HomeMy WebLinkAbout6799_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 6799
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OFT -IE CITY OF REDLANDS
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING
A STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES,
FINDINGS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM, FOR THE PROPOSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2009-1-A;
AMENDMENT O.36 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO.40; CONCEPT PLAN O. 7;
TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18550; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 907;
TENATIVE TRACT NO. 1,8444 AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO.
851(REDLANDS COMMONS/TROJAN GROVES) AND THE REDLANDS COMMONS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows:
Section.I.
The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby certifies the final Environmental Impact
Report and adopts the following statement of environmental effects, mitigation measures,
findings, and overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring program, for the proposed
final Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment No.2009-1-A- Amendment No.
36 to Specific Plan No. 40; Concept Plan No. 7; Tentative Parcel Map No. 18550; Conditional
Use Pen-nit No. 907; Tentative Tract No. 18444 and Commission Review and Approval No. 851;
(Redlands Commons/Trojan Groves) and the Redlands Commons Development Plan:
L INTRODUCTION
Concept Plan No. 7 (Redlands Cominons/Trojan Groves) (the "Concept Plan") proposes
development of an approximately 71.6 acre residential and commercial development
(collectively referred to as the "Project") within the City of Redlands (the "City"), The Concept
Plan covers two separate properties known as Redlands Commons (39.92 acres) and Trojan
Groves (31.69 acres). These properties are under different ownership and will be developed
separately. In addition to the Concept Plan, a Developin,ent Plan was submitted to the City for
development of the Redlands Commons property(the"Redlands Commons Development"). The
City, is the lead agency, determined that,a Joint Program/Project Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") should be prepared for the Project: development of the entire 71.6 acres under the
Concept Plan reoluires Program-level analysis, and construction of the 39.92 acres Redlands
Commons Development requires Project-level analysis. The Final Environmental Impact Report
(the "Final EIR") fbr the Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2006051097, consists of the January
2008 Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR"). a list of revisions to the Draft FIR,
Comments received regarding the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments, a list of persons,
organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft FIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, The Draft FIR assesses the potential environmental effects of the Project, identifies
LcclerkAesolutions",Res 6700-6799%6799 EAR Redhmds("ommow�Januaty 6,X009DOC1
means to eliminate or reduce potential significant adverse impacts, and evaluates a reasonable
range of Alternatives to the Project.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15090, the City Council
certifies that the Final FIR, containing errata to the Draft FIR, Responses to Comments, and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the
State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq.
("CEQA Guidelines"). The City Council further certifies that it has been presented with the
Final EIR and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR
prior to making the approvals set forth below. The City Council further certifies that the Final
EIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis.
The City Council is certifying the Final EIR, and approving and adopting the Findings,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program (collectively, "the
Findings") fbr the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the Final EIR. There,
may be actions undertaken by other state and local agencies (referred to as "Responsible
Agencies" under CEQA). Because the City is the Lead Agency for the Project, the Final EIR is
intended to be the basis for compliance with CEQA for each of the possible discretionary actions
by other state and local agencies to carry out the Project. In this action, the City Council is
approving the Project, including a General Plan Amendment (to change the General Plan land
use designation on a portion Redlands Commons from Commercial to Residential Medium
Density); a Specific Plan Amendment (to allow residential development Lip to 8.97 dwelling
units per acre on the residential component of the Project); a Concept Plan (for the entire
Project), two separate Tentative Tract Maps ("TTM") (for the residential and commercial/office
components of Redlands Commons); a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") (for the residential
component); Commission Review and Approval ("CRA") (for commercial); a Socio-Economic
Cost Benefit Study; and Architectural Review.
In addition to the City, there are also federal, State, and regional responsible agencies that
have discretionary authority over the Project. These agencies include the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board (the "RWQCB") for the issuance of a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") permit for construction activities disturbing more than one acre
and approval of operational stonriwater treatment., and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District ("SCAQMD") which shares responsibility with the California Air Resources Board
("CARB") and the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") for ensuring that
all applicable federal and State air quality standards are achieved and maintained. In addition,
the SCAQMD issues an Authority to Construct and Operating Pen-nit for operation of of
mechanical equipment,
Having received, reviewed and considered the Final EIR and other information in the
administrative record, the City Council hereby adopts the following Findings in compliance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 'Me City Council certifies that its Findings are based on an
assessment of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these
Findings, concerning the environmental impact,,; identified and analyzed in the Final EIR. The
City Council adopts these in conjunction with its approvals as set forth below.
1: 6700-671016799 EIR Red]LttidsC(,iiniiionsJar.tuam,6,20099 DOC 2
11. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Project site consists of two discreet development areas: Redlands Commons (39.92
acres) and Trojan Groves (31,69 acres). The Project is located in the northern portion of the City
within southwestern San Bernardino County, California. Redlands is located approximately 60
miles cast of Los Angeles and 45 miles west of Palm Springs. The City is bounded on the north
by Santa Ana Wash and the City of Highland; on the east by Craflon Hills (an unincorporated
area of the County) and the City of Yucaipa; on the south by the Riverside County boundary line
and an unincorporated area known as the Badlands, and on the west by the cities of Loma Linda
and San Bernardino.
The Redlands Commons Development would consist of a mixed-use project that includes
single-family residential, open space consisting of a small park and meandering walkways,
sin Lc-story office, restaurants, and retail. Specifically, the Redlands Commons Developri-lent
would develop 199 single-family detached dwelling units, 20,000 sf of single-story office space,
and 85,500 sf of retail and restaurant space. There is no current development proposal associated
,with the Trojan Groves portion of the Project. Trojan Groves potential development would
consist of 75 percent commercial and 25 percent office, consistent with the FAR analyzed in the
EIR, and with the land uses designated by the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (the
EVCSP"), The Findings made below for each individual andcumulative impact apply to both
the Trojan Groves, as well as the Redlands Commons Development, unless otherwise indicated.
111. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A. Pre
paration of the,EIR
On May 19, 2006 the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") announcing the
proposed preparation of the Draft EIR and describing its proposed scope, as well as announcing
the release of the Initial Study ("IS"). The NOP and IS were circulated to responsible agencies
and interested groups and individuals for a 30-day review period ending June 19, -1006. In
addition, in order to solicit further Comments on the scope and content of the environmental
analysis to be included in the Draft FIR. a public scoping meeting was held on May 24, 2006
The City issued the Draft EIR on January 22, 2008 and circulated it for public review and
comment, for a 45-day period that ended on March 10, 2008. The City circulated the Draft EIR
by: (1) submitting copies of the Draft EIR to the State Office of Planning and Research (State
Clearinghouse): (2) making a copy available at the A, K. Smiley Public Library; and (3) making
copies available for review and copying at the City of Redlands Development Department; and
(4) by posting a copy on the City's website.
B. Absence ofVgnificant iVew lnlrmation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for
further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR afler public
notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. New infolmation
includes: (i) changes to the Project; (ii) changes in the environmental setting; or (iii) additional
data or other information. Section 1,5088.5 further provides:
1:,,celcrk,ResolutionsRes 6700-699'b799 EIR Redlands Commons Januaty 6,2009�DOC 3
`{ n]ew information added to an EIR is not `significant' unless the
EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental
effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such ant
effect (including a feasible Project alternative) that the Project's
proponents have declined to implement.'
In addition, all fusible Mitigation Measures are included in the Mitis atidn Monitoring Program.
Therefore,, having reviewed the information contained in the Draft and Final EIR and inthe
administrative record as well as; the requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5; and
interpretive judicial authority regarding recirculation of draft EIRs, the City Council hereby finds
that no neer significant information was added to the EIR following public review and thus,
recirculation,of the EIR: is not required by CEQA.-
tV IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE PROJECT
The following section summarizes the environmental impacts of the Project identified i
the (Final EIR, and provides Finding-, as to these impacts, as required by CEQA. and the CEQA
Guidelines. The Findings scat forth below are made and adopted by the City Council as its
findings under CEQA. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City
Council, regarding the Project's environmental impacts, Mitigation Measures, Project
Requirements, Alternatives, and Statement of Overriding Considerations that, in the City
Council's view,justify approval of the Project despite its unavoidable significant environmental
impacts:
These Findings summarize the environmental. findings in the Final Elft concerning
Project impacts before and after mitigation and do not repeat the full discussions of
environmental impacts contained in the Environmental Impact Report. Instead, they provide a
brief description of the impacts and state the recommended findings on the significance of each
impact ager imposition of the adopted Mitigation Measures and Project Requirements. A 'full
explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions is set forth in the final EIR. These
Findings hereby incorporate by reference the analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR's
findings and conclusions and in making these Findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts and
incorporates the evidence,_ analysis, explanation, findings, Responses to Comments and
conclusions of the Final EIR except where they are specifically modified by these Findings.
In adopting these Findings, the City Council intends to adopt each of the Mitigation
Measures and Project Requirements recommended in the Final EIR and fisted in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. In the Comments on the Draft EIR, a number of measures
were suggested by various commenters as either revisions to Mitigation:Measures or proposed
additional Mitigation Measures. With respect to these revisions to Mitigation Measures or
measures that were proposed in the Comments, and not adopted by the Final EIR, the Responses
to Comments in the. Final EIR explain why revisions or the proposed Mitigation Measures are
not recommended by the Final FIR for adoption, The City Council hereby adopts and
incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the Responses to Comments contained in the, Final
EIR as its ,grounds for rejecting adoption of these revisions or proposed Mitigation Measures.
I',, elerk PCSOlu iorrs Res 6700-074(Y6749 749 EIR Redlan&s Comm ons.lranurary 6,2f?4RDOC
V. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIEDAND ANALYZED IN
THE EJR
The EIR identifies the following less than significant impacts associated with the Pr6ject.
Based on the inforrnation contained in the EIR, the lead agency hereby finds and determines that
the following environmental impacts will not result in any significant impacts and that no
Mitigation Measures are needed.
A. Aeiahetics
Impact: Would construction of the Project and associated infrastructure
improvements substantially alter the visual character or quality of the Project site and its
surroundings? (Impact 4.1-2, p. 41-14)
FINDING. The Cit-
y finds that construction of the Project and associated
infrastructure improvements will have'a less than significant impact with regard to
substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings. The Project site will be prepared, excavated, and graded to
accommodate the new building foundations. During grading for development,
views of disturbed soils, stockpiles, and construction materials and equipment
would be visible from 1-210 as well as the neighboring residences to the north and
the residential neighborhoods to the south and east. As structures are completed,
new landscaping will be planted and the development will be readied for use,
including the application of architectural coatings and paving. Implementation of
Proiect Requirement PR 4AA will ensure that this impact remains less than
significant. To this end, construction contractors will strictly control the staging of
construction equipment and the cleanliness of construction equipment that are
stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work area. Within the
Project site, workers and equipment will he parked and staged on vacant areas or
on future building pads and retail surface parking areas. Prior to completion of
final plans and specifications, the City of Redlands is required to review the plans
and specifications to ensure that all construction vehicles and equipment shall be
parked in designated staging areas when not in use. Furthermore, all vehicles win
be kept clean and free of mud and dust before leaving the Project site. As a result,
this impact will remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan envisions
the East Valley Corridor for development of high-quality commercial, industrial
and residential uses. All related project development would be subject to design
review by the City. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with the related
project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact to visual character or
quality, and the cumulative impact would remain less than significant.
Impact: Would operation ofthe Project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Impact 4.1-3, p- 4.1-16)
6700-67W6799 FIR Rkxflands Conisnons)anuwc 6-2009 DOC 5
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to substantial degradation of thee existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Implementation of the Project
will change the visual character of the Project site by converting it from vacant open
space and citrus groves to a planned development with residential and
retaillcommercial uses. Planning, architectural design, and operation of all
development will be consistent with the EVCSP. As a result, development will he
visually compatible with adjacent uses. Furthermore, implementation of the Project
would result in a beneficial impact to the surrounding area by removing the visually
unappealing vacant Trojan Groves parcel and replacing it with development
compatible with existing and proposed, surrounding uses, including new landscaped
areas. To this end, Project Requirements PR 4.111 — PR 4.11 relating to building
treatments and architecture, lot set-backs and building height, visual screens and
landscaping, utility, installation, and signage, as well as adherence to the design
standards in the EVCSP and the Ciq,1s Municipal Code will ensure that this impact
remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the City would review plans for all future
development in order to ensure zoning requirements and architectural standards
are met. The implementation of design features contained in the EVCSP, combined
with local design review procedures, would ensure that any new development would
not degrade the visual character or quality of the surrounding environment and the
cumulative impact would be less than significant.
B. Agricultural Resources
Impact- Would development of the Project involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Impact 4.2-1, p. 42-15)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will not involve
changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural uses. Development of the Project would provide new residences
and businesses that would potentially attract growth to the area, which, is intended
within the East Valley Corridor. These impacts were assessed in the EVCSP EIR.
Furthermore, the Project would not further the pressure to convert Farmland to
non-agricultural uses, due to the planned conversion of the areas land uses from
agricultural to non-agricultural as noted in the EVCSP. Therefore, this impact will
remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, there are current and proposed developments
adjacent to and in the general vicinity of the Project site, all of which would convert
agricultural land to intensive, non-agricultural uses with or without the Project.
Loss of farmland in the East Valley Corridor planning area was anticipated, as is
evidenced by the Special Development District land use designation and specific
goals and policies in the EVCSP. The Project would not make a cumulatively
I celerk Resotutions,Res 6700-6799.07CJ9 FIR RetilandsCoitiiiiotisJ-,itivary,6,2009,DOC 6
considerable contribution to this impact, and a less than significant cumulative
impact would occur.
C. Air Qua
Impact: Would development of the Project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Impact 4.:3-1,p. 4.3-23)
FINDING: The City finds that the development of the Project will have a less
than significant impact with regard to conflicting or obstructing implementation of
the applicable, air quality management plan (the"AQMP").
The Project proposes to add a residential land use that was not previously
forecasted in the City's General Plan on the Redlands Commons site. The addition
of 199 single family housing units would generate approximately 550 new residents.
The addition of these single family housing units would not generate significant
population growth on a regional scale. To this end, the City's forecasted number for
new residential units has not been attained throughout the past fifteen years, and
this trend is expected to continue in the future. Although the residential units
proposed by the Project are not specifically included in the SCAG regional growth
forecasts, they are within the total number of residential units forecasted for the
City. Also, upon approval of the General Plan amendment and the amendment to
the EVCSP, the additional residents would be included in the General Plan and
EVCSP population projections, and would be included in revised regional growth
forecasts for SCA(;, which would then be included in a revised AQMP. Therefore,
population growth associated with the Project is expected to be consistent with the
projections in the 2007 AQMP.
The Project will also generate apprommatety 547 new employment positions
between 2009 and 2010. SCAGs employment projections for the City of Redlands
through the year 2030 show increases in employment averaging 785 jobs per year.
When the anticipated job growth is spread out between 2009 and 2010,
approximately 274 jobs would be added per year. This figure represents 34.9
percent of the projected job growth for the City and would not exceed SCAG
projections. Because the population and employment growth associated with the
Project would not conflict with the applicable 2007 AQMP, this impact will remain
less-than-s ignific ant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, population growth associated with the Project
would not conflict with the 2007 AQMP. Although the residential units proposed by
the Project are not specifically included in the SCAG regional growth forecasts, they
are within the total number of residential units forecasted for the City. Therefore,
population growth associated with the Project would not conflict with the 2007
AQMP, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.
I.'cde&,ResolutionsRes 670(')-67C)9,,6799 FIR Redlanckcommonsiantlan,6.21009 CX)C 7
Impact: Would development of the Project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations due to Project-gencrated toxic air emissions? (Impact
43-2, p. 4.3-25)
FINDING: The City finds that construction and operation of the Project will have
a less than significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively,
exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations due to Project-
generated toxic air emissions. A Health Risk Assessment("HRA")was prepared for
the Project in order to estimate the potential health risks associated toxic air
contaminants associated with construction-generated air quality impacts of the
Project. The HRA determined impacts associated with Diesel Particulate Matter
("DPM"') emissions from construction activities would he less than significant, and
that no mitigation is required.
With regards to DPM emissions resulting from operation of the Project, the Project
was compared to the much larger project in North Rialto, California—the Target
Distribution Center. The point of the comparison was such that if the potential
cancer risk evaluated for the larger, Rialto facility is determined to be less than
significant, it can be stated that the Project (which would require considerably
fewer diesel truck trips) would also be less than significant. Results for the Rialto
facility showed potential cancer risks below the SCAQMD significance threshold of
10 in I million. An operational HRA for the Rialto facility estimated emissions from
each activity, as well as the total daily emissions for the Rialto facility and the
estimated potential cancer risk. The estimated cancer risk at the Rialto facility was
determined to be is 8.7 in I million, below the SCAQMD si gnificance threshold of tO
in I million. As the Project uses will be much less intense than those of the Rialto
facility and involve fewer delivery trucks during operation, the carcinogenic health
effects associated with the DPM emissions from the delivery trucks at the Project
are expected to be less. As a result, this impact will be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the significance of cumulative air quality
impacts is typically determined according to the, project-specific impact
methodology recommended by the SCAQMD. As the significance of cumulative air
quality impacts is typically determined according to the project-specific impact
methodology and thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD, there are no
significant cumulative adverse health impacts expected from DENT emissions from
construction activities associated with the Project. Consequently, this cumulative
impact would be less than significant.
Impact: Would operation of the Project generate increased localized traffic
volumes and expose sensitive receptors to substantial localized CO concentrations?
(Impact 4.3-3, p. 4.3-27)
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project would generate increased
localized traffic volumes, but would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
localized CO concentrations. The area surrounding the Project was subject to a
V cc hak-Resolutions,Res 6700-6799,6799 EIR RW-laj)&Commons,Januaty 6.2(X)9.1~0C 8
hotspot analysis. The results of this analysis indicate that traffic generated by the
Project will not contribute to I-hour or 8-hour CO concentrations that exceed the
applicable California or federal standards at the most-congested nearby
intersections in the near term year 2010. Furthermore, CO modeling indicated that
the Project would not contribute to I-hour or 8-hour CO concentrations that exceed
the applicable California or federal standards at the most-congested nearby
intersections at the future build-out year of 2030. Sensitive receptors would not be
exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations due to the operation of the Project.
As a result, this impact remains less than significant and no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, long-term future exposure of sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations are projected to be lower in 2010 and 2030
than 2007 due to improvements in vehicle emission rates predicted by the Air
Resources Board. Future CO concentrations would not exceed federal and state air
quality standards. Consequently, this cumulative impact would be less than
significant, and the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this cumulative impact.
Impact: Would development of the Project create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (Impact 4.3-4, p. 4.3-30)
FINDING: The City rinds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively, the creation of
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Construction
activities do not usually emit offensive odors. Although construction activities can
generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e.,
diesel exhaust) and the application of interior and exterior architectural coating,
these emissions would occur only during daytime hours and would generally be
restricted to the immediate vicinity of the Project site and would not affect a
substantial number of people.
Offensive odors from operation are usually associated with land uses, such as
agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, and food processing plants. Potential
operational airborne odors could result from cooking activities associated with new
restaurants or residences. However,
, these odors would be similar to existing
residential uses in the vicinity and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the
new buildings.
Further, Project Requirement PR 4.3A requires trash receptacles within the Project
area to be enclosed and have lids that enable convenient collection and loading.
This will ensure that there are no objectionable odors. As a result, this impact
remains less than significant, and therefore no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the Project is not expected to generate
substantial odors, or would any existing or anticipated nearby uses generate
substantial odors. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Because a less-than-significant cumulative impact would occur with respect to
I-',cclerk Resolution,,"Res 0100-6799'`6799 EER Redlands Commons Jarmary 6.2009JW, 9
objectionable odors, and the Project would not result in objectionable odors that
would affect a substantial number of people, the cumulative impact of the Project
would also be less than significant.
D.> Blalogk
dflesources
Impact. Would construction of the Project result in the loss of foraging habitat
used by sensitive bat species that would represent a substantial direct adverse effect on
species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Impact-4.4- , p. 4.4-26)
FINDING: The City finds that construction of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to the loss of foraging habitat used by sensitive bat
species that would represent a substantial direct adverse effect on species identified
as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Special-status bat species that have the potential to occur within
the Project site include the pallid bat, western mastiff bat, and the western yellow
bat. These bats, however, are not likely to forage on the property due to the fact
that there is a low insect population and an unreliable water supply. There are also
other, higher-quality bat foraging habitats located nearby. As a result, this impact
is considered to be less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the loss of marginal bat foraging habitat would
not be substantial due to the Project site's low bat prey density. In combination
with compliance with state and federal Endangered Species Acts and the Fish and
Game Code of California, the cumulative impact would be less than significant, and
the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this
impact.
Impact, Would development of the PrQject conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources? (Impact 4.4-4, p- 4.4-27)
FINDING: The City finds that construction of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively, conflicting
with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. General Plan
Policy (Policy 7.21t) requires that agricultural fields be evaluated in terms of their
habitat quality before conversion to another land use. A sensitive raptor was
observed on and around the Trojan Groves property. However, none were
observed on the Redlands Commons property during site reconnaissance. For the
reasons set forth in the December 2008 Errata (incorporated herein by reference),
the City, finds that the Concept Plan does not create any conflicts with General Plan
Policy 7.21.
6700-6799'-,h749 E1R Redlands CommonsJanum 6,2001)DOC' 10
With regards to the EVCSP, Section EV2.0205 requires building in the Project area
to be phased. To this end, Redlands Commons would be developed first, and then
Trojan Groves. Also, pursuant to landscaping requirements contained in EVCSP
Sections EV4.0245, EV4.0250, EV4.0255, EV4.0260, EV4.0265, and EV4.0270 the
Project developer will install trees that provide habitat for nesting birds that could
be displaced by the Project and landscaping would be provided in the Project.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with all applicable sections of the
EVCSP.
City Ordinance 2554 does not apply to protect any trees on-site in that there are no
trees on-site that are covered by City Ordinance 2554. Therefore, the Ordinance
does not apply. As a result, this impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, it is assumed that as part of the development
review and entitlement process for future development, the City would ensure
compliance with any and all applicable local policies and/or ordinances since they
were developed for the primary purpose of providing a framework for future
development. This will ensure that the overall cumulative impact would not be
significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory -fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? (Impact 4.4-5, p. 4A-29)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to interfering 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. No major drainages, canyon bottoms, ridgetops, or areas that provide
substantial stable and abundant food, shelter, or water resources occur within the
Project site, and no areas that would be considered nursery sites, which generally
include some types of wetlands, avian rookeries, and estuaries, are found within the
Project site. As a result, the site holds low value, if any, as a wildlife movement
corridor. As a result,this impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, there are no migratory wildlife, corridors
running north/south within the EVCSP planning area as it is already well-developed
with urban uses, with agricultural uses being transitioned out. Therefore, no
significant overall cumulative impact would occur, and the Project would not result
in a cumulatively considerable contribution. The cumulative impact of the Project is
less, than significant.
1:cderk"Reso I ution,;'Res,6700-67W6799EIR Rcillands Commons January 6,2009DOC
. Cultural R so urAc s
Impact: Would construction of the Project create a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archeological resource its defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines"? (Impact 4.5-1 p. 4.5-11
FINDING: The Ci", finds that the Project will have a less than significant impact
with regard to the change in significance of an archeological resource. No,
prehistoric archaeological materials or"unique archaeological resources' as defined
by Public Resources Code Section 2,1083.2(g) has been recovered or recorded at the
Project site. The likelihood of encountering any archaeological resources during
construction is considered very low. Implementation of General Plan mandated
Project Requirement PR 4.5A will ensure that areas found during construction to
contain archeological artifacts shall be examined by a qualified consultant for
appropriate protection and preservation. Project Requirement PR 4.5A ensures
this impact will remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, development in the City would require grading
and excavation that could potentiallyaffect archaeological resources. If subsurface
cultural resources are protected upon discovery as required by law, impacts to those
resources would be less than significant. Project Requirements PR 4, A and PR
4.513 would be imposed and enforced throughout`construction, and the contribution
of potential impacts from the Project to the cumulative destruction of subsurface
cultural resources throughout the City of Redlands would, therefore, be less than
significant.
Impact. Would construction of the Project disturb any Duman remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries:' (Impact 4.5-3. p. 4.5=14)
FINDING: The City rinds that;the Project will have a less than significant impact
with regard to the disturbance of human remains. No formal cemeteries are known
to have occupied the Project site. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.513,
which requires all construction to halt immediately in the event of the discovery of
human remains, will ensure this impact remains less than significant. This impact is
less than significant,,and therefore no>mitigation is required..
With regard to cumulative impacts, development in the City would require grading;
and excavation that could,potentially affect human remains. if subsurface cultural
resources are protected upon discovery as required by law, impacts to those
resources would he less than significant. Project Requirements PR 433 and PR_
433 would be imposed and enforced throughout construction, and the contribution
of potential impacts from the Project to the cumulative destruction of subsurface
cultural resources throughout the City of Redlands would, therefore, be less than
significant.
P` c1 k'F2 ,uti4:a, 5
6700-6799'6790 EIR Rectiarids Ct lin rtc+ns Jiti)iaiy 6,2irfO.C}(W 12
F. Geolozy and Soilv
Impact, Would construction of the Prqject place structures on expansive soils, as
defined in Table 18-1-A of the California Building Code (2001) and create substantial
risks to I i fe or property? (Impact 4.6-1, p. 4.6-14)
FINDING: The Cit-
y finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to placing structures on expansive soils, as defined in
Table 18-1-A of the California Building Code (2001) and creating substantial risks
to life or property. The soils underlying the Project consist of local silt and gravel
and have an Expansion Index of 0. The Project will comply with all applicable
provisions of the California Building Code. This impact is less than significant and
no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, buildings and facilities in the City of Redlands
would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and
seismic guidelines and recommendations, consistent with the requirements of the
City's Building Code and Project Requirements PR 4.6A, PR 4.611, and PR 4.6C.
Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project
design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety, and the cumulative
impact would be less than significant.
Impact- Would implementation of the Project exposure of people and/or structures
to risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seisinic ground shaking or seismic-related
ground failure? (Impact 4.6-2, p. 4.6-14)
FINDING: The City rinds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to exposing people and/or structures to risk of loss,
injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground
failure. The Project is located in a seismically active area. To reduce the risks
associated with seismically induced ground shaking, the design of foundations and
structures must consider the location and type of sulis urface materials underlying
the site. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.6A requires the developer to
demonstrate to the City that the design of the Project will comply with all provisions
of the California Building Code with respect to seismic design for Zone 4, would
ensure this impact remains less than significant. No mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, buildings and facilities in the City of Redlands
would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and
seismic guidelines and recommendations, consistent with the requirements of the
City's Building Code and Project Requirements PR 4.6A, PR 4.6B, and PR 4.6C.
Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project
design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety, and the cumulative
impact would be less than significant.
LI
67004)799�6794)EIR 6,2009.DOC
Impact: Would implementation of the Project exposure people and/or structures to
potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a
result of landslides an&or slope instability? (Impact 4.6-3, p, 4.6-16)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to exposing people and/or structures to potentially
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of
landslides and/or slope instability. The Project is in an area that is predominantly
flat, with a lack of natural slopes. Therefore, the possibility of landslides is
considered remote. Furthermore, the area is not in a designated seismic hazard
zone for seismic slope instability as defined by either the State or County. Project
Requirement PR 4.611 requires that where excavations are made for underground
utilities, the construction contractor shall either shore excavation walls,with shoring
designed to withstand additional loads, or flatten or "lay back" the excavation walls
to a shallower gradient. With implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.613, this
impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, development in the City of Redlands would be
required to he sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and
seismic guidelines and recommendations consistent with the standards of the City's
Building Code, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Adherence by
the Concept Plan to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project
design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety. Therefore, the
cumulative impact of the Project would be less than significant.
Impact: Would implementation of the Project result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? (Impact 4.6-4, p, 4.6-17)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively, erosion or the
loss of topsoil. Although the topsoil at the Project site would be susceptible to
erosion during construction activities such as excavation, the developer would be
required to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program ("SWPPP11),
including a Best Management Practices 1'BMPII) program to address construction
discharges. The BMPs would include sediment controls which would ensure that
sediment is confined to the construction area and not transported off-site. After
construction, soil erosion would be controlled by implementation of an approved
landscape and irrigation plan. Furthermore, implementation of Project
Requirements PR 4.8A and PR 4.813, which require adherence to various provisions
of the City's Municipal Code and the NPDES requirements, would ensure that this
impact remains less than significant, and therefore no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the construction phase of the Project could
expose soil to erosion bywind or water. Development of other cumulative projects in
the vicinity of the Project site could, also expose soil surfaces, and further alter soil
conditions. To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts that could cause
erosion, the Project and cumulative projects in the adjacent area are required to be
6700-6-199,6799 F I R Redlands Conimonshinuary 0.NXMI)OC' 14
developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal, state, County,
and City laws and ordinances, as required by Project Requirements PR, 4.8A and
PR 4.813. As a result, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts on the Santa Ann
Watershed caused by runoff and erosion from cumulative development activity
would not be significant. Since the Project would be in compliance with applicable
Project Requirements, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution, and the cumulative impact of the Project would be less than.
significant.
Impact: Would in-iplementation of the Project subject people and structures, to
hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or
heaving? (Impact 4.6-5, p. 4,6-19)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to subjecting people and structures to hazards
associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or
heaving. People and structures within the Project will not be subject to hazards
associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or
heaving. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.6C, which requires the
developer to submit (and have the City approve), a site-specific evaluation of
unstable soil conditions, would ensure this impact remains less than significant, and
therefore no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, all development in Seismic Zone 4 is required to
undergo analysis of geological and soil conditions applicable to the Project site (refer
to PR 4.6A, PR 4.6B, and PR 4.6Q, and because restrictions on development would
be applied in the event that geological or soil conditions posed a risk to safety, it is
anticipated that cumulative impacts from development on soils subject to instability,
subsidence, collapse, and/or expansive soil would be less than significant. Since the
Project would be in compliance with applicable Project Requirements, the Project
would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution, and the Project's
cumulative impact would be less than significant.
G. Ha;ark's acrd Ma,-,ardousMater rale
Impact: Would development of the Project involve the routine use, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials, such that a significant hazard to the public Would occur''
(Impact 4.7-1, p. 4.7-14)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to the routine use, transport, and disposal of
hazardous material. Thus, no significant hazard to the public or environment
would occur. The development will not include automobile service stations, or
automobile repair centers, but may include such businesses as dry cleaners, which
are permitted or conditionally permitted uses on the Project site under the EVCSP.
Compliance with Project Requirement PR4.7A will require compliance with all
6'100-699,,0799 RIR ReAmds Commons.January 6.2fO)DOC 15
applicable federal and state laws related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.
Project Requirement PR 4.711 will require all business establishments to comply
with the San Bernardino County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
hazardous materials regulation requirements, as well as the California Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law (Business Plan Act) to
minimize the potential for accidents involving hazardous materials. This impact
will remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, related development in the City and
surrounding area could subject construction workers to health or safety risks
through exposure to hazardous materials, although the individual workers
potentially affected would vary from project to project. Projects would be required
to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Adherence to
applicable regulations and guidelines pertaining to hazardous materials would
ensure that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Because the Project
would also be required to comply with applicable statutes and regulations which
would ensure that the project would not result in significant public hazards as a
result of the accidental release of hazardous materials, the Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the cumulative impact of
the Project would be less than significant.
Impact: Would construction of the Project result in the handling of acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of anexisting or
proposed school? (Impact 4.7-4, p. 4,7-23)
FINDING: The City finds that construction of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to the handling of acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The
point of maximum impact (IPPA') is located at the eastern Project property line
next to Texas Street, halfway between Pioneer Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue.
Because the DPM Hazard Index ("HI") is less than one at the PMI, the HI is also, by
definition, less than one at all other locations, including the proposed high school
located on the north side of Pioneer; hence, no further analysis is required. No
significant adverse health impacts are expected from DPM emissions from
construction activities associated with the Project. Therefore, the impact of the
Project from hazardous air emissions within 1/4n.ffle of the new high school would be
less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, existing, construction of proposed and
reasonable foreseeable development would potentially create risks from hazards or
hazardous materials and would be subject to the requirements applicable local, state
and federal regulations. For instance, impacts to schools are reviewed in
accordance with California Department of Education regulations. Project
Requirements PR 4.6A and PR 4.611 would ensure that any cumulative impacts
pertaining to the handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes
Lee 1etk')Rcso]ubon,,Res 0700-6749`11)799 EIR Rc(thinds Commons January 6,2009D(W 16
within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school would not be cumulatively
considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
.Impact- Would operation of the Project result in the handling Of acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Impact 4.7-5, p. 4,7-25)
FINDING: The Citv finds that operation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to the handling of acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The
Project was compared to the much larger project in North Rialto, California. If the
potential cancer risk evaluated for the larger facility is determined to be less than
significant, it can be stated that the smaller Concept Plan, which would require
fewer diesel truck trips, would also be less than significant. The estimated cancer
risk at the Rialto facility was determined to be 8.7 in I million, below the SCAQ1NID
significance threshold of 10 in I million. As a result, this impact is considered less
than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, existing, proposed and reasonable foreseeable
development that would potentially create risks from hazards or hazardous
materials would be subject to the applicable local, state and federal requirements
and regulations. For instance, impacts to schools are reviewed in accordance with
California Department of Education regulations. Project Requirements PR 4.6A
and PR 4.6B would ensure that any cumulative impacts pertaining to the handling
of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within Y4mile of an existing or
proposed school would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact
would be less than significant.
Impact: Would implementation of the Pro�ject result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport? (Impact 4.7-6, p, 4.7-26)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to a safety hazard for people residing or working
within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport. There are two airports located near
the Project—San Bernardino International Airport and the Redlands Municipal
Airport. The Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(I-ALUCP"') addresses this airport's compatibility- regarding exposure to noise and
safety, and the Redlands Municipal Airport would not result in a safety= hazard.
The Project is located outside the San Bernardino International Airport ("S'RIA")
risk factor zone. The location of the Project will not result in a safety hazard
relative to the SBIA. This impact is considered less than significant., and therefore
no mitigation is required.-
With
equired.With regard to cumulative impacts, all development would be subject to the risks
associated with the exposure to>safety hazards from aircraft overhead, these risks
6700-6199,6799 EIR.Redlands Commons hnuar� 6,2009AX)C 17
vary according to location and other various factors, and are, therefore, unique. It
is also likely that such risk, if sufficiently high, would be a factor in any decision to
approve or deny future development proposals pursuant to the various federal,
State and local regulations governing airports. However, the Project site is not
located within a high, risk zone pursuant to land use regulations of the Redlands
Municipal Airport and the SBIA areas of influence, which would< limit land use
intensity based on risk factors related to the proximity to the runway (i.e., the
navigable airspace). The cumulative impact with respect to exposure safety risks
from airport operations would be less than significant.
H. 11
A,drolM and li'later Quality
Impact: Would implementation of the Project increase star water pollutant loads
or concentrations, or result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements'? (Inipact4.8-1, p. 4,8-30)
FINDING: The City rinds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to increasing stormwater pollutant loads or
concentrations, or result in a violation water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements. The Project's wastewater will be treated by the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Groundwater is located more than 50 feet below the surface. All
construction activities would be subject to existing regulatory requirements of the
City's Municipal Code. Implementation of Project Requirements PR 4.88 and PR
4.811, which require adherence to various provisions of the City's Municipal Code
related to water quality, as well as the use of BMPs related to water conservation,
vehicle and equipment operations, equipment staging, and waste and materials
management, will ensure this impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, all projects within the Middle Santa Ana River
Watershed Management Area would be subject to the requirements of an NPDES
Permit- the Statewide General Construction Permit and the Municipal Stormwater
Permit. Also, the General Construction Permit requires that a SWPPP be prepared
for any construction project that would disturb more than one acre of land surface
and for significant redevelopment projects. Municipal Stormwater Permit
conditions are required to be codified in the local agency/municipality codes and
ordinances. Potential construction dewatering would be subject or either a General
Permit of discharge of low-threat waters or/and individual Waste Discharge
Requirement. Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permits would
necessitate the use of erosion control measures and stormwater pollution prevention
BMPS during both construction and operational phases of development projects.
Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the violation of water quality
standards and/or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.
Impact- Would implementation of the Project alter the existing drainage patterns of
the,site or result in a substantial erosion or siltation? Impact 4.8-4, 4.8-55)
1:cclerkkesolutiowsRes(5700-61199'6799 EIR Redlands Commons January 6,2009DOC 18
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to altering the existing drainage patterns of the site
or resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site. During construction,
drainage patters could be substantially altered and surface soils would be exposed
and susceptible to substantial erosion. Eroded sediments could cause or contribute
to siltation in the down-gradient storm drain system and Santa Ana River system.
Implementation of existing Project Requirements would require preparation of a
SWPPP including construction erosion and sediment control BMPs.
Implementation of Project 'Requirements PR 4.8F and PR 4.8G, however, will
reduce the potential for erosion and siltation from construction and ensure that this
impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, during construction of cumulative development,
conversion of vacant land or agricultural land or redevelopment of underutilized
land would result in grading that would alter surface drainage characteristics that
may increase erosion and sediment transport. All construction would be regulated
by the NPDES General Construction Permit which requires preparation of a
SWPPP with construction BMPs to reduce erosion and sediment transport for
projects that cumulatively disturb more than one acre. All construction projects
that disturb more than one acre of land surface would be required to comply with
the NPDE S General Construction Permit. Implementation, monitoring, and
enforcement of the General Construction Permit conditions, as required by the
area-wide Municipal Stormwater Permit, would ensure that potential cumulative
construction impacts on erosion or siltation are less than significant. Also,
permittees (agencies) of the Municipal Stormwater Permit are required to inspect
and enforce permit requirements. Therefore, potential impacts associated with
development that might cause or contribute to erosion and siltation within the
watershed would not be substantial and the cumulative impact wouldbe less than
significant.
I. Land Use
Impact: Would the economic impacts of the Project result in, urban decay or urban
blight? (finpact 4.9-2, p. 4.9-421
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively, economic
impacts resulting in urban decay or urban blight. Economic and social changes are
not in themselves significant impacts on the environment, but can lead to them as a
result of land use decisions. Tice City conducted a market analysis to assess the
existing retail commercial market in relation to the proposed retail development of
the Project. The trade area examined in the analysis extends in a five miles radius
from the Project site. Given the relatively small sire and orientation of the proposed
retail development within the Project, the significant patronage is not anticipated
from beyond a 5-mile radius. It is expected that the Project will complement, rather
than directly compete with, surrounding existing and proposed retail
establishments. It is also expected that transfer effects would be modest, depending
6700-6-W6799 EIR Redlands Comn'ionshnuar
y 6,2009,DOC 19
on the distance from the Project. It is also expected that there will be a one-time
sales erosion of 4 to 6 percent that will result in few to no business failure of existing
area retailers. Finally, increased tax revenues will further the ability of the City to
spend funds on physical or other public improvements. This impact is considered
less than significant, and therefore no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, because the entire region is experiencing a need
for additional housing and supporting commercial uses, new developments that are
consistent with the City's General Plan vision, which considered the growth
potential of the area and planned for a specific amount of growth in the future,
would not he expected to result in an adverse impact with regard to urban blight in
the City. Thus, as there is no significant cumulative impact leading to blight or
urban decay, and the project's impact would be less than significant, the cumulative
impact of implementation of the Concept Plan is also less than significant.
J. Volse
Impact: Would operation of the project expose noise sensitive land uses on or off-
site to noise levels that exceed the standards established by the City of Redlands?
(Impact 4.10-2, p. 4.10-25)
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to exposing noise sensitive land uses on or off-site to
noise levels that exceed the standards established by the City of Redlands.
Operation of the Project would result in increased noise levels due to the
introduction of residential and commercial uses into an area previously utilized for
agricultural uses. In addition to the increases in human activity, sources of noise
generated by implementation of the Project would include new stationary sources,
such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for the
residential, office and commercial uses, as well as activities such as loading and
unloading of deliveries, parking lot noises and maintenance and landscaping of the
Project site. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.10B and PR 4.10C will
ensure this impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, major stationary sources of noise will be
introduced into the Redlands area such as HV.AC equipment located on the rooftops
of new developments and residential uses. Shielding, which is required, could
reduce these noise levels by up to 15 dBA. Because shielding would be required for
all development associated with the Project, noise levels from individual stationary
sources would not exceed the applicable City noise standard, and because this
shielding would he expected to be installed on all new development in the Redlands
area, it is expected that all rooftop stationary sources in the Project area would
similarly generate less than significant noise levels. Furthermore, the development
associatedwith the Project and other nearby projects are not so dense that multiple
stationary HVAC units would be closely spaced, either on-site or off-site.
Consequently, the cumulative effect of multiple UVAC units, mechanical
equipment, and parking structures would be less than significant.
6700-671) 6799 EIR Redlands Commons January 6.2009DOC 20
Impact: Would operation of the project generate traffic;that would contribute to the
exposure> of the proposed residential uses to noise levels in excess of established
standards of the City of Redlands General plan`' (Impact 4.10-3, p. 4,10-27)
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to generating traffic that would contribute to the
exposure of the proposed; residential uses to noise levels in excess of established
standards of the City of Redlands (general Plan. The Project would result in
increased traffic levels in the project vicinity*. To this end, the traffic noise modeling
results indicates that the future roadway noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed
residential uses would also exceed the 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise limit for
residential uses, specifically along Pioneer Street between Texas Street and
Tennessee Street, where predicted noise levels would be 62.5 dBA CNEL; and along
Texas Street between Pioneer Street and San Bernardino Avenue, where predicted
noise levels would be 63.6 dBA CNEL. The City of Redlands General Plan Policy
9.tlf requires that proposed residential uses that would be located in areas where
transportation noise levels would exceed the 64 dBA CNEL exterior noise limit
incorporate design features and Mitigation Measures that would, reduce exterior
noise levels to below 60 dBA CEI . In accordance with the policies in the Cita of
Redlands General Plan and Project requirement PR 4.1131) and PR 4:10E, the
residential uses would be designed to be set back from the roadways; a masonry
wall would be constructed around the perimeter of the residential component; and
the wall would be designed to minimize sound reflection through the use of texture
and.landscaping. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
With regard to cumulativeimpacts generated by traffic, because the contribution of
the Project to the future: noise levels would be no greater than 0.9 dBA, the
cumulative contribution of the Project to the future roadway noise level at the
affected intersection would not exceed the incremental threshold established by the
City of Redlands General Plan :Policy 9.11v. As a result, the contribution would not
be cumulatively considerable. 'Therefore, the Project would result in a less than
significant cumulative impact.
Impact Would operation of the Project generate or expose sensitive receptors on-
site or off-site to excessive lrOlandborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (impact
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project would have a less than
significant impact with regard to generating or exposing sensitive receptors on-site
or off-site to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. During,
operation of the Project, background operational vibration levels would be expected
to average around 50 VdB. This is substantially less than the FTA's vibration
impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance, and less than the 13.111 PP`
threshold established by Section 8.06.020 of the City Municipal Code. Groundborne
vibration resulting; from operation of the Project would primarily be generated by
trucks making periodic deliveries to the project site. No substantial sources of
groundborne vibration would be built as part of the Project; therefore, operation of
[.=U �c.i&`[tctirtlu i art` tia 6700-6? ?f 791)EI R Redlands t"osaamon January 6,2(X)9,DOC, 21
the Project would not expose sensitive receptors on-site or off-site to excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and this impact would be less
than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, no significant vibration impacts would occur
during operation of the Project. The same is expected to hold true for other projects
near the Concept Plan area. Consequently, there wouldbe no cumulative
operational groundborne vibration impacts to any on-site or off site receptor. The
cumulative impact is, therefore, less than significant.
Impact: Would operation of the Project expose people residing or working in the
area to pennanent increases in ambient noise levels due to the proposed new high school
to be located adjacent to the Concept Plan area? (Impact 4.10-7, p,4.10-34)
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to exposing people residing or working in the area to
permanent increases in ambient noise levels due to the proposed new high school to
be located adjacent to the Concept Plan area. The potentialexists that school
related noises, such as signal bells/buzzers, play field activities and after school
events such as nighttime football games would impact the workers, patrons and
residences of the Project. Such noise would potentially be audible at the Project
residences, but would be of short duration and would occur during the typically less
noise-sensitive daytime hours during which school is in session or outside of
recognized sleep hours. Redlands Commons would be developed such that the
residential units would be set back from Pioneer Avenue by approximately 33 feet,
which would serve to reduce noise levels from school activities. Additionally, the
residential uses will have a six foot high wall placed along the perimeter of the
Project site, which would serve to reduce school activity noise levels even further.
Finally, the City Municipal Code, Section 8.06.120(D) (Exemptions) exempts all
activities and operations conducted on the grounds of any public or private
elementary, intermediate, or secondary school from the exterior noise standards,
and impacts would be less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts related to the high school, according to the
environmental documentation prepared by the City of Redlands for the new high
school, construction of the proposed kedlands high school would produce
temporary vibration impacts that would be less than significant because Mitigation
Measure NIM 4.1.0-2 would ensure that construction activities do not exceed the City
Municipal Code threshold of 0.01 PPV. However, as noted above in the analysis for
Impact 4.10-5, the high school is not expected to expose people residing or working
in the area to permanent increases in ambient noise levels due to the proposed new
high school to be located adjacent to the Concept Plan area. Therefore, the
cumulative impact is considered to be less than significant.
Impact- Would operation of the Project generate increased local traffic volumes or
not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
6700-6799'h799 EIR Redlands Commons January(x,'2(X)9J)OC, 22
that exceeds the threshold of significance as established under City of Redlands General
Plan Noise Element Policy 9.0v? (Impact 4.10-8, p. 4,10-35)
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project would have a less than
significant impact with regard to generating increased local traffic volumes or
causing a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity that exceeds the threshold of significance as established under Cio., of
Redlands General Platt Noise Element Policy 9.0v. The principal noise source in the
Project area is traffic on local roadways. The increase in traffic resulting from
implementation of the Project would increase the ambient noise levels at sensitive
off site locations in the Project vicinity. While the cumulative increase in noise
levels would be up 5.8 dBA, which would exceed the 4 dBA increase threshold
established under the City of Redlands General Plan Policy 9.0v, the Project's
contribution to the future noise levels would be no greater than 0.9 dBA along Texas
Street, south of San Bernardino Avenue. Therefore, increased traffic levels
associated with the Concept Plan would not result in an increase of noise levels that
would exceed the 4 dBA increase threshold established by the City of Redlands.This
impact would be considered less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, because the contribution of the Project to the
future noise levels would be no greater than 0.9 dBA, the cumulative contribution of
the Project to the future roadway noise level at the affected intersection would not
exceed the incremental threshold established by the City of Redlands General Plan
Policy 9.0v. As a result, the contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.
Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
Impact-. Would operation of the Project expose people residing or 1working in the
area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public aitliort? (Impact 4.10-9, p. 4.10-37)
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to exposing people residing or working in the area to
rw
excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public airport. The Project site is approximately two mites to the
southeast of the San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA) and two miles west of
the Redlands Municipal Airport. According to the San Bernardino International
Airport 2005 CNEL Noise Contour and Airport Influence Area Map, the Project
site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour; however, the Project site is within
the Airport Area of Influence. As such, the Project would have to demonstrate
consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Currently, the S" IA Authority is in the
process of preparing the Airport Master Plan and the ALUCP. According to the
existing compatibility map provided by the airport staff, the northwestern portion
of the Project area is located within the Airport Influence Area. However, the
Project site is not located within the 60 dBA C' EL contour lines of the airport and
therefore, noise resulting from the take-off and landing of aircraft would not
intrude upon the workers, patrons, or residents of the Project area. As such, the
Project would not expose people residing or working on the Project site to excessive
670()-�)71)qA799 LIP,Redlands Commons January'6,2009,130C 33
noise levels from the airport operation. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact
would occur.
With regard to cumulative impacts, as developable land becomes scarcer in the City
in response to population growth and development pressures, it is possible that
future development may be sited within an airport land use plan area or within two
miles of a public airport that could expose people to excessive noise. As these sites
are limited, however, given that there is only one airport within City limits and the
only other airport that could affect land use decisions in the City of Redlands is the
SBIA, there would be no significant cumulative impact with regard to airport noise.
The Project is not within the 60 dBA CNEL contour for the airport. Therefore, the
cumulative impact would also be less than significant.
K. Population_and.Hou.vin
Impact: Would the Project induce substantial population growth beyond that
planned for the City? (Impart 4.11-1, p. 4.11-11)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively, inducing
substantial population growth beyond that planned for the City. With regard to
direct population, growth, the Project will result in the construction of 199 single-
family residential units on the Redlands Commons property (there are no
residential units planned for the Trojan Groves property). Based on population
estimates, these units would result in population growth of approximately 550
people. The General Plan identifies the goal of limiting population growth in the
City to approximately 32,000 residential dwelling units and 90,000 people. The
Project's 1.99 residential units constitutes approximately 0.6 percent of the City's
build out housing and population forecasts. As a result, the Project will not result in
a substantial direct population growth.
With regard to indirect growth, construction of roads and other infrastructure will
also be carried out as part of the Project. However, the City finds that development
of infrastructure as part of the Project would primarily serve the Project and would
not result in any unexpected or unplanned growth. Furthermore, the Project will
create approximately 550 new employment positions. Employment projections for
the City through the year 2030 show increases in employment averaging 785 jobs
per year. Both population and employment growth numbers are within the City's
limits/projections. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts related to substantial population growth in the
area, cumulative projects within the City include twelve residential housing projects
totaling 697 dwelling units. When added to the 199 residential units proposed on
the Redlands Commons parcel, 901 residential units are planned in the City of
Redlands. This would result in direct population growth of approximately 2,477
people, This growth is consistent with the General Plan. This is considered a less-
than-significant impact. Furthermore, the Project would result in an increase of 901
67(0-6799,6799 FIR Reallands Commons January 6,'?009 WC 24
additional housing units in the City of Redlands by, the year 2010, for a total of
population of 26,064 housing units. The increase in housing units would be
consistent with SCAG housing projections. This is considered a less-than-significant
cumulative impact.
Impact: Would development of the Project exceed, the total of new single-family
residential units allowed under the. City Municipal Code? (Impact 4.11.2, 4.11-15)
FINDING: The City rinds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively, exceeding the
total number of new single-family residential units annually allowed in the 04,
under Title 19 of the City Municipal Code. Per the Municipal Code, the City may
not approve more than 400 residential units per calendar year. Redlands
Commons' 199 units represent 50 percent of the allowed >annual increase. The
Project would request less than the maximum in Calendar year 2008. This impact is
considered less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, 901 residential units are anticipated as a result
of the development on the Redlands Commons parcel. This would exceed the total
number of residential units allowed in one calendar year under Title 19 of the City
Municipal Code. However, it is anticipated that not all of these projects would
proceed concurrently, and some permits may have been issued this calendar year
and some will he requested in later years. Implementation of Project Requirement
PR 4.11A would reduce this cumulative impact to less than significant by ensuring
that the number of residential units developed in one calendar year does not exceed
the limits established by the City Municipal Code.
L. 'Public Services
Impact: Would development of the Project increase the demand for fire protection
services mid require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to
accommodate the increased demand for service and maintain acceptable response times?
(Impact 4.12-1, p, 4,12-4)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 fire protection.
To reduce any potential impact on existing the Redlands Fire Department ("RFD")
facilities, equipment and personnel, the City and the RFD will review the Project's
site plan and verify that the development meets the State's Fire Code as well as the
City's Building Code. Through implementation of Project Requirements PR 4.12A
through PR 4.121), which include- compliance with the City's as well as the Health
and Safety Code's regulations relating to fire protection systems; payment of
1:cderk-Resolutions Res 6700-67WI,794 FIR R(Oands Commons January 6,2CX)9XX.)C 25
development impact fees; compliance with the City's building design provisions
relating to automatic sprinkler systems that are required to he installed in all new
structures having a floor area of more than 200 sf.; and provision of a security fence
enclosing the entire Project site during construction with a lockable gate accessible
by the City's fire and police departments ensure this impact remains less than
significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the City of Redlands Fire Marshal has
identified that past growth in the City of Redlands has led to decreased response
times and a need for additional fire protection services. However, property tax and
sales tax revenue assist in funding of RFD operations. As development occurs, these
funding sources increase proportionately. Furthermore, funds collected in the form
of plan check fees, inspection fees, and permit fees are deposited into the General
Fund and allocated to City services, as needed. In addition, the City has recently
implemented development impact fees to reduce the impacts of new development on
fire protection services. These fees would be distributed to the RFD to provide
additional services and facilities required by growth in the City. Therefore, the
cumulative impact on fire services would be less than significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project increase the demand for police
protection services that would require the construction of new or physically altered
facilities to accommodate the increased demand for service or maintain, acceptable
response times? (Impact 4.12-2, p. 4.12-11)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project 'will have a less than
significant impact with regard to increasing demand for police protection that
would require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to
accommodate the increased demand for service or maintain acceptable response
times. Based on current personnel-per-capita ratios, the direct population growth
as a result of the Project would require approximately 0.79 additional police
personnel. See Draft FIR; Section 4.12. As a result, it is not anticipated that a new
facility or physical alteration to existing facilities would be required as a result of
the less than one additional personnel required for the Project.
The Redlands Police Department (the "RPD") will provide law-enforcement
services to the Project. RPD has identified the need for a new facility and additional
personnel; however, the Project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to this
need. The City will examine the Project in order to determine the appropriate
amount of development fees that need to be paid. Also, the sales tax generated by
retail and commercial sales at the proposed development would increase the City's
revenue. Both revenue generated by development impact fees and sales taxes are
deposited directly into the City's General Fund for appropriate allocation during
the annual budgeting process, at which time the City may determine how to
allocated these funds. Implementation, of Project Requirement PR 4.12E though PR
4.12G, including payment of a development impact fee; installation of the
appropriate security alarm systems in the commercial components of the Project
that are connected to the Redlands Fire and Police Departments; and the provision
6700-6799-6799 FIS Redlands,Commons January 6.20,} OC 26
of 24-hour on-site security personnel for the duration of construction activities will
Delp to minimize any increase in burden on the RPD. As a result, this impact will
remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, as additional development occurs in the City,
there may be an overall increase in the demand for police protection services,
including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. To this end, the RPD has
indicated that recent and planned development in the city has created the need for
significant numbers of additional police personnel in all areas of service to the
community. Demands on police protection services are mitigated by imposition of
development impact fees on all construction to fund police facilities. Additionally,
property tax and sales tax revenue assist in funding of police operations. As
development occurs, these funding sources increase proportionately. The taxes and
fees collected would be distributed to the RPD to provide additional services and
facilities required by growth in the City. As a result, the cumulative impact on police
services in the City would be less than significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project increase the demand for schools that
would require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate the
increased demand? (Impact 4.12-3, p. 4.12-16)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered schools to accommodate increased demand. The Redlands
Unified School District ("RUSD"l anticipates that enrollment for its elementary,
middle and high schools will increase in the coming years. According to the RUSD,
direct population growth resulting from the 199 single-family residential units
would generate approximately 53 elementary school students, 27 middle school
students, and 39 high school students,for a total of 119 additional students in grades
K-12. Project Requirement PR 4.12H requires the developer to pay all applicable
development impact fees to cover additional school services required by new
development. The fees collected will offset any additional increase in educational
demand at the schools serving the Project site. As a result, this impact will remain
less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, State law has determined that the payment of
school fees reduces a project's impact to less than significant levels. The
development impact fees associated with the Project constitute full mitigation for
impacts to educational services because the City has determined that they would
adequately fund the resulting increase in demand for those services. Thus, since
implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact there
would not be a cumulative impact to schools. The cumulative impact, therefore, on
educational services in the City would be less than significant.
Impact- Would development of the Project increase, demand for library services
that would require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate
the increased demand for service? (Impact 4.12-4, p. 412-20
67()()-67914'6799 EIR Redlands Commons January 6,')009.[)oC 27
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively, increasing
demand for library services that would require the construction of new or physically
altered facilities to accommodate the increased demand for service. The Project
involves construction of 199 single-family residential units that will result in a direct
population growth of approximately 550 people. The direct population increase
would result in a net decrease in the book s-per-capita ratio, from 2.43 books per
capita to 2.40 books per capita. This reduction is not anticipated to result in the
need for a new library or require physical alternations to the existing library. The
director of the library has provided information that the existing capacity of the
library system would he adequate to accommodate the additional residents resulting
from the implementation of the Project. Project Requirement PR 4.121 requires the
developers to pay all applicable development impact fees to cover additional library
services required by new development. This will ensure that the impact remains less
than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the development impact fees associated with
Project constitute full mitigation for impacts to library services because the City has
determined that they would adequately fund the resulting increase in demand for
those services. These fees would be distributed to the A.K. Smiley Library to
provide additional services and facilities required by growth in the City. The
cumulative impact, therefore, on library services in the City would be less than
significant.
M. Recreation
Impact. Would implementation of the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration, of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Impact 4.13-1, p.
4.13-11)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to increasing the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The direct and indirect
increase in population could result in an increase in use of local and regional
recreational facilities,which could result in increased wear and tear on facilities.
The provision of on-site open space areas (particularly the 2.1 acre recreational area
in the Redlands Commons parcel) would help offset any potential physical
deterioration that could result from use of other nearby recreational facilities.
Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.13A, which requires the developers to
pay all open space and park fees prior to obtaining building permits in order to help
the City acquire, develop, improve, and expand open space and parklands identified
in the City's open space and parklands acquisition and development program, will
further reduce the Project's contribution towards parkland impacts. In addition, a
total of approximately 20.59 acres of common and private open space would be
67006799`6799 E[R RtdIandsCommons hnuary 6.2009.DOC 28
provided (14.25 acres within Redlands Commons and 6.34 acres within Trojan
Groves). As a result, this impact will remain less than significant
With regard to cumulative impacts, cumulative development would increase the
demand for parkland in the City. However, the proposed 2.82 acres of open space
and recreational areas, as well as the 6.1 acres of private open space inside lot lines,
2.93 acres of landscaped area in the commercial component, and 2.4 acres of
landscaped areas between the street right-of-way and individual lots within the
Redlands Commons residential development would contribute to the parkland and
recreational amenities available to the future residents. Additionally, all cumulative,
development within the City, including the Project, is required to pay appropriate
park and open space fees per Ordinance No. 2661. Consequently, because
Ordinance No. 2661 (and required by Projection Requirement PR 4.13A) provides a
mechanism for the City to achieve its target goal of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents, and because all cumulative development is required to pay its fair share of
park fees to achieve the City"s goal, this cumulative impact is considered less than
significant.
Impact: Would implementation of the Project include park facilities, the
construction of which would have an adverse physical effect on the en-6ronment?
(Impact 4.13-2, p. 4.13-15)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to the inclusion of park facilities, the construction of
which would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Redlands
Commons Development would provide the equivalent of approximately 14.56 acres
per 1,000 residents through the provision of 8.2 acres of private open space and
yards. However, these areas would only serve the residents of the development, and
would not be dedicated for public use. An additional 12.39 acres of landscaped area
and buffers would be provided, some of which could be utilized, for recreational
activities. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.13A will ensure that
appropriate park and openspace fees are paid. In addition, no additional,
previously unidentified impacts (as analyzed throughout the FIR) would occur from
construction of the open space component of the Project. As a result this impact will
remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, because project-specific construction impacts
would he reduced for all future development projects, including the development of
park facilities, the cumulative impact of future park construction activities is not
considered significant on a cumulative basis. Thus, the cumulative impact of
constructing new or physically altered park facilities would be less than significant.
N. TransportationlTraffle
Impact: Would operation of the Project exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for desi6mated roads or highways? (Impact 4.;14-5. p. 4.14-93)
L eclerk Resolutions Res 6700-6799'16799 EIR Redhinds Commons January 0,2009DOC 29
FINDING: The City, rinds that operation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to exceeding a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. In the
2010 and 2030 condition analysis, 1-210 is forecast to operate at acceptable levels of
service from 5th Street to San, Bernardino Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue to I-
10, as well as at the Alabama Street at Redlands Boulevard intersection in the AM
and PM peak hours. The EIR provides extensive analysis of the applicable
Congestion Management Plan ("CMP") and potential impacts at various
intersections, and concludes that no mitigation is required. In addition,,
improvements for 1-210 are identified and funding is approved under Measure 1, the
sales tax initiative that has been approved by a countywide vote.. Therefore, no
mitigation and no fair share funding are necessary for freeway mainline
improvements. As a result, this impact will remain less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, 1-210 is forecast to operate at acceptable levels
of service from 5th Street to San Bernardino Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue to
1-10 in the AM and PM peak hours in 2030. In addition, improvements for this
section of the freeway are identified and funding is approved under Measure I, the
sales tax initiative that has been approved by a countyNvide vote. Therefore, this
would not he a significant cumulative impact and the cumulative impact would be
less than significant. Also, for the Redlands Commons development, in the 2009
condition analysis, 1-21.0 is forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service from
5th Street to San Bernardino Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue to I-10 in the AM
and PM peak hours. See EIR p. 4.14-105. Therefore, the Redlands Commons
project and cumulative projects plus future development would not result in a
cumulative impact in 2009, and the cumulative impact would be less than
significant.
Impact: Would operation of the PrQject substantially increase hazards due to a
desig
gn feature or incompatible uses'? (Impact 4.14-6, p. 4.14- )
FINDING: The City rinds that operation of the Project will have a less than
,Significant impact with regard to substantially increasing hazards due to a design
feature,. The Project includes development of various road improvements, internal
circulation improvements, and other intersection and lane improvenients. All road
improvements will implemented in compliance with Section 5.0 of the City's
General Plan, and constructed in accordance with the road standards described in
FVCSP EV4.0110. Although there is no development plan for the Trojan Groves
portion of the site, the developer of Trojan Groves will be required to adhere to
these standards as well. Implementation of Project Requirements PR 4.14A
through PR 4.14E will ensure that this impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, it is anticipated that future development would
be required to adhere to standard engineering practices and requirements and
would be Subject to planning and design review by the presiding jurisdiction to
avoid traffic hazards created by design features and land use incompatibilities. For
L'Cc k:iV,Resoluiion,;.Res 6700-0,99 6799 SIR Redlands Commons Januaq, -30
this reason, and because such impacts (if and where they occur) are relatively site
specific, cumulative impacts associated with such traffic hazards are less than
significant.
Impact: Would operation of the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
(Impact 4.14-7, p. 4.14-97)
FINDING: The City finds that the Project will, result in a less than significant
impact with regard to creating inadequate emergency access. The driveways on San
Bernardino Avenue, Texas Street, Pioneer Avenue, and Tennessee Street will
provide adequate width for one inbound and two outbound lanes at any residential
entry and two inbound and two outbound lanes at any commercial entry. In
addition, compliance with Project Requirement PR 4.148 (Item 8) will provide
adequate provisions be made for emergency vehicle access, with a minimum of two
points of ingress and egress at each site. As a result,this impact will remain less than
significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, construction and operation of the cumulative
projects would generate additional traffic on surface streets and intersections, but it
is not anticipated that future levels of traffic associated with the related projects
would result in a significant impairment of emergency access. Therefore, the
cumulative operational impact of the cumulative projects on emergency access is
less than significant. Regarding the effects from lane closures due to construction of
the cumulative projects and other future projects, impacts are relatively site-
specific, and thus it is not considered likely that the construction of these projects
would have a cumulative effect above and beyond the immediate effects of the
construction at the particular location. Thus, the cumulative construction impact of
the cumulative projects on emergency access is less than significant.
Impact: Would operation of the Project result in inadequate parking capacity?
(Impact 4.14-8, p, 4.14-98)
FINDING: The City, finds that operation of the Project will result a less than
significant impact with regard to creating inadequate parking capacity. The Project
will adhere to the EVCSP parking requirements to ensure adequate parking
capacity. Therefore, parking and loading will be supplied in accordance with the
City's requirements, and a less than significant impact on parking capacity will
occur.
With regard to cumulative impacts, plans for future development would be subject
to the requirements of CEQA and, as part of standard development procedures,
would be submitted to the City for review and approval to ensure that all new
development has adequate parking capacity. For this reason, and because such
impacts (if and where they occur) are relatively site specific, cumulative impacts
associated with parking are less than significant.
] cderk Resolutions,Rks 6700-6799,6799 EIR Redlands Commons Janumv 6,2001),[X)C 31
linpact: Would operation of the Project conflict with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation? (Impact 4.14-9, p. 4.14-100
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project will result in a less than
significant impact with regard to creating a conflict with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The
Project is required to adhere to the policies, objectives, and requirements regarding
alternative transportation established in the EVC P, the City's General Plan and
the Municipal Code. Through Project 'Requirements PR 4.14E through PR 4.14J,
the Project will provide bus turnouts and shelters in consultation with transit
agencies, connections to a regional trail system, sidewalks on all public streets,
comply with Municipal Code requirements supporting alternative transportation,
and will be consistent with plans and policies in the General Plan Circulation
Element and the EVCSP. Therefore, this impact will remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, cumulative projects could conflict with adopted
programs, practices, or procedures supporting alternative transportation. However,
no cumulative impact would occur with any development project within the limits of
the City of Redlands, since the related projects would be required to comply with
City of Redlands General Plan policies and the EVC SP requirements, as applicable.
Thus,the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
0. Utilities and Service System
Impact: Would implementation of the Project require or result in construction of
new or expanded water treatment facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects? (Impact.4015-1, p. 4.15-9)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to requiring construction of new water treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities. There are planned expansions for water
reclamation capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Plant, as well as a new
treatment system at the City's Texas Street well field. These improvements are not
being constructed as a result of the Project and would still be implemented even if
the Project were not constructed. The environmental impacts of the planned
treatment facility capacity improvements will be analyzed by the appropriate lead
agency in the appropriate CE( A document prior to each treatment Project's
approval. As a result, this impact will remain less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the cumulative construction impacts of water
treatment facilities' projects would be less than significant, as these types of projects
are of a small scale and it is unlikely that all potential improvements needed would
occur simultaneously. The preexisting cumulative impact is thus not significant.
Consequently, the cumulative impact of the project is less than significant.
67()0-6799'0799 EIR Redlands Commons January 6,2009 DOC 32
Impact: Would in-iplementation of the Project generate additional demand for
water, require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources, or require
new entitlements" (Impact 4.15-2, p. 4.15-10)
FINDING: The Cit-
y finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to affecting the availability of sufficient supplies to
serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. The Water Supply
Assessment ("WSA") for the Project assessed the ability of the City to meet the
future projected water demands due to growth, including the Project, for the next
20 years for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry scenarios. The WSA concluded
that the City will have sufficient supply to meet these demands. This impact is
considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative`impacts, the WSA concluded that there would be enough
water to meet the demands of the Project, and future projected growth within the
water service area of the RMUD through at least 2030. There is no cumulative
impact regarding water supply in the service area of RMUD and the Project will
have a less than significant cumulative impact.
Impact: Would implementation of the Project generate solid,waste that exceeds the
permitted capacity of the California Street Landfill? {Irnpact 4.15-3, p. 4.15-16)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to affecting the availability of a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to serve the Project. Calculations indicate that the
Project will produce a relatively small amount of solid waste and that the City's
landfill has adequate capacity. Pursuant to Project Requirement PR 4.15A the
developer will submit a site and building recycling plan to the RMUD as a condition
of approval. Also, pursuant to Project Requirement PR 4.15B the developer will
comply with all applicable regulations pursuant to the California Integrated Waste
Management Act and City Municipal Code Section 13.66.040 regarding the
recycling of construction related debris. These Project Requirements will ensure
this impact remains less than significant, and therefore no mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the Project, together with all cumulative
development in the City, was planned in the General Plan and EVCSP. As the
California Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate all solid waste
from full build out under the General Plan, there is no significant cumulative
impact. The Project would add an insignificant amount to the daily stream of solid
waste. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact.
Impact: Would implementation of the Project comply with all applicable federal,
state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Impact 4.15-4, p. 4,15- )
FINDING: The City rinds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to complying with applicable federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. To meet the requirements of the
"3
67(X)-6N+,6'()9 EI R RefflandsConimons Januat),6.2009DOC I
California Integrated Waste Management Act, the City's Municipal Code (Section
13.66) establishes requirements for recycling by development type. Compliance
with Project Requirement PR 4.14.E requires compliance with City Municipal Code
Chapter 13.66. Project Requirement PR 4.158 requires the developer to submit a
completed site and building recycling plan to the RNJUD. Furthermore,
implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.150 requires the developer of
Redlands Commons to mulch the existing citrus groves on-site and fully utilize the
mulch products in the landscaping of the property. These Project Requirements
ensure that the Project will comply with all federal, state, and local regulations. As
a result, this impact will remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, as all projects must comply with the applicable
federal, state, and local statutes and regulations as outlined directly above and in
Section 4.15-4, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur.
Impact: Would implementation of the Project exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Board? (Impact 4.15- . p. 4,15-
25)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to exceeding>wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control, Board ("RWQCB"). The
Project will include residential, commercial, office, and restaurant uses, but will not
include industrial or science research facilities. Consequently, ec
., the Proj t will not
discharge pollutants, such as industrial sludge, noxious gasses, medical wastes, or
radioactive materials. However, the Project will generate wastewater that will
include restaurant waste and typical residential and employee wastes.
Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.15D, which requires the Project to
comply with all wastewater requirements established under Chapter 13.52 of the
City's Municipal Code and all requirements established by the Santa Ana RWQCB,
will ensure the impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, to ensure that the Project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements, all cumulative development within the City,
including the Project, would adhere to the City Municipal Code. With adherence to
these existing requirements and requirements established by the NPOES permit, the
cumulative impact of the Project is less than significant.
Impact: Would implementation of the Project require or result in the construction
of new or expanded wastewater treatment or conveyance facilities or expansion of
existing facilities. (Impact 4,15-6, p. 4.15-26)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to requiring or resulting in the construction of new
or expanded wastewater treatment or conveyance facilities or expansion of existing
facilities. According to the RMUD, single4anifly residential units wwrill< generate
approximately 206 gallons of wastewater per day, offices generate 0.10 gallons of
1:',cderk,RisolutionsAes 6700-6-N)9 6799 EIR RedlzindsConunonshnuaiy 6,2009.DOC 34
wastewater per sf per day, retail uses generate 0.023 gallons of wastewater per sf per
day, and the restaurants and general mixed commercial generate approximately
0.40 gallons per sf per day. The City's wastewater treatment facility has the ability
to process of 9.5 and and has substantially adequate capacity to accommodate the
Project's waste generation. Therefore, the Project would not significantly impact
the Cityrls treatment capacity. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.15D
through PR 4.151 will require the developer to coordinate improvements with the
developers of the future school, as well as maintain compliance with the City's
Municipal Code, construct an 8-inch sewer line along the Project's frontage,
construct an internal sewer collection system, pay the applicable impact fees, and
construct the appropriate off-site improvements to the home on Buckeye Street in
two phases. The foregoing will ensure this impact remains less than significant, and
therefore no mitigation is required.
The Project and related projects in the surrounding area would not make a
cumulative impact because future sewer demands were expected and discussed as
part of the overall EVCSP. Future projects would be required to pay fees and
develop construction schedules that would reduce the overall impacts to current and
future residents in the area. The cumulative impact would be less than significant,
and the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this less
than significant impact.
Impact: Would implementation of the Project increase wastewater generation such
that treatment facilities would be inadequate to serve the Project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Impact 4.15-7, p.4.15-30)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to increasing wastewater generation such that
treatment facilities would be inadequate to serve the Project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments. Please see the above impact
analysis under Impact 4.15-6. Based on this information this impact will remain less
than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, all cumulative development, including the
Project,would pay applicable fees,which represent full mitigation for all impacts on
stormwater drainage. Therefore, future growth within the City would have an
overall cumulative impact that is less than> significant. Furthermore, the EVCSP
indicates that the Project is located in an area where stormwater drainage is
adequate to accommodate additional stormwater flows as a result of growth in the
drainage area. All drainage improvements are subject tel the approval of the
RMUD. Therefore, the development under would have as less than significant
cumulative impact.
Impact: Would implementation of the Project require the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities? (Impact 4.15-8, p. 4.15-33)
6700-6N96799 FAR Redlands Commons January 6,2f)09,[XX' 35
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with respect to requiring the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities. The Project site is currently undeveloped and permeable.
Therefore, implementation of the Project will increase the rate of surface runoff
from the Project site. However, the implementation of the Concept Plan would not
require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities, as any flow from the
Project site would enter existing stormwater drainage facilities. Instead, the Project
will result in improved curbs and gutters to accommodate additional stormwater
flows. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.15J and PR 4.151 will ensure
that this impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the EVCSP indicates that the Project is located
in an area where stormwater drainage is adequate to accommodate additional
stormwater flows as a result of growth in the drainage area. All drainage
improvements are subject to the approval of the RMUD. Therefore, the
development under would have a less than significant cumulative impact.
Impact: Would development of the Project result in the construction of new energy
production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities? (Impact
4.15-9, p. 4.15-40)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to increasing the demand for electricity, and would
not require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission
facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact.
Implementation of the Project would increase the use of electricity at the Project site
due to lighting the parking lots and buildings, as well as heating and air
conditioning the buildings. The total annual electricity consumption by the Project
is estimated to be approximately 7,532,124.6 kWhlyear, which represents an
approximate 2.9 percent annual increase in City consumption. Furthermore,
Southern California Edison (11SCE") has provided a "will serve" letter, indicating
Haat it will meet the demand and will serve the Project. See EIR p. 4.15-40 &
Appendix J. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.151, will ensure that this
impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, because SCE has determined that it is able to
meet all future projected demands, there will be no significant cumulative impacts
in terms of either supply or a potential need for added facilities. Therefore, the
cumulative impact is less than significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project increase the demand for natural gas that
Would require or result in the construction of new ggas production or transmission
facilitics'� (Impact 4.1.5-10.1 p. 4�15-42)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to increasing the demand for natural gas, and would
not require or result in the construction of new gas production or transmission
1:cc ferk,Resolutions Res 6700-6709 6799 FIR R 6,2009,DOC 36
facilities. The Project-generated demand for natural gas would be approximately
972,t81,,,734 ft/year. The Southern California Gas Company ("SCLC") has
indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas is currently available to serve the
Project, and that the natural gas level of service provided to the surrounding area
would not be impaired by the Project. See Draft Elly, p. 4.15-42. All utility
connections would be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Ordinances, and RMUD standards to ensure an adequately sized and properly
constructed electrical transmission and conveyance system. Further,
implementation and extension of utility infrastructure would be fully funded and
constructed by the developer in a manner that would minimize the potential for
utility disruption. Implementation of Project Requirements PR 4.1511 and PR 4.15L
will ensure that this impact remains less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the Project would be served by the SCLC.
SCGC's <system has ample capacity to ensure continued levels of service to all
customers within the region, supplying the Project site with adequate natural gas
would not compromise its existing and projected service commitments. See Draft
EIR p. 4.15-49. The cumulative impact related to the suppl-
y of natural, gas and to
the need for additional or expanded facilities is less than significant. Therefore, the
cumulative impact is also less than significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project result in wasteful and/or inefficient
uses of energy? (Impact 4.15-11, p. 4.15-43)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will result in a less
than significant impact with regard to, either individually or cumulatively, resulting
in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy by the Project. As required by Project
Requirement PR 4.15L, all new buildings are required to conform to the energy
conservation standards specified in CCR Title 24. In order to conform to CCR Title
24, efficient energy use would be enforced and ensure that a less than significant
impact remains with respect to wasteful or unnecessary use of energy and no
mitigation is required.
With regard to cumulative impacts, power supplies for the City, are projected to be
sufficient to support all new development. See DraftEIR p. 4.15-49. In addition, as
new projects are developed, energy conservation measures are employed. For
example, all new projects constructed in California are required to conform to the
energy conservation standards specified in Title 24 of the CCR, and many
individual projects include other energy conservation. Similarly, the impact of the
Project on electrical demand is less than significant. Therefore, the cumulative
impact of Project is also less than significant.
1:',ec lei lsResoiufions'Res 67()0-6791)'h799 EIR Redlanck Commonshimary 6.2009DOC 37
Vt. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FIR THAT ARE REDUCED
TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT BY MITIGATION MEASURES
INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Project
which are reduced to a less-than-significant level by Mitigation Measures identified in the Final
FIR. The impacts and Mitigation Measures identified are fully disclosed in the Final FIR, which
is based on substantial,evidence, The City finds that the significant environmental impacts that
these Mitigation Measures address will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
A. Aesthetic.v
Impact: Would development of the Project result in new sources of increased
daytime glare that could adversely affect daytime views in the area? (Impact 4.1-4, p. 4.1-
20)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project could result in new
sources of increased daytime glare. Although daytime glare is currently at a
minimum in, the Project area, glare could be produced by the increased amount of
surface area of the proposed commercial and retail structures, which could reflect
or concentrate sunlight and result in a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1, however, which will utilize
finished materials such as stucco and wood framing, as well as glass surfaces
consistent with the requirements of the City Municipal Code and the design
standards in the EVCSP, and landscaping adjacent to the structures would soften
and diffuse glare from the structures. As a result, this impact will be reduced to a
level of less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, all new development would be subject to the
lighting standards and requirements in the Municipal Code as well as the EVCSP.
These standards are designed to minimize the adverse impacts of increased light and
glare in the Specific Plan area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1
would reduce Project-level impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the
cumulative impact of the Project would be less than significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project result in new sources of increased
nighttime: light and glare that could adversely affect nighttime. views in the area? (Impact
4.1-5, p. 4.1-25)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project could result in new
sources of increased nighttime light and glare that could adversely affect nighttime
views in the area. There is currently no nighttime lighting on the Project site.
Because the property is not currently lighted, the post-development condition will
represent a substantial, change in existing conditions with regard to lighting and
glare. In order to reduce the impacts associated with increased nighttime light, the
Project's ingress and egress points will he situated in such a way that vehicle
headlights will not reflect on existing uses except for the planned new commercial
L�CderkAesofutikniRes 6?00-671906791)FIR 6,2009DOC 38
uses across San Bernardino Avenue, the new high school on Pioneer, and the
abandoned citrus packing plant across Texas Street to the east of the Project, which
are not considered sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the new residential uses on the
Redlands Commons property will be separated from the commercial component of
the Project by a 35-foot landscaped buffer which will operate to screen vehicle
headlights, as well as by the 40 foot buffer separating the Trojan Groves and
Redlands Commons properties.
With regard to the new high school, it will also be a new source of ambient and spill
light. The impacts associated with the high school, however, are not expected to
impact the residents of the Redlands Commons development or constitute a
substantial impact as the residential area will located away from the playing fields
of the high school.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-2 however, will require the
preparation of a lighting plan to be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of
building permits. Implementation of Project Requirements PR 4.IJ will require
that area lighting sources be subject to fixture height requirements, oriented toward
the ground, wherever feasible, or screened to minimize illumination into the
surrounding areas and to prevent glare or interference with vehicular traffic.
Furthermore, implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.111 will require that
limited and low-level lighting would be provided in open space areas. In these areas,
lighting would be limited to decorative lighting in trees and along walk-ways. As
such, these Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures will reduce lighting and
nighttime glare impacts to surrounding uses and ensure that this impact will remain
less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, all new development would be subject to the
lighting standards and requirements in the Municipal Code as well as the EVCSP.
These standards are designed to minimize the adverse impacts of increased light and
glare in the Specific Plan area. Further, because development in the Specific Plan
area has been planned, and the projects in the Specific Plan area represent a logical
outward expansion of urban uses, there would be no significant adverse impact in
the Specific Plan area with regard to light and glare. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM 4.1-2 would reduce Project-level impacts to less than significant.
Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project would be less than significant.
B. Biolo v
__gicyl Resource
Irnpact: Would constiuction of the project result n the loss of nesting habitat for
mig
i atory avian species of special concern such as raptors' (fnipact 4.4-11 p. 4,4-22)
FINDING: The City finds that construction Project would result in the loss of
nesting habitat for avian species of special concern and species protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (the "MBTA"), which could represent a substantial
L cderk'Resolutions'Rcs 6700-079(Yo799 EIR Redlands Commons,January 6.2009.E OC` 39
direct adverse effect on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game (the ,'CDFG") or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(the "F S"), Presently, approximately 40 acres of orange trees would be removed
from the Project site. Construe tion-related activities will result in tree removal
which could result in the disturbance of nesting migratory species covered under the
MBTA. Consequently, impacts to MBTA-protected breeding birds and raptors are
considered potentially significant under CEQA.
Compliance with Project Requirement PR 4.4A and implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.4-1(a), MM 4.4-1(b), and MM 4.4-1(c) would reduce the effects to
migratory avian species to a less than significant level by identifying occupied nests,
delaying construction, if necessary, and providing a buffer zone around occupied
'nests to ensure that no take or destruction of nests or eggs occurs. Alternatively, to
avoid impacts, if construction activities are limited to occur between February 15
and August 15, this impact will further be reduced by ensuring that surveys for
MBTA species and other special-status species are performed during the
appropriate time of year. As a result, this impact will be reduced to a level of less
than significant. 'Furthermore, implementation of the above Mitigation Measures
and Project Requirements would ensure that this impact remains less than
significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, continued conversion of natural habitat to
human use, the availability and accessibility of remaining foraging and natural
habitats in this ecosystem would dwindle and those remaining natural areas may
not able to support additional plant or animal populations above their current
carrying capacities. Thus, the conversion of plant and wildlife habitat on a regional
level as a result of cumulative development would result in a regional significant
cumulative impact on special status species and their habitats. However,
compliance by the developer with the MBTA, including Mitigation Measures MM
4.4-1(a), MN I 4.44(b), and MM 4.4-1(c) which requires surveys for nesting MBTA
species and burrowing owls and a restriction on construction activities if nests are
found during the breeding season, would ensure that the Project's contribution to
the cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would also be
considered less than significant.
lrnpactWould construction of the Project result in the loss of the silvery legless
lizard, a species of special concern, which could represent a substantial direct adverse
effect on species identified as candidate, sensitive., or special status species in local or
regional plans. policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.Service? (Impact 4.4-2. p, 4.4-25)
FINDING: The City finds that construction of the Project could result in the loss of
the silvery legless lizard, a species of special concern, which could represent a
substantial direct adverse effect on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
V,eclerk- Resolutions,Res 6700-6799,6799 EER_Redlands Commons Januaty 6,2009 DOC 40
silvery legless lizard is a Species of Concern and has moderate potential to occur
within the Project site. The species could inhabit the orchards found on the
Redlands Commons portion of the site. This species is, however, a very secretive
fossorial species which makes it difficult to determine if a significant population
exists at the site. Due to the Project's conversion of agricultural lands to an
urbanized environment, impacts to this species could occur. Implementation,
however, of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 would reduce the effects to the silvery
legless lizard by requiring preconstruction surveys that are designed to capture,
remove, and relocate this species. As a result, this impact will be reduced to a level
of less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the Project's acreage of habitat available in the
Project site is small from a regional perspective and, is isolated from native natural
habitat by urban development. As a result, this impact will not be cumulatively
considerable and would also be considered less than significant.
C. fultural Resources
Impact: Would construction of the Project directly or indirectly result in
destruction of a unique palenontologic resource on the Project site" (Impact 4.5-2, p,
4,5-12)
FINDING: The City finds that construction of the Project could directly or
indirectly result in damage to, or the destruction of, unique paleontologic resources
on the site. Although no unique geologic feature is known to exist on the site, and no
fossils have been found, there is a nearby rock area that has yielded significant
paleontologic specimens. Sedimentary rock located beneath the Project site has the
potential to yield similar important fossils and are considered potentially
paleontologic ally sensitive. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.44(a) and
4.5-1(b) will reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from direct or indirect
destruction of a unique palenontologic resource or site or unique geologic feature to
a level of less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the geographic context for the analysis, is the
City of Redlands and Count.), of San Bernardino. Development in the City would
require grading and excavation that could potentially affect paleontological
resources in rock units that may contain these resources. The cumulative effect of
these projects would contribute to the continued loss of subsurface cultural
resources if these resources are not protected upon discovery. However, CEQA
requirements such as Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1(a) and MM 4.5-1(b) would be
imposed and enforced throughout construction. As such, the contribution of
potential impacts from the Project to the cumulative destruction of palcontologicat
resources throughout City of Redlands and the County of San Bernardino would
not he cumulatively considerable and, therefore,would be less than significant.
I.cele rk-P,e,,,c)lutions,,Res,6700-6799 6799 EIR Rekilaiid,,;CoiTiii-t(rtisJanLiai-v 6 2009.DOC 41
D. Harards and ify;ars ous Waste
Impact: Would development of the Project expose construction worigs or the
public to sigmificant health and safety hazards through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment
(Impact 4.7-2, p. 4.7-18)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project could expose
construction workers or the public to significant health and safety hazards through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment. Project construction may involve
disturbing hazardous materials that are in the sail in association with the former use
of the property for agricultural purposes. The disturbance of soils could result in
the exposure of construction workers or employers to health or safety risks if
contaminated sails are encountered during construction or maintenance 'activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7=4, however,will
reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from potential exposure of
construction workers or the public to significant upset and I accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materialsinto the environment to a level of less
than significant because these Mitigation Measures would reduce the potentially
significant effects associated with.the exposure of construction workers or the public"
to contaminated soil during construction activities by providing supplemental
procedures for the protection of construction workers and the public, and
remediation of contaminated soils in the event of unanticipated discoveries of
contaminants.
Withr regard to operational impacts, exposure of project visitors and employees'
could occur by improper use or handling of hazardous materials or wastes. The
Project would be anticipated to use routine chemicals, such as cleansers,'bleaches,
and detergents, and landscape maintenance chemicals, such as herbicides and
pesticides. Also,propane could be used for heating. Compliance with all applicable
federal, state, and local requirements pertaining to proper handling, use, storage,
and disposal of hazardous materials as well as Project Requirement PR 4.6A and
PR 4.6would ensure that impacts related to accidental upset of hazardous
materials during operation would be reduced to a less than significant level.
With regard to cumulative impacts, related development in the City and
surrounding area could subject construction workers to health or safety risks
through exposure to hazardous materials, although the individual workers
potentially affected would vary from project to project. Projects would be required
to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Adherence to
applicable regulations and guidelines pertaining to hazardous materials would
ensure that cumulative impacts from construction activities would be less than
significant. Because the Project 'would also be rewired to comply with applicable
statutes and regulations, which would ensure that the project would not result in
significant public hazards as a result of the accidental release of hazardous
materials,the cumulative impact of the Project would be less than significant.,
I:cd rkRi�solutions Rts 6'700-6799`6799 FIR Ruv.alands Cornaztoni anuary t,,2009.DOC 4
Impact: Would development of the Project result in the handling of acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Impact 4.7-3, p. 4,7-23)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to the handlings of acutely hazardous material,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. All
businesses that handle or transport hazardous waste would he required to comply
with the City's Fire Code and comply with the CUPA requirements if the facility
proposes to handle hazardous materials or generate hazardous materials above
established thresholds. Implementation of the Project Requirement PR 4.7A and
PR 4.7B as mandated by the City's Fire Code, as well as Mitigation Measure MM
4.7-6 would ensure this impact will remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, existing, proposed and reasonable foreseeable
development that would potentially create risks from hazards or hazardous
materials would be subject to the requirements applicable local, state and federal
regulations. For instance, impacts to schools are reviewed in accordance with
California Department of Education regulations. Project Requirements PR 4.6A
and PR 4.613 would ensure that any cumulative impacts pertaining to the handling
of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within 1/4-mile of an existing or
proposed school would be less than significant and the Project would not make a
cumulative considerable contribution to this less than significant impact.
Impact: Would development of the Project interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan and/or ernergency evacuation plan? (Impact 4.7-7, p. 4.7-29)
FINDING: The City finds that the Project may interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan and/or emergency evacuation plan. The City's Emergency
Plan identifies specific evacuation routes within the EVC` P` including 1-210 near
the Project. Construction activities could temporarily result in lane closures on
adjacent roadways for infrastructure improvements and sidewalk construction.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-5, which requires the Project
developer to disclose temporary lane closures to the City in order to ensure
adequate access for emergency vehicles, will reduce potentially significant impacts
resulting from interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan to a level of less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, construction and operation associated with the
related projects and other future development in the City and surrounding area
would not interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans because it
is anticipated that future development projects would be required to implement
measures necessary to mitigate potential impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impact
would be less than significant.
L cele rk"Resolufions',Res 0700-6799i 6799 EIR Redlands Coalmons Jontlary 6,2()03 43
E. H
adrolo 7 and IYater Otia
xj--
Impact: Would operation of the Project increase ston�nwater or pollutant loads or
concentrations that could result in a violation of water quality standards or a substantial
degradation of water quality? (Irnpact 4.8-2, p. 4,8-35)
FINDING: The City finds that operation of the Project would increase stormwater
pollutant loads or concentrations that could result in a violation of water quality
standards or a substantial degradation of water quality. The Project would result in
a significant change in land use and the potential for increased site runoff as the
Project site would change from an orchard and vacant lands to developed urban
land uses. During operation of the Project, the major source of pollution in
stormwater runoff will be contaminants that have accumulated on rooftops and
other impervious surfaces. Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.8C and PR-
4.8 1
R4.81) will require the use of various BMPs as well as creation of a Water Quality
Management Plan which will improve water qualih, of stormwater runoff. In
addition, Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1 will reduce potentially significant impacts
resulting from the increase in stormwater or pollutant loads that could result in a
violation of water quality standards or a substantial degradation of water quality
standards because it would incorporate structural BMPs so that the targeted
reductions are met. As a result, this impact will be reduced to a level of less than
significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, all development projects within the jurisdiction
of the area-wide Municipal Stormwater Permit area would have to comply with the
Stormwater Quality Management Program including preparation of a site specific
WQMP, which incorporates stormwater quality BMPs for sediment and erosion
control and compliance with local Municipal Codes, the Basin Plan, and any Total
Maximum Daily Loads ("TNIDLs"). Permittees (agencies) of the Municipal
Stormwater Permit are required to inspect and enforce permit requirements.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with development that might cause or
contribute to erosion and siltation within the watershed would not be substantial
and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Impact: Would construction of the Project result in water demands within the City;
create impervious surfaces, and discharge storinwater to the groundwater system'?
(Impact 4.8-3, p. 4.8-48)
FINDING: The City rinds that construction of the Project would result in increased
water demands within the City of Redlands, create impervious surfaces, and
discharge stormwater to the groundwater system. These activities, however, would
not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or groundwater supplies.
The depth to groundwater at the Project site is over 100 feet below ground surface
and the Project is not located near any significant recharge areas. Furthermore, the
basin is replenished by deep percolation of water from precipitation and resulting
runoff, percolation from delivered water, and water spread in streambeds and
spread atg grounds. As noted above, the Project is not located in a managed
1:cdcrk,Rosoluions Res 6700-6-194,6799 EIR Rctilands Commons.January 6,-2009.DOC 4
recharge area. Finally, no new wells would be constructed or water supplies
developed for implementation of the Concept Plan. Therefore, the Project will not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.
With regard to operation of the Project, the Project would require 134 AFY of
water supplies each year to meet its demand at full build out (96 AFY for the
Redlands Commons portion of the Project site and 38 AFY for the Trojan Groves
portion of the Project site). Because there is sufficient available water supply and
the Yucaipa Basin extractions would not be increased, the water demand created by
operation of the Project would not substantially affect the groundwater such that
there would be a lowering of the local groundwater table or reduction in
groundwater supplies. Implementation of Project Requirements PR 4.8E & PR
4.81), will further ensure that water conservation activities to reduce potential
demand on potable water resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1
requires that all storm-water detention and retention facilities drain completely
within 48 hours and ensure this impact remains less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
predicts a surplus of over 8,000 AFY at full build out of the General Plan in 2030.
With the development of recycled water use, General Plan policy, and Redlands
Municipal Code requirements for water conservation, the City of Redlands has
more than adequate water supplies to meet demands without causing or
contributing to depletion of groundwater resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts
on groundwater recharge would be less than significant, and as the Project would
comply with Project Requirements PR 4.8 to PR 4.8-F, the Project would not make
a cumulatively considerable contribution to groundwater recharge or depletion
impacts.
Impact: Would development of the Project substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that
flooding would occur on-site or off-site'? (Impact 4.8-5, p. 4.8-58)
FINDING: The City finds that construction of the Project will substantially alter
the existing drainage patterns of the site, and could substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff such that flooding would occur on-site or off-site. The
Project site is currently entirely pervious. Trojan Groves would consist of 80
percent impervious surfaces and Redlands Commons would consist of an overall
average of 71 percent impervious coverage. Although the Project will alter the
internal drainage patterns of the Project site, it will not substantially alter the
external pattern of drainage, save for increasing storm flow rate and volume. The
Preliminary— Hydrology Study indicates that the Project will create runoff that will
exceed existing conditions for both the 10-year and 100-year storm events.
Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.8H will require adequate stormwater
drainage facilities. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-2
would detain excess Project flows to accommodate the 100-year storm event and
67()()_6796799 EIR Redlands Commons January 6,2(X)9,rX)C 45
ensure that on-site or off-site flooding does not occur. As a result, potentially
significant impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, construction of cumulative development would
be regulated by the NPDE S General Construction Permit which requires
preparation of an S' PPP with construction BLIP s to reduce erosion and sediment
transport for projects that cumulatively disturb more than one acre. Furthermore,
all development projects within the jurisdiction of the area-wide Municipal
Stormwater Permit area would have to comply with the Stormwater Quality
Management Program including preparation of a site specific WQMP, which
incorporates stormwater quality B1*V1Ps for sediment and erosion control and
compliance with local Municipal Codes, the Basin Plan, and any TMDLs.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with development that might cause or
contribute to erosion and siltation within the watershed would not be substantial
and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project create or contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storrawater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff(Impact 4.8-6,p. 4.8-63)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will not require or
resuft in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any potential
new stormwater drainage facilities required for the Project would be constructed
on-site. The 1.210 storm drain system has adequate capacity to convey stormwater
runoff from the entire EVSCP at full build-out. Implementation of Project
Requirements PR 4.8A through PR 4.81) and PR 4.8F through PR 4.811 as well as
Mitigation Measures MM 4.131 and MM 4.8-2 will reduce potential impacts on
pollutants in stormwater runoff, as well as require an adequately designed on-site
stormwater drainage system and implementation of stormwater detention sufficient
to adequately detain all Project stormwater runoff for the 100 year storm event
above the existing conditions level for all development areas of the Project site. As a
result this impact will remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, all major development within the area would be
subject to environmental review, the San Bernardino Flood Control District
permits, the NPD ES Program permits, as well as local Municipal Codes and plans.
Additionall,,
y, the Master Drainage. Plan for the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed
Management Area was prepared to define full, build-out capacities within the
Master Drainage Plan area as required by the N r PDES Municipal Storrawater
Permit. Therefore,cumulative impacts on runoff would be less than significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project require or result in the construction of
new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Impact 4.8-7, p. 4.8-63)
V,cclerkAesolutions`Pew 6700-6799'.6799 PIR Redlands Coninions Januaq
y 6,2W9,DOC 46
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will not result in, a
significant impact with regard to requiring or resulting in the construction of new
or expanded storruwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects. The Project would not require construction of
new or expanded off-site stormwater drainage facilities. Any potential new
stormwater drainage facilities required for construction would be on-site and
implemented as part of the Concept Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
'MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 and compliance with Project Requirements PR 4.8A
through PR 4.81) and PR 4.8F through PR 4.811 would ensure that any potential
impacts of these on-site stormwater drainage systems remain less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, increased impervious surfaces as a result of
cumulative development within, the watershed could increase the amount and rate of
stormwater runoff that may require the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities. As such, the construction of these
facilities would be subject to the environmental review process, local Municipal
Codes, local general and specific plan policies, the SBFCD encroachment permitting
process, and the NPDES General Construction and Municipal Stormwater Permits.
These regulatory requirements and review would ensure that cumulative
construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities
is less than significant.
Impact: Would development of the Project substantially degrade water quality.
(Impact 4.8-8, p. 4.8-63)
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will not substantially
degrade water quality. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements as well as
implementation of Project Requirements PR 4.8A through PR 4.81 and Mitigation
Measures MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 will reduce any potential water quality impacts
to less than significant. Furthermore, implementation of the above Mitigation
M I
easure would ensure the Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would
not be cumulatively considerable and would also be considered less than significant.
F. Land Use
Impact: Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect'? (Impact 4.9-1, p. 4.9-81)
FINDING: The City finds that Implementation of the Project could conflict with an
applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
These plans, policies and regulations include, but are not limited to, the General
Plan. the EVC P, the Water Quality Control Plan, the Air Quality Management
Plan, etc. As required by Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR
discusses conflicts between the Project and all applicable plans. See Draft EIR.,
1:,.Merk,'Resolution;Re,6700-671)9 6799 FCR Redlands Common,,January 6,2009JX)C 47
Section 4.9. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in sections 4.1
through 4.14 of the EIR will reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, with the adoption of proposed General Plan and
Specific Plan amendments, the Redlands Commons development would not conflict
with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. Because the Project would
be consistent with applicable plans, it would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to land use conflict impact. Therefore, the cumulative impact of
implementation of the Project would he less than significant.
G. Aloise
Impact: Would construction of the Project generate noise levels that exceed the
noise standards established by the City of Redlands in the Noise Element of the General
Plan and the Noise Ordinance of the City Municipal Code? (Impact,4.10-1, p, 4.1,0-2 1)
FIN DING: The City finds that the Project could generate noise levels that exceed
the noise standards established by the City of Redlands in the Noise Element of the
General Plan and the Noise Ordinance of the City Municipal, Code. Construction
activities occurring within the Project area would involve excavation and grading
activities followed by construction of the proposed facilities and associated parking
as well as roadway and landscaping improvements, which would involve the use of
heavy equipment. Construction activities would also involve the use of smaller
power tools, generators, and other equipment that generate noise. Haul trucks using
the local roadways would generate noise as they move along the road. Each stage of
construction would involve a different mix of operating equipment, and noise levels
would vary based on the amount and types of equipment in operation and the
location of the activity.
There are various sensitive uses that could be affected (depending on the distance
from the project site) by the construction noise occurring as a result of the Project
include the residential community located approximately 70 feet to the east of the
proposed parcel at the southeast corner of Pioneer Street and Texas Street, and the
four single-family residences located approximately 90 feet north of the Trojan
Groves property. Additionally, there are residential communities located
approximately 575 feet to the south of the Project area as well as residential
communities 'located approximately 650 feet to the north east of the Project area.
Additionally, the area to the north of Pioneer Avenue, west of Texas Street and
adjacent to the parcel has been approved by the Redlands Unified School District of
the site of a new high school. It is anticipated that the new school would be
completed and operational during construction activities associated with
development of the Concept Plan area. As such, construction activities for the
Trojan Groves development would potentially occur after the parcel has been
developed and is occupied with residential and commercial uses. However, it should;
be noted that the proposed New York Street with a 64 foot right-of-way and 40 foot
curb-to-curb separation would separate the parcel from the Trojan Groves
property. Additionally, the parcel would be developed with setbacks from the
Vcclok RewhitioTis-RcS(1700-6791),,6749 EIR Redlands Commons January 6,2009DOC 48
Trojan Groves property, including a 40 foot landscaped buffer along the western
edge of the residential area as well as a 6 foot high masonry wall surrounding the
perimeter of the residential area, which would serve to further reduce construction
noise levels.
Compliance with the identified Project Requirement and implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1(a) and MM 4.10-1(b), would reduce this impact,
but noise levels could still be substantial. Furthermore, the Project's construction
noise impacts would be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours,
and would be consistent with the exemption for construction noise that exists in
Section 8.06.120(G) of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be
considered less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, because compliance with this construction time
limit is required by the City Municipal Code, the Project and all other cumulative
development within the City would be exempt, and the cumulative impact associated
with construction noise in Redlands would be considered less than significant.
Similarly, because construction-related noise generated under. the Project would be
exempt from established noise standards, the cumulative impact of the Project
would also be less than significant.
Impact: Would construction of the Project expose people to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Impact 4.10-4, p.4,10-30)
FINDING: The Project's construction activities may cause intermittent and
localized groundborne vibration from the operation of heavy construction
equipment. The closest sensitive receptors are the residences located on the
southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Texas Street. These residences are located
approximately 70-90 feet away from the closest construction activities. The future
high school could also be potentially impacted as a result of construction-related
vibration. These vibrations are anticipated to exceed the threshold of perception
established in Section 8.06.020 of the City's Municipal Code. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-2 would, however, ensure that vibration levels do not
exceed the threshold of perception at the sensitive uses and would avoid conflicting
with the Citv's noise thresholds. Therefore, this impact will remain less than
significant.
Cumulative development in the< vicinity of the Project is not considered likely to
result in the exposure of on-site or off-site receptors to excessive groundborne
vibration due to the localized nature of vibration impacts, the fact that all
construction would not occur at the same time and at the same location, which
would usually preclude the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers. Aside from
the new high school, no other projects are proposed in close enough proximity to the
Concept Plan area to affect the same receptors as the Project. Furthermore, the
Project's loading docks are located at least 60 feet away from the nearest noise
sensitive receptor, the temporary nature of noise generated by delivery activities,
and the fact that there are several intervening structures that would serve to further
Leclerk ResolufionNRci 6700-671)1)6799 t1ft Redlands Commons January 6,_2009JX)C 49
reduce the noise, the noise levels associated with delivery activities would be reduced
at sensitive receptors. Therefore, groundborne vibration and noise levels as a result
of the cumulative effect of multiple deliveries occurring during the same time would
not be cumulatively considerable and would thus be considered less than significant.
Impact: Would construction of the Prqject result in a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels? (Impact 4.10-6,p. 4,10-32)
FINDING: The City finds that construction of the Project could result in a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Construction
activities occurring within the Concept Plan area would involve grading, and
excavation activities, followed by construction and external finishing of the
proposed facilities and associated parking areas, as well as roadway and
landscaping improvements. These activities would involve the use of heavy
equipment. Construction activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools,
generators, and other equipment that generates noise. Each stage of construction
would use a different mix of equipment, and noise levels would vary based on the
amount and types of equipment in operation and the location of the activity related
to potential receptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4.10-1(a) would
require implementation of construction BMPs to reduce construction noise levels. In
addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4.10-1(b) would require the
locating of construction staging <areas and earthmoving equipment as far away as
possible from noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses. Therefore, this impact would
be less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the City exempts construction noise from the
provisions of the City Municipal Code as long as construction occurs within certain
hours of the day. All of the developments analyzed in the cumulative context that
would be constructed concurrently with the Project would be required to comply
with the provisions of the City Municipal Code. Consequently, all projects analyzed
in the cumulative context would fall under the City Municipal Code exemption, and
the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
H. ra i
Impact: Would implementation of the PrQjcct cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system for
Near Term (til 10) conditions9 (Impact 4.14-1, p. 4.14-36)
FINDING. The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to causing an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system for intersections
within the City for Near Term (22,010) conditions. Mitigation Measures MM 4.144
through MM 4.14-13, MM 4.14-16 through MM 4,14-17, MM 4.14-19, MM 4.14-23,
and MM 4.14-25 would reduce impact's to less than significant.
6700-679(07149 EIR RefilandsCiiintniiiis,lziiivary 6,20ft DOC 50
Implementation of these Mitigation Measures will reduce the significant adverse
impacts on level of service at the identified intersections by improving the
intersections such that an acceptable level of service would be maintained. The City
recognizes payment of development impact fees as full mitigation for Project
impacts, for those intersections within the complete control of the City. Therefore,
with regard to these intersections, the impact is less than significant.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the Project-specific traffic analysis provided in
Section 4.14 of the Draft E considers trips generated by the Project, as well as
cumulative projects, in its development of future forecast conditions. The Project,
in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects, would haveotentially
P
significant impacts at a total of eighteen intersections without the incorporation of
Mitigation Measures. With the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures listed
directly above under Impact 4.14-1, Project-specific impacts to these eighteen
intersections would be mitigated below a level of significance. Therefore, the
Project's contribution to substantial increases in traffic in relation to the existing
traffic local street system would not be cumulatively considerable, and there would
be a less than significant cumulative impact.
linpact: Would operation of the Project cause an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system for
Cumulative(2030) conditions? (Impact 4.14-3, p. 4.14-72)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to causing an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system for Cumulative
(2030) conditions since Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-26 would reduce the impact to
less than significant. The impact at Church Street at Lugonia Avenue is the result
of cumulative development and would only occur in 2030. To address 2030 impacts,
Mitigation Measure MM4.14-26 would be implemented by 2030. Payment of the
City's transportation impact fee would be required prior to issuance of certificates
of occupancy for the developments under the Concept Plan, but the improvements
would not be required to be completed until 2030. In the 2030 condition analysis, I-
210 is forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service from 5th Street to San
Bernardino Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue to 1-10 in the AM and PM peak
hours. Improvements for these sections of the freeway are identified and funding is
approved under Measure 1, the sales tax initiative that has been approved by a
countywide vote. Therefore, no mitigation recommendation and fair share funding
is necessary for freeway mainline improvements. With incorporation of Mitigation
Measure MM 4.14-26, impacts to area traffic at the time of General Plan build-out
(2030)would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
Impact- Would construction of the Project cause an increase in traffic that is
Substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system'�
(Impact 4.14-4, p. 4.14-9 1)
I;,ixlerk.Rcsolkttions%Res 6700-6799 6799 LIR RodlandsCommons.)anuary 62W'�WC 51
FINDING: The City finds that construction of the Project will have a less than
significant impact with regard to causing an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacit-
,y of the< street system with
incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-27 through MINI, 4.1,4-29. Increased
traffic from construction equipment, construction employee vehicles, and
construction materials deliveries will lead to traffic-related impacts in addition to
those generated by operation of the Project. Construction activities would occur
throughout the Project area and off-site for traffic and infrastructure
improvements, but primarily in the Project area where most new buildings are
planned. Construction workers and equipment would be parked and staged on-site.
During construction, there would be temporary impacts to the surrounding street
network as a result of worker and truck trips traveling to and from the Project site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4A4-27 through MM 4.14-29 would
reduce construction-related traffic impacts to a less than significant level.
With regard to cumulative impacts, during construction the Project would
temporarily increase traffic volumes in the surrounding street network. It is
assumed that the nearby cumulative projects would include measures to reduce
potential temporary impacts to the local area street network as determined by the
City. As noted above, the Project would incorporate Mitigation Measures MM. 4.14-
27 through MM, 4.14-29, which would ensure that the flow of traffic in the
surrounding streets is not significantly impacted as a result of construction
activities, including temporary lane closures. The Mitigation Measures would
require use of established truck routes, limit construction trips to non-peak hour
periods, and require traffic control activities and personnel whenever lane closures
occur. Therefore, since the Project's contribution to construction-related traffic
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, this cumulative Project impact
would be less than significant.
VII. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
Public Resources Code Section 2108 1(0 and CEQA Guidelines Section 1509 1(a) require
a public agency to make specific findings that significant environmental effects identified in an
FIR have been avoided and/or mitigated to a less than significant level prior to approving a
project. Where a public agency cannot make the findings required by Public Resources Code
Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) due to the existence of siggnificant and
unavoidable environmental impacts, the agency is required to balance the economic, legal,
social, technological or other benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks
when determining w r�hcthcr to approve the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 provide,,,;
that a public agency may determine that any significant effects of a project that have been fiound
unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). Thus, when a public agency approves a project which, will
result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not avoided
or substantially lessened, the agency shall adopt a written "Statement of Overriding
1:viIoV,Reso lutions,Res 6700-079`6799 EER Re. inds Commons Januaty 6,2009,I)OC 52
Considerations" to support its action. See Publie Resources Code Section 21081(b); CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093.
The EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts associated
with the approval of the Project and identifies related Mitigation Measures. The City hereby
finds that these significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are outweighed by the public
benefits provided by the Project, and are acceptable, as more fully specified in Section IX,
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
A. AgLLMLMI Resources
Impact: Would the Project convert, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use? (Impact 4.2-2, p. 4.2-16)
FINDING: The City finds that implementation, of the Project will create a
significant impact with regard to changes to the existing environment, which due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use. The Project is designated as containing Prime Farmland and Farmland of
Statewide Importance and will convert this land from agricultural to urban uses,
including commercial and residential. The Project site, however, is currently
designated as Commercial by the City General Plan and as a Special Development
District by the EVCSP, which anticipates future urban development, including
commercial and office development. Further, the East Valley Corridor area is
considered a prime location for commercial and industrial development due to its
proximity to large urban areas and relatively few topographic and environmental
constraints, The, Project would not, however, instigate a change that that is not
already reasonably foreseeable under the applicable land use plans and zoning
assessed in the EV�CSP or the General Plan. No feasible Mitigation Measures exist
that would avoid or reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this
impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City finds this significant and
unavoidable impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the EVCSP designated the Project site as a
Special Development District and anticipated the area would be used for non-
agricultural uses. Because the Project site currently contains soil designated as
either Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, implementation of
the Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact,
and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. The City finds
this significant and unavoidable impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B. Airaoa
Impact: Would development of the Project violate an air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or prqjected air quality violation? (Impact 4.3-5, p.
43-32)
L,ederk kesi-)Iutions'.Res 6700-67VY679e)EIR Redlands Commonslanukary,6_2009,DOC 13
FINDING: The City finds that development of the Project will violate an air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. This impact is both individually and cumulatively significant and
unavoidable. The Project will generate short-term emissions from construction
activities and long-term enussions from the occupation of new land uses. On-site
impacts related to construction consist primarily of exhaust emissions from off-road
heavy-duty diesel and gasoline powered construction equipment, as well as fugitive
particulate matter from carthwork and material handling operations. Off-site
emissions would result from workers com.muting to and from the job site and
hauling of construction debris and excess dirt for disposal.
Construction of the Redlands Commons development would take approximately
eighteen months to complete. Construction information regarding the Trojan
Groves project is not available. It is assumed that Trojan Groves would begin
construction ten months after Redlands Commons begins construction,which would
result in cumulative construction emissions due to an overlap of construction
activities of the two Project components.
Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.3B, will ensure appropriate dust
control measures will be implemented during each phase of development, as
required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust, and that recycling of all scraped
asphalt material occur on-site. Project Requirement PR 4.3B will reduce the PNIto
and PM2.5 emissions during site grading by providing additional dust suppression,
and reduce PMio emissions to below SCAQ1%ID significance thresholds. VOC
emission levels, however, will still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds
during the architectural coating phase. To reduce VOC and NOx emissions,
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-5(a) and MM 4.3-5(m) will be implemented.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-5(a) through MM 4.3-5(m) will
ensure that construction-related air quality impacts associated with VOC and NOx
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds at the Project site
during all phases of development by requiring the use of diesel-powered equipment
that has been retrofitted with, after-treatment products to the extent that they are
readily available in,the Basin and cost effective; the use of low-NOx diesel fuel to the
extent that it is readily available in the Basin and cost effective for heavy-duty
diesel-powered equipment; the use of alternative fuel construction equipment to the
extent feasible; the proper maintenance of construction equipment; the
ininimization of emissions from construction equipment during periods of non-use;
reliance on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site, rather
than the use of electrical generators that are powered by internal combustible
engines to the extent feasible; configuration of construction parking to minimize
traffic interference; provision of temporary traffic controls to maintain smooth
traffic flow; scheduling of construction activities that affect traffic flow on the
arterial system to off peak hours; utilization of dedicated left-turn lanes for
movement of construction trucks and equipment on-site and off-site; and mailing of
notification to owners and occupants of all developed land uses immediately
bordering the Project area providing a schedule for major construction activities
Fcclerk'.Resolutions"Ri-s 6700-099"h799 EI R Redlands CotnmonshnuIry O,2009DO ' 54
that will occur through the duration of the construction period, including the
identification and contact number for a community liaison and designated
construction manager that would be available on-site to monitor construction
activities.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-5(a) through MM 4.3-5(m)
would reduce VOC and NOx emissions, but not below SCAQMD thresholds because
the actual reduction in VOC and NO emissions resulting from the implementation
of these measures is not quantifiable for the Project. There are no additional
feasible Mitigation Measures available to reduce the VOC emissions. Therefore,
this impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
With regard to operational emissions, the Project will generate long-term air quality
impacts associated with its operation. The primary source of these emissions would
be motor vehicle emissions generate from Project-induced vehicle trips. Other
emissions would be generated from natural gas consumption for water and space
heating, landscape and building maintenance activities, and use of consumer
products. The Project's operational emissions will exceed the SCAQMD significant
thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PNIjo, and PM2.5. No feasible Mitigation Measures
exist to reduce this impact to a level below SCAQMD significance thresholds for
operations. Therefore, long-term operational air quality impacts will be significant
and unavoidable.
With regard to cumulative impacts, SCAQMD recommends that individual projects
that exceed the recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts be
considered to cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those
pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment. Because there are construction-
related and operational impacts associated with air quality violations, the Project's
contribution is cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
In any event, the City finds the significant and unavoidable impacts related to
operation and construction of the Project to be acceptable for the reasons set forth
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Impact: Would development of the Project result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the Project region is classified in non-
attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Impact
4.3-6.
p. 4.3-40)
FINDING: The City finds that development proposed under the Concept Plan will
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the
Project region is classified non-attainment under an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors). Because the Basin is currently in non-attainment
for ozone (for which VOC and NOx are precursors), PMto, and PM23 under
6700-679916791)EER Redlands Commons January 6,2(.X)9JW 55
national and state standards, projects could cumulatively exceed an air quality
standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance.
Construction-related daily emissions associated with Project development would
exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOC during the architectural coating
phase. Therefore, the emissions generated by construction of the Project would be
cumulatively considerable and would constitute a substantial contribution to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Furthermore, operation of the Project
would generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended
by the SCAQMD for VOC, NOx, CO, PMio, and PM2.-,. Because the Basin is in non-
attainment for PMio and PN,12.,;, and both VOC and NOx are precursors of ozone,
for which the Basin is also in non-attainment, the Project would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to ozone emissions. Because the Project
would exceed SC. til thresholds for the pollutants and precursors of ozone for
which the Basin is in non-attainment, the Project would make cumulatively
considerable contributions of these pollutants during both construction and
operation of the Project. Because no feasible mitigation beyond Mitigation Measures
MN'l 4.3-5(a) through MM 4.3-5(m) is available to further reduce these
contributions to levels below SCAQMD thresholds, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable. The City finds this significant and unavoidable impact
to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Impact: Would construction activities associated with development of the Project
generate emissions that would result in an exceedance of localized significance
thresholds for PMio and PM2-5 established by the CA MD, and, therefore, expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Impact 4.3-7., p. 4.3-42)
FINDING: The City ifinds that construction activities associated with development
proposed under the Concept Plan would generate emissions that would result in an
exceedance of localized significance thresholds for PMj0 and PM.).-s established by
the SCAQN1ID, and, therefore, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. This impact is both individually and cumulatively
significant and unavoidable. As with the above impacts, the Project will exceed the
SCa QMD threshold for PMto and PM2.5 during Project construction.
Implementation of Project Requirement PR 4.3B and Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-
5(a) through MM 4.3-5(1) would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-
significant level. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site would be the new
high school located to the north of the Redlands Commons site and the residential
uses to the cast along Texas and Pioneer Street. These uses could be exposed to
criteria pollutant concentrations which exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance
thresholds. As no further feasible mitigation is available to reduce these
concentrations, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
With regard to cumulative impacts, SCAQMD recommends that individual projects
that exceed the recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts be
considered to cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those
pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment. Because there are construction
1:`,Cclei-kR�:�tiltitionsRes 6700-6799-1099 FIR RediiincisC(iiim)n,Jttiuii�,6.2009[W, 56
related impacts associated with air quality violations, the Project's contribution is
cumulativel-
y considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
The City finds this significant and unavoidable impact to be acceptable for the
reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
C. BiologicalResources
Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the
Califo
I rnia. Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seiiicc? (Impact 4.4-
6, p. 4.4-3 1)
FINDING: The City finds that on a Project-specific level, the Project will have a
less than significant impact on the loss of foraging habitat used by sensitive avian
species and would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
indirectly, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Gate or the U.S. 'Fish and Wildlife Service. On a cumulative basis,
however, the City finds that development on the Trojan Groves portion of the
Project would result in the loss of habitat that would he cumulatively considerable,
resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
As noted on page 4.4-31 of the Draft EIR, there is a moderate potential for sensitive
raptors, including the Cooper's hawk, to occur on the Project site. Fallow
agricultural or ruderal fields are known to be important foraging habitat for
raptors considered sensitive raptors that would use the open space provided by the
Trojan Groves proper-4- to forage for rodents. Because raptor foraging habitat
ranges on the order of square miles per day, the loss of the Trojan Groves field
would not represent a substantial loss of foraging habitat for raptors. For Redlands
Commons, its orange trees are planted in rows and understory vegetation has been
routinely cleared through the use of herbicides and cutting. As such, Redlands
Commons is not considered prime raptor foraging habitat since sensitive species,
such as the Cooper's hawk and peregrine falcon, hunt in open areas. Consequently,,
on a project-level basis, Trojan Groves and Redlands Commons would result in a
less than significant impact,on the substantial loss of substantial foraging habitat.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the Project will have a significant and
unavoidable cumulative impact with regard to the substantial loss of substantial
raptor foraging areas within the City, and throughout the County. As development
in the City and the region continues, sensitive wildlife species native to the region
and their habitat will be lost through conversion of existing open space to urban
development. The cumulative loss of native and nonnative habitat in southern
California in general, and particularly in the portions of the County near the
Project site, has substantially reduced opportunities for foraging raptors. The
67()0-67()Vt,799EJR RcAands Commonsianumy 6,2009DOC 57
Project will result in the toss of approximately 31.69 acres of relatively flat ruderal
fields of the Trojan Groves portion of the Project site which represents a toss of
quality foraging habitat for raptors, including special status raptors, such as the
Cooper's hawk and peregrine falcon. The value of these fields for foraging is
enhanced by the availability of numerous large trees, fence lines, and/or power
transmission structures that some raptors perch on while searching for prey in the
fields. The unmitigated loss of these fields would create a net decrease in raptor
foraging habitat, which would be significant. Implementation of the Trojan Groves
portion of the Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this
impact and would be significant and unavoidable on a cumulative basis. The City
finds this significant and unavoidable impact to be acceptable for the reasons set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
D. Traffle
Impact: Would operation of the development proposed under the Project cause an
increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system or intersections outside the City's jurisdiction for Near Term (201 0)
conditions? (Impact 4,14-2, p. 4.14-7I)
FINDING: The City rinds that implementation of the Project would cause an
increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system for intersections within the jurisdiction within the City
for Near Term (2010) conditions. The Draft FIR points out several intersections
that have been identified that would be adversely impacted if not mitigated.
Mitigation Measures MM,4.1,4-14, 141 M4.14-15, NIM4.14-18, MM4.14-20 through
MM4.14-22, and MM4.14-24 have been proposed for seven intersections over which
the City does not have complete jurisdiction (identified as within the jurisdictions of
the County or Caltrans, or shared with the County). See Draft FIR, Section 4.14.
Furthermore, even though the developer will pay fees pursuant to Mitigation
Measures MM 4.14-1 through MM 4.14-13, MM 4.14-16 through MNI 4.14-17, MM
4.14-19, MM 4.14-23, and MNI 4.14-25 (which would fully mitigate the impacts of
the Project on the remainder of the intersections within the City's jurisdictions), the
intersections subject to the jurisdiction of the County and Caltrans are located
outside the City's jurisdiction and would remain significantly and unavoidably
impacted. Therefore, because these intersections are outside of the City's full
control, these Mitigation Measures cannot be fully implemented by the City and this
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
With regard to cumulative impacts, the Project, in conjunction with the identified
cumulative projects, would have potentially significant impacts at a total of seven
intersections without the incorporation of Mitigation Measures, and a cumulative
significant impact would occur. Even with the incorporation of the Mitigation
Measures listed directly above under Impact 4.14-2, impacts to the seven
intersections cannot be mitigated below a level of significance and would remain
significant and unavoidable. This is because these intersections are not within the
complete control of the City of Redlands, which cannot fully implement the
6700-67a< 6799 EIR Redlands Commons January 0,2009DOC 58
Mitigation Measures. Therefore, because the Project's contribution to substantial,
increases> in traffic in relation to the existing traffic local street system would be
significant and unavoidable and thus cumulatively considerable, this cumulative
proiject impact would be significant and unavoidable.
The City finds this significant and unavoidable impact to be acceptable for the
reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
In accordance with CEA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining
whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, social, technological and other
benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the
benefits of the Project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are not
mitigated to less-than-significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. This Statement of
Overriding Considerations is based on the City's review of the Final EIR and other information
in the administrative record,
The implenientation of the Project may have significant or certain adverse effects on the
environment as described in the findings and this Statement of Overriding Considerations;
specifically, agricultural resources impacts related to the conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural use; air quality impacts related to violating air quality standards/contributing to
existing or projected air quality violations, contributing to a net increase in criteria pollutants for
the region which is already in non-attainment under applicable Federal and State ambient air
quality standards', and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
biological resources impacts related to the loss of foraging habitat used by sensitive avian
species; and traffic impacts relating to an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system or intersections Outside the City's
jurisdiction for 2010 conditions. Despite the existence of significant adverse impacts which have
not been mitigated to below the level of significance, the City has balanced the benefits of the
Project against these unavoidable significant environmental effects described in the Final EIR
and set forth in Section VII of this document, and make the following Statement of Overriding
Consideration,; in that the Project will:
• Provide new detached single-family homeownership opportunities on smaller-sized
lots in the City that are more reasonably priced for first-time homebuyers.
• Create a mixed-use project that will invigorate an important aspect of the City.
• Provide an open, space area for the public and residents within the residential
component that contains a play area for children.
• Facilitate the establishment of high-quality,-comprehensiv=e, and integrated residential
and commercial development.
• Contribute to the creation of a modem, efficient and balanced urban environment that
reflects a high regard for architecture, landscape and urban design principles.
• Create both construction and permanent jobs,
• Provide restaurants and retail uses in a physically connected mixed use development
with a high level of synergy between uses,
• Provide a community commercial center to serve the surrounding residences.
Res 6700-(,)7W()799 EIR Ridfands CoMfIlons3anuary 6,2009.DOC 59
• Create sales tax and property tax increment increases in the City.
• Provide transit oriented development a(Ijacent to along: Major Arterial and in close
proximity to a freeway exit/entrance,
• Transition the site to urban land uses that are economically feasible,
• Provide artwork components to the commercial area that commemorate the heritage
of the area.
The City hereby find; that each of the reasons stated above constitutes a separate and
independent basis of justification k r the State of Overriding Considerations, and each is able to
independently support the Statement of Overriding Considerations and override the unavoidable
environmental effects of the Project. In addition, each reason is independently supported b
substantial evidence contained in the administrative record.
IX MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section ?1081.6, the City
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in Exhibit l to this Attachment A
The City reserves the right to n-take amendments andl'or substitutions of Mitigation Measures if
the City determines that the amended or substituted Mitigation Measure will mitigate the
identified potential environmental impact to at least the same degree as the original Mitigation
Measure, and where the, amendment or substitution would not result in a new significant impact
on the environment which cannot be mitigated;
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
The Applicant's consultants prepared the screencheck versions of the Draft ETR., Final
EIR, and technical studies presented as Appendices of the Final EIR. All such materials and all
other materials related to the EIR were extensively reviewed and, where appropriate, modified
by the Planning Department or other City representatives. As such, the Draft EIR, Final EIR,
and all other related materials reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
NI. SUBSTANTIAL E IDENC"E
The City finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made
herein is contained in the Draft EIR, Final FIR, and cattier related materials, each of which are
incorporated herein by this reference. Moreover, the City finds that where more than one reason
exists for any finding, the City finds that each reason independently supports such finding,_and
that any reason in support of a given finding individually constitutes a sufficient basis for that
finding,
SII. REI-AT ONS IP OF FENDING TCS FIR
These findings are based on the most current information available. Accordingly, to the
extent there are any apparent conflicts or inconsistencies between the Draft EIR and the final
Ella on the one hand, and these findings, on the ether, these findings shall control and the. Draft
FIR.; Final FIR, or both as the case may be, are hereby amended as set forth in these findings.
1 cchA Cs01L1tion- Rei 6700-6799'6799 99 F IR Redl aitd,,Commons January 6,?009 DOC 60
XIII. PROJECT CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
Each of the Project features and Mitigation Measures referenced herein shall be
conditions project approval to be monitored an,c enforced by the City pursuant to the building
permit process and the Mitigation Monitoring Pro-ram. To the extent applicable, each of:til
ether- findings and conditions of approval made by or adopted by the City in connection with
approval of the Project are also incorporated herein by this reference.
XIV, CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS
Section 21081.6(a)(2) of the Public Resources Coale and CEC A Guidelines Section
15091(c) require that: the public agency shall specify the location of the custodian of the
documents or causer materials that constitute the record upon which its decision is based. The
custodian of the documents or Cather material which constitute the: record of proceedings upon
which the City-'s decision is based is the City of Redlands, Community Development Department
located at '15 Cajun Street, Suite `0, Redlands, California, 92373.
ADOPTED, SIGNS ► AND APPROVED this (nth Clay of J anuary, 2009.
Mayor of the City of Redlands
ATTEST::
City Clerlrk
1, Lorne Poyaer; City Clergy: of the. City of Redlands, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 6799 was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting
thereof held can the 6th day of January.. 2009, by the following vote:
AYES Councilmenaberrs Gilbreath, Gallagher, Aguilar; :Mayor f-Iarrison
NOES:` Councihalember Bean
ABSENT 'wane
ABSTAIN: ' tame:,
c
f`
Morrieaayrer, C"itler
C ity' f Re'dlands,CC`ilalif r aia
6-00-0,99",6791)1 I Redlands col nnlons hnuar0.2(X)9.D0( 61