Redlands City Council
December 17, 2024

Recorded by: D. Mengers, PanGIS, Inc. Date: 12 July, 2016  Continuation  Update
As of April 2015, this structure was no longer standing. The house, a 1943 vernacular adobe single-family residence, has been demolished and cleared. Aerial photography indicates the foundation is still present, but presence of other features or artifacts is unknown.

Report reference:

Mengers, Doug (2016) Cultural Resources Survey of Site Boundary Conflicts within the APE of the Southern California Edison Company’s West of Devers Upgrade Project (WODUP), Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. Report on file at the California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Figure 1. P36-019923 location, facing south (Google Maps) Figure 2. P36-019923 location (Google Maps)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1464 of 1598
State of Callfornla--The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary # 31e -(2 J 9 d- :3
HRI# ________________________ ~
PRIMARY RECORD Trlnomlal, ______________ _
NRHP Status Code._~6~z ________________ __
Other Listings Review Code Reviewer ·----------=D:-a-=-te------- Page_1_of_2_ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder _-=9:...::6~5::....-__'5~H~ _______ _ Pl. Other Identifier: Burned Adobe Residence
*P2. Location: Not for Publication l Unrestricted *a. County San Bernardino and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Redlands, Calif. Date 1967, photorevised 1985 TlS; R3W; S.B. 8.M. within the Rancho San Bernardino Land Grant. p C /JJe&L 30 Elevation: Ca. 1140 feet above mean sea level
c. Address 26391 Redlands Boulevard City Lorna Linda Zip 92354 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 478880 mEl 3768960 mN UTM Derivation: V USGS Quad GPS -
e. Other Locatlonal Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate) This residence is located on the south side of Redlands Boulevard, between Mountain View Avenue and California Street.
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This adobe residence, now burned and boarded up, was previously documented during the 1998 study as being constructed of adobe bricks with cement/concrete mortar, dimensional lumber, and concrete bond beams.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2-Single family property *P4. Resources Present:~ Building __ Structure __ Object __ Site District Element of District ''''''_''''_'''''''''''''''''_'' , _ _ Qt~~.r.", (!sol~!~~! ~!9. :L_""_"""_".",_"""",,,_,,,,"""""''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''; P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, structure and accession #) Photo taken on May
20 2003; view to the north.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:

V Historic Prehistoric Both --- -- Ca. 1943 (see Items B6 and B12 for detail)
*P7. Owner and Address:

Unknown
*pa. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address)
Casey Tibbet, CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
*P9. Date Recorded: July 2003
*Pl0.Survey Type: Intensive-level
~~~~~~~~~~~~~::~~==~::==~::::::~=:==~~..I CEQA-compliance survey *Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Bai "Tom" Tang, Michael Hogan, Mariam Dahdul, Casey Tibbet, and Daniel Ballester (2003) :

Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Orchard Park Project, City of Lorna Linda, San Bernardino County, California. On file, Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands. *Attachments: None Location Map Continuation Sheet V Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record ---:::- ___ Rock Art Record ___ Artifact Record ___ Photograph Record ___ Other (List):, __________ _ DPR 5238 (1/95) *Requlred Information
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1465 of 1598
State of Callfornla--The Resources Agency Primary #-==--=..0.--'--''--''-=-____ _ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # __________ _

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page_2_of..l. "NRHP Status Code_..::.6.=Z _________________ _ 81 .

82. 83.
"85.
"86.
"87.
"88.
89a.
"Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)_-=9..:6:...:5:....-....:5::..:H:.:..... _______ _ Historic Name _..::.N:..::o:..:.n:..::e~ ________________________________ _ Common Name:_..::.N:...:o:..:.n:..::e::...... _______________________________ _ Original Use: Single-family residence 84. Present Use _...:.v-=a:...:c:...:a::..:n.::...t~ _________ _ Architectural Style:_..::.N:...:o:..:.n:..::e~ ______________________________ _ Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Although a tenant at the time asserted that the house was constructed over 100 years ago, the construction methods and historical data indicate it was most likely constructed around 1943.

Moved? V No Yes Unknown Date: ---- Original Locatlon: ________ _ Related Features: See Item P3a on p. 1.

Architect: Unknown b. Builder:.,----=u..::.n:..:.k:..:.n:..::o::..:w:..::n:.:..... ___________ _ "810. Significance: Theme N/A Area_=-:N-'-./.::.;A=--_________ .,---____ _ Period of Significance N / A Property Type N / A Applicable Crlterla_.=.;Nc:.,/.=.;A=--___ _ 811 .
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope.

Also address integrity.) This building does not appear to meet any of the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, nor does it contribute to the significance and overall historic integrity of the Mission Road Historical District as designated by the City of Lorna Linda.

Additional Resource Attributes : (List attributes and codes)_-=:N:...:o:..:.n:..:eo...... _________________ _ "812. References: Roger G. Hathaway (1988): A Windshield Survey and Preliminary Architectural/Historical Inventory of Lorna Linda, California. Report prepared for the City of Lorna Linda Department of Community Development by Hathaway and McKenna, Mission Viejo. On file, Archaeological Information Center San Bernardino Count Museum Redlands.
813. Remarks: ..::.t~h~ ~~~~~~~~~~~TT---r=~
"814. Evaluator: Bai "Tom" Tang !
*Date of Eval uati 0 n :_..::.J-=u:..::l:..Ly--=2:....:0:....:0:...:3=--___ _ _ . (This space res erved for off icial comments. )
o
DPR 5238 (1/95) "Required information
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1466 of 1598
State of California-The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #-=3'--'1O:;....-()-= ......... ----I.....::'--+ _______ ----.-- HRI# _____________ ~~
Trlnomlal ______________ _
NRHP Status Code_..::..6..::;..Z ________ _
Other Llstlngs ____________ _
Review Code Reviewer Date
Page_1_of_2_ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)_..::..9..::::6..::::5_-..:::6:.:;H:..-______ _ P1. Other Identifier: Cha Cha' s Restaurant
*P2. Location: Not for Publication V Unrestricted *a. County_-=Sc:::a:.:.n:........:B::..:e::..:r=:..:n:.:.a=r-=dc:=:i:.::n~o=----__ _ and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Redlands, Calif. Date 1967, photorevised 1985 T1S; R3W; S.B. 8.M. within the Rancho San Bernardino Land Grant.

Elevation: Ca. 1140 feet above mean sea level
c. Address 26393 Redlands Boulevard City Lorna Linda Zip 92354 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone---.!l.; 478940 mEl 3768980 mN UTM Derlvatlon:~ USGS Quad __ GPS
e. Other Locatlonal Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate) South side of Redlands Boulevard in between Mountain View Avenue and California Street. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include deSign, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This one-story roadside restaurant is roughly rectangular plan with exterior walls of stucco and a low-pitched front-gable roof covered with corrugated metal sheets ending in wide overhanging eaves supported by decorative wrought-iron posts. The fa~ade features three metal-framed, arched plate-glass service windows with green and yellow ceramic tiles along the customer counter. A patio adjoining the east side is sheltered by a shedroof. Exhibiting no definitive architectural style, the stucco walls, decorative tiles, and arched windows nevertheless lend a Spanish flavor. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6-1-3 story commercial building *P4. Resources present:~ Building __ Structure __ Object __ Site District Element of District . ____ .... ___ . __ . ___ Qther_(isolates.! __ etc:.:L ___ ..... _ .. -_._-_ ..... _ .... _-_ .... _ ....... __ ._ ..... _-----_., P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, ! P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, and I accession #) Photo taken on May
! 20, 2003; view to the
! southwest.
i *P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
! ~ Historic __ Prehistoric Both
! Ca. late 1950's (see Items B6
l and B12 for detail)
i *P7. Owner and Address:
i Gustavo Saavedra
i 26393 Redlands Boulevard
I Redlands, CA 92373
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address)Casey Tibbet, CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
*P9. Date Recorded: July 2003
, *P10.Survey Type: Intensive-level
..................... __ .................... ~='---....... . _.-.. _ .. -...... -_ ... -..... -..... -_.... -.... -.... -... -...... -...... -_ ... -...... -.... _-.... -..... -.... _-.. -...... -..... -"_ ....... 1 CEQA-compliance survey *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Bai "Tom" Tang, Michael Hogan, Mariam Dahdul, Casey Tibbet, and Daniel Ballester (2003):

Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey; Orchard Park Project, City of Lorna Linda, San Bernardino County, California. On file, Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands.

Attachments: None ___ Location Map ___ Continuation Sheet~ Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record ---=-' ___ Rock Art Record ___ Artifact Record ___ Photograph Record ___ Other (List): __________ _ DPR 5238 (1/95) *Requlred Information
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1467 of 1598
State of Cal/fornla--The Resources Agency Primary #-","~---'=:<..L+-L-""--L-___ _ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
-------------- BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page_2_of_2_ *NRHP Status Code __ ..:::6-=Z'--_________________ _ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __ -=-9...::6:...:5:....---'6::..:H:.=....-______________ _ B1 . Historic Name:, __ -=.N:..::o:..:.n:..:e"---________________________________________________________________ __ B2. Common Name: Cha Cha' s Restaurant
B3. Original Use: Restaurant B4. Present Use: __ -=-R:...::e;.::s:....;t:...:a::..:u::..:r=--a:::;n:.:.t-=--______________ _ *85. A~hHectu~IS~~: __ -=.N:..::o:..:.n:..:e"---____________________________________________________________ _ *86. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Aerial photos suggest this building likely was constructed between the late 1950s to mid-1960s.

Alterations include renovations in 1981, a "walk-in box," added in 1982, and the addition of a refuse storage bin in 1983.
*87. Moved? V No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: --------- *88. Related Features: See Item P3a on p. 1.

B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder:.,---"u""n"'-k:.:.n""o""w""n"--_____________________ _ *810. Significance: Theme N/A. Area_=..:N.:..../.:..:A:...... _________ ----:-____ _ Period of Significance N / A Property Type N / A Applicable Crlteria_N::..:..'-.:/ A:.=---______ _ (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope.

Also address integrity.) This building does not appear to meet any of the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, nor does it contribute to the significance and overall historic integrity of the Mission Road Historic District as designated by the City of Lorna.

B11 . Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) __ ..:.:N:,=o:..:.n:..:e:......,-________ .,--.,--.,--.,--__________________ _ *812. References: Roger G. Hathaway (1998): Determination of Eligibility Report for the Mission School and the Cole Ranch Residence and a Cultural Resource Mitigation Plan for a proposed "Commercial Project" Located at the Southwest Corner of Redlands Boulevard and California street, on file RBF Consulting, Irvine' Hale Paxton Personal communication.

B13. Remarks :, ___ ----:-__________ _
*814. Evaluator: Bai "Tom" Tang
*Da teo f E va I u a t ion : __ .::J..:::u:..::l:...<y--=2:.::0:.::0:....:3:...... ____ _ CI)
(This space reserved for official comments.) \
o
i
DPR 5238 (1/95) *Required Information
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1468 of 1598
State of Californla--The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary #----= :....::...:::::..!-..!.....!..~'L-----__ __=!;L HRI# ___________________________ _ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomlal. _______________ _
NRHP Status COde._..:::6..:::Z ________ _
Review Code
Other L1stings, ______ =-:--____ _
Reviewer Date
Page_1_of_2_ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)_-=9:...::6~5~-_7~H~ _______ _ P1. Other Identifier: Mission Mobile Park Office and Manager's residence *P2. Location: Not for Publication V Unrestricted *a. County San Bernardino and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS7.5'Quad Redlands, Calif. Date 1967, photorevised 1985 Tl§.; R3Wi S.B. 8.M. within the Rancho San Bernardino Land Grant. AJe;JJJt?;~'3D Elevation: Ca. 1140 feet above mean sea level
c. Address 26397 Redlands Boulevard City Lorna Linda Zip 92354 -~~~----- d. UTM: (Give more than one for large andlor linear resources) Zone 11; 479000 mEl 3768940 mN UTM Derivation: V USGS Quad GPS -
e. Other Locatlonal Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate) On the south side of Redlands Boulevard, between Mountain View Avenue and California Street. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This recreational vehicle and trailer park includes a onestory stucco office that is rectangular in plan with a flat-roof accented with ceramic tiles over the porch roof and a pent roof over a large plateglass window. The porch roof is supported by two stuccoed posts and shelters the entrance and an aluminum-framed sliding window. Behind the office is a manager's residence, a one-story, wood-framed structure with a low-pitched front-gable roof covered with composition shingles, with exterior walls clad with plywood panels. The visible windows are aluminum-framed sliders. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6 1-3 story commercial property *P4. ~ Building __ Structure __ Object __ Site District Element of District i· ~; ---"P~t~!~;~~i~~; .. t.~ri ;;~~;~~, ·"{Ph:~t~;:;~;;~h .... ;;~-;:;;;i~;;;rl .. f;::; ·-b;;;ii;~i ~,~~ .. ·! P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Photo taken on May
20, 2003; view to the east.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:

V Historic Prehistoric Both -- -- Ca. 1947 (see Items B6 and B12 for detail)
*P7. Owner and Address:

Mission Mobile Park
5353 East 2nd Street, Ste. 205
Long Beach, CA 90803
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address)
Casey Tibbet, CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
*P9. Date Recorded: July 2003
*P10.Survey Type: Intensive-level
CEQA-compliance survey
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Bai "Tom" Tang, Michael Hogan, Mariam Dahdul, Casey Tibbet, and Daniel Ballester (2003):

Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey; Orchard Park Project, City of Lorna Linda, San Bernardino County, California. On file, Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino county Museum, Redlands.

Attachments: None Location Map Continuation Sheet V Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record ----=-Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): ___ -::-______ ..,---- DPR 5238 (1195) -- -- -- *Requlred Information
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1469 of 1598
State of Callfornla--The Resources Agency Primary # 3& -01 9:Js DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # __________ _

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page __ 2_of __ 2_ *NRHP Status Code 6 Z --==------------------------------------- *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __ .:.9--=6--=5:...-...:7c...::H::..... ______________ _

81. Historic Name: __ ..:.:Nc::o:..:,n:..:e:......:--____ ---,--,---____ --,---____________________________________ _

82. Common Name: Mission Mobile Park

83. Original Use: Mobile Home Park 84. Present Use: Mobil Home Park *85. Architectural Style:_..:.:Nc::o:..:,n:..:e:...... ______________________________ _ *86. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The Mission Trailer Park at this location first appears in city directories in 1947, when it was operated by Luther and Johanna Polder, the property owners from around 1942 to 1952. Permits issued to L. Polder include one for two wood-frame motel units in 1949, a wood-frame, stucco office addition to a residence in 1950, fire damage repairs in 1951, and a trailer shelter in 1952. Additional permits were issued in 1986 for the demolition of four buildings, a pool, and a concrete slab, and in 1991 for a front porch and windows. The property is *87.
*88.
89a.
*810.
811 .
*812.
813.
currently owned by Mission Mobile Park.

Moved? V No Yes Unknown Date: ----- Original Locatlon: _____________ __ Related Features: See Item P3a on p. 1.

Architect: Unknown b. 8uilder:.,----=u:..:,n:..:,k:.:,n.:.,:o:o..:w""n"'----___________ __ Significance: Theme N/A Area __ .::..:N..:./.::..:A:...... ___________________________ _ Period of Significance N/A Property Type N/A Applicable Crlteria. __ =N-'-/A=-___ _ (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope.

Also address integrity.) These buildings do not appear to meet any of the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, nor do they contribute to the significance and overall historic integrity of the Mission Road Historical District as designated by the City of Lorna Linda.

Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP4 Ancillary buildings References: Riverside City and County directories.

Remarks : ; . Ske t c h Ma with' north arrow re ire(:t' ) *814. Evaluator: Bai "Tom " Tang J
i
*Dat e 0 f Eva I u a ti 0 n: __ .::.J.=uc.=1:.l.y--=2c...::0c...::0:...:3:...... ________ _ I (This spac e reserved f or o ff i cial comments.)
SCALE 1 :24,000 ° 1000 2000 feet
L ... ~~~~~~~t:...LL::::J
DPR 5238 (1/95) *Required information
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1470 of 1598
DPR 523A (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Other Listings:

Review Code: 6Z Reviewer: Jeanette A. McKenna Date: 8/20/15

P1. Other Identifier: Citrus Avenue
*P2. Location Not for Publication X Unrestricted
*P2a. County: San Bernardino
P2b. USGS 7.5’ Quad: Redlands Date: 1996 T1S; R3W; NW ¼ of SW ¼ of Sec. 29 ;
S.B.B.M.

P2c. Address: Not Applicable City: (unincorporated SB Co.) Zip: 92373 P2d. UTMs: Zone: 11 See Below mE See Below mN
P2e. Other Locational Data: (e.g.: parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Segment of roadway between California Street and New Jersey Street. UTMs (NAD 83) = Western Point = 479209 Easting/3768384 Northing (at California Street and Citrus Avenue); Eastern Point = 479613 Easting/ 3768387 (at Citrus Ave. and New Jersey St.). Road continues to east and continues into Redlands. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) Asphalt roadway, approximately25 feet wide with no curbs or sidewalks; palm trees along portions of the alignment; no center line (slightly wider than standard one lane road).

No evidence of historic roadway.

P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes.) AH-7 (Road) *P4. Resources Present: □ Building X Structure □ Object □ Site □ District □ Element of District □ Others (Isolate, etc.) P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo Required for Buildings, Structures, and Objects.) P5b: Description of Photo:

ENE (7/4/4)
*P6. Date of Construction/Age
X Historic □ Prehistoric □ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:

San Bernardino County
825 E. Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415
*P8. Recorded by: McKenna et al.

Jeanette A. McKenna
6008 Friends Avenue
Whittier, CA 90601-3724
*P9. Date Recorded: 8/18/14
*P10. Survey Type: Phase I CEQA
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “None.”) McKenna, Jeanette A. (2014) – A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Citrus Lane Property Area, Assessor Parcel No. 0292-161-01-0000, City of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA. *Attachments □ NONE X Location Map X Sketch Map X Continuation Sheet □ BSO Record □ Archaeological Record □ District Record X Linear Feature Record □ Milling Station Record □ Rock Art Record □ Artifact Record □ Photographic Record X Other (List): Photos 36-027671 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1471 of 1598 DPR 523E (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LINEAR FEATURE RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Citrus Avenue (est. 1887) L2a. Portion Described: □ Entire Resource X Segment □ Point Observation Designation:

L2b. Location of Point or Segment: (Provide UTM Coordinates, legal description, and any other useful locational data.

Show the area that has been field inspected on the Location Map.) See Continuation Sheet L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/ sections, as appropriate.) Single lane road (slightly wider than a standard single land alignment) extending from California Street (west) to New Jersey Street ((east), with unrecorded extensions to the east and west. Segment recorded here runs from California Street to New Jersey Street, only. Approximately 25 feet wide, no curbs or sidewalks. Palm trees line portions of segment recorded.

L4a. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features
and meters for prehistoric features)
L4b. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing:
a. Top Width: 25 ft.
b. Bottom Width: NA
c. Height or Depth: NA
d. Length of Segment: ¼ mile (recorded)
L5. Associated Resources: Historic Curtis
Ranch Properties on either side of
alignment
L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate) Currently located between the cities of Loma Linda and Redlands – soon to be annexed into the City of Loma Linda.

L7. Integrity Considerations: No physical evidence of the historic alignment; roadway has been repaved and maintained by the County. Established in ca. 1887 as a dirt access road and providing access to the adjacent properties. This particular segment was moved north to accommodate the Redlands Central Railway alignment.

L8a. Photograph, Map, or Drawing L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing: (View, Scale, etc.)
July 4, 2014 (NE)
L9. Remarks: Road will likely be
improved as a result of a pend-
residential development on the
south side of Citrus Avenue.

L10. Form Prepared by:

McKenna et al.

Jeanette A. McKenna
6008 Friends Avenue
Whittier, California 90601
L11. Date: August 18, 2014
36-027671 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1472 of 1598 DPR 523J (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LOCATION MAP
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

*Map Name: USGS Redlands Quadrangle *Scale 1:24000 *Date of Map 1996 (recorded segment)
Citrus Avenue
California Street
(recorded segment)
Eli C. Curtis
Redlands Central Ranch
Railway (“Dinky”)
Alignment
36-027671 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1473 of 1598 DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update Citrus Avenue Alignment (Historic Road)
Citrus Avenue was established within the community of Redlands prior to the subdivision of Barton Ranch and extended west, through the subdivision at about the same time the “Redlands Dinky” rail line was established. As noted earlier, the maps provided by Haenszel (n.d.) and Lerch and Haenszel (1981) illustrate the alignment of the rail line along the north side of Citrus Avenue. The recent field investigation resulted in identifying the alignment on the south side of Citrus Avenue (see later discussion). At the time of this study, Citrus Avenue was identified as a narrow street (slightly wider than one lane) with an asphalt pavement and no curbing or sidewalks. The north side of the road was lined with citrus treed and some palm trees. The south side was lined, in part, by mature palm trees and the berm associated with the abandoned railway alignment.

These palm trees are similar to those recorded by Tang and Eddy (2004) as a rural landscape.

According to Tang and Eddy, mature “California Fan Palms” have been present in this general area since ca. 1938 and can date as early as 1927. These palms were often used as property boundary markers and windbreaks.

In this case, the palms mark the northern extent of the Eli C. Curtis property, but were more likely planted after his death in 1926 (and after the abandonment of the Redlands Central Railway in ca. 1916). The original roadway was a dirt road and no physical evidence of its alignment was noted during this investigation.

36-027671 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1474 of 1598 DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update 36-027671
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1475 of 1598
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update 36-027671
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1476 of 1598
DPR 523A (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Other Listings:

Review Code: 6Z Reviewer: Jeanette A. McKenna Date: 8/20/15

P1. Other Identifier: Morey Ditch/Morey Arroyo
*P2. Location Not for Publication X Unrestricted
*P2a. County: San Bernardino
P2b. USGS 7.5’ Quad: Redlands Date: 1996 T1S; R3W; NW ¼ of SW ¼ of Sec. 29 ; S.B.B.M.

P2c. Address: Not Applicable City: (unincorporated SB Co.) Zip: 92373 P2d. UTMs: Zone: 11 See Below mE See Below mN
P2e. Other Locational Data: (e.g.: parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Segment of The County Flood Control Channel identified with the northwestern quarter of the Barton Ranch Subdivision Lot 6. This segment runs southeast to northwest, eventually joining the larger system associated with the Mission zanja. UTMs coordinates are presented in the attached Continuation Sheet. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) See Continuation Sheet
P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes.) AH-6 (Water Conveyance System) *P4. Resources Present: □ Building X Structure □ Object □ Site □ District □ Element of District □ Others (Isolate, etc.) P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo Required for Buildings, Structures, and Objects.) P5b: Description of Photo:

ESE (8/6/15)
*P6. Date of Construction/Age
X Historic □ Prehistoric □ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:

San Bernardino County
825 E. Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415
*P8. Recorded by: McKenna et al.

Jeanette A. McKenna
6008 Friends Avenue
Whittier, CA 90601-3724
*P9. Date Recorded: 8/18/14
*P10. Survey Type: Phase I CEQA
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “None.”) McKenna, Jeanette A. (2015) – A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Orchard Heights Development, Assessor Parcels 0292-161-02, 0292-161-03, and 0292-063-08, Located in the City of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA.
*Attachments □ NONE X Location Map X Sketch Map X Continuation Sheet □ BSO Record □ Archaeological Record □ District Record X Linear Feature Record □ Milling Station Record □ Rock Art Record □ Artifact Record □ Photographic Record X Other (List): Photos 36-029388 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1477 of 1598 DPR 523E (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LINEAR FEATURE RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Morey Ditch/Morey Arroyo (est. 1923) L2a. Portion Described: □ Entire Resource X Segment □ Point Observation Designation:

L2b. Location of Point or Segment: (Provide UTM Coordinates, legal description, and any other useful locational data.

Show the area that has been field inspected on the Location Map.) See Continuation Sheet L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/ sections, as appropriate.) 25 feet wide and 10 feet deep; drainage channel established within a natural arroyo; includes culverts/bridges at road crossings – New Jersey Street and Citrus Avenue within the current project area.

Alignment has been maintained and improved over the years, with the addition of signage, railings, and periodic dredging.

L4a. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features
and meters for prehistoric features)
L4b. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing:

See Attached Photos
a. Top Width: 25 ft.
b. Bottom Width: 25 ft.
c. Height or Depth: 10 ft.
d. Length of Segment: ¼ mile (recorded)
L5. Associated Resources: Curtis Ranch;
Furney/Yount Properties (orchards);
Citrus Avenue, New Jersey Street;
Redlands “Dinky” Railroad

L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate) Currently located between the cities of Loma Linda and Redlands – soon to be annexed into the City of Loma Linda and within an area scheduled for redevelopment as a residential community.

L7. Integrity Considerations: Intact and functioning; mostly reflecting as-built, but with some modern improvements and maintenance. Established in ca. 1923, when County claimed drainage for flood control.

L8a. Photograph, Map, or Drawing L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing: (View, Scale, etc.)
Aug. 6, 2015 (ENE)
L9. Remarks: No impacts to
drainage/channel are expected
with proposed development.

L10. Form Prepared by:

McKenna et al.

Jeanette A. McKenna
6008 Friends Avenue
Whittier, California 90601
L11. Date: August 20, 2015
36-029388 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1478 of 1598 DPR 523J (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LOCATION MAP
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

*Map Name: USGS Redlands Quadrangle *Scale 1:24000 *Date of Map 1996 (recorded segment)
Citrus Avenue
California Street
(recorded segment)
Eli C. Curtis
Ranch
Redlands Central
Railway (“Dinky”)
Alignment
(recorded segment)
New Jersey Street
(recorded segment)
Orange Avenue
Furney/Yount
Orchard
Flood Control
Channel
36-029388 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1479 of 1598 DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update The Bridge(s) at Citrus Avenue and New Jersey Street
Two bridges were identified during the course of the recent survey. One is on Citrus Avenue, just west of New Jersey Street, and crosses the flood control channel as part of Citrus Avenue. The other is on New Jersey Street, just south of Citrus Avenue, and crosses the flood control channel as part of New Jersey Street. Both of these crossings date to ca. 1923, when the City of Redlands and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District channelized the natural drainage. These crossing replaced the earlier structures associated with the “Dinky” railroad crossing and the alignments of Citrus Avenue. Although considered two separate structures, these bridges are actually culverts representing a single system developed along the flood control channel.

The flood control channel was established within a natural drainage that extends from eastern Redlands, through the Furney/Yount properties, and continues to the Santa Ana River west/northwest of Loma Linda. Referred to locally as the “Morey Ditch” or “Morey Arroyo,” references to the Moreys is erroneous, as the ditch/arroyo was historically limited to areas east of Brookside Avenue (in Redlands). While the natural drainage certainly pre-dates 1923, it was only formally channeled in 1923, when the City and County claimed the drainage, removed the respective acreage from the private property descriptions, and constructed the concrete lined alignments. The crossings on New Jersey Street and Citrus Avenue were part of these improvements and discussed below.

The Flood Control Channel (aka Morey Ditch)
As noted above, the County Flood Control Channel crossing the project area was established in a previously unnamed natural drainage and generically (erroneously) referred to as the Morey Ditch. Until ca. 1923, the alignment within the project area was considered to be privately owned.

When the Barton Ranch was subdivided, this segment of the drainage was within the northwestern quarter of Lot 6, a ten acre property sold as a ten acre property. In 1923, the drainage was removed from the property description and the drainage became the property of the County Flood Control District, working with the City of Redlands to lessen flooding issues. Prior to 1923, the drainage was essentially in its natural state, with the exception of a crossing at the “Dinky” railroad alignment at New Jersey Street and Citrus Avenue. It is noted, the “Dinky” railroad ran along the south side of Citrus Avenue when west of New Jersey Street and north of Citrus Avenue east of New Jersey Avenue. The railroad alignment was a straight alignment. Citrus Avenue as established around the alignment, not immediately allowing vehicular traffic until after 1923.
36-029388 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1480 of 1598 DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update The two bridge crossings at the intersection consist of poured concrete exhibiting scarring from the wood framing. In some areas along the drainage, the concrete lining is “U” shaped. In the area of the bridges, the drainage is squared with an average width of 25 feet and a depth of 10 feet. The concrete surfaces on the roadways are supported by reinforcing steel “I” beams marked “CARNEGIEH USA.” Research suggests this beam was manufactured between 1925 and 1934 and likely dates closer to 1925, as this was the period consistent with the channeling of the drainage. No “I” beams were identified under the railroad crossing, indicating a separate period of construction.

Subsequent to the construction of these crossings, railings were added to protect vehicles from falling into the drainage and pipelines are attached to the sides of the bridges. Signage (stop signs) were placed at the intersection, and New Jersey Street was improved to provide a connection for Citrus Avenue across the drainage.

There is nothing unique or impressive with respect to these two crossings and/or the channeling of the drainage. The materials as quite standard (reinforced concrete and steel “I” beams, and the design is simple and standard. They serve a basic purpose, but are not historically significant.

Both crossings are in fair condition, but if either was renovated or replaced, no adverse environmental impact would result.

NAD 27 UTM coordinates = South End 479781 Easting/3767951 Northing North End 479599 Easting/3768158 Northing
NAD 83 UTM Coordinated = South End 479700 Easting/3768147 Northing North End 479518 Easting/3768354 Northing
36-029388 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1481 of 1598 DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update 36-029388
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1482 of 1598
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update 36-029388
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1483 of 1598
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update 36-029388
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1484 of 1598
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial

Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date August 20, 2015 X Continuation Update 36-029388
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1485 of 1598
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) C-0150-001-ISO

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County San Bernardino
*b. USGS 7.5′ Quad Redlands, Calif. Date1967, Photo Revised 1988 T 1S; R 3W; ¼ of ¼ of Sec Unsectioned; S.B.B.M.
c. Address: City Zip
d. Zone 11S 478774 mE/ 3768832 mN NAD 83
e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, additional UTMs, etc., when appropriate): From the intersection of Interstate 10 and California Street in Redlands, CA, travel south on California Street for 0.24 miles to the intersection of California Street and Redlands Boulevard. Turn right and travel west on Redlands Boulevard for .5 miles Bryn Mawr Avenue, turn left and travel south on Bryn Mawr Avenue for .25 miles. From this point travel, 263 meters due east (90°) to the location of the C-0150-001-ISO to the UTM coordinates above.
*P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): C-0150-001-ISO consists of a granite mano with bifacial use and pecked margins which measures 13.0 cm (l) x 10.5 cm (w) x 5.1 cm (t). It was discovered during construction monitoring and was likely damaged by heavy equipment due to the presence of a recent two scars. The mano was discovered within the vicinity of the San Bernardino Asistencia which was constructed in approximately 1830, California State Historic Landmark #42. In the 1840’s the area was used by Jose del Carmen Lugo in his land grant and later by Mormons Bishop Tenny and Dr.

Benjamin Barton after being sold in the 1850’s and the 1860’s respectively. In the 20th century the area that was utilized for citrus orchards. In general, isolates are not considered significant and as their data potential is exhausted by the initial recordation. C-0150-001-ISO is also not a historical resource under CEQA, nor is it eligible for listing on the NRHP. *P3b. Resource Attributes (List all attributes and codes): AP2: Lithic Scatter *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other:

Isolate
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, asccesion #) 7.1.14.to.7.15.14.NHearth.Photos.C-0150, Frames 14-17. Frame 16 below, view down, mano in plan view.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:  Prehistoric Historic  Both *P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, address): Vanessa Brierty and Nicholas F. Hearth, M.A., RPA, Duke CRM, 20371 Lake Forest Drive, Suite A2, Lake Forest, California 92688 *P9. Date Recorded: 7/11/14 and 5/6/16
*P10. Type of Survey:  Intensive  Reconnaissance  Other Describe: Discovered during construction monitoring.
*P11. Report Citation (Provide full citation or enter “none”): Duke, Curt (2016) Native American, Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring Results, Bryn Mawr Avenue Extension Project, City of Loma Linda, California, DUKE CRM Project No. C-150. Duke CRM, Lake Forest, CA.
36-029539 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1486 of 1598 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) C-0150-001-ISO

*Attachments:  None  Location Map  Site Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record Other:

P5a Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
36-029539 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1487 of 1598 !
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LOCATION MAP
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
Page
* Map Name:
*Resource Name or #:
*Date: 1967 (P.R. 1988)
(Assigned by Recorder) C-0150-001-ISO
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Redlands, CA
¯
3 of 3 *Scale: 1:24,000
C-0150-001-ISO
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle
36-029539 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1488 of 1598 State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier: Redlands Blvd.

P2. Location: a. County San Bernardino, CA Not for Publication Unrestricted b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Redlands, CA Date: 1967 (P.R. 1988)
USGS 7.5’ Quad San Bernardino South, CA Date: 1967 (P.R. 1980) Section; Unsectioned T 1 5, R 3 W S.B.B.M. Unsectioned T 1 S, R 4 W S.B.B.M. c. Address: City: Redtands Zip: 92373
City: Loma Linda Zip: 92354
City: San Bernardino Zip: 92408
d. Zone uS; NAD83; Fast end of recorded segment: 47910$ mE /3769172 tmN West end of recorded segment: 473475 mE /37691$7 inN
e. Other Locational Data: An approximately 3.5-mile segment of Redlands Boulevard extending from California Street in Redlands, CA, to South Hunts Lane in San Bernardino, CA P3a. Description: The recorded segment of Redlands Boulevard is a four-lane asphalt-paved road that measures 75 feet wide and 18,482 ft. (3.5 mi.) long. It spans portions of the cities of Redlands, Loma Linda, and San Bernardino, California. The recorded segment extends from California Street, in Redlands to South Hunts Lane in San Bernardino.

Although it follows a historic road alignment established prior to 1901, the current road is of thoroughly modern design and standardized construction. This includes four lanes 12 feet wide, a curbed dividing median 14 feet wide except where narrowed by left turn lanes, and expanded paved shoulders to allow for bicycle traffic and right turn lanes. Several high-flow intersections are up to $2 feet wide to allow for additional turn lanes. The entire length ofthe segment is bounded by concrete curbs and most of each shoulderincludes concrete sidewalks. The recorded segment is primarily commercial development with intermittent residential areas and vacant lots.

P3b. Resource Attributes: HP37. Highway/ trail, road
P4. Resources Present: z Building l1Structure n Object z Site District i Elementof District Other:

P5a. Photograph or Drawing: See attached Continuation sheets for photographs P5b. Description of Photo: All photographs were taken on August 1$, 2017 P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources: C] Prehistoric BI Historic Both P7. Owner and Address: Unknown
P8. Recorded by: Applied Earth Works, Inc., 3550 1. Florida Avenue, Suite A, Hemet, CA 92544 P9. Date Recorded: September 2017
PlO. Type of Survey: C] lntensne 151 Reconnaissance C] Other Describe: Intensive-level survey for CEQA and Section 106 compliance purposes P11. Report Citation Roberta Thomas and Justin Castells (2017): Phase I Cultural Resource Assessmentfor the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade / Expansion and Brine Pipeline Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, Calfornia. Prepared by Applied EarthWorks for Albert A. Webb Associates.

Attachments: None 151 Location Map 151 Sketch Map 51 Continuation Sheet 151 Building, Structure, and Object Record ArchaeologicalRecord u DistrictRecord LinearFeature Record C] Milling Station Record n Rock Art Record n Artifact Record Photograph Record Other:
36-032482 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1489 of 1598 State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OBJECT RECORD

Resource Name or # Redlands Blvd.

Bi. Historic Name: US Highway 70/99
B2. Common Name: Redlands Blvd.

B3. Original Use: TranscontinentalHighway B4. Present Use: Automobile road B5. Architectural Style: Automobile road
B6. Construction History: TherecordedsegmentofRedlandsBlvd. first appearsonaUSGmap from 1901 (USGS 1901).

By 1938 the road is depicted asUS Highway 70/90 (USGS 1938). The 1967 USGS map depicts theroad as Redlands Blvd (USGS 1967).

B7. Moved? lS No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:

B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown
B10. Significance:

Theme: Twentieth-century automobile roads
Area: San Bernardino, CA
Period of Significance: 1926-1956
Property Type: Automobile road
Applicable Criteria: A/i
In 1774, Captain Juan Bautista de Anza crossed the San Jacinto plains with a small party of soldiers and servants.

Anza’s expeditionary force crossed the Cahuilla Valley, skirted the Santa Rosa Mountains, made their way up through Coyote Canyon, descended into the San Jacinto Valley via Bautista Creek, and trekked northwest across the San Jacinto Valley into Moreno Valley. From there, the expedition passed through the Rivers ide area and crossed the Santa Ana River near present-day Jurupa, then continued on northwest to reach the mission at San Gabriel.

Riverside County lacked a mission proper, but remained connected to the California presidio and mission system through Franciscan outposts known as ranchos and asistencias. The Riverside area was considered to be a part of the San Diego District, a military designation associated with the San Diego presidio; most of the territory fell under the authority of the Mission San Luis Rey. Founded in 1798, Mission San Luis Rey was the 18th of California’s 21 missions. During much of the Spanish Period, European settlement in Riverside County was stow and sporadic. By the end of the Spanish Period, few Europeans had settled peimanently within the region. The cattle grazing lands associated with Mission San Luis Rey encompassed most of the San Jacinto Valley. The broad grasslands ofthese areas were used to graze the Miss ion’s livestock.

Following the Secularization Act of 1833, which called for the immediate privatization of Franciscan lands, the Mexican government secularized all of the California missions. During the two-year period of 1834 to 1836, this radical process quickly and effectively reduced the missions to parish churches.Although the original secularization schemes called for redistribution of mission lands to thoseNative Americans who were responsible for the physical construction of the mission empire, the vast mission land, and livestock holdings were redistributed by the Mexican government into several hundred land grants privately owned by Mexican citizens (Langum i987:15—18). These landowners subsequently released their neophyte Native American “workers” to fend for themselves. During the resultant Mexican Rancho Period (1834—1848), livestock and horticulture dominated the economics of Southern California. Ranchos were predominately devoted to the cattle industry and large tracts ofland were used for grazing.

The city of Beaumont was never part of any Mexican Rancho; the nearest occurrence of these Rancho lands was at nearby San Timoteo Canyon and in the San Jacinto Valley; the San Gorgonio Pass area was never claimed under Mexican nile. The vast grazing lands of the Mission San Luis Rey, comprising over 133,000 ac covering the San Jacinto Valley and beyond, were divided among members oftheEstudillo family into three Mexican Ranchos: Rancho San Jacinto Viejo was granted to José Antonio Estudillo in 1842; Rancho San Jacinto Sobrante to his daughter, Maria del Rosario Estudillo, in 1846; and Rancho San Jacinto Nuevoy Potrero to his son-in-law, Miguel Pedrorena, in 1846 36-032482 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1490 of 1598 State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Recorded by: Applied Earthworks Date September 2017 Il Continuation n Update (Robinson 1997:143—161). With the signing of the Treaty ofGuadalupe Hidalgo in 184$, which ended the MexicanAmerican War, California entered into the American Period and, in 1850, became a recognized state in the United States. During the late I$40s, there began the decline of old California’s cattle ranching industry, which for over half a centuly represented the cunency and staple of the rancho system. By the 1$50s to 1$60s, cattle ranching in the general region had greatly declined, and ranchos changed ownership regularly. Through the years, settlement continued to develop across the inland valleys ofwhat would eventually become western Riverside County. With the influx ofnew settlers and decline ofthe cattle industry, some ofthe larger ranchos were subsequently subdivided into smaller parcels. In 1852, San Diego organized into a county; in 1853, San Bernardino followed suit. Riverside County would be formed in 1893, carved out ofportions of San Bernardino and San Diego counties.

Redlands was the shared dream offrank E. Brown, a civil engineer and Yale graduate, and E. G. Judson, a New York stockbroker, who met in Southern California in late 1870’s. Naming their Redlands colony for the color of the adobe soil, the two busily laid out a city, brought water from the mountains to the community, introduced the newly discovered Washington navelorange, and recruited settlers. Redlands was incorporated in 1888. Redlands’ population grew from 1,904 in 1890 to 4,797 in 1900; by 1910, it had more than doubled to 10,499 residents.Everything changed in early January 1913, when a three-day long cold spell referred to simply as the freeze devastated most ofthe area’s citrus groves. Almost the season’s orange crop was ruined. Recoveiy from the freeze was slow between 1913 and 191$. TheU.S. entry into World WarT in 1917 broughtsomemeasure of economic relief toRedlands,as itcausedan increase in prices ofagricultural products and oranges in particular. The 1918 end ofWorld War I meant the resurgence of development across Southern California, and with its citrus groves largely recovered from the Freeze, Redlands saw a resurgence as well. By 1927, Redlands’ population exceeded 14,000 and hundreds ofnew homes had been built.

The stock market crash of 1929 plunged the United States into the massive economic collapse known as the Great Depression, and Redlands went with it. The Redlands economic situation saw improvement as World War II loomed; in November 1941, it was announced that anew Army Air Corps supply depot would be established at the site ofthe county airport in San Bernardino County. This depot was projected to provide employment for 2,500 to 4,000 civilians as well as enlistees, to the benefit of all the cities ofthe region. All of Southern California saw a massive population and development boom duringthe post-World WarIl period, and Redlands was no exception. New residents, including veterans,poured into California in search ofjobs in the new industries that evolved from wartime defense work, new houses made possible by Veterans Administration (VA) loans, and GI Bill- funded education. Redlands offered all these things and more thanks to the nearby military installation, the University of Redlands, and the ample, increasingly unprofitable orange groves awaiting development into neighborhoods of single-family homes. The city’s population increased from 14,300 in 1940, to 18,400 in 1950, to 27,000 in 1960, to 36,000 in 1970, to 43,000 in 1980 (Architectural Resources Group 2017).

On April 26, 1853, San Bernardino County was created from parts of Los Angeles, San Diego, and Mariposa Counties.

In 1854 the city of San Bernardino was incorporated as the county seat with a population of 1,200. Gold was discovered in Holcomb Valley in 1860 and men poured into the mountains through San Bernardino to try their luck at panning. The prospectors did not stay in the region long, and it was not until the coming ofthe railroad in in the late nineteenth century that San Bernardino began to grow. The Santa Fe, the Union Pacific and the Southern Pacific railroads all converged on the city, making it the hub of their Southern California operations and the population of San Bernardino began to grow. The presence ofthe railroads contributed to San Bernardino’s continued growth into the twentieth century (City of San Bernardino 2017).

In 1886, a Riverside syndicate purchased 260 acres (including a “mound”) from HE. Hills for $31,500. The Mound City Land and Water Company plotted a city of 200 acres and constructed houses, stores and shops. A hotel, constructed on the remaining 60 acres, was completed in late 1887. The new development was named “Mound City.” Mound City developers built cottages, shops, and the Mound City Hotel, but to community failed to attract much attention from settlers and tourists alike. The hotel was purchased by a group of Los Angeles businessmen and physicians reopened it as a health resort and convales cent home called Loma Linda, the Spanish words meaning “pretty hill.” The Loma Linda Hotel closed again in 1904. However, in 1905, the Seventh-day AdventistChurch,through the efforts ofprominent author, Ellen G. White purchased the former resort property and established a sanitarium and a nursing school. A schoolofmedicine was opened in 1909. White envisioned a schoolwhere 36-032482 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1491 of 1598 State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Recorded by: Applied Earthworks Date September 2017 l1 Continuation u Update medical missionaries including physicians,could be trained. Her plan was that the Loma Linda facility would be the principal training school on the West Coast. Nursing instruction commenced in 1906 and the first class of nurses graduated in 1907. The Loma Linda Medical College opened on September 23, 1910, and the first class ofphysicians graduated in 1914. The school evolved into the Loma Linda University and Loma Linda University Medical Center.

Loma Linda became an incorporated city in 1970, and today is a thriving community with a population of around 22,000.

With the development of the first affordable, mass-produced automobile by the ford Motor Company in 190$, the United States quickly entered the era of the automobile. As the popularity ofatitomobiles grew, so did the demand for drivable roads. fri 1909, the California legislature provided $18 million for construction and acquisition ofa State Highway System. This was thebasis of the Legislative Route Number (LRN) systemand the first large expansion of California state roads. Gaps in funding required several state bonds issued during the 1910s, and a new gasoline tax enacted to pay forthe required construction. A provision ofthe 1909 State Highways Act created the State ofatiforn ia Highway Commission, who adopted the standards for road building from nation-wide studies of successes arid failures. The Federal-Aid Road Act, approved July 11, 1916, provided federal funding for road improvement and extended the countiy’s road system. While the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 resulted in much-needed funds to improve the nation’s roads,the continued rise ofautomobile use and the demand for more convenient and safer routes led Congress to adopt the Federal Highway Act of 1921. The intent ofthe Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1921, successor to the earlier highway appropriations legislation of 1916, was to create a coherent highway network by requiring that federal aid is concentrated on projects that would expedite completion of an adequate and connected system of interstate highways. A minimum of 60% of federal funds was to be spent on what was designated the primary or interstate network. Among the earliest of these highways to reach southern California was the Atlantic & Pacific Highway/U.S. 60 which extends from New York to Los Angeles and U.S. 99 extending from Mexico to Canada. U.S. 99 was designated within the U.S. Highway System in November 1926, following this southerly route between San Bernardino, Indio, and El Centro. U.S. 99 was one ofthe first transcontinental highways to reach Southern California, and a principal highway running north-to-south across the Western states of California, Oregon, and Washington, spanning from Mexico to Canada. Around 1956, U.S. 70/99 was realigned as a four-lane expressway, which was later designated as Interstate 10 (Castells 2017). The former highway alignment was relegated to a local road and named Redlands Blvd.

NRHP/CRHR Ealuation
NRIW Criterion A / CRHR Criterion 1: The recorded segment of Redlands Blvd. does appear to meet NRHP Criterion A or CR1-jR Criterion I for association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns ofCalifomia’s history and cultural heritage as a segment of one of the earliest transcontinental highway in the United States. US 70/99 served as an important commercial and tourist route from the 1920s to the mid -1950s.

Therefore, the recorded segment of Redlands Blvd. does appear eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A or CRHR under Criterion I. While Redlands Blvd. Does appear to be eligible under Criterion A/Criterion I, loss of historic integrity has compromised the ability ofthis resource to convey its significance.

NRHP Criterion C /CRHR Criterion 3: The recorded segment of Redlands Blvd. does not appear to meet NRHP Criterion C or CR1-fR Criterion 3 for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction, or as the work of an important creative individual, or as having high artistic value. It has been continuously modified overtime due to use and maintenance and is essentially similar to most modem roads.It does not appear to be a major departure from road construction or an impressive or unique feat of engineering. Therefore, the recorded segment of Redlands Blvd. does not appear eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C or CR1-JR under Criterion 3.

NRHP Criterion D /CRI-IR Criterion 4: The recorded segment of Redlands Blvd. does not appear to meet NRHP Criterion D orCRHR Criterion 4 sinceit is unlikely toyield information important toprehistoiyorhistoty.Therefore, the recorded segment of Redlands Blvd. does not appear eligible for the NRFIP under Criterion D or CRHR under Criterion 4.
36-032482 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1492 of 1598 State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATIONSHEET Trinomial

Recorded by: Applied Farthworks Date September 2017 IS Continuation E Update Integrity Evifluati on
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic significance. To be listed in the NRHP or the CR1-JR. a property must not only be shown to be significant underthe NRHP or the CRHR criteria, but it also must have integrity.

The seven aspects of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The recorded segment of Redlands Blvd. retains the integrity of location, since the location has not changed. The recorded segment of Redlands Blvd. no longer retains the integrity of feeling, association, design, materials, workmanship, or setting due to alterations made to the road including repaving over time and the changes due to new construction in the surrounding area. It no longerconveys significance as a transcontinental highway and is essentially similar to other local roads throughout the United States.

Bli. Additional Resource Attributes: None
B12. References:

Architectural Resources Group
2017 Draft City ofRedlands Citywide Historic Context Statement. Architectural Resources Group; Pasadena, CA.

Castells, Justin
2017 Historic American Engineering Record Varner Road/Former US. Highway 60/70/9. Applied Earthworks:

Hemet, CA.

City of Loma Linda
2017 “Our History.” http ://www.lomalinda-ca.gov/our city/our histoiy. Accessed 9.8.17 City of San Bernardino
2017 History of San Bernardino. https://www.ci.san
bernardino.ca.us/about/h istory/h istoiy_of san bernardino (short version).asp. Accessed 9.8.17 Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California.

Langum, David J.
1987 L.aw and Community on the Mexican California Frontier: Anglo-American Inqatriates and the Clash of Legal Traditions, 1821 —1846. University ofOktahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Robinson, William W.
1957 The Story of Riverside County. Title his urance and Trust Company, Los Angeles, California.

USGS
1901 Southern California USGS 1:250000 Scale Quadrangle Map 1938 Colton, CA USGS 1:250000 Scale Quadrangle Map
1967 San Bernardino, CA USGS 1:250000 Scale Quadrangle Map B13. Remarks:

B14. Evaluator: Applied Earthworks Date of Evaluation: September 2017 36-032482 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1493 of 1598 State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Recorded by: Applied Eartliworks Date September 2017 E Continuation n Update Figure 1. Representative View of Redlands Bkd. (view to the east). 36-032482 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1494 of 1598 36-032482
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1495 of 1598
36-032482
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1496 of 1598
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier: None
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: San Bernardino and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Redlands 1996 Date: 07/11/2018 T1S; R3W; Unsectioned portion of the Rancho San Bernardino Land Grant; San BernardinoB.M.
c. Address: N/A City: Loma Linda Zip: 92373
d. UTM: NAD 83 Zone: 11S ; 479130 mE/ 3769111 mN
e. Other Locational Data: Elevation: 1,158 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Project located at intersection of Redlands Boulevard and California Street in the City of Loma Linda, CA
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The resource is comprised of seven historic-age bottles identified during construction activities associated with the removal of a retaining wall in the Mission Channel. The artifacts include two historic-age bottles from Redlands Bottling Works that appear to date to between 1900 and 1910 based on the materials, mold types, finish types, and markings. Several additional historic-age bottles were in the vicinity and appear to have consisted of common household items. All artifacts were found in disturbed fill behind the retaining wall and do not appear to be in situ. The fill appears to be a secondary deposition, and the fill contained a mix of both historic-age materials and modern materials from a range of time periods in no discernible stratigraphic sequence. This would suggest the site as not eligible for the CRHR. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH4 Privy pits/trash scatters/dump *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:  Historic
Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address:

City of Loma Linda
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, CA 92354
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
R. Cunningham, S. Brierty, V. Brierty
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
215 North 5th Street
Redlands, CA 95677
*P9. Date Recorded: 07/11/2018
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Construction monitoring
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter
"none.")
Blumel, Wendy
2018 Cultural Monitoring for the Redlands Boulevard and Califoria Street Intersection Improvement Project, City of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for the City of Loma Linda. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
36-032950 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1497 of 1598 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD

*A1. Dimensions: a. Length: 152 feet/46 meters (north-south) × b. Width: 17 feet/5 meters (east-west) Method of Measurement:  Paced  Taped  Visual estimate  Other: GPS Method of Determination (Check any that apply.):  Artifacts  Features  Soil  Vegetation  Topography  Cut bank  Animal burrow  Excavation  Property boundary  Other (Explain):

Reliability of Determination:  High  Medium  Low Explain:

Limitations (Check any that apply):  Restricted access  Paved/built over  Site limits incompletely defined  Disturbances  Vegetation  Other (Explain): Artifacts were found within imported fill soil.

A2. Depth: 2 feet to 10 feet below ground surface  None  Unknown Method of Determination: visual estimate *A3. Human Remains:  Present  Absent  Possible  Unknown (Explain):
*A4. Features: None.
*A5. Cultural Constituents: The site consists of seven subsurface historic-period bottles. All artifacts represent historic-period refuse located within modern fill soil behind a retaining wall. Diagnostic bottles consist of two amber glass Purex bottles, one colorless glass bottle with a Glass Containers Co. maker’s mark, and two bottles embossed with REDLANDS BOTTLING/WORKS/J.T. ALLEN PROP. on the side and an A maker’s mark on the bottle base.

*A6. Were Specimens Collected?  No  Yes Two Redlands Bottleworks bottles were collected. *A7. Site Condition:  Good  Fair  Poor (Describe disturbances.): The site was found in imported fill soil. *A8. Nearest Water: The site is located near the west bank of the Mission Channel. *A9. Elevation: 1,158 AMSL
A10. Environmental Setting: The site is located in a urban area.

A11. Historical Information: None
*A12. Age:  Prehistoric  Protohistoric  1542-1769  1769-1848  1848-1880  1880-1914  1914-1945  Post 1945  Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: The American Bottler from 1911 mentions that J.T. Allen, the former owner of Diamond Soda Works in Tuscon, had opened a new bottling plant in Redlands, CA (The American Bottler 1911).

A13. Interpretations: This site represents secondary deposition of artifacts in modern fill.

A14. Remarks: MC-001 consists of seven subsurface historic-period bottles. All artifacts represent historic-period refuse located within modern fill soil behind a retaining wall. Two of the bottles bore the wording REDLANDS BOTTLING/WORKS/J.T. ALLEN PROP. on the side and an A maker’s mark on the bottom. These bottles are associated with early 20th century manufacturing in Redlands and Loma Linda, and the bottles appear to date to between 1900 and 1910 due to the materials, mold types, finish types, and markings. These bottles hold historic value in relation to the early years of Redlands and Loma Linda. However, due to the disturbed context in which they were found, the site lacks integrity of location and, therefore, cannot convey the significance of that association. As such, site MC-001 is recommended as not eligible for the CRHR under Criteria 1. still suggests the location as ineligible for CRHR and NRHP inclusion.

As an informal refuse deposit located within displaced fill soil from an unknown location, it is not possible to determine who deposited the refuse.

As no clear association can be established between this site and persons significant to local or regional history, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under Criterion 2.

CRHR Criterion 3 does not apply because this site does not contain standing structures or other built features with distinctive characteristics or that represent the work of a master. The site is, therefore, not eligible for inclusion under Criterion 3 of the CRHR.

The site is a sparse, subsurface refuse deposit located within imported fill soil. Although the full scope of the site was not identified during construction activities, the artifact assemblage identified within the construction trench contains domestic refuse items commonly found throughout the region. Refuse deposits have the potential to provide important information if questions about socio-economic status and composition of a specific household can be addressed. As the origin of the fill soil cannot be determined, this deposit cannot be associated with any specific individuals or households. Therefore, the site is unlikely to yield any significant data that would contribute to our understanding of local or regional history beyond what is already known. As such, the site is not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under Criterion 4. Therefore, site MC-001 is evaluated and recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under any criteria.

A15. References (Documents, informants, maps, and other references):

The American Bottler
1911 With the Bottler in the Golden West. in The American Bottler 31: 49. The American Bottlers Publishing Co. New York.

A16. Photographs (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.):

Original Media/Negatives Kept at: ECORP Consulting, Inc., 215 N. 5th Street, Redlands, CA 92373 *A17. Form Prepared by: Robert Cunningham Date: 9/19/2018 Affiliation and Address: ECORP Consulting, Inc., 215 N. 5th Street, Redlands, CA 9237 36-032950 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1498 of 1598

*Map Name: Redlands, CA *Scale: *Date of Map: 1988 (P.R. 1996) State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LOCATION MAP
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
DPR 523J (1/95)
*Required Information
MC-001
1:24,000
Location: N:\2018\2018-092 California Street and Redlands Boulevard\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\DPR_Location_Maps\CSRB_MC001_DPRLocation_20180925.mxd ()-amyers 9/25/2018 I 0 250 500 1,000 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
36-032950 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1499 of 1598 State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier: Iso-1
*P2. Location: þ Not for Publication o Unrestricted *a. County: San Bernardino County and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Redlands Date: Digital n.d. T 1S; R 3W; unsectioned Rancho San Bernardino Land Grant; S.B.B.M. c. Address: Citrus Trails Development City: Loma Linda Zip: 92354 d. UTM: Zone: 11; 478837.33 mE/ 3768956.60 mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: 1,180 feet AMSL *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) conducted archaeological and historical monitoring for the Citrus Trails Project (Tract 18990) between April 30, 2018 through April 1, 2019. Most of the property was agricultural and utilized throughout the twentieth century for citrus, mainly orange groves. During the archaeological monitoring, an isolated irrigation feature was identified along the northern boundary of the project area. The feature was identified approximately one foot below the surface and represents the subsurface element of a concrete standpipe. The standpipe would have been utilized throughout the twentieth century for irrigation of the orange groves. Consisting of a circular concrete-lined brick tube, the irrigation feature would have been connected to other standpipes throughout the orchards by a series of concrete lined canals. No associated artifacts were identified with the feature. The remnant feature is not considered significant under California Environmental Quality Act criteria, as it is isolated and a common type of irrigation feature found throughout the region. However, as the feature provides further documentation to the agricultural history of the property, it has been recorded within this form. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH6 *P4. Resources Present: oBuilding oStructure þObject oSite oDistrict oElement of District oOther (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
Iso-1 facing north
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: þHistoric
oPrehistoric oBoth
*P7. Owner and Address:

Lennar Homes – Inland Empire
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 300
Corona, California 92879
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Andrew Garrison
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc
14010 Poway Road, Suite A;
Poway, California 92064
*P9. Date Recorded: 5/6/2019
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Archaeological monitoring
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter
"none.") Results of Archaeological
Monitoring for the Citrus Trails
Project (Tract 18990), City of Loma
Linda, San Bernardino County,
California
*Attachments: oNONE þLocation Map þSketch Map oContinuation Sheet oBuilding, Structure, and Object Record oArchaeological Record oDistrict Record oLinear Feature Record oMilling Station Record oRock Art Record oArtifact Record oPhotograph Record o Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 36-033080 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1500 of 1598 State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial

*Map Name: USGS Redlands, California quadrangle *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: N.d., digital

36-033080 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1501 of 1598 DPR 523K (9/2013) NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.

*Drawn by: Carrie Kubacki *Date of map: May 6, 2019
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
36-033080 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1502 of 1598

SUBSURFACE SOILS INVESTIGATION

CALIFORNIA STREET AND REDLANDS

BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT

REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 63878.1
FEBRUARY 27, 2023
Prepared for:

CASC Engineering & Consulting
21470 Cooley Drive
Colton, California 92324
Attention: Mr. Patrick Flanagan
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1503 of 1598
February 27, 2023
CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
21470 Cooley Drive
Colton, California 92324
Attention: Mr. Patrick Flanagan
Subject: Subsurface Soils Investigation, California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Widening Project, Redlands, California.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., is pleased to present this report of our geotechnical investigation for the subject project. In summary, it is our opinion that the proposed street improvements are feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are incorporated into design and construction. However, the contents of this summary should not be solely relied upon.

This report was based upon a scope of services generally outlined in our Proposal dated August 15, 2022 and other written and verbal communications with you.

The native materials should provide adequate support for the proposed culvert boxes within the project alignment. Geotechnical parameters for design and construction of the various project elements are provided within the attached report.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1504 of 1598
Table of Contents
Page No.

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Regional Geologic Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Site Geologic Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Surficial Deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Fill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Alluvium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Groundwater Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Mass Movement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Faulting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Historical Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Secondary Seismic Hazards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 liquefaction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seiches/Tsunamis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seismically-Induced Landsliding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Rockfalls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Seismically-Induced Settlement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code 2022). . . . . . . 7 Site Classification.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CBC Earthquake Design Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Corrosion Screening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Excavations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Shoring Design Parameters.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Culvert Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Preparation of Box Culvert and Retaining Wall Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1505 of 1598 Table of Contents
Page No.

Culvert Box and Retaining Wall Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Engineered Compacted Fill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Preliminary Pavement Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Corrosion Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Construction Monitoring.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 LIMITATIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 TIME LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 CLOSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

APPENDICES
Appendix A
Index Map.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Site Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 Regional Geologic Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 Historical Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 and A-5 Appendix B
Field Investigation Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Boring Log Legend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-i Soil Classification Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-ii Boring Logs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 through B-3 Appendix C
Laboratory Testing Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C Gradation Curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Project X Corrosion Engineering Test Results
Appendix D
Seismic Design Spectra
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1506 of 1598
CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023

INTRODUCTION
During February of 2023, a Subsurface Soils Investigation was performed by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., for the California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Widening Project, Redlands, California. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings and to provide geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed box culverts/transition structures and pavement sections to be utilized. The scope of our services included: 1) A subsurface field investigation; 2) Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation; 3) Development of geotechnical recommendations for excavation and construction of the proposed improvements, and, 4) Preparation of this report.

The findings of our investigation, as well as our conclusions and recommendations, are presented in the following sections of this report.

PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
The project will consist of improvements to the existing Mission Channel located at the northwest corner of California Street and Redlands Boulevard. This will include new box culverts, transition structures, and new pavement sections. Invert depths of approximately 32 feet below the adjacent roadways were provided for the proposed culverts.

The approximate location of the project area within its regional setting is presented on Enclosure A-1, within Appendix A. The approximate location of our exploratory borings, is shown on the enclosed Boring Location Map, Enclosure A-2, within Appendix A.

FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field exploration program was conducted on February 3, 2023 and consisted of drilling a total of 3 exploratory borings with a truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. The borings were drilled to depths of approximately 41.5 to

51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on the enclosed Site Plan, Enclosure A-2, within Appendix A.

A log of the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings was created by a geologist from this firm. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained within the borings at a maximum depth interval of 5 feet. Observations for the borings are presented on Enclosures B-1 through B-3, along with a detailed description of the field exploration program, within Appendix B.
1 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1507 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
The relatively undisturbed soil samples and subgrade soil samples were placed in sealed containers and returned to our geotechnical laboratory for further testing and evaluation.

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation were subjected to laboratory testing to evaluate their physical and engineering properties. Laboratory testing included in-place moisture content and dry density, laboratory compaction characteristics, direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, and R-value. Physical testing was conducted in our geotechnical laboratory and chemical testing was conducted by our subconsultant, Project X Corrosion Engineering. A detailed description of our geotechnical laboratory testing program, test results and the Project X Report are presented within Appendix C.

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Regional Geologic Setting
The project area is situated near the southern end of an alluviated valley which lies between the San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast and the hills of the Redlands area to the south. This valley makes up the far northeastern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province incorporates the vast region extending from the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains south into the Baja California Peninsula. This region is characterized by a series of northwest trending small mountain ranges. The San Bernardino Valley is underlain by units of younger alluvium, consisting of unconsolidated alluvium. The dominate drainage system in of the region is the Santa Ana River which lies approximately 1.75 miles north of the site. Erosion of the surrounding highlands and the subsequent deposition in the lower regions by the Santa Ana River and its watershed tributaries, such as the San Timoteo Wash, has resulted in the deposition of these relatively unconsolidated alluvial units over the valley floor. The subject site is located within the depositional plain of the San Timoteo Wash, which exits from the hills of the Badlands area approximately 1 mile to the south-southwest. While the flow of this wash is now relatively controlled and directed southwest of the site, in the past periodic flood events have deposited thick layers of sand and silt across the site. The depth of these units at the site was not determined during this study, but is considered to be on the order of several hundred feet or more to the older sedimentary bedrock and crystalline bedrock which underlies the valley floor. 2 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1508 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
The nearest known, active earthquake fault is the San Jacinto fault which is located approximately 3.4 kilometers (2.0 miles) to the southwest. While the Banning fault is shown as crossing approximately 0.75 kilometers (0.5 miles) southwest of the site, this fault is generally considered to be inactive (Matti et al, 2003). The Redlands fault of the Crafton Hills Fault complex is located approximately 4.8 kilometers (3.0 miles) to the south.

However, the activity rating of this fault is not known. Other known, active earthquake faults in the region include the San Andreas fault located approximately 8.7 kilometers (5.4 miles) to the northeast and the Cucamonga fault located approximately 24.2 kilometers (15.0 miles) to the northwest.

The geologic conditions of the site and immediate surrounding region as mapped by the U.S.G.S. are shown on Enclosure A-3, within Appendix A. A partial legend is shown on Enclosure A-4, within Appendix A.

Site Geologic Conditions
As observed during this investigation, the subject site is underlain by fill/topsoil overlying native alluvial materials. These units are described in further detail in the following sections:

Surficial Deposits
Fill: The surface of the site contained a layer of fill materials. These materials were noted to generally consist of silty sand with gravel to well graded sand with gravel which was brown to gray, damp, and in a loose to medium dense state. These units were noted to be approximately 2 to 15 feet in thickness.

Alluvium: Underlying the surficial materials, natural units of alluvium were encountered.

These units typically consisted of poorly graded sand, well graded sand, and silty sand with minor units of sandy silt/silty sand and lean clay with sand. Typically, the finer grained soils were tan to brown in color, and moist, while the coarser grained materials tended to be brown to white in color and damp. Based on the results of in-situ density tests and equivalent SPT blow counts, it was noted that the upper 2 to 7 feet of the alluvial units were typically in a loose/medium state becoming more stiff/dense with depth.

A detailed description of the subsurface soil conditions as encountered within our exploratory borings is presented on the Boring Logs within Appendix B. 3 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1509 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
A more detailed description of the subsurface conditions, as encountered within our exploratory borings is presented on the attached Boring Logs within Appendix B. A detailed description of the laboratory testing program and the test results are presented in Appendix C.

Groundwater Hydrology
Groundwater was not encountered in any of our excavations at the site. In order to estimate the approximate depth to groundwater in this area, a search was conducted for local municipal water wells on the Cooperative Well Measuring Program, Fall 2022 and State of California Department of Water Resources online water data library. The closest well found was listed as the 01S03W20P001S located to the northwest, approximately 0.75 kilometers (0.5 miles). In this well, groundwater measurements were available from 1985 to 1988. Groundwater fluctuated slightly at depths of approximately 110 to 139 feet during that time period. Elevation for the well was listed as 1,198 feet above mean sea level.

The elevation of the subject site is approximately 1,150 feet above mean sea level. Based on the information above, groundwater at the site appears to be at depths on the order of 60 feet.

Mass Movement
The majority of the site lies on a relatively flat surface. The occurrence of mass movement failures such as landslides, rockfalls or debris flows within such areas is generally not considered common and no evidence of mass movement was observed on the site.

Faulting
No active or potentially active faults are known to exist at the subject site. In addition, the subject site does not lie within a current State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). No evidence of faulting projecting into or crossing the site was noted during our aerial photograph review or our review of published geologic maps. The site does not lie within a County of San Bernardino fault zone.

The closest known mapped fault is also associated with the San Jacinto fault, and lies approximately 3.4 kilometers (2.0 miles) to the southwest. Other active earthquake faults in the region include the San Andreas fault located approximately 8.7 kilometers (5.4 miles) 4 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1510 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
to the northeast and the Cucamonga fault located approximately 24.2 kilometers (15.0 miles) to the north-northwest
The San Jacinto fault zone is a sub-parallel branch of the San Andreas fault zone, extending from the northwestern San Bernardino area, southward into the El Centro region.

This fault has been active in recent times with several large magnitude events. It is believed that the San Jacinto fault is capable of producing an earthquake magnitude on the order of 6.5 or larger.

The Cucamonga fault is considered to be part of the Sierra Madre fault system which marks the southern boundary of the San Gabriel Mountains. This is a north dipping thrust fault which is believed to be responsible for the uplift of the San Gabriel Mountains. It is believed that the Cucamonga fault is capable of producing an earthquake magnitude on the order of 7.0.

The San Andreas fault is considered to be the major tectonic feature of California, separating the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. While estimates vary, the San Andreas fault is generally thought to have an average slip rate on the order of 24mm/yr and capable of generating large magnitude events on the order of 7.5.

Current standards of practice often include a discussion of all potential earthquake sources within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius. However, while there are other large earthquake faults within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius of the site, none of these are considered as relevant to the site as the faults described above, due to their greater distance and smaller anticipated magnitudes.

Historical Seismicity
In order to obtain a general perspective of the historical seismicity of the site and surrounding region a search was conducted for seismic events at and around the area within various radii. This search was conducted utilizing the historical seismic search website of the U.S.G.S. (2023). This website conducts a search of a user selected cataloged seismic events database, within a specified radius and selected magnitudes, and then plots the events onto a map. At the time of our search, the database contained data from January 1, 1932 through February 24, 2023.

In our first search, the general seismicity of the region was analyzed by selecting an epicenter map listing all events of magnitude 4.0 and greater, recorded since 1932, within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius of the site, in accordance with guidelines of the California 5 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1511 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
Division of Mines and Geology. This map illustrates the regional seismic history of moderate to large events. As depicted on Enclosure A-4, within Appendix A, the site lies within a relatively active region mainly associated with the San Jacinto fault and the faults of the desert region.

In the second search, the micro seismicity of the area lying within a 10 kilometer (6.2 miles) radius of the site was examined by selecting an epicenter map listing events on the order of 2.0 and greater since 1978. The results of this search is a map that presents the seismic history around the area of the site with much greater detail, not permitted on the larger map. The reason for limiting the time period for the events on the detail map is to enhance the accuracy of the map. Events recorded prior to the mid to late1970's are generally considered to be less accurate due to advancements in technology. As depicted on this map, Enclosure A-5, numerous small events have taken place in the general location of the San Jacinto fault.

In summary, the historical seismicity of the site entails numerous small to medium magnitude earthquake events occurring in the region around the subject site. Any future developments at the subject site should anticipate that moderate to large seismic events could occur very near the site.

Secondary Seismic Hazards
Other secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include liquefaction, seismic-induced settlement, seiches and tsunamis, earthquake induced flooding, landsliding, and rockfalls.

Liquefaction: The potential for liquefaction generally occurs during strong ground shaking within granular loose sediments where the groundwater is usually less than 50 feet below the ground surface. Because groundwater is believed to lie at a depth in excess of 50 feet beneath the site and the site is underlain by relatively dense alluvial materials, the possibility of liquefaction at the site is considered very low.

Seiches/Tsunamis: The potential for the site to be affected by a seiche or tsunami (earthquake generated wave) is considered nil due to absence of any large bodies of water near the site.

Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure): There are no large water storage facilities located on or near the site which could possibly rupture during in earthquake and affect the site by flooding.
6 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1512 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
Seismically-Induced Landsliding: Due to the low relief of the site and surrounding region, the potential for landslides to occur at the site is considered nil.

Rockfalls: No large, exposed, loose or unrooted boulders are present above the site that could affect the integrity of the site.

Seismically-Induced Settlement: Settlement generally occurs within areas of loose, granular soils with relatively low density. Since the site is underlain by relatively dense alluvial materials, the potential for settlement is considered very low. In addition, the recommended earthwork operations to be conducted during the development of the site should mitigate any near surface loose soil conditions.

SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code 2022) Design requirements for structures can be found within Chapter 16 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) based on building type, use, and/or occupancy. The classification of use and occupancy of all proposed structures at the site, shall be the responsibility of the building official.

Site Classification
Chapter 20 of the ASCE 7-16 defines six possible site classes for earth materials that underlie any given site. Bedrock is assigned one of three of these six site classes and these are: A, B, or C. Soil is assigned as C, D, E, or F. Per ASCE 7-16, Site Class A and Site Class B shall be measured on-site or estimated by a geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist or seismologist for competent rock with moderate fracturing and weathering. Site Class A and Site Class B shall not be used if more than 10 feet of soil is between the rock surface and bottom of the spread footing or mat foundation. Site Class C can be used for very dense soil and soft rock with Ñ values greater than 50 blows per foot. Site Class D can be used for stiff soil with Ñ values ranging from 15 to 50 blows per foot. Site Class E is for soft clay soils with Ñ values less than 15 blows per foot.

Our investigation, mapping by others, and our experience in the site region indicates that the materials beneath the site are considered Site Class D stiff soils.

CBC Earthquake Design Summary
Earthquake design criteria have been formulated in accordance with the 2022 CBC and ASCE 7-16 for the site based on the results of our investigation to determine the Site Class and an assumed Risk Category II. However, these values should be reviewed and the final 7 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1513 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
design should be performed by a qualified structural engineer familiar with the region. In addition, the building official should confirm the Risk Category utilized in our design (Risk Category II). Our design values are provided within Appendix D.

CONCLUSIONS
The subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings are indicative of the location explored. It is not to be construed that these conditions are present the same throughout the project alignment.

On the basis of our limited field investigation and testing program, it is the opinion of LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., that the proposed improvements are feasible from a soil engineering standpoint, provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into design and implemented during construction.

Due to the coarse grained composition of the native soils, caving of the site excavations should be anticipated. Thus, proper construction techniques such as safe sloped excavations and/or shored excavations should be used.

Preliminary alternatives for support of the excavations for the culverts include a steel sheet pile wall or a soldier pile wall consisting of H piles and timber lagging. We believe that sheet piling is not a practical choice in many of the areas investigated due to the various amounts of oversized materials (cobbles and possible occasional boulders) in the alluvium which may hinder the desired penetration of the pilings or may damage the pilings. A more suitable alternative for hard driving conditions is a soldier pile wall with H piles because of the high strength and moment of inertia of the H piles. However, if large cobbles and boulders are found blocking the pile driving, driving operations may need to be supplemented by pre-drilling to install the pile to the required depth.

The site soils should provide adequate quality fill material, excluding pipe zones provided they are free from organic matter and other deleterious materials. However, they will require the removal of rocks or similar irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches from the fills in order to facilitate the compaction of the soils and/or placement of the proposed culverts. For fills placed directly against concrete elements the rock size should be further reduced to 3 inches.
8 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1514 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
On the basis of our exploratory boring and testing program, the native materials should provide adequate support for the proposed culverts within the project alignment.

Details for geotechnical parameters for project design and construction are provided in the RECOMMENDATIONS section of this report.

Because the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults are known to traverse the site, the potential for fault rupture hazards appears to be low.

Corrosion Screening
Select representative samples from our borings were taken to Project X Corrosion Engineering for full corrosion series testing. Results from soil corrosivity testing completed by Project X Corrosion Engineering are presented within Appendix C.

The corrosivity test results indicate that soluble sulfate concentrations in the samples was less than 0.10 percent by weight. These concentrations indicate an exposure class S0 for sulfate (ACI 318). No special mitigation methods are considered necessary.

The corrosivity test results indicate that chloride concentrations were below 500 ppm. This concentration indicates an exposure class C1 for chloride (ACI 318). Special mitigation measures are not considered necessary.

Soil pH for the samples was 8.4 to 8.5, slightly basic. Therefore, the need for specialized design is not anticipated.

Concentrations of ammonium and nitrate indicate the soil may be aggressive towards copper.

Resistivity results for the samples indicate the soils tested are mildly corrosive to ferrous metals.

LOR Geotechnical does not practice corrosion engineering. If further information concerning the corrosion characteristics, or interpretation of the results submitted herein, is required, then a competent corrosion engineer could be consulted. 9 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1515 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023

RECOMMENDATIONS
Excavations
Standard equipment should be suitable for the excavation for the proposed improvements.

Excavation safety and precautions, including safe slope excavation inclinations, should be implemented and are the responsibility of the contractor.

Following the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (CAL-OSHA) requirements, excavations 5 feet deep and greater should be sloped or shored. All excavations and shoring should conform to CAL-OSHA requirements.

Short-term excavations of 5 feet deep and greater shall conform to Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Construction Safety Orders, Section 1504 and 1539 through 1547.

Based on our exploratory borings, it appears that Type C soil is the predominant type of soil material on the project and all short-term excavations should be based on this type of soil material. In accordance with Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, simple slope excavations up to 20 feet in depth made in Type C soil material should have maximum allowable slopes of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. However, due to the granular, cohesionless state of the natural soils, extreme care should be taken in the construction and maintenance of short term excavating within such soils as they tend to be less stable.

Deviation from the standard short term slopes are permitted using option 4, Design by a Registered Professional Engineer (Section 1541.1).

It should be stated that, depending on the proximity of the excavations relative to any other nearby existing utility trenches, short-term excavations may expose the existing old trench backfill materials. The compaction characteristics and shear strength properties of the existing trench backfills is unknown. Typically, excavations exposing trench backfill are potentially unstable.

The construction and maintenance of short-term excavations is the responsibility of the contractor and should be a consideration of his methods of operation and the actual soil conditions encountered.

Shoring Design Parameters
General: Shoring placed below grade that is restrained against free movement at the top should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure between active and at rest conditions.

For this condition we recommend a uniform lateral earth pressure, rectangular distribution 10 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1516 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
of 20H pounds per square foot (psf). Additional surcharge loads (i.e. equipment, excavation spoil, etc.) placed within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the excavation should be added to the above recommended pressure at a rate of 0.40 times the surcharge load.

Culvert Areas
To facilitate the construction of box culverts and retaining walls, a soldier pile shoring system appears to be the most practical method for support of the culvert excavations. The system will likely include H piles and wooden lagging.

The construction sequence for the subject culvert excavations will probably involve the driving or drilling of the soldier piles first, then placing the timber lagging between the soldier piles for soil retention, as the excavation proceeds. The soldier piles will be probably left in place after construction and backfilling of the culvert.

The soldier pile shoring should be designed to resist a lateral active earth pressure. For this condition, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Passive pressures below the base of the excavation should be calculated using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf. The passive pressure should be ignored for a distance of 1.5 times the effective width of the pile below the depth of the excavation. Additional surcharge loads (i.e. equipment, excavation spoil, etc.) placed within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the excavation should be added to the above recommended pressure at a rate of 0.40 times the surcharge load.

The soldier piles should be embedded below the bottom of the excavation a sufficient distance to prevent lateral movement of the piles.

As shown in the attached boring logs, the subject culvert locations are underlain by granular soils of silty to well graded sand with gravel to the maximum depths explored.

Thus, pile driving may encounter some difficulty. A hardened steel point at the tip of the pile is recommended to facilitate the pile installation and to protect the end of the pile. The selected pile section should be able to resist not only the bending moments of the system but also to withstand the driving stresses.

Preparation of Box Culvert and Retaining Wall Areas
Upon excavation of the proposed box culvert and retaining wall areas to the planned line and grade, observations and in-place density testing should be conducted to ensure that 11 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1517 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
no loose materials are present. Where feasible, the bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches. The scarified soil should be brought to near optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557.

After construction of the cast-in-place reinforced concrete box culvert, or retaining walls backfill materials should then be placed around the box wall in accordance with the recommendations given in the Engineered Compacted Fill section of this report. Standard backfill placement will most likely be feasible for the culverts’ walls, where open, sloped excavations will be performed. However, for culverts walls built against the soldier pile wall, backfill placement will not be necessary. In the event that gaps between the soldier pile wall and the box wall are created during construction a backfill of sand/slurry should be applied to fill in the void.

Culvert Box and Retaining Wall Design
Provided that the box culvert and retaining wall areas are prepared as recommended, the proposed cast-in-place concrete box and wall may be designed using a maximum soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot for foundation 1 foot deep by 1 foot wide. For each additional foot of depth or width, an increase of 500 psf can be used up to a maximum of 4,000 psf. For design of retaining wall footings, the resultant of the applied loads should act in the middle one third of the footing, and the maximum edge pressure should not exceed the basic allowable value without increase.

A coefficient of subgrade reaction of 200 psi/in may be used in the design of the box culvert and retaining wall foundations.

Total settlement of box culvert and retaining wall foundations will vary depending on the width of the foundation and the actual load supported. Maximum settlement of foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations are estimated to be on the order of 1.0 inch. Differential settlement should be about one-half of the total settlement. Settlement of all foundations is expected to occur rapidly, primarily as a result of elastic compression of supporting soils as the loads are applied, and should be essentially completed shortly after initial application of the loads.

The vertical walls of boxes, retaining compacted native soil backfill, should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure between active and at-rest conditions. For this condition, we recommend an equivalent fluid density of 45 pcf be used above. A pseudostatic lateral 12 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1518 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
earth pressure of 25 psf/ft should be added to the design. The loading is triangular with the resultant load acting 1/3 H from the bottom for both cases.

For design of retaining walls unrestrained against movement at the top, we recommend an active pressure of 35 psf per foot of depth be used. A pseudostatic lateral earth pressure developed at a rate of 15 psf/ft should be added to the design. The loading is triangular with the resultant load acting 1/3H from the bottom in both cases. In the areas of the retaining wall braced against movement vertically, the earth pressures and pseudostatic static lateral earth pressure values for boxes given above should be used. This loading should be considered for the length of wall equal to the height of the vertical bracing extending from the bracing.

The above assumes level backfill consisting of compacted, non-expansive, soils placed against the structures and with the backcut slope extending upward from the base of the stem at 35 degrees from the vertical or flatter. To avoid overstressing or excessive tilting during placement of backfill behind walls, heavy compaction equipment should not be allowed within the zone delineated by a 45 degree line extending from the base of the wall to the fill surface. The backfill directly behind the walls should be compacted using light equipment such as hand operated vibrating plates and rollers. No material larger than 3- inches in diameter should be placed in direct contact with the wall. Import material, if required, should have an angle of internal friction of at least 30 degrees. Import materials, if required, should be tested for their shear strength to confirm the use of the assumed design values above.

Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction. For footings bearing against compacted fill, passive earth pressure may be considered to be developed at a rate of 300 psf per foot of depth. Base friction may be computed at 0.30 times the normal load. Base friction and passive earth pressure may be combined without reduction. The lateral passive earth pressure and base friction values recommended include factors of safety of 1.25.

The soils encountered throughout the channel alignment were granular and are considered free draining. Therefore, standard drainage of the box culvert and retaining walls may be used.

A unit weight of 125 pcf may be used for compacted fill. 13 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1519 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
Wall pressures should be verified prior to construction, when the actual backfill materials and conditions have been determined. Recommended pressures are applicable only to non-expansive, properly drained backfill, and with no additional surcharge loadings.

Engineered Compacted Fill
The majority of the soils along the project alignment are clean, free-draining, granular soils (well graded sand and with gravel and poorly graded sand).

The site soils are generally suitable for use as backfills and fills. However, all rocks or similar irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches should not be buried or placed in fills without prior approval by the geotechnical engineer. For fill placed in direct contact with concrete elements the rock size should be less than 3 inches.

In addition, prior to the mechanical compaction of the fills, the materials will need to be moisture conditioned in order to achieve the desired optimum moisture content.

Import fill, if required, should be inorganic, non-expansive, granular soils free from rocks or lumps greater than 3 to 6 inches in maximum dimension. Sources for import fill should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use.

Backfill and fill materials should be free from organic material, trash, debris, and other objectionable materials. Backfill should be mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) to at or near optimum moisture content. The upper 12 inches of subgrade materials that are to be paved should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557).

Preliminary Pavement Design
Testing and design for preliminary pavement of the subject channel access road and associated reconstruction of existing roadway was conducted in accordance with the California Highway Design Manual. Based upon our preliminary sampling and testing, and upon assumed Traffic Indices, it appears that the structural section tabulated below should provide satisfactory pavements for the subject improvement:
14 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1520 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
AREA T.I.* DESIGN

R-VALUE PRELIMINARY SECTION
Channel Access Road 5.0 50 0.25'AC/0.35'AB or

0.35'AC/Native
Various Public Roadways

8.0 50 0.40' AC/0.45' AB or

0.65' AC/Compacted Native

9.0 50 0.45' AC/0.55' AB or

0.75' AC/Compacted Native

10.0 50 0.50' AC/0.65' AB or

0.85' AC/Compacted Native
* to be determined by project engineer
AC - Asphalt Concrete
AB - Aggregate Base, Class 2 or equivalent
The above structural sections are predicated upon 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of all utility trench backfills and 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils and of any aggregate base utilized.

In addition, the aggregate base should meet Caltrans specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base.

The above pavement design was based upon the results of preliminary sampling and testing, and should be verified by additional sampling and testing when the actual subgrade soils are exposed.

Corrosion Protection
Based on the test results, this soil is classified as mildly corrosive to ferrous metals and potentially aggressive towards copper. The laboratory data above should be reviewed and corrosion design should be completed by a qualified corrosion engineer. 15 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1521 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
In lieu of corrosion design for metal piping, ABS/PVC may be used. Soil corrosion is not considered a factor with ABS/PVC materials. ABS/PVC is considered suitable for use due to the corrosion potential of the on-site soils with respect to metals.

LOR Geotechnical does not practice corrosion engineering. If further information concerning the corrosion characteristics, or interpretation of the results submitted herein, is required, then a competent corrosion engineer could be consulted.

Construction Monitoring
Post investigative services are an important and necessary continuation of this investigation. Project plans and specifications should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant prior to construction to confirm that the intent of the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the design.

Additional R-value, expansion, and corrosion testing may be needed after/during site rough grading.

During construction, sufficient and timely geotechnical observation and testing should be provided to correlate the findings of this investigation with the actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. Items requiring observation and testing include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

1. Site preparation-stripping and removals.

2. Excavations, including approval of the bottom of excavations prior to the processing and preparation of the bottom areas for fill placement.

3. Scarifying and recompacting prior to fill placement.

4. Foundation excavations.

5. Subgrade preparation for pavements.

6. Placement of engineered compacted fill and backfill, including approval of fill materials and the performance of sufficient density tests to evaluate the degree of compaction being achieved.
16 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1522 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023

LIMITATIONS
This report contains geotechnical conclusions and recommendations developed solely for use by CASC Engineering & Consulting, and their sub-consultants, for the purposes described earlier. It may not contain sufficient information for other uses or the purposes of other parties. The contents should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other facilities without consulting LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.

The recommendations are based on interpretations of the subsurface conditions concluded from information gained from subsurface explorations. The interpretations may differ from actual subsurface conditions, which can vary horizontally and vertically across the site. If conditions are encountered during the construction of the project, which differ significantly from those presented in this report, this firm should be notified immediately so we may assess the impact to the recommendations provided. Due to possible subsurface variations, all aspects of field construction addressed in this report should be observed and tested by the project geotechnical consultant.

The report was prepared using generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices under the direction of a state licensed geotechnical engineer. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent investigations as deemed necessary to satisfy themselves as to the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on this project.

TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-ofPractice and/or Governmental Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a significant amount of time without a review by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. 17 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1523 of 1598 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1524 of 1598

REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-16.

California Building Standards Commission and International Conference of Building Officials, 2022, California Building Code, 2022 Edition.

California Department of Transportation, 2006, Highway Design Manual, Sixth Edition.

Google Earth, 2023, Imagery from various years, www.google.com/earth.

Hart, E.S. and W.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, California Dept. of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Historic Aerials, 2023, Imagery from various years, www.historicaerials.com.

Larson, R., and Slosson, J., 1992, The role of seismic hazard evaluation in engineering reports, in engineering geology practice in southern California, AEG Special Publication Number 4, pp 191-194.

Matti et al, 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Redlands 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Open-File Report 03-302.

Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction “Greenbook” 2018 edition.

S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a W a t e r R e s o u r c e s D e p a r t m e n t , 2 0 2 3 , http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/.

USGS, 2023, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/. 19 LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1525 of 1598

APPENDIX A
Index Map, Geotechnical Map,
Regional Geologic Map, and
Historical Seismicity Maps
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1526 of 1598
CLIENT:

PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

SCALE:

LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

A-1
February 2023
1" ≈ 2,000'

INDEX MAP
ENCLOSURE:
63878.1
CASC Engineering and Consulting
California St. & Redlands Blvd. Intersection Widening, Redlands, California SITE
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1527 of 1598
SCALE: 1" ≈ 50' PROJECT: CLIENT: SITE PLAN California St. & Redlands Blvd. Intersection Widening, Redlands, California DATE: 63878.1 A-2 February 2023 PROJECT NO.: ENCLOSURE: CASC Engineering and Consulting LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Legend
(Locations Approximate)
Map Symbols
B-3 - Exploratory Boring
B-1
B-2
B-3
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1528 of 1598
CLIENT:

PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

SCALE:

LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

A-3
1" ≈ 2,000'

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
ENCLOSURE:

February 2023
(Matti, et al, 2003)
63878.1
CASC Engineering and Consulting
Description of Geologic Units
California St. & Redlands Blvd. Intersection Widening, Redlands, California SITE
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1529 of 1598
CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: A-4 February 2023 1" ≈ 40km HISTORICAL SEISMICITY MAP - 100km Radius ENCLOSURE: U.S. Geologic Survey (2023) real-time earthquake epicenter map. Plotted are 541 epicenters of instrument-recorded events from 01/01/32 to present (02/24/23) of local magnitude 4+ within a radius of ~62 miles (100 kilometers) of the site. Location accuracy varies. The site is indicated by the green square ( ). The selected magnitude corresponds to a threshold intensity value where very light damage potential begins. These events are also generally widely felt by persons. Red lines mark the surface traces of known Quaternary-age faults. California St. & Redlands Blvd. Intersection Widening, Redlands, California 63878.1 CASC Engineering and Consulting LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1530 of 1598
CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: A-5 February 2023 1" ≈ 10km HISTORICAL SEISMICITY MAP - 10km Radius ENCLOSURE: U.S. Geologic Survey (2023) real-time earthquake epicenter map. Plotted are 1,431 epicenters of instrument-recorded events from 01/01/78 to present (02/24/23) of local magnitude 2+ within a radius of ~9.2 miles (10 kilometers) of the site. Location accuracy varies. The site is indicated by the green square ( ). The selected magnitude corresponds to a threshold intensity value where very light damage potential begins. These events are also generally widely felt by persons. Red lines mark the surface traces of known Quaternary-age faults. California St. & Redlands Blvd. Intersection Widening, Redlands, California 63878.1 CASC Engineering and Consulting LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1531 of 1598

APPENDIX B
Field Investigation Program and Boring Logs
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1532 of 1598

APPENDIX B

FIELD INVESTIGATION
Subsurface Exploration
The site was investigated on February 3, 2023 and consisted of advancing 3 exploratory borings to depths of approximately 41.5 t0 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface within the areas requested. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Enclosure A-2, within Appendix A.

The boring exploration was conducted using a CME-75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. The soils were continuously logged by our geologist who inspected the site, created detailed logs of the borings, obtained undisturbed, as well as disturbed, soil samples for evaluation and testing, and classified the soils by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained at a maximum interval of 5 feet. The samples were recovered by using a California split barrel sampler of 2.40-inch inside diameter and 3.25-inch outside diameter. The samplers were driven by a 140-pound automatic trip hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler into the ground the final 12 inches were recorded and further converted to an equivalent SPT-value. Factors such as efficiency of the automatic trip hammer used during this investigation (80%), inner diameter of the hollow-stem auger (3.75 inches), and rod lengths at the test depth were considered for further computing of equivalent SPT-values corrected for field procedures (.N60) which are included in the boring logs. The soil samples were retained in brass sample rings of 2.41 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height, and placed in sealed plastic containers.

Disturbed soil samples were obtained at selected levels within the boring and placed in sealed containers for transport to our geotechnical laboratory.

All samples obtained were taken to our geotechnical laboratory for storage and testing.

Detailed logs of the borings are presented on the attached Boring Logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-3. Our Boring Log Legend and Soil Classification Chart are presented as Enclosures B-i and B-ii, respectively.

B
LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1533 of 1598

CONSISTENCY OF SOIL
SANDS

SPT BLOWS CONSISTENCY
0-4 Very Loose
4-10 Loose
10-30 Medium Dense
30-50 Dense
Over 50 Very Dense

COHESIVE SOILS

SPT BLOWS CONSISTENCY
0-2 Very Soft
2-4 Soft
4-8 Medium
8-15 Stiff
15-30 Very Stiff
30-60 Hard
Over 60 Very Hard

SAMPLE KEY
Symbol Description

INDICATES CALIFORNIA

SPLIT SPOON SOIL
SAMPLE

INDICATES BULK SAMPLE

INDICATES SAND CONE

OR NUCLEAR DENSITY
TEST

INDICATES STANDARD

PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SOIL SAMPLE

TYPES OF LABORATORY TESTS
1 Atterberg Limits
2 Consolidation
3 Direct Shear (undisturbed or remolded)
4 Expansion Index
5 Hydrometer
6 Organic Content
7 Proctor (4", 6", or Cal216)
8 R-value
9 Sand Equivalent
10 Sieve Analysis
11 Soluble Sulfate Content
12 Swell
13 Wash 200 Sieve

BORING LOG LEGEND
PROJECT: California St. & Redlands Blvd. Intersection Widening, Redlands, California PROJECT NO.: 63878.1 CLIENT: CASC Engineering & Consulting ENCLOSURE: B-i
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

DATE: February 2023
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1534 of 1598

PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS

BOULDERS COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
12" 3" 3/4" No . 4 No. 10 No. 40 200
(U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE)

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PROJECT: California St. & Redlands Blvd. Intersection Widening, Redlands, California PROJECT NO.: 63878.1 CLIENT: CASC Engineering & Consulting ENCLOSURE: B-ii
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

DATE: February 2023
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1535 of 1598

8.5 SP
SM

18.6 7.7

7.5 4.7

18.4 SW

2.0 3.6

7.9 7.4

6.8 6.1

6.1 @ 12 feet, POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 40%
medium grained sand, 55% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, gray, damp.

END OF BORING @ 51.5'
Fill to 2'
No groundwater
No bedrock
@ 50 feet, becomes moist.
@ 40 feet, POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, gray brown, damp.
@ 35 feet, slightly finer grained, some 1 to 2" thick SILT layers. @ 30 feet, WELL GRADED SAND, approximately 35% coarse
grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, white, damp.
@ 25 feet, SANDY SILT/SILTY SAND, approximately 50% fine grained sand, 50% silty fines, brown, moist.

SW
@ 15 feet, WELL GRADED SAND, approximately 25% coarse
grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, gray, dry.
@ 10 feet, SILTY SAND, approximately 85% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, gray brown, damp.
@ 7 feet, SILTY SAND, approximately 10% medium grained
sand, 70% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, strong brown, damp.
@ 5 feet, slightly finer grained, tan.
@ 2 feet, ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, brown, damp, some pinhole porosity. @ 0 feet, FILL: SILTY SAND, approximately 15 gravel to 1.5", 5% coarse grained sand, 15% medium grained sand, 30%
fine grained sand, 30% silty fines, brown, dry.

B-1
9, 10
@ 20 feet, becomes damp.
3 16
SP
7, 8,
32 34
32 60
34 3
19 14
13 8
10 15
52 MOISTURE CONTENT
PROJECT:

ELEVATION:

February 3, 2023
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55DEPTH IN FEET SPT
ML

SM LABORATORY TESTS (PCF)

DESCRIPTION
DATE DRILLED:

CASC Engineering & Consulting
California St & Redlands Blvd Widening PROJECT NO.:

CLIENT:BLOW COUNTS LITHOLOGY DRY DENSITY U.S.C.S. LOG OF BORING B-1 (%)

TEST DATA
CME-75
63878.1
HOLE DIA.: 8" ENCLOSURE:

EQUIPMENT:
--
102.7
104.6 SAMPLE TYPE

91.2 100.8

99.2 108.9

97.5 139.0
105.6
106.9
GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1536 of 1598

7.2 SP
CL
SP
SM
SP
SM
SM

6.3 SM

7.3 7.0

23.7 4.0

25.0 13.6
SW
@ 12 feet, becomes moist.

END OF BORING @ 41.5'
Fill to 6'
No groundwater
No bedrock
@ 40 feet, POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, gray, damp.
@ 39.5 feet, LEAN CLAY with SAND, approximately 15% fine grained sand, 85% clayey fines of low plasticity, brown, moist to wet.
@ 30 feet, WELL GRADED SAND, approximately 25% coarse
grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, gray, damp.
@ 25 feet, becomes slightly coarser grained, brown, moist.

SW
@ 15 feet, LEAN CLAY with SAND, approximately 5% medium grained sand, 15% fine grained sand, 80% clayey fines of low plasticity, tan to brown, moist.

CL
@ 10 feet, POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 20% fine
grained sand, 65% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, gray, damp.
@ 8 feet, SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 10% medium grained sand, 65% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, gray brown, damp.
@ 6 feet, ALLUVIUM: POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT,
approximately 90% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, red brown, damp.
@ 2 feet, SILTY SAND, approximately 70% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines, red brown, some metal debris, damp, rings disturbed.

B-2
@ 0 feet, FILL: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% gravel to 1/2", 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 25%
fine grained sand, 20% silty fines with trace clay, brown, dry.

7.0 @ 20 feet, POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, gray, damp.

3.9 10

3.3 3
3 40
60 64
16 16
13 6
9 10 @ 1 foot, WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, approximately 30% gravel to 2", 20% coarse grained sand, 20% medium
grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 5 silty fines, gray, brown, dry.
17 SAMPLE TYPE
SP
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45DEPTH IN FEET SPT BLOW COUNTS MOISTURE CONTENT DESCRIPTION U.S.C.S.

CASC Engineering & Consulting
February 3, 2023
PROJECT NO.:

CLIENT:

PROJECT: LABORATORY TESTS
8" LITHOLOGY LOG OF BORING B-2 (PCF)

TEST DATADRY DENSITY
CME-75 (%)
ELEVATION: --
HOLE DIA.:

EQUIPMENT:

DATE DRILLED:

California St & Redlands Blvd Widening
ENCLOSURE:
102.0
116.2
63878.1

94.7 96.6

92.6 49.8
103.1
100.0

99.5 GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1537 of 1598

99.6 6.2

5.5 6.9

11.9 SM
SW
SM
SP
SW
SM
@ 0 feet, FILL: SILTY SAND, approximately 20% gravel to 1/2", 5% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 30%
fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, brown, dry.
@ 2 feet, WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, approximately
25% gravel to 2", 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium
grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, gray, damp.

14.4 END OF BORING @ 41.5'
Fill to 15'
No groundwater
No bedrock
115.2
@ 5 feet, rig chatter, no recovery, some angular gravel to 3". @ 7 feet, SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, approximately 20%
angular gravel to 2", 15% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, brown, damp.
@ 40 feet, SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand,
15% silty fines, gray, moist.
@ 30 feet, contains approximately 5% gravel to 1/2".
@ 25 feet, WELL GRADED SAND, approximately 25% coarse
grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained, 5% silty fines, gray, damp.

B-3
@ 15 feet, ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 10%
medium grained sand, 55% fine grained sand, 35% silty
fines, brown, moist.

3.7 22 8.8

3.6 3.7
9, 10
32 64
30 11
30 9
30 22
@ 20 feet, POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 5% coarse
grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 60% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, gray, moist.
61 DEPTH IN FEET
63878.1
HOLE DIA.:
100.7
DATE DRILLED:

ELEVATION:
8"
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
ENCLOSURE: SPT BLOW COUNTS LABORATORY TESTS MOISTURE CONTENT SAMPLE TYPE

DESCRIPTION
February 3, 2023 DRY DENSITY
@ 10 feet, rings disturbed, cobble in tip of sampler. (%) EQUIPMENT: (PCF) LITHOLOGY U.S.C.S. LOG OF BORING B-3

TEST DATA
CME-75
CASC Engineering & Consulting --
105.1
109.9

99.3 104.4
115.6
GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

California St & Redlands Blvd Widening PROJECT NO.:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1538 of 1598

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1539 of 1598

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TESTING
General
Selected soil samples obtained from the borings were tested in our geotechnical laboratory to evaluate their physical and engineering properties. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction with our investigation included in-place moisture content and dry density, laboratory compaction characteristic, direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R-value, and corrosion. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented in the following paragraphs:

Moisture-Density Tests
The moisture content and dry density information provides an indirect measure of soil consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils on this site.

The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined in accordance with ASTM D 2937 and 2216, respectively, for selected undisturbed samples, and the results are shown on the boring logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-3, within Appendix B, for convenient correlation with the soil profile.

Laboratory Compaction
A selected soil sample was tested in the laboratory to determine compaction characteristics using the ASTM D 1557 compaction test method. The results are presented in the following table:

LABORATORY COMPACTION
Boring
Number
Sample
Depth
(feet)
Soil Description
(U.S.C.S.)
Maximum
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content
(percent)
B-1 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel 133.0 8.0
Direct Shear Tests
Shear tests are performed with a direct shear machine at a constant rate-of-strain (usually

0.04 inches/minute). The machine is designed to test a sample partially extruded from a sample ring in single shear. Samples are tested at varying normal loads in order to C
LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1540 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
DRAFT
evaluate the shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion in accordance with ASTM D 3080. Samples are tested in a relatively undisturbed state and soaked, to represent the worst case conditions expected in the field. The results of the direct shear tests are presented in the following table:

DIRECT SHEAR TESTS
Boring
Number
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Material Description
(U.S.C.S.)
Apparent
Cohesion
(psf)
Angle of
Internal
Friction
(degrees)
B-1 7 (SM) Silty Sand with Gravel 80 30
B-1 30 (SW) Well Graded Sand 300 43
B-2 15 (CL) Lean Clay with Sand 150 32
B-2 25 (SP) Poorly Graded Sand 100 39
Sieve Analysis
A quantitative determination of the grain size distribution was performed for selected samples in accordance with the ASTM D 422 laboratory test procedure. The determination is performed by passing the soil through a series of sieves, and recording the weights of retained particles on each screen. The results of the grain size distribution analyses are presented graphically on Enclosure C-1.

Sand Equivalent
The sand equivalent of selected soils were evaluated using the California Sand Equivalent Test Method, Caltrans Number 217. The results of the sand equivalent tests are presented with the grain size distribution analyses on Enclosure C-1.

R-Value Test
Soil samples were obtained at probable pavement subgrade level and sieve analysis and sand equivalent tests were conducted. A selected soil sample was tested to determine its R-value using the California R-Value Test Method, Caltrans Number 301. The results of the sieve analysis, sand equivalent, and R-value tests are presented on Enclosure C-1.

C
LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1541 of 1598 CASC Engineering & Consulting Project No. 63878.1
February 27, 2023
DRAFT
Corrosion
Corrosion testing was conducted by our subconsultant, Project X Corrosion Engineering.

Test results are enclosed.

C
LOR
Redlands GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1542 of 1598

32.0 22.3
200 140 4 6
10 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 50
40 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
95 100
55 60
65 70
75 80
90 45
100
85 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

19.8 24.0
%Sand %Silt
GRAVEL
fine
PL

SILT OR CLAY
100 70 1/2 50 3/4 1 1.5
(SM) Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM) Silty Sand with Gravel
Specimen Identification
Specimen Identification D10 %Gravel

0.27 0.93
D30
SAND
CLIENT:
2 GRADATION CURVES
PROJECT NO.: 63878.1
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
PROJECT:

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
CASC Engineering & Consulting DATE: February 2023
GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

California St & Redlands Blvd Widening

37.50 RV
39 --
15 19
Soil Classification
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T

50.00 3
D60

0.134
COBBLES coarse medium fine

HYDROMETER
D100
20 16 14

48.2 53.8
ENCLOSURE: C-1
%Clay
coarse
30 40
B-3
B-1 @ 0-3'
@ 0-3'
B-1
B-3
3/8
@ 0-3'
@ 0-3'
10 86
Cc
3 SE PI Cu
4 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1543 of 1598
Project X REPORT S230209B
Corrosion Engineering Page 1
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Results Only Soil Testing
for
Redlands Blvd/California St
February 10, 2023
Prepared for:

Andrew Tardie
LOR Geotechnical
6121 Quail Valley Ct
Riverside, CA
[email protected]
Project X Job#: S230209B
Client Job or PO#: 63878.1
Respectfully Submitted,
Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E.

Sr. Corrosion Consultant
NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592
Professional Engineer
California No. M37102
[email protected]
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1544 of 1598
Project X REPORT S230209B
Corrosion Engineering Page 2
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Soil Analysis Lab Results
Client: LOR Geotechnical
Job Name: Redlands Blvd/California St
Client Job Number: 63878.1
Project X Job Number: S230209B
February 10, 2023
Method ASTM G51 ASTM G200SM 4500-D ASTM D4327ASTM D6919ASTM D6919ASTM D6919ASTM D6919ASTM D6919ASTM D6919ASTM D4327ASTM D4327 Bore# / Description Depth pH Redox Sulfide S
2- Nitrate NO3- Ammonium
NH4
+ Lithium
Li+ SodiumNa+ PotassiumK
+ Magnesium
Mg2+ CalciumCa2+ FluorideF2
-- Phosphate
PO4
3-
(ft) (mg/kg) (wt%) (mg/kg) (wt%) (Ohm-cm) (Ohm-cm) (mV) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) R-6 - B-1 - (SW)
Well Graded Sand 15.0 25.6 0.0026 28.0 0.0028 428,800 26,130 8.4 167 0.4 6.3 7.5 ND 33.2 5.6 21.7 122.5 2.0 2.8 R-27 - B-2 (SW)
Well Graded Sand 30.0 11.9 0.0012 16.0 0.0016 214,400 38,860 8.5 123 0.3 0.0 9.1 ND 19.2 5.0 20.4 108.4 3.2 6.1 ASTM G187ASTM D4327ASTM D4327 Resistivity
As Rec'd | Minimum
Sulfates
SO4
2- Chlorides ClCations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1545 of 1598
KiProject X Corrosion Engineering l.ab Request Sheet Chain of Custody Phone: (213) 928-72)3 Fax (951) 226-1720 www.projeetxuorrosion.com Ship Samples To: 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Project X Job Number
2F.

IMFOK I'AN'I': IMca.sc complete Project and Sample Identification Data as you would like it to appear in report & include this form with samples.

Company Nome: LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. ConlacI Name: Andrew Tardie Phone No; 951-653-1760 Moiling Address: 6121 Quail Valley Contact Kniuil: [email protected] Accounting Contuct: John Leuer Invoice Kniuil: [email protected] Client Projt-i'l No; 63878.1 Redlands Bivd/Caiifornia St 3 Day
Guarantee
50%ninrk.iir
3-S Day
P.O. S:

Standard
METHOD ANALYSIS REQUESTED (Please circle)
(Business Days) Turn Around Time:

Full Corrosion Series Reports
Geo Quad
SAMPLE ID - BORE # - Description DEPTH nil
R-6 - B-1 - (SW) Well Graded Sand 02/03/23
R-27 - B-2 - (SW) Well Graded Sand 30 02/03/23
For Corrosion Control Recommendations (350g soil sample):

NEED (1) Groundwater depth and
(2) Soil Sample Locations Map
FOR THERMAL RESISTIVITY PROVIDE (1,500g soil sample):
(1) Optimal Moisture %(2) Dry Density(PCF}(3) Desired Compaction Date & Received By:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1546 of 1598

APPENDIX D
Seismic Design Spectra
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1547 of 1598
Project: Cailfornia St & Redlands Blvd
Project Number: 63878.1
Client: CASC Engineering & Consulting
Site Lat/Long: 34.0623/-117.2264
Controlling Seismic Source:

REFERENCE NOTATION VALUE REFERENCE NOTATION VALUE REFERENCE NOTATION VALUE Site Class C, D, D default, or E Fv (Table 11.4-2)[Used for General Spectrum] Fv 1.7 Site Class D - Table 11.4-1 Fa 1.0 Design Maps Ss 2.011 0.2*(SD1/SDS) T0 0.135* Site Class D - 21.3(ii) Fv 2.5 Design Maps S1 0.796 SD1/SDS TS 0.673*

0.2*(SD1/SDS) T0 0.198 Equation 11.4-1 - FA*SS SMS 2.011* Equation 11.4-4 - 2/3*SM1 SD1 0.9021* SD1/SDS TS 0.990 Equation 11.4-3 - 2/3*SMS SDS 1.341* Equation 11.4-2 - FV*S1 SM1 1.3532* Fundamental Period (12.8.2) T Period Design Maps PGA 0.934 Seismic Design Maps or Fig 22-14 TL 8 Table 11.8-1 FPGA 1.1 Equation 11.4-4 - 2/3*SM1 SD1 1.3267 Equation 11.8-1 - FPGA*PGA PGAM 1.027* Equation 11.4-2 - FV*S1
1 SM1 1.9900 Section 21.5.3 80% of PGAM 0.822
1 - FV as determined by Section 21.3
Design Maps CRS 0.916
Design Maps CR1 0.891
Cr - At Perods <=0.2, Cr=CRS CRS 0.916 Cr - At Periods between 0.2 and 1.0 Period Cr use trendline formula to complete 0.200 0.916
Cr - At Periods >=1.0, Cr=CR1 CR1 0.891 0.300 0.913

0.400 0.910

0.500 0.907

0.600 0.904

0.680 0.901

1.000 0.891
* Code based design value. See accompanying data for Site Specific Design values. Mapped values from

SITE-SPECIFIC GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS
(ASCE 7-16)
D measured
https://hazards.atcouncil.org/
San Jacinto

RISK COEFFICIENT
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1548 of 1598
Project No: 63878.1

0.010 1.048 1.022 1.19 1.216

0.100 1.730 1.714 1.19 2.040

0.200 2.253 2.236 1.20 2.683

0.300 2.571 2.504 1.22 3.055

0.500 2.639 2.473 1.23 3.042

0.750 2.282 2.074 1.24 2.572

1.000 1.987 1.788 1.24 2.217 1 Data Sources:

2.000 1.226 1.084 1.24 1.344

3.000 0.876 0.768 1.25 0.960

4.000 0.655 0.571 1.25 0.714

5.000 0.502 0.439 1.26 0.553 2 Shahi-Baker RotD100/RotD50 Factors (2014)

1.048
NO
PROBABILISTIC SPECTRA1
2% in 50 year Exceedence
Probabilistic PGA:

Is Probabilistic Sa(max)<1.2Fa?
Period UGHM RTGM
Max Directional
Scale Factor2
Probabilistic
MCE
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/rtgm/

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
Acceleration (g)
Period (seconds)

PROBABILISTIC MCER

SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS
UGHM
RTHM
Probabilistic MCER
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1549 of 1598
Controlling Source: San Jacinto
NO
Project No: 63878.1

0.010 0.884 1.19 1.053 1.053

0.020 0.890 1.19 1.060 1.060

0.030 0.902 1.19 1.074 1.074

0.050 0.948 1.19 1.128 1.128

0.075 1.118 1.19 1.331 1.331 NO

0.100 1.315 1.19 1.565 1.565 N/A

0.150 1.596 1.20 1.916 1.916 Deterministic PGA: 0.884

0.200 1.789 1.20 2.147 2.147 YES

0.250 1.948 1.21 2.357 2.357

0.300 2.042 1.22 2.491 2.491

0.400 2.105 1.23 2.589 2.589

0.500 2.064 1.23 2.539 2.539

0.750 1.724 1.24 2.137 2.137

1.000 1.472 1.24 1.825 1.825

1.500 1.061 1.24 1.315 1.315

2.000 0.807 1.24 1.001 1.001

3.000 0.550 1.25 0.688 0.688

4.000 0.376 1.25 0.470 0.470

5.000 0.274 1.26 0.346 0.346

DETERMINISTIC SPECTRUM
Largest Amplitudes of Ground Motions Considering All Sources Calculated using Weighted Mean of Attenuation Equations1 Is Probabilistic Sa(max)<1.2Fa?
Section 21.2.2
Scaling Factor
Applied
Is Determinstic Sa(max)<1.5*Fa?
Section 21.2.2 Scaling Factor:

Is Deterministic PGA >=FPGA*0.5?
2 Shahi-Baker RotD100/RotD50 Factors
(2014)
1 NGAWest 2 GMPE worksheet and
Uniform California Earthquake Rupture
Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) - Time
Dependent Model
Period
Deterministic PSa
Median + 1.σ for 5%
Damping
Max Directional Scale
Factor2 Deterministic MCE

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
Acceleration (g)
Period (seconds)

DETERMINISTIC MCER
SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS Deterministic
MCER
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1550 of 1598

0.010 1.216 1.053 1.053 0.702 0.005 0.557 0.445

0.100 2.040 1.565 1.565 1.043 0.010 0.577 0.462

0.200 2.683 2.147 2.147 1.431 0.020 0.618 0.494

0.300 3.055 2.491 2.491 1.661 0.030 0.658 0.527

0.500 3.042 2.539 2.539 1.693 0.050 0.739 0.592

0.750 2.572 2.137 2.137 1.425 0.060 0.780 0.624

1.000 2.217 1.825 1.825 1.216 0.075 0.841 0.673

2.000 1.344 1.001 1.001 0.667 0.090 0.902 0.722

3.000 0.960 0.688 0.688 0.458 0.100 0.943 0.754

4.000 0.714 0.470 0.470 0.313 0.110 0.983 0.787

5.000 0.553 0.346 0.346 0.230 0.120 1.024 0.819

0.136 1.089 0.871

0.150 1.146 0.917

0.160 1.187 0.949

0.170 1.227 0.982

0.180 1.268 1.014

0.200 1.341 1.073
Calculated Design 0.250 1.341 1.073
Value Value 0.300 1.341 1.073
SDS: 1.523 1.523 0.400 1.341 1.073
SD1: 1.375 1.375 0.500 1.341 1.073
SMS: 2.285 2.285 0.600 1.341 1.073
SM1: 2.063 2.063 0.640 1.341 1.073
Site Specific PGAm: 0.884 0.884 0.750 1.341 1.073
Site Class: 0.850 1.341 1.073

0.900 1.341 1.073
Seismic Design Category - Short* E 0.950 1.341 1.073
Seismic Design Category - 1s* E 0.980 1.341 1.073
* Risk Categories I, II, or III 1.500 0.884 0.708

2.000 0.663 0.531

3.000 0.442 0.354

4.000 0.332 0.265

5.000 0.265 0.212
Project No: 63878.1
Period
ASCE 7-16: Section 21.4
Design Response
Spectrum (Sa)
ASCE 7 SECTION 21.3
General Spectrum 80% General
Response Spectrum
D measured
Site Specific

SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA
Period Probabilistic
MCE
Deterministic
MCE
Site-Specific
MCE
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1551 of 1598
Project No: 63878.1

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
Acceleration (g)
Period (seconds)
SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS Probabilistic MCE
Deterministic MCE
Site-Specific MCE
Design Response Spectrum
ASCE 7 Section 21.3 General Spectrum
80% General Response Spectrum
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1552 of 1598
California Street and
Redlands Boulevard
Intersection Improvement

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF REDLANDS
PREPARED BY:

William Maddux
[email protected]
(619) 788-1971
APRIL 22, 2024
15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1553 of 1598
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1554 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 Off-Site Traffic Noise ................................................................................................................................ 1 Operational Noise .................................................................................................................................... 1 Aircraft/Airport Noise .............................................................................................................................. 1 Construction Noise .................................................................................................................................. 1 Construction Vibration ............................................................................................................................ 2 Summary of CEQA Significance Findings ................................................................................................. 2 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Noise Descriptors .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Sound Propagation ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Noise Control .............................................................................................................................. 10

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation ........................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 10

2.7 Community Response to Noise ................................................................................................... 10

2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 13

3.1 State of California Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 13

3.2 City of Redlands General Plan Safety Element ........................................................................... 13

3.3 Construction Noise Standards..................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Construction Vibration Standards ............................................................................................... 14 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 15

4.1 Noise-Sensitive Receivers ........................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 16 5 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS ............................................................................................... 19 6 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ......................................................................................................... 21

6.1 Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 21

6.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 21

6.3 Construction Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 23

6.4 Construction Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ 24

6.5 Construction Vibration Impacts .................................................................................................. 24 7 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 27 8 CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 29 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1555 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
ii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF REDLANDS MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 6.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 12 EXHIBIT 5-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................................................................................... 20 EXHIBIT 6-A: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ............................................................................................. 22

LIST OF TABLES
ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ............................................................................ 2 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE IMPACTS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS .................................. 16 TABLE 6-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................... 23 TABLE 6-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ..................................................... 24 TABLE 6-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ..................................................................... 24 TABLE 6-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ........................................ 25 TABLE 6-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS ................................................................... 25

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1556 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Calveno California Vehicle Noise
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
mph Miles per hour
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PPV Peak particle velocity
Project California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1557 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
iv
This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1558 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise reduction measures for the proposed California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement (“Project”). The Project site is located at the intersection of California Street and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Redlands. The Project consists of an intersection widening project. This study has been prepared consistent with applicable City of Redlands noise standards, and significance criteria based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1)

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE
The Project will not generate any new trips. As such, the Project does not have the potential to generate increases in off-site traffic noise in the Project area and no impact would occur.

OPERATIONAL NOISE
The Project does not contain any new stationary noise sources. As such, the Project does not have the potential to generate increases in ambient noise from these sources in the Project area and no impact would occur.

AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE
The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the Project would not result in potential noise impacts for people residing or working at the Project site. As such, the Project does not have the potential to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur. No further analysis of CEQA Guideline C is required.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE
On-site construction noise represents a short-term increase in the ambient noise levels associated with the construction of the Project near local receivers. Construction-related noise impacts are expected to create temporary and intermittent high-level noise conditions at receivers surrounding the Project site when certain activities occur at the Project site boundary.

Using sample reference noise levels to represent the planned construction activities of California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement site, this analysis estimates the Project-related construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since the City of Redlands General Plan and Municipal Codes do not identify specific construction noise level limits, this analysis relies on the 85 dBA Leq threshold identified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to quantify and determine potential construction noise level impacts. This analysis shows that the Project-related short-term construction noise levels are estimated to range from 65.3 to 69.9 dBA Leq and will satisfy the 85 dBA Leq threshold identified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2) Therefore, Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1559 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
2 the noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations are considered less than significant.

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). At the nearest receivers Project construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range up to 0.01 PPV (in/sec). Based on maximum acceptable vibration threshold of 0.04 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will comply with City of Redlands thresholds at all receiver locations and vibration impacts would be less than significant.

SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
The results of this California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures described below.

ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Off-Site Noise 4 Less Than Significant -
Operational Noise 4 Less Than Significant -
Aircraft/Airport Noise 4 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
6 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1560 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the regulatory setting, presents the study methods, and evaluates the potential for short-term and long-term noise impacts due to Project construction and operation.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Project site is located at the intersection of California Street and Redlands Boulevard in City of Redlands, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project site is approximately 5.2 miles south from San Bernardino International Airport.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes to construct an intersection widening at the existing intersection, as shown in Exhibit 1-B.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1561 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1562 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1563 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
6 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1564 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.

Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). Aweighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.

2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (3) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1565 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
8 at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (4) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in Aweighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period (typically one hour) and is commonly used to describe the “energy average” noise levels within the environment.

Peak hour or equivalent noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Redlands relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.

2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. Based on guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, the way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.

2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (3)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1566 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
9 2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground.

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (5)

2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (3)

2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (5)

2.3.5 REFLECTION
Field studies conducted by the FHWA have shown that the reflection from barriers and buildings does not substantially increase noise levels. (5) If all the noise striking a structure was reflected back to a given receiving point, the increase would be theoretically limited to 3 dBA. Further, not all the acoustical energy is reflected back to same point. Some of the energy would go over the structure, some is reflected to points other than the given receiving point, some is scattered by ground coverings (e.g., grass and other plants), and some is blocked by intervening structures and/or obstacles (e.g., the noise source itself). Additionally, some of the reflected energy is lost due to the longer path that the noise must travel. FHWA measurements made to quantify Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1567 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
10 reflective increases in traffic noise have not shown an increase of greater than 1-2 dBA; an increase that is not perceptible to the average human ear.

2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements.

2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by up to 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (5)

2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (6)

2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Community responses to noise varies depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including:
 Fear associated with noise producing activities.
 Socio-economic status and educational level.
 Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated.  Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity.  Belief that the noise source can be controlled.

Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (7) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1568 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
11 traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (7) Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (5)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION

2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (8), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1569 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
12 The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration.

EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1570 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
13 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas.

Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (9) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

3.2 CITY OF REDLANDS GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT
The City of Redlands has adopted a Noise Element of the General to control and abate environmental noise, and to protect the citizens of the City of Redlands from excessive exposure to noise. (10) The Noise Element specifies the maximum allowable exterior noise levels for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads. In addition, the Noise Element identifies several polices to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community and establishes noise level requirements for all land uses.

3.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Project, noise from construction activities is typically limited to the hours of operation established under a jurisdiction’s Municipal Code. Section

8.06.090(F) the City of Redlands Municipal Code, provided in Appendix 3.1, indicates that construction activity is considered exempt from the noise level standards between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturdays; with no activity allowed on Sundays or holidays. (11) However, neither the City of Redlands General Plan and Municipal Codes establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes a substantial temporary or Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1571 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
14 periodic noise increase. Therefore, the following construction noise level threshold is used in this noise study.

To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant construction noise levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations, a construction-related noise level threshold is adopted from the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2) A division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every 3 dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than four hours per day, 92 dBA for more than one hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. (2) For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since this construction-related noise level threshold represents the energy average of the noise source over a given time, they are expressed as Leq noise levels. Therefore, the noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq over a period of eight hours or more is used to evaluate the potential Project-related construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations.

The 85 dBA Leq threshold is also consistent with the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment criteria for construction noise which identifies an hourly construction noise level threshold of 90 dBA Leq during daytime hours, and 80 dBA Leq during nighttime hours for construction for general assessment at noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residential, medical/hospital, school, etc.). (12) Detailed assessment, according to the FTA, identifies an 8-hour dBA Leq noise level threshold specific to noise-sensitive uses of 80 dBA Leq. Therefore, the Noise Study relies on the NIOSH 85 dBA Leq threshold, consistent with FTA general and detailed assessment criteria for noise-sensitive uses and represents an appropriate threshold for construction noise analysis.

3.4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION STANDARDS
The City of Redlands Municipal Code, Section 8.06.020, defines the vibration perception threshold as 0.01 inches per second (in/sec) RMS. Based on FTA methodology, an RMS of 0.01 in/sec equates to 0.04 in/sec PPV.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1572 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
15 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? While the City of Redlands General Plan Guidelines provide direction on noise compatibility and establish noise standards by land use type that are sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts, they do not define the levels at which increases are considered substantial for use under Guideline A. CEQA Appendix G Guideline C applies to nearby public and private airports, if any, and the Project’s land use compatibility.

4.1 NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (13) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment.

In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (14) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (i.e., CNEL) or median noise level (L₅₀).

As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1573 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
16 ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (13) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, a 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase from long-term noise sources is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, an increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. Table 4-1 below provides a summary of the potential noise impact significance criteria, based on guidance from FICON.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE IMPACTS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS Without Project Noise Level Potential Significant Impact < 60 dBA 5 dBA or more
60 - 65 dBA 3 dBA or more
> 65 dBA 1.5 dBA or more
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992.

4.2 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 4-2 shows the significance criteria summary matrix.

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE
 The Project will not generate any new trips. As such, the Project does not have the potential to generate increases in off-site traffic noise in the Project area and no impact would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required.

OPERATIONAL NOISE
 The Project does not contain any new stationary noise sources. As such, the Project does not have the potential to generate increases in ambient noise from these sources in the Project area and no impact would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION
 If Project-related construction activities:

1. occur at any time other than the permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturdays; with no activity allowed on Sundays or holidays (City of Redlands Municipal Code, Section 8.06.090(F)); or

2. create noise levels which exceed the 85 dBA Leq acceptable noise level threshold at the nearby sensitive receiver locations (NIOSH, Criteria for Recommended Standard:

Occupational Noise Exposure).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1574 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
17  If short-term Project generated construction vibration levels exceed the City of Redlands acceptable vibration standard of 0.01 in/sec RMS (0.04 in/sec PPV) at sensitive receiver locations (City of Redlands Municipal Code, Section 8.06.020).

AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE
The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the Project would not result in potential noise impacts for people residing or working at the Project site. As such, the Project does not have the potential to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur. No further analysis of CEQA Guideline C is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1575 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
18 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1576 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
19 5 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 5-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.

Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noisesensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, outpatient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include:
industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, eight receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., private backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA. (3) (15) Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.

R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 26448 Redlands Blvd, approximately 126 feet west of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 2061 Redlands Blvd, approximately 210 feet southeast of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R2 is placed at the building façade.

A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive Elementary School at 10568 California Street, approximately 222 feet south of the Project site. Receiver R3 is placed at the private outdoor area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1577 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
20 EXHIBIT 5-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1578 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
21 6 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 6-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearby sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 5.

6.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages:
 Demolition
 Site Preparation
 Grading
 Building Construction
 Paving
 Architectural Coating

6.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe peak construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements published in the FHWA Road Construction Nosie Model (RCNM) (16). The RCNM database provides a conservative source of reference construction noise levels. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the FHWA construction reference noise level measurements expressed in hourly average dBA Leq using the estimated FHWA RCNM usage factors to describe the typical construction activities for each stage of Project construction (16).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1579 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
22 EXHIBIT 6-A: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1580 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
23 TABLE 6-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Highest Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Demolition
Pavement Scarifier 83.0
Concrete Saw 83.0 87.2
Vacuum Excavator (Vac-truck) 81.0
Site
Preparation
Grader 81.0
Tractor 80.0 84.4
Excavator 77.0
Grading
Dozer 78.0
Front End Loader 75.0 80.8
Backhoe 74.0
Roadway Base
Tractor 80.0
Compactor (ground) 76.0 82.3
Front End Loader 75.0
Paving
Paver 74.0
Roller 73.0 77.8
Dump Truck 72.0
Striping Compressor (air) 74.0 75.8
Pickup Truck 71.0 1
Update of noise database for prediction of noise on construction and open site expressed in hourly average Leq based on estimated usage factor.

6.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess a reasonable worst-case construction scenario and account for the dynamic nature of construction activities, the Project construction noise analysis models the equipment combination with the highest reference level as a moving point source within the construction area (Project site boundary). As shown on Table 6-2, the highest construction noise levels are expected to range from 65.3 to 69.9 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Appendix

6.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

The construction noise analysis presents a conservative approach with the highest noise-levelproducing equipment for each stage of Project construction operating at the closest point from primary construction activity to the nearby sensitive receiver locations. This scenario is unlikely to occur during typical construction activities and likely overstates the construction noise levels which will be experienced at each receiver location.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1581 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
24 TABLE 6-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest
Levels2
1 69.9 67.1 63.5 65.0 60.5 58.5 69.9
2 65.8 63.0 59.4 60.9 56.4 54.4 65.8
3 65.3 62.5 58.9 60.4 55.9 53.9 65.3 1
Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 6-A. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearby receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 6.1.

6.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the noise levels at the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 85 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities, as shown on Table 6-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 6-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 69.9 85 No
R2 65.8 85 No
R3 65.3 85 No 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 6-A. 2 Highest construction noise level operating at the Project site boundary to nearby receiver locations (Table 6-2). 3 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?

6.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (8) However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 6-4. Based on the Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1582 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
25 representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the human response (annoyance) associated with vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
TABLE 6-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided on Table 6-4 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, it is possible to estimate the Project vibration impacts. Table 6-5 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 122 to 171 feet from the Project construction activities to the nearest adjacent off-site structure, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range up to 0.01 PPV (in/sec). Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.04 in/sec PPV, the typical Project construction vibration levels will not exceed the vibration thresholds at any local receiver. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts associated with construction activities are considered less than significant.

TABLE 6-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Receiver
Location1
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer
Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
1 142' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 No
2 122' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 No
3 171' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 No 1
Receiver locations are shown on 5-A.
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 6-4). 4 City of Redlands Municipal Code Section 8.06.020. 5
Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1583 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
26 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1584 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
27 7 REFERENCES

1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G & Amendments and Additions to the State CEQA Guidelines. 2019.

2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Criteria for Recommended Standard:

Occupational Noise Exposure. June 1998.

3. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.

4. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.

6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).

EPA 550/9/82/106.

8. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

9. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October 2017.

10. City of Redlands. General Plan, 7.5 Noise. December 2017.

11. —. Municipal Code, Chapter 8.06.

12. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. September 2018.

13. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.

14. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

15. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. September 2018.

16. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Road Construction Noise Model, version 1.0. 2006.

17. Urban Crossroads, Inc. San Bernardino Trailer Facility (PROJ-2022-00019) Trip Generation Assessment.

May 2022.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1585 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
28 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1586 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
29 8 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (619) 788-1971.

William Maddux
Senior Associate
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
(619) 788-1971
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Urban and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, Pomona • June 2000

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
APA – American Planning Association
AWMA – Air and Waste Management Association

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Approved Acoustical Consultant • County of San Diego
FHWA Traffic Noise Model of Training • November 2004
CadnaA Basic and Advanced Training Certificate • October 2008.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1587 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
30 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 1588 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF REDLANDS MUNICIPAL CODE

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 31 1589 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 32 1590 of 1598





 












 !" 





 












 !" 

#$%&'()*+,-. * *
#/00123'4*2/35(*#/2')/6 789:;<=

+,-.,->-?*&@ABCDE +,-.,-F-?*GEHIJIKICJD +,-.,-L-?*MEJEANO*2CIDE*)EP@ONKICJD +,-.,-Q-?*(JHCARESEJK*%@KTCAIKU +,-.,-V-?*2CIDE*0END@AESEJK*&ACREW@AE +,-.,-.-?*2CIDE*0END@AESEJK*0EKTCWCOCPU +,-.,-X-?*(YKEAICA*2CIDE*6ISIKD +,-.,-+-?*3JKEAICA*2CIDE*5KNJWNAWD +,-.,-Z-?*2CIDE*GIDK@A[NJRED*&ACTI[IKEW +,-.,>--?*)EDIWEJKINO*%IA*#CJWIKICJIJP*/A*%IA*$NJWOIJP*(\@IBSEJK +,-.,>>-?*'NSBEAIJP +,-.,>F-?*(YESBKICJD +,-.,>L-?*&AEEYIDKIJP*2CIDE*5C@ARED +,-.,>Q-?*]ICONKICJ^*&EJNOKU +,-.,->-?*&1)&/5(? : *  

**
* 
*
** 

"*
*"

*"* _
"
**
*`
"
*
"
* "*a*


"* 

"
_
*
"
**
*"**"

*!"*
*a*b< *

*c*d*
e +,-.,-F-?*G(f323'3/25? :
*!"*!
*" * 

*
*_
*
*
""
*

**"*
*

"*g*
"a*

*"*
* 
d*"*
"
*
!d*
*
*"*""
*!* 
* "
**
*g
" ="*7" 
*;"

*bg=7;e**
*


* a gh8;ij:8k*7<l=k*m8n8m
*:
*
" *
_
*"*


*
*


*"**
" *
_
*

*
"*
*g!
"*"
!o*:
*
_
*
*
 *
*

"
* pg ***gqp;8=:*=<;78*m8n8m
*:
**
" 

"*"

*
_
*


*!**_
"*
"_"
"d*
"** 

**
"
***


d*

 "*
*

*
"
_
*"

d**
*"*"  

*
**!** 
"*!*
*

*
"
_
*"

*
**
*
 ***9<qq8`9;gm
*i
"
a*"

"**

*

*"*
*
*r"

*
*

**"*
***
*
**  
*

* "
 ***9<=7:`l9:;<=
*g"a*

* 
"d* "d*

ad*

"d*

"*
d*
"*" *

*
*" "*" * 

"d**
*_ad***"* ** _
*
**!ad


d*

** ** _
* 
a ***9lqlmg:;n8*s8`;<k
*g"* _
*
 **
* 

**" _ *
*


"
**a*
*""
**"
 
 ***k89;p8m
*g*"**

"*
* 
***
" d*
**!
"a*be*

*
***
*

*
"*be**
***
* 


**
*
" *


**
*


"
* 


d*!*
!
"a*be* 

 ***k8q<m;:;<=
*g"a* 
""d*"
""*

"**
_**


d*

d* ** _
***!a*


**
* _

"
*"* ** _
* 
a ***8q8`i8=9t*h<`u
*g"a*!o*

**
*  

** 
_
""**
_"*
* a
*** 
a* 
*!*


*

*" ***v;w8k*=<;78*7<l`98
*g*
"a*
_
*!*


*
"
*!
*

**"

*" "d**"*
*d*


"d*d*" 
*" *
*"
a*" *
 
"d 
d*"
d* 


d**" "

**

"*
 
" ***;=kl7:`;gm
*i
"
a*"

"**

*

*"*
*" 
*r"

*
*

**"*
***
*
**  
*

* "
 ***m;98=78k
*:
* 

"***
"

***
*


*a*
*  
*x
"*ay*d*!

*"*

**
"

*
*


d*
*
"""**
*_a*a*
*x
"*
*"
*" *
  ***q<p;m8*=<;78*7<l`98
*g"a*"

*

*
*"**

*"

*

 ***q<:<`*n8j;9m8
*7*"
*"a*" **

 

*_


*
*
"
*"*
*9"*n

*9
 qlvvm8`*<`*7<l=k*k;77;sg:;n8*k8n;98
*g*
_
*"

"***



**

**
* 

d**
*
"*

"d**
*  

**

_"*


*
**"*"
" 
"*
""
*" *

_
*"*
"*"

 ***=<;78*9<=:`<m*<vv;98`*bz=9<ze
*:
*
*
"

"* _
"**
*a**
*
*
 a

**
*a*
*

"
*a*
*a*"
**
"
*
* 
 ***=<;78*k;7:l`pg=98
*g"a*
" *"*"* "
*!*
*"_
*
" 
*
*

*

"*!*


***g***8" "

**"x

*
*

a**
**"*
"
**"
y ***p***g""a
** 

*

"
*

"
**"*

"
_

y ***9***8" "

**"x

*

"**
* 
ay* ***k***n

*

"*{**{
**
* 
 ***=<;78*78=7;:;n8*|<=8
*g"a*
*

"
*
*
* 
"**
* 
**
*  

**
"
"*


"*
 ***=<;78*|<=8
*g"a*
"
*

**
"
***
"
a*"


"*" *

*!

"*
*
"*"

*
_

*
*!"**"
**_
*b
e* p ***s8`7<=
*g"a*" _ d*

"d* "

 ** "d*" *"

*"a*
d*
 a

d*

"d*
"a**"

"a***

**"a* *
 _
"***

 ***s<h8`8k*q<k8m*n8j;9m8
*g"a*

 

d*"
d*!
"
**" "
* "
d*_

**_

*!*
*"*

"
**a*

"
*" "d**"*
*d*"a*
* "
d*d **o
 ***slpm;9*`;ij:*<v*hgt
*g"a*


d*_
"
d*
_ d*!ad*

!od*
a**
* 
*!"
**"
*a**_
"
"*
"a ***slpm;9*7sg98
*g"a*
* 
a**

*

"*!*
*!"
**"
*a**_
"
"*
"a ***`87;k8=:;gm
*i
"
a*"

"**

*
*

*"*
*


"*r"

*
*

**"*
***
*
**  
*

* "
 ***7<l=k*gqsm;vt;=i*8}l;sq8=:
*g"a*
_
**
* "**
*"*_
d*
**"a*
*
" d*

 "*
"  *
* 
**


*
a


*!
"*

*" *
 *"a*a 
* "
**
*_

*"*!*
* **


*
a

*
*"

d*

 "*!""*
_

*"*r
*


"a*_


**"
**
*!""*
_

*"*"a*_

*

*"a**

a*  

 ***7<l=k*m8n8m*q8:8`
*g"*"

"d*" "** "
d* 
d* *

*" *

"a*!
"*"
!o
**
*



"**
" *
_

*!*


**



*
*


"
* 
*g
"*="*7"  *;"

~
*7

d**
*
*

"*
_
"*

d**a
***a
**
" *
_
*


 ***7<l=k*:`l9u
*g"a**_

*
 

**_
* !
d*!

*"*"**
"ad*_"*"
*

"**
*

d*"a*
" * a"*
 
" ***n;p`g:;<=*s8`98s:;<=*:j`87j<mk
*:
*"*" **

*"
*_"*"*"


a**

**"*

"**
*!
**
*_"*a*
* 
*
"
*
d**" 
*d*

"
"*a***_
*

_"**_"*x

*:
*

"*

 *
*
* 


**
**"*_
a***"

*
*

" *_
*
*"
**"
**"
*" 
be*jr ***h88ukgt
*g"a* ad*q" a**v ad*!*
*"**
* a*b< *

*c*d*
e +,-.,-L-?*M(2()%6*2/35(*)(M16%'3/25? ;*
*
*"!**"a*

"**!a**"

"a*o
d**

**
*
d*"a* d*""


a**"
*"

*!* 

*
*

*" *
**"a*"
 **!*


**""a"
***

"
*

"**"*

"
_a*"*
*
*:
*
**a*
*"


*"*

""*!

**_"**
* 
*



*"
d**
*"*
*d*
!"
***g***:
*
" *
_
**
*x
"
*"

y Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 33 1591 of 1598 




 












 !" 





 












 !" 

###$###%
#
" #
&
##
#
"#"

' ###(###%
# 
)##
#"

##


"#&"##


"#

' ###*###%
#"
#" #+""##
#
#!"#!#
#"

#
"

' ###,###%
#"
##

"
#

#)#
#"

' ###-###%
#
## )##"#
#"

#
' ###.###%
# "##
#"

' ###/###%
#"0#""##
#"
"##
#"

' ###1###2

#
#"

#
#""
0#

"##"

"' ###3###2

#
#"

#
#  
#)##
##""
#&)' ###4###2

#
#"
##
#"

#
#
##"
' ###5### 
#
#"##
#"

#
#"##""'#" ###6###2

#
#"

#
#"##!

7 )0#!

7 " ### )#89 #

#:#0#
; <=>?=>@>A#BCDEFGBHBCI#JKILEFMINA ###O###%
#P(9#" #
#P(9Q
# )#+
#


"&

#)#
"
#
# &
"
##
# 
 ###$###%
#P(9#" #
#+
#


"&

#
#&
#

)# 

#"#"
"# #
#

"
#)#
#

"#"

"Q
#"
 ###(###P#

"#
#"


#!0# 

##


#
#P(9##")#+
#

"#
#!#
#
"

"##
# 
#!
"#
#

"
#
#
"
#"#
#
"
##
# 

#89  

#:#0#
; <=>?=>R>A#CEMSB#HBJSKFBHBCI#TFEGBUKFBA %
#P(90#

#!#
" #
&
#



"#
 
"#

)"#
#


"
#"#

"#V##
# 
0#)#"&


#")# "#
"###&"##
# 
#%
"&

"#
#"

###



"#" #
#
"## ##

)#
"
#
#"

# 
#" #"
0##"#
#
#0#
#!"
###O###%)
##"

#

' ###$###5"##"

#

#
&
##
# ""Q
# 
)' ###(###%
#
 # "#!#"

#

#
#"


#)# ""##
#"
&
' ###*###%# "##"

#  
#)#"

#

'#" ###,###*
#" #
##"

#



"#
&
)#89 #

#:#0#
; <=>?=>?>A#CEMSB#HBJSKFBHBCI#HBILEUEWEXNA
###O###Y+"#
#O!
"#

##
#
" #
&
#

#" #
#Z
!Z#

#

"

#8

#Z
Z#

"

## 
&
#)
#
"
;0#
#"

#
&
#
#
#


### 
"## 
"
##") "#"#
#

&
Q
# 
)#


#  
##

"
#!

#
#"

#
&
# 

#!#
# 
 ###$###%
# "
#
#
#
##8
;##&
#

#8
Q;#&
#
#" '#
"#

#8Q;##
##
#"


#

&
#

0#!

# 


#/!
&
0#"#

#

#!

#"
#

&"#


#  
0#
#
#
#
#+
#1#
#"

# "#
#

##"
#"

#
&

0#"
#"

#



"
#
#
#
#!"#
#

#


"# "##"#%




"
#
#
#
### "##

##

#8
Q;##
#!0#
"###"


#
#"

#

0#!#
#!" !
#

 ###(###("##
#



"#
 
"0#+"#"#
#0#
#
#

#

)# ##
 "#")#"

# #["  #"
""
##
#

"#
 
"#
#
"# "
#!#
#"
Q
#

" "
 ###*###P# #



"
#
#
#7
"
#########*"#

#!
"#!" #

#8" "#

;#



#

"#8
;#

#
#' #########2##!"


"0#
#

"
#)#
#

"#"

"Q
#"
0# 
)#
##
#

"#"

"' #########Y"
#")#" "##!
#
#

"#"

"##

#!
#8
0#"##"
"
";'# ######
###2
"#
#
"#


#
###
#"
##
#
"
##
#

"#"

"#89 #

#:#0#
; <=>?=>\>A#B]IBFMEF#CEMSB#WMHMISA ###O###%
#"

#
" 
##
#


##" #

#
"
#"#
###
#

"#
0#"

#
!

#

)#" 
0# )###
# 
)#!"##

"
#+"
 IJ^WB#_ HJ]MHKH#TBFHMSSM^WB#SEKCU#WB`BWS#^N#FBGBM`MCX#WJCU#KSB # Fabacdcef#Wgeh#Kia#GgjafklmIcna#TalckhCkcia#Wadao#p#h^J [" )#


"# 


#q6#r#
#O6
#O6#r#
#q
V 6)#


"# 

' #

'#"
" 
#q6#r#
#O6
#O6#r#
#q
V (
 
#q6#r#
#O6
#O6#r#
#q VV
1" 
 O")#

#
###$###P#

"#
#

0##

##
#

0#")#

##
" ##")#"#!"#
#)##!#
#
"##")#"

#"# 
)#!"
0#


0# 
##
!

#"
#)
#

"#!#

#
#"

#
&
#!
"#


#"#")#
# 
)##



#########%
#"

#
"  ###" #

#


#"#
###
#

"###&
#
 ##
#"#)#8;#"

#"#")#'# #########%
#"

#
"  #


#"#
###
#

"# 
#&
#8
;# $###&
#
 ##
#"#

"#8
;#"

#"#")#'# #########%
#"

#
"  #


#"#
###
#

"# 
#
"#8;# $###&
#
 ##
#"#&
#8
;#"

#"#")#'# ######
###%
#"

#
"  #


#"#
###
#

"# 
#

"#8
;# $###&
#
 ##
#"#"
#"
#"#")#'# ######
###%
#"

#
"  #


#"#
###
#

"# 
#!
")#8;# $##
#
#


#
"#
&
0##")#
 ##

###(###1#
#


#
"#
&
#



#
#!
#"

#



#
"  #!"#")##
#
##8
;#"

##


#&
0#
#!
#"

#



#
"  #
#
# s

#"#&
8 ;# $#"

"
#"#
#
)#
#  
##
" 

##

#
 #
"#"

#
&
#1"#
#
&
"#
#
"#"

#
&
#



#
##"

##
)0#
#
#!
#"


&
#"
#
#
)#
#
#"


##

#
#
#
"#"

#
&
 ###*###%
#
"#"

#
#
#


##
#

#"#"#
# 
)#"
#+
#"#


"#VV$##
# 
0#!#
#

#
" "#"

#

#"
&
#1#
#


" "#"

#

#""#
#
# !"0#
#
"#"

#
#
#


#)#
"##



"#"#
#

#
"
#
##
#

####

"# 
"
##
#"

##


#
##

#
"#8;# $#
!#
#
"#"#
##")#
#
"#
&
#
#


#1#
# 

"
#
!

"#
#
"#" #
#"

#

#
#&
#8
;##
"#8;# $0#
"#
#
&
##

"#

#"#
#

")#

"
#)#
"##"
#

#
"##"##
#""##
#

 ###,###1"#
#
&
"#
#

#
"
&
#"

#""
##

 )0# 
#"
#
#
##!"
0#


0#0##
##

&
#"

#
#
#
"##&
"0##""
#
##

#"&
)" ""#"
"0#
#
"  #
#

##"#
###
#

"#
#
#

#)#&
#8
;# $#89 #

#:#0#
; <=>?=><>A#MCIBFMEF#CEMSB#SIJCUJFUSA ###O###P#

"#
#

##

##
#

#")#

##
" 0##!#
#
"##")#"

0#!#

#
#"

#
&
#!
"#


#"

##"
"#

&"# 
# " #



#
#!"#
" 

#########%
#"

#
"  ###" #

#


#"#
###
#

"###&
#
 ##
#"#&
#8
;#"

#"#")# #########%
#"

#
"  ###" #

#


#"#
###
#

"# 
#&
#8
;# $###&
#
 ##
#"#"
#"
#"#")# #########%
#"

#
"  ###" #

#


#"#
###
#

"# 
#
"#8;# $##
#
#


#
"#"

#
&
##")#
 ##

###$###1#
#


#
"#
&
#



#
#!
#


#"

#



#
"  #"#
###
# 
0#
#!
#"
#"

#



#
&
#
#
# s

#"#&
#8
;# $#"

"
#
  
##

#
#
"#"

#
&
 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 34 1592 of 1598 




 












 !" 





 












 !" 

#$%&'() *$+,*-*(.'/*,00,%&'(,1#'/,2/(02-13(&'4'&0(%5(/'6',4,17(&$13(-0' ( /898:;:<=(&><?(-@8(6>A8=BCD#:E8(.8C:B?1B:@8(&8;8F(G(?%$ H" I(


"( 

J"I(

KI(


"( 

L "
"L(

J"I(

M
J"I(


N" 
 J"I(
O (
PQ (

(R(S(
T UVWXVWYWZ(12,0'(3,0#-/%$16'0(./2[,%,#'3Z \
(!"(
S(" (
(
"((
"(

S(
(

((
("(]"((
( 

(((J(((^ S(\

]
"(H
S(_
(Q
"S( I"S((
"(
(
"(( I"(("I( S(

]
"(

S( " S( S(
("

"((
(
]
(!(  

((
 

"
(((((((((`
!

"(
(
((
"(ab(P
T(cK(" (

]
"(ab(P
T(JK("(
((""
(
((

(("

( 
"
(

((


"((
(
( 
I("
((("I(
( ]
(
( ]
"
((

"(O((O((
( 
 (((((((((N"(
((""
(
((



(
(
]

(

((( (

("(
(((
( 
S(


((( 
"
(((

(I(

(P
aT((
(
]
(
"("(( (((!I( (

 (((`(((d

b
(Q(H

(HI



(e
"((
"(("I(  

("I(

b
S(

b
(
I

S(


(
I

((
(
]
(
!

"(
(
((
"(ab(P
T(cK(" (

]
" ab(P
T(JKS(
((
(
" (

(


(("

( 
"
(

((


"( 
I("
S((("I(
(]

(
( ]
"
((

"(O((O((
( 
S(


 (""
( (

b"S( (

I((]I((!("(

 "(
(

"( ]
(("(

(
(

"((

"(O((
( 
 (((M(((H

(H

(Q
"((

S(

"("I"S(( ]

"(I(
"((I(!"(
(I(


(I(
(


(I(
(I(\
(


"(
("(
("

(( (
(

"(I I((
" 

S( ((
]


((
"

(
"(
]
"
S( 

S(
S(

((
(
(
"

( (
"
"
"(
]
"
 (((f(((J"
(J" (`

(Q!""S( 

"(("("I("(( (!(

"IS((("( "S(!
S(b
S(
!
S(
!b
((b

(
(
" (!(


(("

( 
"


((


"((
(
( 
I("
((!"(("

(

"
]
(g"
 (((_(((d "(J" (e" "
(d "S(" "S(
""S(
"((
(" "((

S(

S(""

S( "(

S(


(""

((
(h

(
!

"(
(
((
"(ab P
T(cK(" (

(ab(PO
T(JK("(
((""
(
((

(("

( 
"
(

((


"(
( 
I("
((("I(
((]
(

"(O((
( 
 (((i(((M"
"(J" Q(f
"
(Q
"((
"(
(
"(("I(
((
 
"(

("("
"S( "S(
S(
"((
"(!b(
!

"(!

b I(
((

(ab PO
T(cK(" (

]
"(ab(P
T(JKS(" "(H I
S((("I(
("(H" I
(( I
S(
((
(
" (

(


(("

( 
"
(

((


"((
(
 
I("
S(


((


"I(!b(I( (

]
(

S(
(I(("
(]
"
"(
"I(J(
((
"I("
"(
"(
""
( !

(
 
"(("
I(
(


(!(


(" (("b
(

"

("( 
(!b"(
S((

((

(
(
" 
(

((

" (((j(((k"
(Q
"((
"(
(
"(("I(
]
((


((]"(!(
(]
(
(]"(

"(

 (("(" ] (((
I" (
( 
I(" I((
(

("( ]
( 
I((("
(" 
(I(

(P
aT((
(

(("(( (

(( (((!I (((l(((c!

(K
(k


(Q
"((
"(
(
"(( !

(
(]


(((((((((`
!

"(
(
((

]
"(ab(P
T(cK(" (

]
"(ab(P
T(JK(
(
((

(("

( 
"
(

((


"((
(
( 
I("
((("I(
("(]"(

"(O((
( 
 (((((((((N"(
((""
(
((



(
(
]

(

((( (

(" (

("(
(((
( 
(


((( 
"
("(

("("
(" 
(

(PaT(("I( "("(
( (( ]

(
"("( (

(( (((!I (((N(((H"IS(m"


"I(H""(f
]

(((((((((H" "((
"(
(
" "(("I(

"I( 
(
"(("I(
"I(
S(
S(

"S(!

((
(
]
("
"
( I((""


"I(  

S(("I( 
(
("(
"(PT(

"
("("I(I(
  (((((((((c

((!
 (" ( (" ( ]
(

(
(
(

 ((
(
"((
(


" (((n(((_

"I(H""(f
]

(((((((((J
S(H
"
S(o


(\
("
""(
" "((
"(
(
" "( 
(("I(
S(((](

"

(S(

"S(!

((
(
"I(


"I(
""(
]
S(


 (


"I(  

(((

"(
( ]
("(


"(n((
(

" (((((((((\

"
((((((((((((\

"(((
"I(


"I(
""(
]
(
("((

(

]
"(ab(P
T(JK((
(

]
"(ab(P
T(cK(J"I(
(

"(
(

("I(
("(I
(

(
(N" "(

(
(
(

(
(



(

I(POT(

"
 ((((((((((((\

"((
( 

(


"I(
""(
I

S(" "(
("""((
(
""(
]
S(" (
(

""
(

"

((
(
""(
]
S(
("((
("("
("(
 
" ("(H(

"(
("((

(

]
"(ab(P
T(JK((
(
"(ab(P
T(cK(\
(
((


("(


"(n((
(

"(
("( I((
( 

(
I

 

" (((((((((`S(i
S(K(k

(J

(H" "((
"(
(
" "(("I(


(((
((("I((]

((("

(
((
(
"
(!"(]
(P
T("

(]" (((p(((m

(H
"
]
(q"

(M
"((
"(
(
"(("I(
" (!"("I("

(

"
]
(g"
S(
(
((



(
(


(" (

("

(
" 
(

(("(
(((
( 
("


"(O`((
( 
S((
(
(("


(!(
(""
((
(]I((""I(
( "
("(
(]IS( ]
(("

(
"
(
( 
I
(" "(
( 

"
((
g"
 (((d(((f

(c!
(\
(J" (K"
I
(((((((((Q
"((
"(
(
"(("I(
"I( !

(
!S(
"
S( S("
S(!"((
"(S((
((
!

"(
"(ab(P
T(cK(" (

]
"(ab(P
T(JKS(
(
(

(("

( 
"
(

((


"((
(
( 
I("
 (((((((((KS("
I(" ( 
S(
(
(
!"( (
 
"S(
(
(

"I(
"

((
(" (""
(
(
("((

(("

( 
"
("( "
(!(
(S(

" O((
( 
 (((K(((c

(Q(c(_"
"
"
(Q
"((
"(
(
"(( I"(("I(

b
S(
("

"((
(

((
" ("("I( 
(( (
"
"
"((



""
I(]
(P

T( `J(
(
 ("(
(
!(

"

(((
" (
]
(

(("I( "("I( 
(I((

S(!(("

(" (

(
"(!("("
("(PrT(

(
(
"
stuvwvxy(z{|v}(~€~z(sw‚wv(ƒt„(
t|z(‚tuwvx(wƒ†twuƒv‡ PQ (

(R(S(
T UVWXVˆWWZ(/'0,3'1#,$&($,/(6213,#,21,17(2/($,/([$13&,17('‰-,.*'1#Z N( (
("!((

((
(
(
"(("I((" ""(((" "(
 
"("(
((""
(
((



(
(
" (
]

(

(("(
(S(

"(O((
( 
 PQ (

(R(S(
T UVWXVˆˆWZ(#$*.'/,17Z \
(!"(
((
(
"(

(
( 

(((J(((\
(
]((
"
"("
]
S(
("((  

(("
""
S(
((


"S(("I("

("(
]
((


"(

(("I(  (

((

(


("



"(
("
(

S(

(((! (((`(((\
(
](("I("

(
(("I(  (
"
("(


"(J((
(

" (((M(((\
(

(((  (
"
("(


"(J((
(

"S(!(
( (("

("(
]
((


"(

(("

(
(
]
((
"

("
]
(PQ (

(R(S(
T UVWXVˆ)WZ('+'*.#,210Z (((J(((_

"I(_

 "
(\
( 
(
("( I(
(((((((((\
(


"((
" ((
(  

((
"(

"
((
(



"
(("(


"I(
(
S(("(
(S(

b

S("
S(

"
S(!


((
(
(
]

(!(
(
" S "I((
(
(

((b
(""((
(


"I(" "L( Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 35 1593 of 1598 




 












 !" 





 












 !" 


#########$
#


"##
" #"#
#
"
##


"%#!&##
#
 %# '
"##

"#

'

#
#
(##"#
#(#%#
%

#

## 

(#"

#

(
#

#" #
#"


(#"

"#" #""
"#'

(#

## 
#

"
#" # 
%## %
###

##

"#

'

 ###)###*""#+
'

#$
# 
#
#"# %##!""#
'

#"


%##
# 
"## #

%#,
(#
#" #"
#

"
#" #"#"
#
#

 ##
# 
 ###-###. #/'

#$
# 
#
#"# %##
"# # #
"
(# # "

(#
!
(#" #
"#" #
"
"
"#
'
"
#" 
#!"#%# &
#" #%#!"



(#" "#
'
"
#" 
##
#0
"
#)!(# '
#
#
'
"
#
#" 
# 
"###
##
"

#


#%#
#% ###+###1#/'

#$
# 
#
#"# %##'

#" #
"
#" 
#"#
#"
##"%# ## '
#


"%(#"


##

" %#
##


#" #"'



 ###2###3

#$
# 
#
#"# %##'

#" #
"
#" 
#!"#
#"
##
#0
"
#-"%#3
# '
##
 #'

#" #
"
#
#"# "
#! 
#
# '
"
##
#
4
#" "#

#
 ###5###6"#6"
""
#.#0


"#,
%
#$
# 
#
#"# %##"

#


#


#!#
#"#"
""
##


"# 
%(# '
#
#'

#&
# 
#
!

"#

##

'
"#4&#7
8#/6##
#4&#7
8#,6#"#!

& %
(#" #

'
"#4&#7
8#/6##
#4&#7
8#,6#"#!

&
"
#" #
# %
(#" # '
##
#'


"

#"#
#"#""
%#7
8# )/###!"#
#
# 
%#"
##
#


"# 
%#/'

#'

#"
#
# '
"#"
(##
#"#
#(#"
""
##"
 "#" #" 
##


"# !
"
##"%#


 ###9###-"
"#/'%
#$
# 
#
#"# %##"

#


#


#!#"
!#"
"(#

"(#
"## "##"%# 
%# '
#
#'

#&
# 
#
!

" 
#
##

'
"#4&#7
8#/6#" #

#4&#7:
8#,6#"#!

& %
(#" "#1 %
(#!#"#'

#&"# 
##"%#
#"#1" %
##

# %
#/#;
#
 
"#

#"
#'%#
#
#

#!#"""#

 ###3###/#.
"

#$
# 
#
#"# %##
#"

#


#


#!##
"
##

#"#"
""
(#'"(# ""#" #'

"###

'
#
 #'

#&
# 
#
!

"#
#
##

'
"#4&#7
8#/6##
#4&#7
8#,6#"#!

& %
(#" "#1 %
(#!#"#'

#&"# 
##"%#
#"#1" %
#

# %
#/#;
#
 
"#

#"#
#'%#
#
#

#!#"""#

 ###<###- 
#/ "
#$
# 
#
#"# %##"%#'%#"#!#

##

#!#
# 

 
#
#
"##
#'%#7. #

#=#(#
8 >?@A?BC@D#EFGGHIJKILM#LNIJG#JNOFPGJD $

#
#" #" 
#
"
#"#



"
# ##
# 
##  "#

(##"# "
#!#
#%4
#;""#!
(#%#
#"
##
 ##
# 
#!"#!## %#! 
# 
 ###/###1# "
#
 #
#
#

#"#
#


#
##&
#
#
 
"# %(#
#!

#########<#
#
#
#"
#
" # 
#7Q(8##

(#""
%#7
8# %
R #########<#
#
#
#"
#
" # 
#7Q(8##'
#
" # 
#7Q
(8(#"
#%
R #########<#
#
#
#'
#
" # 
#7Q
(8##!
"%#
" # 
#7Q(8(#!#78#%

R# ######
###<#
#
#
#

#"#!
"%#
" # 
#7Q(8##
(#

#78#%

 ###)###/#
#
##


##


"
# "
#

#"#


"
#/##/
##
#

"(#"%#

"#


"#
#


"
"#
#
## "##
# "
(#" "#
 % "##
#"

#
'

##!"#'
#7
8# )/##
# %"#
'
#1#


"
#
 #" #
 %#"#
#"#



#"
#%
#
%" #
#"# "
#
 #<#
# "

 #
#"
(#"#



#"
#"#
# "#
#
# 

#!"#""
%#7
8# %
##
# 
## '##
# "
#
  ###-###<(##
#
" ##
# "
#
 (##
#
!"## "
#!#
# '
"
#

"#"

##
 #"#

##
"#" #
"#

%(# "# "
##


" %#
#"
#"#"#""#

#"#
#
#
# "
#%#
#


(# '
#
#
 %#"#
"
#"# 
 ###+###0



##


"
# "
#

##


"
#
#
#

##
#%4
# """#

"#!#
#
## "
#" #
#""#
#

#%#
#"%
'
 
"# 
#1# "
#
#
#
#%#
#!"
##
# 
%#

#

%##
#!"
4
#;
#
"(#!#
#"%#
'
 
"# 
(#"#
#"

#%#

(#!#
#

##%#
#"
##
#  

#

(#" #
#
#

"##S
%#
#""##
# "
#
 #"# "
#!#
# '
"
##
# 
 ###2###$
# "#
#"
##
# 
#"#
#
##
#"

#" # 

### 
%#!"

##!#"
#
#
#'
"#
# '
#"#
# 
 ###5###2#
# "#
#
# "
#%##"#" # 

"#

#"#
#"#



#%#

"##
#%#"#/"%# "#%#! !#
# "#%#"##!
" 


## #
##"%#
# ##"#"#

"(# '
##

#
#
#"#
" ##

#7. #

#=#(#
8 >?@A?BT@D#UINVWKINLX#EGLWVKYD ###/###<#
#
##

(# %##""# 
%#"#'"##
# 
 ###)###Z"##
# 
#
#
##


"(##%#
# 


#
#

##


"##"#""#"#
# 

"##
#%#"
% ###-###/"%#

"#!#'

#
# '
"
##
# 
#
#%###


#
"

##
# %(## "#

(# "#!#
#'"#""

 ###+###Z"##
# 
##

"
##
#"""#"#"
#
## #"
"
#!#%#
#
##
"S"
#"# "
#!#
#!#7. #

#=#(#
8 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 36 1594 of 1598 California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
APPENDIX 6.1:

CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 37 1595 of 1598
California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 15092-05_Noise_Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 38 1596 of 1598
15092 - California Street and Redlands Boulevard Intersection Widening Project CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 15092-05_Construction.cna Date: 22.04.24
Analyst: B. Maddux
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) R1 R1 69.9 -30.1 66.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6265768.45 2332026.85 5.00 R2 R2 65.8 -34.2 62.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6266169.60 2331755.58 5.00 R3 R3 65.3 -34.7 62.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6265774.58 2331701.17 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Construction Area ConstructionArea1 118.8 18.8 18.8 84.6 -15.4 -15.4 PWL-Pt 118.8 8 a Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 39 1597 of 1598
Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Construction Area ConstructionArea1 8.00 a 6265979.27 2332642.62 8.00 0.00 6265987.47 2332640.50 8.00 0.00
6265985.63 2332573.16 8.00 0.00
6265984.67 2332516.92 8.00 0.00
6265984.13 2332444.69 8.00 0.00
6265987.03 2332370.32 8.00 0.00
6265993.06 2332235.47 8.00 0.00
6265996.01 2332163.88 8.00 0.00
6265994.15 2332095.84 8.00 0.00
6265992.32 2331988.21 8.00 0.00
6265996.63 2331874.93 8.00 0.00
6265915.33 2331872.84 8.00 0.00
6265914.16 2331885.36 8.00 0.00
6265919.03 2331885.97 8.00 0.00
6265917.71 2331890.16 8.00 0.00
6265912.23 2331894.42 8.00 0.00
6265884.49 2331978.25 8.00 0.00
6265952.96 2332002.08 8.00 0.00
6265961.42 2332009.58 8.00 0.00
6265962.14 2332029.08 8.00 0.00
6265959.69 2332064.18 8.00 0.00
6265961.61 2332193.23 8.00 0.00
6265962.60 2332366.21 8.00 0.00
6265966.76 2332497.37 8.00 0.00
6265969.54 2332632.52 8.00 0.00
6265974.62 2332634.25 8.00 0.00
6265978.75 2332636.00 8.00 0.00
Barrier(s)
Name Sel. M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Building(s)
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Ground Absorption(s)
Name Sel. M. ID G Coordinates
x y
(ft) (ft)
Contour(s)
Name Sel. M. ID OnlyPts Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Vertical Area Source(s)
Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Rail
Name Sel. M. ID Lw' Train Class Correct. Vmax
Day Night Track
(dBA) (dBA) (dB) (km(mph)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-17-2024 40 1598 of 1598