S •J,w IIpL'iVFIlN0701 ]dlOx S,Ji31,IMJa'F9'nQl®g .dJ ..rs .1.11,-.0 11,/fle I nerunni 't. ,, IIIIouaux3n &LIMaoua I! iI k 11 iI+ .5[i Ii "- n rJ t h N. ' , � 5\ `, 'I 2 �.,�. , SSS IS✓,'ice � •� h 1 t.-1 � r �'itkl ri-IIiEI J Jin ill Iln i y •]1W31V. 1 -k'r-t�1_.__' . E! 1--. i Ilk 3 _ f']J - 1111 � F r I]I 1Y 1 j _I � � -l. I1 I1rrys7'_ T 1111 1 ? I I n i� W_ -t` [ll t ff �f 1- , jj 1 1�• .�� 1 1 1 / L .-.---yr----.-- vrc xi i 11-1P Ll ,- '1--,- —iN[NY L'fLi]U 4 — n .y.._. - NOJLV0013115 I '� .3'w ALINI31A �_ 5E - t C 3101— 101 ONI)1HVd CINV SJWOH 130OW 6L691. '4N 1O VH1 SNd'Id JN10i1 J 3SI33Ud QNV 10-id BERNARDINO AVENUE 22 N5o.nro 23 IESES.PPE1 24 11ra&a IZ1 25 Lisa, FE) ‘17".14.4' tM dT i1 W49-r0.Nry 35 [15 15.'9.iTRPE, rano iris ANE 9 p l Lib, I t•o h 51)17 CPC F 36 37 COHS1RUCTION U1CMS i' anon. cMO. SArwlc,a1rrr pa, peon Arm...corm. o am.. G,sImc MY:GSmOA Stmt Q 'srKt r sncncae.nrvorounn)r © nA/Ma wxuflTrAwYearaananammor nms Oann1101,11.1 comarrrWNfmnr 38 ..I115ISST CFF 45. AP /4 A A 4 & F l',,, �0 r / CW—,v s i ,kli_ ,..• 7,__T,._______________[__ '.....r µ 5CALE.1 V 26 S tSCl FE1 1 30 (1512.5 PE1 39 40 41 A Orn, P2PXCLLY 010101-1• snc.fateroN tow <n. mI ..smramW) CITY OF REDLANIOS TAunlolpar Ltlllrles and Engrnaaring oepertmant nor AND YIMECISE t?RADINQ PLANS TRACT NO 18979 MODEL (HOMES AND PARI(ING LOT Lo7S 31 35 ' -—__ 17 lit a er2w2 aers