Redlands City Council
November 18, 2025

CITY OF REDLANDS

CITY COUNCIL

A G E N D A
NOVEMBER 18, 2025

MARIO SAUCEDO
Mayor

MARC SHAW
Mayor Pro Tempore

PAUL BARICH
Council Member

EDDIE TEJEDA
Council Member

DENISE DAVIS
Council Member
***

JEANNE DONALDSON
City Clerk

PHILLIP DOOLITTLE
City Treasurer
CHARLES M. DUGGAN JR.

City Manager
YVETTE M. ABICH GARCIA
City Attorney
5:00 p.m. Open Public Meeting, Public Comment (Closed Session) 6:00 p.m. Open Session (Public Meeting)
* * *
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 35 Cajon Street, Redlands, California
Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
1 of 932

A G E N D A
The following information comprises the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redlands at the times noted below in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 35 Cajon Street, Redlands, California, on:

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2025
To join via Zoom on a computer, laptop, or smart device Please visit www.zoom.us
, click on Join a Meeting
Enter the Meeting ID 896 2789 8341, then run the Zoom launcher To join via Zoom with audio only (cell phone or landline):

Dial 1-877-853-5247
Enter the Meeting ID 896 2789 8341
Should the City lose connectivity on Zoom, we will halt the meeting until it can be restored. To check on the status of remote connectivity in the event of an outage, go to the City’s website at www.cityofredlands.org
or to the City’s Facebook page at @CityofRedlands or the Instagram page at @CityofRedlands_CityHall.

In the event the City cannot reestablish Zoom connectivity in a reasonable amount of time, the mayor will adjourn the meeting to a future date.

PLEASE NOTE: Anyone desiring to speak on an agendized item at this meeting may do so during the consideration of that item. Due to time constraints and the number of persons who may wish to give oral testimony, public comments will be limited to three (3) minutes.

To provide comment while participating from Council Chambers:

Although it is not required, speakers are encouraged to submit a "Speaker Sign Up Sheet" before the meeting is convened. Forms are available in the Office of the City Clerk or in Council Chambers.

After the meeting has convened, you may place the speaker form in the basket at the table along the north wall of the Chambers. Please do not disturb the City Clerk while the meeting is in progress.

To provide comment through Zoom (on a computer, laptop, or smart device):

Click the "Raise Hand" button and the moderator will unmute you when it is your turn to speak To provide comment via audio only (cell phone or landline):

Dial *9 to "Raise Hand". The moderator will identify you by your area code and last 3 numbers of your telephone number when it is your turn to speak.

PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES, PAGERS AND OTHER ELECTRONIC

COMMUNICATION DEVICES UPON ENTERING THE CHAMBERS
5:00 P.M.

A. Call City Council Meeting to Order.

B. Public Comment
(Any person wishing to provide public comment on a closed session matter may do so at this time.)
Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
2 of 932
C. Recess City Council Meeting to a Closed Session

1. Conference with Legal Counsel: Initiation of Litigation - Government Code §54956.9(d)(4) (City Attorney Garcia)
One (1) Case

2. Conference with real property negotiators - Government Code §54956.8 (Assistant City Manager Boatman)
Property:  APN: 0292-166-08-0000 (Grove School)
Agency
Negotiators:

Charles M. Duggan, City Manager; Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
Negotiating Party: Dr. Michelle Sweezey, Head of School, The Grove School Under Negotiation: Terms of possible property transfer to The Grove School 6:00
D. Reconvene City Council Meeting
E. Invocation by Council Member Tejeda
Pledge of Allegiance
(In keeping with long-standing traditions of legislative invocations, this City Council meeting may include a brief invocation. Such invocations are not intended to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation.)
F. Closed Session Report
(No reportable action taken in closed session unless otherwise announced by the City Attorney at this time.)
G. Presentations

1. Presentation of Blue Zones Health Proclamation to Alejandro Barajas and Felicia Navarro (Council Member Davis)
H. Public Comment - City Council
(At this time, the City Council will provide an opportunity for the public to address them on any subject, within the jurisdiction of the City Council, which is not already scheduled on this agenda.

However, any matter that requires action will be referred to staff for a report and possible action at a subsequent meeting. Comments will be limited to three {3} minutes.) I. Consent Calendar
(The following routine items have been recommended for approval and will be acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by a Councilmember or a member of the audience.)

1. Approve minutes of the regular meeting of November 4, 2025 (City Clerk Donaldson)

2. Authorize the issuance of a Proclamation recognizing Blue Zones Health (Council Member Davis)

3. Accept report for the annual review of approved Development Agreements in accordance with Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
3 of 932

3. Accept report for the annual review of approved Development Agreements in accordance with Chapter 18.220 of the Redlands Municipal Code, determine that Mountainview Power Company LLC, Redlands Community Hospital, Cal-Red Facility LLC, VPV State Street Village LLC, and Esri are in compliance with the terms of their respective Development Agreements, and approve the preparation of a Certificate of Compliance. (Development Services Director Desatnik)

4. Approve the Sole Source Professional Services Agreement with Jacob Green & Associates in the amount of $52,250, for the update of the City of Redlands Emergency Operations Plan and the development of new Support Plans for the Redlands Animal Shelter and Municipal Airport (Fire Chief Sessler)

5. Approve Resolution No. 8730 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program prepared for the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Recycled Water Reservoir Project in accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)

6. Approve First Amendment to the Agreement with Coffman Associates, Inc. extending the agreement term for the Wildlife Hazard Assessment and Wildlife Hazard Management Plan at Redlands Municipal Airport (Facilities and Community Services Director Crocker)

7. Approve Second Amendment to the Agreement with Community Works Design Group, LLC extending the agreement to December 31, 2026, to complete the design of a BMX Pump Track (Facilities and Community Services Director Crocker)

8. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. for Landfill Hydrogeologic Support at the California Street Landfill for a total amount not-to-exceed $150,000 and determine that approval of this agreement is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State’s guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Facilities and Community Services Director Crocker)

9. Approve a Facility Use Agreement with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Redlands-Riverside for the use of the gymnasium at the Joe R Gonzales Community Center to provide day camp programs and determine that approval of the agreement is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Facilities and Community Services Director Crocker).

J. Communications

1. Presentation of the 2025 National Community Survey (NCS) Results (Assistant City Manager McConnell)

2. Discussion and possible action relating to the formation of, and appointments to, an Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council to review all applications for the Planning Commission and to interview Planning Commission candidates (Mayor Saucedo) K. Public Hearings

1. Public Hearing to consider Ordinance No. 2993- Ordinance Text Amendment No. 370 to update the development standards and design regulations contained in Redlands Municipal Code Chapter

18.156, Article VII, pertaining to the construction of accessory dwelling units. This proposal qualifies for exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Development Services Director Desatnik)
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
4 of 932

2. Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 8731 for approval of the following land use entitlements for the development of two vacant parcels located at 516 Cajon Street (APNs: 0173-043-15-0000 and 0173-043-16-0000) in the Administrative & Professional Office (A-P) District, and determine that adoption of Resolution No. 8731 is not subject to environmental review pursuant to Sections 15315 and 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Development Services Director Desatnik)
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
a. Tentative Tract Map No. 20792 – A request to merge two parcels for development purposes and create eight residential condominium airspace units plus one common lot. b. Conditional Use Permit No. 1201 – A request to construct and operate a condominium development in accordance with Chapter 18.156, Article IV, of the Redlands Municipal Code. c. Commission Review and Approval No. 972 – A request for site plan approval to construct four detached two-story residences (with two condominium dwelling units per building) for a total of eight condominiums and related site improvements, parking, landscape, lighting, recreational amenities, and utility connections.
d. Adoption of a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study prepared for the proposed project as required by Measure "U."
L. New Business

1. Reconsideration of the approved design of Pioneer Avenue, from Texas Street to Furlow Drive (Council Member Tejeda)

2. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2994. An Ordinance of the City of Redlands amending Title 15 (Buildings and Construction), by adopting by reference the 2025 California Building Code, 2025 California Residential Code, 2025 California Electrical Code, 2025 California Mechanical Code, 2025 California Plumbing Code, 2025 California Green Building Standards Code, 2025 California Energy Code, 2025 California Historical Building Code, and the 2025 California Existing Building Code, and making amendments related thereto (Development Services Director Desatnik)

3. Consideration of a recommendation from the Redlands Planning Commission to initiate an Ordinance Text Amendment to Title 18 (Zoning Regulations) of the Redlands Municipal Code to prohibit new warehouses and logistics distribution centers (as defined in Article XII of Chapter

18.156 of Title 18) in all zoning districts and specific plans within the City of Redlands. (Development Services Director Desatnik)

4. Consider acceptance of a $900,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program Cycle 12 grant, approval of a $730,281 construction contract with Sierra Pacific Electrical Contracting to install a new traffic signal at the Cypress Avenue/Cajon Street intersection, Project No. 253008, HSIPSL-5083 (032), approval of a $900,000 additional appropriation, and determine that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Harris)

5. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2987 of the City of Redlands Amending Chapter 13.64 (Integrated Solid Waste Management) and 13.67 (Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction) of the Redlands Municipal Code Relating to Organic Waste (Facilities and Community Services Department Director Crocker)
M. Individual Council Member Announcements and/or Reports on Activities (No collective discussion or action.)
N. Adjournment
Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
5 of 932
N. Adjournment
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on December 2, 2025.

If you challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this agenda in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Goutam Dobey, of the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department at (909) 798-7584 ext 2. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
Any writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding an open session agenda item less than 72 hours before this meeting are available for public inspection at the City Clerk's Office or at the dais of the City Clerk once the open session begins.

Staff reports or other written documentation relating to items referred to on the agenda are available at the A. K. Smiley Public Library, 125 West Vine Street, Redlands, California, and on the City’s website referenced below.

Regular meetings are televised live on Redlands TV Channel 3 (Spectrum) and Channel 35 (Frontier) and re-broadcast at 7:00 P.M. the following Wednesday, Friday and Sunday; and at 9:00 A.M. Thursday, Saturday and Monday. Meetings are also streamed live and archived for later viewing on demand on the City’s website at www.cityofredlands.org
. Agendas, staff reports and minutes of the City Council of the City of Redlands are available online at: www.cityofredlands.org.

Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
6 of 932
City Council Meeting I. 1.

DATE: 11/18/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve minutes of the regular meeting of November 4, 2025 (City Clerk Donaldson)
MOTION:

I move to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 4, 2025.

Attachments
November 4, 2025 Minutes
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
7 of 932

MINUTES

Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redlands held in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 35 Cajon Street, on November 4, 2025 at 5:00 P.M.

Present:  Marc Shaw, Mayor Pro Tempore
Paul Barich, Council Member
Eddie Tejeda, Council Member
Denise Davis, Council Member

Absent: Mario Saucedo, Mayor
Staff: Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager; Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney; Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk; Phillip Doolittle, City Treasurer; Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager; Chris Boatman, Assistant City Manager; Carl Baker, Public Information Officer; Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director; Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director; John Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director; Rich Sessler, Fire Chief; Rachel Tolber, Police Chief; Tabitha Crocker, Facilities and Community Services Director; Robert Meteau, HR/Risk Management Director

Mayor Pro Tem Shaw called the meeting to order and explained that comments could be presented in-person, via Zoom, via cell phone or landline. He offered the public an opportunity to provide comment on any item on the agenda for the closed session.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None forthcoming

CLOSED SESSION

Conference with legal counsel: Existing Litigation - Government Code §54956.9(d)(1) (City Attorney Garcia)
One (1) Case:
a.  Wagner Zemming Christensen, LLP v. City of Redlands, San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2529490

Conference with legal counsel: Initiation of Litigation -Government Code §54956.9(d)(4) (City Attorney Garcia)
One (1) Case:

Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation -Government Code §54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(1):
(City Attorney Garcia)
One (1) Case
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances as determined on October 22, 2025, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.  Facts and circumstances CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
8 of 932
that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed.

RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The meeting reconvened at 6:00 P.M. with an invocation by Council Member Barich. The Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag was conducted by Judson and Brown Elementary School.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Garcia announced that no reportable action was taken during the closed session, and she noted that Mayor Saucedo and Council Member Davis were absent.

PRESENTATIONS

Redlands Pet Adoption
Animal Services Supervisor Joe Alcarez and Kennel Attendant Hailey Stuck showed off "Scooter", an eleven-year-old male Beagle mix, who is available for adoption, along with thirty-five other dogs at the Redlands Animal Shelter. Mr. Alcarez provided the Shelter statistics for October 2025, which included: 26 adopted dogs and 4 adopted cats.

Redlands Police Community Foundation Donation
Representing the Redlands Police Community Foundation, President Chris Martin and Vice President Terry Vines presented a check in the amount of $20,217.41 to Police Chief Tolber and Officer Mazi Shahabi, with K-9 Jake by his side.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Health Concerns - David Holtzclaw explained that after the replanting of England Grove, his daughter, who lives on Alvarado Street, noticed raw sewage bubbling up. She filed a claim against the City and was told a response would be provided within 45 days. He pointed out they had still not heard anything, yet, this open cesspool was unsafe and a public safety issue. He thought it seemed like a simple fix, and he urged the Council to take appropriate action.

Traffic
Safety - Elizabeth and Rimon Shaker requested the City install a traffic signal or at the very least a 3-way stop sign for the intersection at Reservoir Road and Ford Street. Ms. Shaker said this area near the I-10 westbound on-ramp is extremely unsafe, due to limited visibility, steep downhill approach, and inadequate traffic control. She was aware of multiple accidents occurring over the years and asked the City to review recent collision data and MUTCD signal warrants.

Redlands Historical Glass
Museum - Andy Hoder, Board Member of the Redlands Historical Glass Museum, highlighted the many reasons why the Glass Museum deserves more attention. He said it is less well known than the Museum of Redlands (MOR) but still deserves recognition. He suggested the Glass Museum could possibly have a permanent exhibit at MOR, and he encouraged everyone to visit the Museum to see its many treasures.

CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
9 of 932

CONSENT CALENDAR

Minutes

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Eddie Tejeda, the City Council approved, by roll call vote, the minutes of the regular meeting of October 21, 2025.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

Executive Evaluation Services Agreement

As public comment, Dennis Bell thought that residents should be included in the survey to determine what they expect from their city manager, and if stakeholders are asked to be a part of the evaluation process, he recommended they be impartial voices.

On motion of Council Member Paul Barich, seconded by Council Member Eddie Tejeda, the City Council approved, by roll call vote, an agreement with Jacob Green and Associates for executive evaluation services for an amount not-to-exceed $29,600.

Vote: 4 - 0 Passed

Settlement Agreement Disclosure

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council approved, by roll call vote, the public disclosure of details of an Agreement of Settlement and General Release between the City of Redlands and Miller & Associates, LLC. The City shall have the option to either purchase the property at 611 W Redlands Blvd for $3.4 million; or pay plaintiff $2.1 million to settle the matter of Miller & Associates, LLC v. City of Redlands. The Plaintiff shall release all claims, known and unknown, against the City and dismiss its lawsuit against the City, with prejudice.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

Resolution No. 8733 Homeless Solutions Division Expenses

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council approved, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8733 to ratify the City Manager's approval for the Memorandum for Public Benefit of Homeless Solutions Division Expenses authorizing the Finance Department to process specific, limited expenditures incurred by the Homeless Solutions Division that may not typically be funded with public funds, but which are necessary to further the City's legitimate public purpose of reducing homelessness and supporting the transition of unhoused individuals into safe, stable housing and which, thereby, provide a public benefit to the community.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
10 of 932

Fire Station 264 Future Location & Funding

Council Member Davis announced that due to property ownership within 500 feet of the site being considered as the future location for Fire Station 264 at Heritage Park, she recused herself from voting and discussion on this item. As public comment, Dennis Bell agreed that Fire Station 264 desperately needed a new home, but he questioned the location, raising concerns about traffic and road conditions. Richard O'Donnell supported the efforts to find a new location for Fire Station 264 but wasn't convinced this particular site was the best choice, and he opposed using open space funds to accomplish that goal. He suggested instead that funding should come from Measure T revenues.

Assistant City Manager Boatman offered some background, explaining that Heritage Park was ultimately selected due to the availability of land, favorable site configuration, and cost-effectiveness. Relocating Station 264 to the site will allow the department to close current service gaps in the surrounding area and improve response times for residents and businesses in the southwest region. This new location also positions the station well for long-term growth and future community development.

In 2012, the City Council approved the expenditure framework for the proceeds generated from the sale of the Nevada Palmetto Grove. That policy directed the use of funds toward public benefit purposes in five general categories: Parks and Recreation, Trails, Agricultural Open Space, Natural Open Space, and Other Public Benefit Improvements. Since that time, the vast majority of those proceeds have been invested in community-serving projects consistent with that policy, providing lasting improvements across multiple sectors.

While the policy framework has been largely fulfilled, two categories—Trails and Agricultural Open Space—retain uncommitted balances of approximately $658,000 and $557,000 ($1,215,000 combined), respectively. These remaining funds have no pending projects or anticipated expenditures, and other potential funding sources exist for future projects. Staff recommended that the remaining undesignated funds be reallocated to support the design phase of a new Fire Station No. 264.

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Paul Barich, the City Council designated, by roll call vote, 1.5 acres at Heritage Park as the future location of Fire Station 264; and reallocated $1,215,000 reserved from the Palmetto Grove Proceeds to the Future Facilities Reserve for fire station design services.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed
Other: Council Member Denise Davis (RECUSE)

Ordinance No. 2992 Flood Damage Prevention and Floodplain Management

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council adopted, by roll call vote, Ordinance No. 2992, amending Title 15, Chapter 15.32 of the Redlands Municipal Code relating to Flood Damage Prevention and Floodplain Management.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
11 of 932
Automated License Plate Recognition Cameras Lease Renewals

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council approved, by roll call vote, the sole source purchase order with the Flock Group, Inc. to renew leases of automated license plate recognition cameras in the amount of $133,500.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

Redlands Police Department K9 Unit Donation

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council accepted, by roll call vote, the donation of $20,217.41 from the Redlands Police Community Foundation for operational expenses of the Redlands Police Department's K9 Unit; and authorized an additional appropriation of the same amount.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

Grant Award Office of Traffic Safety

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council approved, by roll call vote, the Grant Agreement with the Office of Traffic Safety relating to the distribution of a grant award for local law enforcement agencies in an amount not-to-exceed $105,000; authorized the Chief of Police to sign and execute agreements implementing the grant; and approved an additional appropriation of the same.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

Resolution No. 8720 Grant Application Land Water Conservation Fund Program

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council adopted, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8720 authorizing the City Manager to apply for the Land Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Program grant, execute any agreement, amendments, and all other related documents associated with the LWCF to be utilized for the redevelopment of Texonia Park.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

In-Kind Support New Year's Eve Beach Ball Drop Event

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council determined, by roll call vote, that approval of the event is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15311(c) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; authorized the expenditure of city resources, in-kind support in the amount of $2,749.00 related to the New Year’s Eve (NYE) Beach Ball Drop event hosted by the Redlands Visitor Center on December 31, 2025; and authorized the temporary street closures related to this event.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
12 of 932
PO Civic Center Temporary Chiller Rental

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council determined, by roll call vote, that the approval of the purchase order is exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15304 of the state's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; rejected all previous bids received on May 19, 2025; and approved the Purchase Order with Total Environmental Management, Inc., in the amount not-to-exceed $183,600 for the rental of a temporary chiller for the Civic Center, for a period of up to twenty-four months.

Vote: 3 - 0 Passed

Redlands Lawn Bowling Club Facility Use Agreement
Staff requested this item be pulled from the agenda. The item will be presented to the Council for consideration at a future meeting.

COMMUNICATIONS

Resolution No. 8732 Food Security and Child Nutrition Support Initiative

Council Member Davis opened the discussion regarding Resolution No. 8732 to establish the City of Redlands Food Security and Child Nutrition Support Initiative. Food insecurity has grown in Redlands due to recent reductions in federal and state nutrition benefits, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and CalFresh. Local schools, food banks, and nonprofit partners report increasing demand for emergency food and meal programs. The proposed Food Security and Child Nutrition Support Initiative will coordinate local efforts and improve access to nutritious food. Through the formation of a Food Security Task Force, the City can collaborate with schools, nonprofits, and faith-based partners to identify barriers to food access as well as develop and coordinate solutions.

If approved, staff would establish a citywide task force, identify City-owned sites for food access programs, expand youth meal partnerships with Redlands Unified School District, explore community mini-grants to support local efforts, and advocate for the restoration and expansion of state and federal nutrition assistance programs.

As public comment, Kyra Stewart, Executive Director of Redlands Family Service Association (FSA), was in full support of a task force and was deeply encouraged by the City's desire to collaborate and work with all the local partners. She listed various actions already taken by FSA to help fill the gaps that exist for those in need. Roberto Ceja said that it is difficult to see so many people losing a portion of their SNAP benefits, but this task force could represent a beacon of hope for those struggling. He was excited to be a part of the program and help in any way he could.

In general, Council Members were in support of forming a task force. Council Member Barich said this was a starting point. Additionally, he said that the City is not the expert in these matters, and he recommended we rely heavily on our local partners who do this kind of work every day. Council Member Tejeda envisioned the City becoming a hub of information and utilizing the website as a message board. Mayor Pro Tem Shaw said that information is the key. There are resources available but getting the word out is critical. With the Grocery Gift Card program coming to an end in December, Council Member Davis asked whether the Council could authorize a reallocation of CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
13 of 932
funds for this emergency situation. City Manager Duggan and City Attorney Garcia clarified that reallocating funds was outside the scope of the current agenda item and, if requested, could be discussed at a future council meeting.

On motion of Council Member Paul Barich, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8732 establishing the City of Redlands Food Security and Child Nutrition Support Initiative, and directing staff to return to the City Council in February 2026 with a progress update.

Vote: 4 - 0 Passed

Citrus Preservation Commission Annual Report

Chair Michael Day presented the annual report of the Citrus Preservation Commission, providing a recap of the Commission's accomplishments. He described how the City has finally come through the industry-wide challenges associated with the oriental fruit fly infestation. He was pleased to say that it appeared we survived the infestation, and farming is looking optimistically forward. The groves are in good condition, staff continues to do an excellent job handling the day-to-day operations, while Larry Jacinto and crew tackle all the bigger work. Educating the public remains one of the Commission's priorities and the Citrus Commission's webpage offers various resources.

These include links to the San Bernardino County Farm Bureau Federation and up-to-date information regarding threats to California Citrus. Council Members thanked Chair Day and all the commissioners for their dedication and service.

NEW BUSINESS

Residential Zoning Districts for the Keeping of Hens

At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Shaw, Development Services Director Desatnik provided an overview of residential zoning districts that permit the keeping of hens. Currently, hens are only allowed in two residential zoning districts, which are generally located in the far southeast area of the City. The regulations allow two hens on lots less than 7,200 square feet; three hens on lots ranging in size from 7,201 to 9,999 square feet; four hens on lots ranging in size from 10,000 to 20,000 square feet; and on lots over 20,000 square feet, one hen for every 2,000 square feet of lot area, not to exceed a total of nine hens.

The keeping and raising of hens has become increasingly popular, and experience in other jurisdictions has shown that hens generally do not create nuisance conditions comparable to roosters. Allowing hens in additional residential zones can support sustainability goals, promote local food production, and align City regulations with evolving community preferences. With Council's direction to move forward, staff would draft an ordinance and present it to the Planning Commission for consideration that would allow the keeping and raising of hens in all single-family residential zoning districts, with appropriate regulations governing the number of hens permitted based on lot size and other reasonable standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.

On motion of Council Member Paul Barich, seconded by Council Member Eddie Tejeda, the City CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
14 of 932
On motion of Council Member Paul Barich, seconded by Council Member Eddie Tejeda, the City Council directed staff, by roll call vote, to draft an ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Regulations to allow for the keeping of hens on lots in single-family residential districts and present the ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.

Vote: 4 - 0 Passed

Groundwater Well & Booster Pump Maintenance & Repair Services Agreement

Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Director Harris reviewed the Non-Professional Service Agreement with General Pump Company to provide groundwater well and booster pump maintenance and repair services. The City’s water production system includes forty-five potable and non-potable groundwater wells, thirty-eight booster pumps and two surface water treatment plants to serve more than 75,000 customers. The groundwater wells and booster pumps are operated by high horsepower motors, which require frequent routine maintenance to reduce the potential for malfunction and prevent equipment failure. During emergencies, staffing may be limited, and support from a qualified groundwater well and booster pump contractor is often necessary.

On motion of Council Member Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council determined, by roll call vote, that approval of a Non-Professional Service Agreement with General Pump Company is exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15301(b) of the State's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and approved the Non-Professional Service Agreement with General Pump Company for groundwater well and booster pump maintenance and repair services on an as-needed basis for an amount not-to-exceed $500,000 per year with an initial term of one (1) year and options to extend the agreement for two (2) additional one (1) year terms.

Vote: 4 - 0 Passed

COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES

Mayor Pro Tem Shaw congratulated the efforts of City staff and Airport Supervisor Ted Richardson, for hosting the Plane or Treat Event held on October 26. The event was packed with families who enjoyed bounce houses, various dessert offerings, and, of course, lots of candy. What a great way to highlight all the planes and show off the airport. He submitted his report of activities for the month of October 2025, as available online and attached to the staff report.

Council Member Barich
attended the Dia de Los Muertos event hosted by A.K. Smiley Public Library. The event offered a variety of activities, including face painting, a costume contest, and free books. He found it very informative. He also enjoyed the Olive Avenue Halloween Extravaganza event.

Council Member Tejeda
participated in the Dia de Los Muertos event hosted by Smiley Library, which had about 400–500 attendees. Fun was had by all.

Council Member Davis
kicked off the 5th season of Youth Council, participated in the Inland Counties Legal Services dinner held at the Mitten Building, enjoyed an event celebrating 16 years of Music Changing Lives held at Joe Gonzales Community Center, and attended the recent AAUW Redlands meeting. She and her son enthusiastically enjoyed the Halloween Extravaganza event CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
15 of 932
on Olive Avenue.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further action required, Mayor Pro Tem Shaw adjourned the meeting at 7:22 P.M.

The next regular meeting of the City of Redlands City Council will be held on November 18, 2025.

CC_November 4, 2025

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
16 of 932
City Council Meeting I. 2.

DATE: 11/18/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Authorize the issuance of a Proclamation recognizing Blue Zones Health (Council Member Davis)
MOTION:

I move to authorize the issuance of a Proclamation recognizing Blue Zones Health.

Attachments
Blue Zones Health Proclamation
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
17 of 932
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
18 of 932
City Council Meeting I. 3.

DATE: 11/18/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Accept report for the annual review of approved Development Agreements in accordance with Chapter 18.220 of the Redlands Municipal Code, determine that Mountainview Power Company LLC, Redlands Community Hospital, Cal-Red Facility LLC, VPV State Street Village LLC, and Esri are in compliance with the terms of their respective Development Agreements, and approve the preparation of a Certificate of Compliance. (Development Services Director Desatnik)
MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff’s recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to accept this report for the annual review of approved Development Agreements and determine that the applicants, Mountainview Power Company LLC, Redlands Community Hospital, Cal-Red Facility LLC, VPV State Street Village LLC, and Esri, are in compliance with the terms of their respective Development Agreements; and

1. I move to approve the preparation of a Certificate of Compliance for each company.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

Based on a review of the individual Development Agreements and the responses filed by the applicants for 2024, staff recommends that the City Council determine that Mountainview Power Company LLC, VPV State Street Village LLC, Redlands Community Hospital, Cal-Red Facility LLC, and Esri are in compliance with the terms of their respective Development Agreements, and that City staff prepare Certificates of Compliance.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
19 of 932
DISCUSSION:

Section 18.220.180 of the Redlands Municipal Code (RMC) establishes the requirement and process for the annual review of approved Development Agreements, and indicates the City shall review Development Agreements at least once every twelve months from the date of their approval. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1, the applicant for a Development Agreement has the duty to demonstrate its good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement at the time of such review.

On October 7, 2025, the City Council was given the required notice that the seven (7) active Development Agreements with the City would be subject to the annual review pursuant to RMC Section 18.220.180(B). Staff subsequently notified the applicants and requested that they provide a written response that demonstrates their good faith compliance with the terms of their respective Agreements. This report is a follow-up to that notice.

The following provides a brief summary of each Development Agreement as well as staff's review of compliance.

1. Mountainview Power Company, LLC. - The property contains a steam electric power-generating facility owned and operated by Southern California Edison, located at the northeast corner of San Bernardino Avenue and Mountain View Avenue. The plant currently generates approximately 1,054 megawatts. The Development Agreement was approved on October 17, 2000, with a term of 30 years and provides vested rights to develop the property to the maximum extent allowed under the General Industrial (M-2) District.

Staff Review: Mountainview Power has submitted a letter stating their compliance with the terms of their Development Agreement (see Attachment A).

The property continues to be used as a steam electric power-generating facility. In 2024, no notable improvements were made to the property. The Development Agreement states that the owner shall have the right to develop the property in such increments and in such order as the owner deems appropriate. Staff believes that Mountain View Power, LLC is in compliance with their development agreement.

2. CEMEX Construction Materials, L.P. - This agreement implements a business license tax based on tonnage mined or processed in the City of Redlands. The agreement was approved by the City Council on July 17, 2001, and remains in effect for 65 years. The rate of tax imposed started in 2001 at ten cents ($0.10) per ton, and is adjusted each year based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. CEMEX mines in the City of Redlands and the City of Highland, but only processes the aggregate material in the City of Redlands at their facility on Orange Street within the Santa Ana River Wash. The Development Agreement allows a credit to be applied towards the tonnage Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
20 of 932
Development Agreement allows a credit to be applied towards the tonnage mined in Highland but processed in Redlands. Highland also has a mining tax, and the credit is intended to prevent the same tonnage from being taxed twice (Highland’s mining tax was established by an initiative ballot and includes the same CPI and credit).

Staff Review: Staff is currently reviewing compliance documentation for CEMEX.

A review of this development agreement will be presented to the City Council at a later date (with a subsequent report).

3. Robertson’s Ready Mix, Ltd. - Similar to the Development Agreement described above, this agreement also implements the same business license tax payable to the City quarterly based on the tonnage mined by Robertson’s in the City of Redlands. The agreement was approved by the City Council on July 17, 2001, and remains in effect for 65 years. Robertson’s mines in the City of Redlands and the City of Highland, but only processes the aggregate material in Highland where their processing plant is located. Because 100% of the mined aggregate in Redlands is processed in Highland, a 50% credit is applied to the tax due the City of Redlands pursuant to Section 5.4 of the agreement.

Staff Review: Staff is currently reviewing compliance documentation for Robertson's Ready Mix. A review of this development agreement will be presented to the City Council at a later date (with a subsequent report).

4. Redlands Community Hospital - Located at 350 Terracina Boulevard, the agreement addresses the long-term master plan development and expansion of the hospital. The agreement was approved by City Council on December 2, 2003, effective until December 2, 2033, and provides vested rights to develop the property to the maximum extent allowed in the Medical Facilities (M-F) District.

Staff Review: Redlands Community Hospital submitted an annual report (see Attachment B) which identifies compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement. During 2024, the hospital continued to make progress with implementation of their Facilities Master Plan, which is included as an attachment to their Development Agreement. Construction is underway on several projects, including parking lots on Laurel Avenue and Terracina Blvd./W.

Fern Avenue, as well as the radiation therapy center on W. Olive Avenue (which was entitled in 2024). The new radiation therapy center will provide a replacement location for radiation therapy services, thus allowing the current radiation therapy space within the hospital to be repurposed in conjunction with Phase 3 of the hospital's Facilities Master Plan. The hospital also provided an inventory of current and potential future projects related to implementation of Phase 3. Staff believes that Redlands Community Hospital is in compliance with their development agreement.

5. Cal-Red Facility, LLC. - This Development Agreement provides for the Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
21 of 932
long-term development and utilization of the property for the Asistencia Villa assisted nursing facility located at 1875 Barton Road, west of Terracina Boulevard. The agreement was approved by the City Council on December 2, 2003, and remains in effect until December 2, 2033. The agreement does not contain any milestones for build-out of the facility, and leaves this to the business judgment of the applicant.

Staff Review: Cal-Red Facility, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company. This company owns over 100 skilled nursing facilities, and partners with professional skilled nursing companies to operate their facilities. The sale of the property to Cal-Red Facility, LLC, in 2010 by Redlands Health Services also included the assignment of the rights, duties, and obligations under the Development Agreement. Redlands Health Services still maintains ownership of 1.46 acres of vacant land adjacent to the facility and is covered under this agreement. Cal-Red Facility submitted an annual report (see Attachment C) which identifies compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement.

Cal-Red Facility indicates that there will be no changes in the use and purpose of the Asistencia Villa as a licensed skilled nursing facility. They lease the Asistencia Villa to Asistencia Villa Post Acute, LLC, to operate the facility. The terms of the lease require that the facility remain a licensed, skilled nursing facility and that it be used for no other purpose. Staff believes that Cal-Red Facility, LLC is in compliance with their development agreement.

6. ESRI - The Esri campus headquarters is located at 380 New York Street, and the agreement addresses the long-term development and expansion of their corporate campus. The agreement was approved by the City Council on July 5, 2005, with an initial term of 30 years, and provides vested rights to develop the property to the maximum extent allowed under the Administrative & Professional Office (A-P) District.

Staff Review: Esri submitted an annual report (see Attachment D) which identifies the permits obtained to develop their corporate campus under the terms of the Development Agreement. Their response provides a list of permits and fees paid for 2024, which includes solar carport canopy permits, and states that there are no anticipated development projects for 2025. The build-out of the Esri campus is not under any specific phasing or development timeline, which enables the company to expand their campus as-needed in response to market forces. Staff believes that Esri is in compliance with their development agreement.

7. VPV State Street Village, LLC. - This Development Agreement includes provisions securing a 15-year approval and the right to build the State Street Village mixed-use project on approximately 12 acres currently occupied by the Redlands Mall located at the southwest corner of Orange Street and Redlands Boulevard. The agreement vests the categories of Development Impact Fees (DIF) (i.e., the fee categories may not be increased, but the DIF amounts may be adjusted by the City from time to time) and zoning regulations in effect at the Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
22 of 932
time the project was approved. The agreement requires that Phase 1 of the project shall begin construction within five years of the effective date (Ordinance No. 2933 became effective on October 6, 2022), and the subsequent phasing and timing of such phases are at the discretion of the developer.

Staff Review: The State Street Village project entitlements were approved on May 10, 2022. Ordinance No. 2933 for the Development Agreement was approved on September 6, 2022 (and became effective on October 6, 2022), and the Development Agreement was recorded on September 14, 2022.

Construction plans for Phase 1 were initially submitted to the City on December 19, 2022, but are not yet approved at this time. VPV State Street Village submitted an annual report (Attachment E), which identifies efforts to advance the project. Their response lists items such as working with demolition contractors and structural engineers on plans to demolish the Mall, while keeping the CVS Pharmacy open and operational, coordinating infrastructure plans, and working through marketing, management, and leasing details. Staff believes that VPV State Street Village, LLC, is in compliance with their development agreement.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council has the option to implement any of the following alternatives:

1. Continue the matter and request additional information.

2. Determine that the responses from Mountainview Power Company LLC, VPV State Street Village LLC, Redlands Community Hospital, Cal-Red Facility LLC, or Esri do not constitute compliance with the provisions of their respective Development Agreement(s), and direct staff to require additional documentation prior to issuing a Certificate of Compliance per RMC Sections 18.220.180(C-D).

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not Applicable.

SUBMITTED BY:

Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
23 of 932
PREPARED BY:

Sean Reilly, Principal Planner

Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 25-26
Revenue Generating: No
Appropriation Required Y/N: No
Discussion:

The City’s cost for this review is paid by the applicants prior to the time of the review.

Attachments
Attachment A: Mountainview Power Station Response
Attachment B: Redlands Community Hospital Response
Attachment C: Cal-Red Response
Attachment D: ESRI Response
Attachment E: Village Partners Ventures Response
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
24 of 932
2492 San Bernardino Ave., Redlands, California 92374 Phone: 909-283-2234 August 5, 2025
City of Redlands
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
PO Box 3005
Redlands, CA 92373
Attn: Sean Reilly, Principal Planner
Re: Development Agreement between Mountainview Power Company and the City of Redlands Dear Mr. Reilly:

We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated July 10, 2025, regarding the “Development Agreement between Mountainview Power Company, LLC, and the City of Redlands – 2024 Annual Review.”
This letter is intended to provide the necessary assurances to support your certification of Southern California Edison Company’s good faith compliance with the Development Agreement originally executed on October 17, 2000, between Mountainview Power Company (now operating as Southern California Edison Company’s Mountainview Generating Station) and the City of Redlands.

Please note that no significant improvements were completed at Mountainview Generating Station in 2024. Based on our review, we believe Southern California Edison Company remains in full compliance with all obligations outlined in the Development Agreement.

Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at (909)
283-2234.

Sincerely,
Lyle J. Laven
Senior Manager, Mainland Generation
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
25 of 932
!I Redlands
~- C:Ommunity 11111 Hospital
July 17, 2025
Sean Reilly
Principal Planner
City of Redlands
PO Box 3005
Redland s, CA 92373
550 Terracin,1 Blvd .

P.O. Box 3.'.\91
Rt'd land s. CA 92373 -0- 11
909-3.'\5-5500
fax 909-335- 6·197
Re: Deve lopment Agreement betwee n Redland s Community Hospital and the C ity of Redlands - 2024 Annual Review
Dear Mr. Reilly,
This is to confirm evid ence of good faith compliance with the term s of the above referenced Development Agreem ent. Redland s Co mmunity Hosp ital (RCH) remain s compli ant wit h the Developm ent Agreement and continue s to proceed with implem entati on of our Fac ilities Master Plan , which is outlin ed in Attachment B (CUP 355 -10) of the Devel opment Agreement.

Construction is underwa y o n severa l project s including parking lots on Laurel Ave nue and Terraci na Boulevard I W. Fern Avenue , and more rece ntly the Jack and Laur a Dangermond Cente r for Radiati on Thera py on W. Olive Ave nue. The Dangermond Radiation Therap y Center will provide a replace ment locat ion for rad iation therapy s ervices, thu s allow ing the c urrent radiation therapy space within the hosp ital to be repurposed in conjun ction with Pha se 3 of our Facilities Master Plan , which is parti ally motiv ated by SB 1953, the Se ismic Safety Act.

RCH is comp liant with all HCAI requir ements related to SB 1953. Thi s inc ludes ann ual report ing of hosp ital buildin g statu s and uses , as we ll as comp leting a variety of seismic impro vement project s by 2030 . These proj ects are reflected in the 2024 inventory RCH provided HCA! of current and potential future project s and structures , includin g seismic statu s and plan s for enhanced emergen cy capabiliti es. T hese project s are collect ive ly referred to as the "Phase 3" elements of our Facilities Master Plan. Timing of these improvements is, as always , subje ct to our financial abili ty and debt capacity to finance the proj ects. RCH expects these improvements will requir e an investme nt of$92 milli o n throu gh 2029 if they are completed prior to 2030.

During 2025 , RCH placed under contract or will place under contract the HCA I design requirem ents for the follow ing Pha se 3 Projects:
• Phase 3 Replacement Buildin g, which will inc lude rero utin g of hospital utili ties at the basement leve l; a new staircase and elevato r; replacement Patient Reg istration and basic Imaging service s; replacem ent bas ic Laborat o ry services. • NPC 5 eme rgency water stora ge and emergency waste water storage. • NPC 4D supple mental anch o rage for utilitie s and equ ipment in selected areas. • Air Handler Unit (AHU) 9 rep lacement due to the demolition of the A HU 9 penth ouse. • R emove from Acut e Care Services (RA CS) certain o lder buildin gs, includin g seismic prot ectio n for utiliti es servin g both these buildin gs and adja cent newer building s.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
26 of 932
• Air Handler Unit 6 modifications in order to continue service to several future RACS buildings.

When providing a copy of the staff reports, exhibits and/or any other evidence concerning performance of the Agreement to RCH, as provided in Section 7 .2 of the Agreement, please direct the materials to my attention and also copy Todd Sexton, Vice President Professional and General Services.

If you have questions or require additional information please contact me at my office, 335-5517.

Sincerely
··~A-h /1
J:rvey ~~ ;:ns7
Vice President
Cc Todd Sexton, Vice President Professional and General Services Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
27 of 932

July 10, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Sean Reilly
Principal Planner
City of Redlands Development Services
35 Cajon St., Suite 20
Redlands, CA 92373
E-Mail: [email protected]

Re: 2024 Annual Review of Development Agreement No. 17 between Redlands Health Services, A.V. Associates and the City of Redlands (the “Development Agreement”)

Dear Mr. Reilly:

I am writing to you to document good faith compliance with the terms of the above referenced Development Agreement for the 2024 calendar year, as required by the Redlands Municipal Code. The Development Agreement was initially entered into by the City of Redlands, Redlands Health Services and A.V. Associates. As of December 8, 2010, our client, Cal-Red Facility, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Cal-Red”), purchased Parcel One of the real property subject to the Development Agreement (the “Cal-Red Property”) from A.V.

Associates. The Cal-Red Property has a mailing address of 1875 Barton Road, Redlands, CA 92373, and a skilled nursing facility known as Asistencia Villa Rehabilitation and Care Center (the “Facility”) is located on the Cal-Red Property. Parcels Two and Three described in the Development Agreement were not purchased by Cal-Red and this letter does not pertain to such property.

Cal-Red leases the Cal-Red Property and the Facility to Asistencia Villa Post Acute LLC, a California limited liability company (the “Tenant”). Effective as of June 20, 2023, Tenant assigned its interest in the Facility lease to AVPA, LLC, a California limited liability company (the “Assignee”) with the consent of Cal-Red. The assignment did not relieve the Tenant from its obligations under the lease. The terms of the lease continue to require that the Facility remain licensed as a skilled nursing facility and that the Facility be used for no other purpose.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
28 of 932
A
ccordingly, our client is in compliance with the Development Agreement, as the Assignee continues to operate the Facility as a licensed skilled nursing facility. No changes in mission, use, or strategic purpose are contemplated for the Cal-Red Property or for the Facility.

Please direct to my attention a copy of the staff reports, exhibits and/or any other evidence concerning performance under the Development Agreement with respect to the Cal- Red Property, as provided in Section 7.2 of the Development Agreement.

We will have a check sent to you for $500.00 payable to the City of Redlands for fees associated with the 2024 annual review of the Development Agreement.

If you have questions or require additional information, please contact me at my office via telephone at 206-223-7068 or via email at [email protected].

Very truly yours,

Shira Levin
Counsel to Cal-Red Facility, LLC

cc: Gary Kading (via email)
Nicholas Martinez (via email)
Debbie Bellis (via email)
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
29 of 932
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
30 of 932
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
31 of 932

August 7, 2025

Mr. Sean Reilly
Principal Planner
Development Services Department
City of Redlands
35 Cajon St. Suite 20

Re: Development Agreement between Village Partners Ventures, L.L.C., and the City of Redlands- 2024 Annual Review

Dear Mr. Reilly,

On behalf of Village Partners, I am pleased to provide this annual update regarding our compliance with the Development Agreement for the Redlands Mall property (“State Street Village”).

We continue to advance the project in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Development Agreement. Below is a summary of key activities during the past year:
• Marketing project nationwide to potential Equity partners • Working with the City & Consultants on financing of public infrastructure • Refinement and peer review of construction documents
• Retail Pre-Leasing
• Working with multiple general contactors on detailed construction pricing • Developing project branding
• Working with CVS on off-site relocation
• Interviewing residential property management
• Working with demo contractors and structural engineer on plans to demolish the mall, while keeping CVS open and operational
• Working with dry utility consultant regarding relocating/re-routing major Southern California Edison service infrastructure lines
• Refining plans in response to latest FEMA maps

We remain committed to fulfilling all obligations under the Development Agreement and to maintaining open communication with the City to ensure the successful completion of this long-term redevelopment project. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you require any additional information or documentation.

Thank you for your continued partnership.

Sincerely,

Kaitlin Morris
Director of Development
Village Partners
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
32 of 932
City Council Meeting I. 4.

DATE: 11/18/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve the Sole Source Professional Services Agreement with Jacob Green & Associates in the amount of $52,250, for the update of the City of Redlands Emergency Operations Plan and the development of new Support Plans for the Redlands Animal Shelter and Municipal Airport (Fire Chief Sessler)
MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff’s recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to approve the Sole Source Professional Services Agreement with Jacob Green & Associates in the amount of $52,250, for the update of the City of Redlands Emergency Operations Plan and the development of new Support Plans for the Redlands Animal Shelter and the Municipal Airport.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve the Sole Source Professional Services Agreement with Jacob Green & Associates to update the City of Redlands Emergency Operations Plan and the Support Plans for the Redlands Animal Shelter and the Municipal Airport. This initiative aims to strengthen the coordination and operational readiness in alignment with state and federal emergency management standards.

DISCUSSION:

An Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is crucially important because it serves as the foundation for how the City of Redlands prepares for, responds to, and recovers from emergencies or disasters. It establishes clear roles and responsibilities, promotes coordination across departments, and ensures efficiency during crises. Regular updates, every 5 years, are essential to maintain compliance with state and federal requirements, as well as, reflect on Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
33 of 932
any organizational structure changes and emergency management best practices. An updated EOP enhances the City's overall readiness and strengthens community resilience.

This project will include separate Support Plans (Annexes) for the Redlands Animal Shelter and the Municipal Airport. These Annexes will provide comprehensive guidance for the department's specific role in supporting the City's broader emergency operations, and demonstrate their crucial role within the overall Emergency Operations Plan.

Jacob Green & Associates has previously worked with the Redlands Fire Department to develop a renovation plan for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), assess the operational needs of the facility, and conduct Emergency Management training sessions. Through this work, the organization has gained a comprehensive understanding of the City's emergency management structure and operational requirements. Based on this established expertise and familiarity with Redlands' specific needs, staff recommends that the City Council approve the Professional Services Agreement as a sole source purchase.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may decide not to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Jacob Green & Associates and may provide alternative direction to staff.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Priority B - Public Health and Safety
SUBMITTED BY:

Rich Sessler, Fire Chief
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
Dana Abramovitz-Daniel, Procurement Manager
Tabitha Crocker, Facilities & Community Services Director PREPARED BY:

Kristina Rivas, Senior Administrative Assistant
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
34 of 932

Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: FY 2025-26
Revenue Generating: N
Appropriation Required Y/N: N
Discussion:

The total cost for updating the Emergency Operations Plan is $39,950. An additional $12,300 is allocated for the development of the new plans for the Municipal Airport and Animal Shelter, bringing the overall total to $52,250. The Facilities & Community Services Department will cover the costs associated with the new Annex plans. All expenses for both the Emergency Operations Plan update and the development of new Annex Plans have been included in the respective departments’ Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budgets.

Attachments
Professional Services Agreement
Sole Source Form
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
35 of 932

AGREEMENT TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

This agreement for the provision of Updating the City of Redlands Emergency Operations Plan and the Development of Support Plans for the Redlands Animal Shelter and the Redlands Municipal Airport (“Agreement”) is mad e and entered in this 18 th day of Novem ber,
2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Redlands, a municipal corporation (“City ”) and Jacob Green & Associates, Inc, a California corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to herein as a “Party” and, together, as the “Parties.” In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, City and Consultant agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 – ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANT

1.1 City hereby engages Consultant to provide services for updating the City of Redlands Emergency Operations Plan and providing Support Plans (Annexes) that provide comprehensive guidance for specific department’s role in supporting broader emergency operations services for City (the “Services”).

1.2 The Services shall be performed by Consultant in a professional manner, and Consultant represents that it has the skill and the professional expertise necessary to provide the Services to City at a level of competency presently maintained by other practicing professional consultants in the industry providing like and similar types of Services.

ARTICLE 2 – SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

2.1 The Servi ces that Consultant shall perform are more particularly described in Exhibit “A,” titled “Scope of Servi ces,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

2.2 Consultant shall comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulati ons in the performance of this A greement including, but not limited to, any applicable State prevailing wage laws.

ARTICLE 3 – RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY

3.1 City designates Rich Sessler, Fire Chief, as City’s representative with respect to performance of the Services, and such person shall have the authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to performance of the Services.

ARTICLE 4 – PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES

4.1 Consultant shall perform and complete the Services in a prompt and diligent manner in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B,” titled “Project Schedule,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
36 of 932

4.2 The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing as of the Effective Date, unless terminated earlier as provided herein.

4.3 If Consultant’s Services include deliverable electronic visual presentation materials, such materials shall be delivered in a form, and made available to City, consistent with City Council-adopted policy for the same. It shall be the obligation of Consultant to obtain a copy of such policy from City staff.

ARTICLE 5 – PAYMENTS TO CONSULTANT

5.1 Total compensation for Consultant ’s performance of the Services shall be in the amount of Fifty-Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty ($52,250). City shall pay Consultant in accordance with Exhibit “C ,” titled “Fee Schedule Title” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

5.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the Services performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s invoices shall include a brief description of the Services performed, the dates the Services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, and a description of reimbursable expenses related to the Services. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after receipt and approval by City of Consultant’s invoice.

5.3 Any notice or other communication required, or which may be given, pursuant to this Agreement, shall be in writing. Any such notice shall be deemed delivered (i) on the date of delivery in person; (ii) five (5) days after deposit in first class registered mail, with return receipt requested; (iii) on the actual delivery date if deposited with an overnight courier; or (iv) on the date sent by facsimile or electronic mail transmission (including PDF), if confirmed with a copy sent contemporaneously by first class, certified, registered or express mail; in each case properly posted and fully prepaid to the appropriate address set forth below, or such other address as a Party may provide notice in accordance with this section:

CITY: CONSULTANT:

City Clerk Jacob Green, President
City of Redlands Jacob Green & Associates, Inc
35 Cajon Street 1327 Jamboree Rd., Suite 24B
P.O. Box 3005 (mailing) Tustin, CA 92782
Redlands, CA 92373 [email protected] [email protected] (626)755-5270
Phone: (909) 798-7531

ARTICLE 6 – INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

6.1 The following insurance coverage required by this Agreement shall be maintained by Consultant for the duration of its performance of the Services. Consultant shall not perform any Services unless and until the required insurance listed below is obtained by Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
37 of 932
Consultant. Consultant shall provide City with certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing such insurance prior to commencement of the Services. Insurance policies shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation or modification of the policy except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to City.

A. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability insurance in the amount that meets statutory requirements with an insurance carrier acceptable to City, or certification to City that Consultant is self -insured or exempt from the workers’ compensation laws of the State of California. Consultant shall execute and provide City with Exhibit “D,” titled “Workers’ Compensation Insurance Certification,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, prior to performance of the Services.

B. Comprehensive General L iability insurance with carriers acceptable to City in the minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate , for public liability, property damage and personal injury is required. City shall be named as an additional insured and such insurance shall be primary and non- contributing to any insurance or self -insurance maintained by City.

C. Consultant shall secure and maintain professional liability insurance throughout the term of this Agreement in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim made.

D. Business Auto L iability coverage, with minimum limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, combined single limit bodily injury liability and property damage liability. This coverage shall include all Consultant owned vehicles used in connection with Consultant’s provision of the Services, hired and non-owned vehicles, and employee non-ownership vehicles. City shall be named as an additional insured and such insurance shall be primary and non- contributing to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City.

E. Consultant is expressly prohibited from assigning or subcontracting any of the Services without the prior written consent of City. In the event of mutual agreement by the Parties to assign or subcontract a portion of the Services, Consultant shall add such assignee or subcontractor as an additional insured to the insurance policies required hereby and provide City with the insurance endorsements prior to any Services being performed by the assignee or subcontractor.

6.2 Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, including attorneys’ fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any negligent act or omission by, or the willful misconduct of, Consultant, or its officers, employees and agents in performing the Services.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
38 of 932
ARTICLE 7 – CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

7.1 Consultant covenants and represents that it does not have any investment or interest in any real property that may be the subject of this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment that would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s Services. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder, no person having any such interest shall perform any Services under this Agreement.

7.2 Consultant agrees it is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:

A. Does not make a governmental decision whether to:

(i) approve a rate, rule or regulation, or adopt or enforce a City law; (ii) issue, deny, suspend or revoke any City permit, license, application, certification, approval, order or similar authorization or entitlement; (iii) authorize City to enter into, modify or renew a contract; (iv) grant City approval to a contract that requires City approval and to which City is a party, or to the specifications for such a contract; (v) grant City approval to a plan, design, report, study or similar item; (vi) adopt, or grant City approval of, policies, standards or guidelines for City or for any subdivision thereof.

B. Does not serve in a staff capacity with City and in that capacity, participate in making a governmental decision or otherwise perform the same or substantially the same duties for City that would otherwise be performed by an individual holding a position specified in City’s Conflict of I nterest Code under Government Code section 87302.

7.3 In the event City determines that Consultant must disclose its financial interests, Consultant shall complete and file a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests , with the City Clerk’s office pursuant to the written instructions provided by the City Clerk.

ARTICLE 8 – GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 In the event any action is commenced to enforce or interpret any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement the prevailing Party shall, in addition to any costs and other relief, be entitled to the recovery of its reasonable attorneys’ fees, including fees for the use of in-house counsel by a Party.

8.2 Consultant shall not assign any of the Services, except with the prior written approval of City and in s trict compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any assignment or attempted assignment without such prior written consent may, in the sole discretion of City, result in City’s immediate termination of this Agreement.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
39 of 932

8.3 Consultant is for all purposes under this Agreement an independent contractor and shall perform the Services as an independent contractor . Neither City nor any its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or Consultant’s employees, except as herein set forth. Consultant shall supply all necessary tools and instrumentalities required to perform the Services. Assigned personnel employed by Consultant are for its account only, and in no event shall Consultant or personnel retained by it be deemed to have been employed by City or engaged by City for the account of, or on behalf of City. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent, nor shall Consultant have any authority, express or implied, to bind City to any obligation.

8.4 Either Party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other Party. If this Agreement is terminated by City for cause, an adjustment to Consultant’s compensation may be made to reflect any direct, documented costs to City arising from Consultant’s material breach. During the notice period, the Parties shall coordinate an orderly wind- down of work and deliverables. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of termination, Consultant shall provide City with all project materials produced up to that date. Consultant shall be compensated for all Services performed through the effective termination date in accordance with the payment terms of this Agreement.

8.5 Consultant shall maintain books, ledgers, invoices , accounts and other records and documents evidencing costs and expenses related to the Services for a period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Such books shall be available at reasonable times for examination by City at the office of Consultant.

8.6 This Agreement, including the Exhibits incorporated herein by reference, represents the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties as to the matters contained herein, and any prior negotiations, written proposals or verbal agreements relating to such matters are superseded by this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided for herein, any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing, approved by City and signed by City and Consultant.

8.7 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California , without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions. The Parties agree that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this Agreement shall be tried and litigated only in the state courts located in San Bernardino County, California, and the federal courts located in Riverside County, California.

8.8 If one or more of the sentences, clauses, paragraphs or sections contained in this Agreement is declared invalid, void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall be deemed severable from the remainder of this Agreement and shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining sentences, clauses, paragraphs or Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
40 of 932
sections contained herein, unless to do so would deprive a Party of a material benefit of its bargain under this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, duly authorized representatives of City and Consultant have signed in confirmation of this Agreement.

CITY OF REDLANDS JACOB GREEN & ASSOCIATES, INC

By: ___________________________ By: _________________________ Mario Saucedo, Mayor Jacob Green. President

ATTEST:

___________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
41 of 932
EXHIBIT "A"

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
42 of 932
EXHIBIT "B"

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
43 of 932

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
44 of 932

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
45 of 932

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
46 of 932
EXHIBIT "C"
Fee Schedule Title

Work Task Cost
Activity #1: Emergency Operations Plan-Update $39,950
Activity #2: Support Plans (Annexes) – New
• Redlands Animal Shelter (1 x $6,150)
• Redlands Municipal Airport (1 x $6,150)

$12,300
Total: $52,250

Invoicing Schedule:

20%- Upon Project Kickoff
Monthly Progress Payments as Determined by JGA

Late Payment Fee

All invoices are due and payable within 30 days of the invoice date. Any invoice not paid within 30 days will be subject to late payment fee. A fee of 1.5% per month will be added to the outstanding balance until the invoice is paid in full.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
47 of 932
EXHIBIT "D"

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATION

Every employer, except the State, shall secure the payment of compensation in one or more of the following ways:

(a) By being insured against liability to pay compensation by one or more insurer s duly authorized to write compensation insurance in this State. (b) By securing from the Director of Industrial Relations, a certificate of consent to self-insure, either as an individual employer , or as one employer in a group of employers, which may be given upon furnishing proof satisfactory to the Director of Industrial Relations of ability to self -insure and to pay any compensation that may become due to his or her employees.

CHECK ONE

_____I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self - insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work and activities required or permitted under this Agreement. (Labor Code §1861).

_____I affirm that at all times, in performing the work and activities required or permitted under this Agreement, I shall not employ any person in any manner such that I become subject to the workers’ compensation laws of California. However, at any time, if I employ any person such that I become subject to the workers’ compensation laws of California, immediately I shall provide the City with a certificate of consent to self -insure, or a certification of workers’ compensation insurance.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information and representations made in this certificate are true and correct.

Jacob Green & Associates

By: Date: ___________________
Jacob Green, President

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
48 of 932
Sole Source/ Single Source/ Standardization Form
For procurement of supplies, equipment and services valued at $5,000 and over NOTE: Every question must be answered with appropriate documentation attached; incomplete forms will be immediately rejected by Purchasing.

Date:_______________________
To: Purchasing Division
From: ________________________________
Estimated Total Cost: $_________________

Proposed Vendor: ______________________
Request Term: _________________
This form must accompany the purchase document whenever an exception to the competitive process is requested. Requests for goods and/or services from a specific vendor or limited to a specific brand, where substitutes to the recommended vendor or brand are unacceptable, must
be accompanied by a written justification explaining the circumstances that make alternatives
unacceptable.

The
City Manager will determine whether the justification is appropriate. Requests for
exception must be supported by factual statements th at will pass an audit. 10/15/2025
Kristina Rivas, Senior Admin Assistant
52,250
1 year
Jacob Green & Associates
Doc ID: b642566ecf4b306fdfa86274b3bebd411fffa3c8
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
49 of 932

INSTRUCTIONS

1. P
lease check all applicable categories (a. through i.) below and provide additional information where indicated.
a. The requested product is an integral repair part or accessory c ompatible with existing equipment.

Existing Equipment:

Manufacturer/Model Number:

Age:

Current Estimated Value:
b. The requested product has unique design/performance specifications or quality r
equirements that are not available in comparable products. c. I have standardized the requested product and the use of another brand/model would require considerable time and funding to evaluate.
d. T he requested product is one in which I (and/or my staff) have specialized training and/or extensive expertise. Retraining would incur substantial cost in time and/or funding.
e. The requested product is used or demonstration equipment available at a lower-than- new cost.
f. Repair/Maintenance service is available only from manufacturer or designated service representative.
g. Upgrade to or enhancement of existing software is available only from manufacturer. h. Service proposed by vendor is unique; therefore, competitive bids are not available or applicable.
i. Other factors (provide detailed explanation in #2 below).

2. Provide a detailed explanation and pertinent documentation for each category checked in item 1 above. Attach additional sheets if necessary:

Jacob Green & Associates have provided services to the Redlands Fire Department including gap analysis of the EOC, renovation plan design, and citywide Emergency Operations Plan giving them strong understanding of the specific needs to the Redlands EOC. Continuing their service will help strengthen preparedness across all phases of Emergency Management.

Doc ID: b642566ecf4b306fdfa86274b3bebd411fffa3c8
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
50 of 932

3. Was an evaluation of other equipment, products, or services performed? Yes No
If yes, please explain the type of evaluation performed and provide all supporting documentation:

4. List
below the name of each individual who was involved in the evaluation, if conducted, and in making the recommendation to procure this product or service. Attach additional information, if necessary.

5. Explain what action(s) the department would take if the sole/single source services were no longer available

6. I certify that the above information is accurate to the best of my knowledge, and a signed copy of this document will be kept on file and available for audit in my department _________________________________________________________ Pr
epared by Date _________________________________________________________ Dep
artment Director Date Purch
asing Approvals
______________________________________________________
P
urchasing Agent Approval Date
_______________________________________________________

City Manager Approval Date
The Fire Department would have to start over with a new consultant who is unfamiliar with the specific needs of the Redlands Emergency Operations Plan. 10 / 15 / 2025
10 / 15 / 2025
Doc ID: b642566ecf4b306fdfa86274b3bebd411fffa3c8
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
51 of 932
Sole Source - Jacob Green & Assoc - EOP Project
Sole_Source_Jacob_Green___Assoc.pdf
b642566ecf4b306fdfa86274b3bebd411fffa3c8

MM / DD / YYYY
Signed
10 / 15 / 2025
14:57:29 UTC
Sent for signature to Rich Sessler ([email protected]) and Kristina Rivas ([email protected]) from
[email protected]
IP: 47.153.121.232
10 / 15 / 2025
14:58:00 UTC
Viewed by Kristina Rivas ([email protected])
IP: 47.153.121.232
10 / 15 / 2025
14:58:12 UTC
Signed by Kristina Rivas ([email protected])
IP: 47.153.121.232
10 / 15 / 2025
15:31:23 UTC
Viewed by Rich Sessler ([email protected])
IP: 47.153.121.232
10 / 15 / 2025
15:31:53 UTC
Signed by Rich Sessler ([email protected])
IP: 47.153.121.232
The document has been completed.
10 / 15 / 2025
15:31:53 UTC
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
52 of 932
City Council Meeting I. 5.

DATE: 11/18/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve Resolution No. 8730 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program prepared for the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Recycled Water Reservoir Project in accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)
MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to approve Resolution No. 8730.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 8730 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Recycled Water Reservoir Project in accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

DISCUSSION:

Project Location:

The proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Recycled Water Reservoir Project (Project) site is located in the City of Redlands (City) in San Bernardino County, California, at the WWTP’s parcel along Nevada Street at Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 029204136, and address at 1950 Nevada St, Redlands, CA 92373. The reservoir will be constructed on the empty lot west of the existing sludge beds on the facility site. The Project is located on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Redlands, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
53 of 932
Township 1 South, Range 3 West.

Project Description:

In 2024, the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (MUED) managed the engineering of a 2.75 MG recycled water reservoir to be constructed at the WWTP in the future. In November 2024, California voters adopted Proposition 4 (The Act), the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act, which will provide funding to address California's current and future climate impacts. The Act designates approximately $3,800,000,000 for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resiliency projects and programs (Chapter 2, Section 91000). MUED staff believes that construction of the WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir is a good candidate for Proposition 4 funding, and that a funding request would be strengthened if the project is "shovel-ready".

Summary of Cultural Resources Investigations:

To identify cultural resources that could be affected by the Project, various environmental investigations were conducted by the City's environmental Consultant, the Chambers Group (Chambers). Chambers requested and reviewed records from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC provided the requested records on April 14, 2025, which included information about documented cultural resources and previous archaeological investigations within the study area. Resources consulted during the records search conducted by the SCCIC included the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Historic Highway Bridge Inventory, the California State Historic Resources Inventory, local registries of historic properties, and a review of available Sanborn Fire Insurance maps as well as historical photographs, maps, and aerial imagery. The task also included a search for potential prehistoric and/or historic burials (human remains) as documented in previous site records and historical maps. Additionally, the Chambers Group submitted a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a review of the Sacred Land Files (SLF) for the Project site and the surrounding vicinity.

Based on the results received from SCCIC, it indicated one potential archaeological resource within the site boundary. This resource has previously been moved from its original location and has been partially demolished. The resource has been heavily disturbed and is not unique for the time period. The resource has been determined that it will not be disturbed during construction and operation of the Project. No other historic or prehistoric resources were identified.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
54 of 932
Environmental Review:

The Chambers Group prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND was made available for public review and comment for thirty (30) days as required (State Clearinghouse No. 2025090058) between September 2, 2025, and October 2, 2025. The Notice of Intent was posted with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board at the beginning of the public review period. The environmental documents were also made available for public review on the City’s website at
'https://www.cityofredlands.org/environmental-documents '.

Mitigation Measures: The Initial Study recommends a Mitigated Negative Declaration with fourteen (14) mitigation measures which pertain to Cultural Resources, Paleontological Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Most mitigation measures pertain to the construction phase of the project (e.g., construction activities, site improvements, or construction materials), and there are no aspects of the Project after construction that will require ongoing future monitoring for CEQA purposes. The mitigation measures will ensure that the effects of the Project will remain less than significant and are summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program within the IS/MND.

After mitigation, no significant effects are anticipated, and the recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Project construction phase.

There is no substantial evidence of any potentially significant environmental effects as a result of the Project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination.

Public Comments: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the draft IS/MND was posted for public review and comment from September 2, 2025, to October 2, 2025. During the thirty (30) day comment period, the State Water Resources Control Boards responded to City's Project requesting clarification on the project. The City has provided the clarification to their satisfaction. No formal comments were received.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may deny the staff recommendation and provide alternate direction.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
55 of 932
SUBMITTED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
Goutam K. Dobey, City Engineer
PREPARED BY:

Goutam K. Dobey, City Engineer
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: FY 25/26
Discussion:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Attachments
A. Resolution No. 8730
B. Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
C. Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
56 of 932
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8730-Wastewater Treatment Plant.docx-jl RESOLUTION NO. 8730

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) RECYCLED WATER RESERVOIR PROJECT LOCATED ON APN: 0292-041-36

WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the proposed WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir Project (“Project”) was prepared for the City of Redlands which was circulated for public review for a period of thirty days beginning on September 2, 2025, and ending on October 2, 2025;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows:

Section 1. CEQA Compliance. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and MND, related technical studies and analyses, acknowledgement that no public comments received, and determines that the MND and related documents contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project.

Section 2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency. The City Council has exercised independent judgment and analysis in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in that the City Council analyzed the MND and accompanying technical studies/reports and finds that the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

Section 3. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council finds on the basis of the whole record that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, including mitigation measures and any Project design features, and hereby adopts the MND for the Project.

Section 4. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program attached to the MND, and all mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the Project.

Section 5. Notice of Determination. The City Council hereby adopts the MND for the Project and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and direct staff to file and post a Notice of Determination in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
57 of 932
2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8730-Wastewater Treatment Plant.docx-jl ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 18th day of November, 2025.

________________________
Mario Saucedo, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
58 of 932
3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8730-Wastewater Treatment Plant.docx-jl

I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of November, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
59 of 932

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA
Project

CITY OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

CITY OF REDLANDS
Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department
35 Cajon Street, Suite 15A
Redlands, CA 92373

Prepared by:

CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
3151 Airway Ave., Suite F208,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(949) 261-5414

October 2025
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
60 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4

1.1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................... 4

1.2 AVAILABILITY OF THE NOI AND IS/MND ....................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................ ............... 5

2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 5

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 5

2.2.1 Project Site Location ........................................................................................................ 5

2.2.2 Project Site History........................................................................................................... 5

2.2.3 Project Site Access and Circulation .................................................................................. 5

2.2.4 General Plan/Zoning ........................................................................................................ 5

2.2.5 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................... 5

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.1 Parking and Hardscape .................................................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Operations and Ongoing Maintenance ............................................................................ 6

2.3.3 Construction ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS.......................................................................................... 6

2.4.1 Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 3.0 – FINDINGS................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 SECTION 4.0 – MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ ................................ ............................ 12 SECTION 5.0 – CIRCULATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 17 SECTION 6.0 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ......................... 18

6.1 RESPONSE TO COMMENT #1: CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ...... 18 SECTION 7.0 – REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................ . 19

7.1 GLOBAL REVISIONS ..................................................................................................................... 20

7.2 SPECIFIC REVISIONS .................................................................................................................... 20 SECTION 8.0 – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................ ................................ ......... 22

APPENDIX A – AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY TECHNCIAL MEMORANDUM APPENDIX B – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
APPENDIX C – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM APPENDIX D – REVISED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
61 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 - Project Location and Vicinity Map ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2 – Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 – CNDDB Occurrences ................................................................................................................... 10

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
62 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
4 SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION On September 2, 2025, the City of Redlands (City) distributed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project (Proposed Project) to public agencies and the general public. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30-day public review period for the Draft IS/MND was provided from September 2, 2025 to October 2, 2025. The City Council will review the IS/MND for adoption on November 18, 2025, at its regularly scheduled meeting located at City’s office located at 35 Cajon Street, Suite 15A, Redlands, California.

1.2 AVAILABILITY OF THE NOI AND IS/MND
The NOI and the IS/MND were available for review at the following location:
▪ The City’s website at https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/environmental-documents

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
63 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
5 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (MUED) is proposing to construct a

2.75 million gallon (MG) recycled water reservoir and pump station (Project/Proposed Project) to be located at the existing City of Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in the City of Redlands (City).

The proposed recycled water reservoir would be for City use and would not be publicly distributed, nor would it be used for direct potable use.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.2.1 Project Site Location
The new recycled water reservoir and pump station would be located at the WWTP’s parcel along Nevada Street at Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 029204136, and address at 1950 Nevada St, Redlands, CA 92373. The reservoir and pump station will be on the empty lot west of the existing sludge beds on the facility site. The Project is located on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Redlands, California 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle, Township 1 South, Range 3 West.

2.2.2 Project Site History
The WWTP was constructed in the 1960s, currently employs a staff of 28 people, and is located on approximately 50 acres of land. The treatment capacity is approximately 9.5 MG per day based on annual dry weather flow conditions. Six MG of the capacity is treated via a membrane bioreactor system, and 3.5 MG via a conventional activated sludge process.

2.2.3 Project Site Access and Circulation
Project site access would be via Nevada Street. Nevada Street is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10 (I -10) and 1 mile east of Interstate 210 (I -210). Entrance to the Project Site is off Nevada Street, before Waste Water Road.

2.2.4 General Plan/Zoning
The Project site is zoned as Educational and Public Institutional (E,EV/PI) according to the City’s General Plan Zoning Map (City 2022). Its land use designation according to the City’s General Plan is Public/Institutional. EV/PI land use categories permit the operation of public services, buildings, and other related facilities, including schools, government facilities, public utilities, and other public or quasi-public nature. Residential and agricultural uses are also permitted (City 2017).

2.2.5 Surrounding Land Uses
The WWTP is bounded by the Santa Ana River/open space to the north, vacant parcel to the east, and undeveloped and commercial/industrial lands and businesses to the south and west. The Project site is located north of the northern boundary of the East Corridor Specific Plan.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
64 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
6 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department proposes the construction of a 2.75 MG recycled water reservoir and pump station. The water reservoir and pump station will be constructed on the empty lot west of the existing sludge dryi ng beds, at the southeast corner of Mills Street and Nevada Street within the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility.

2.3.1 Parking and Hardscape
One driveway will connect the reservoir to Waste Water Road. The driveway will be constructed utilizing asphalt/gravel. No additional parking spaces will be required. The site will remain under maintenance by existing staff. No additional staff will be required.

2.3.2 Operations and Ongoing Maintenance
Operations at the treatment plant will continue to function while the new water reservoir and pump station are being constructed. Maintenance will occur on a monthly and as -needed basis by City employees. The Project site will include the installation of o rnamental landscaping. The type of landscaping will be selected as recommended by the City and will be maintained by City staff.

2.3.3 Construction
Construction of the Proposed Project will require multiple workers using equipment such as loaders, pick- up trucks, backhoes, a water truck for dust suppression, a crane, asphalt paver and excavators. Project materials will be staged within the existing pr operty managed by the City. Construction of the Proposed Project includes, but is not limited to, excavation and grading to construct water reservoir tank pads, internal driveways, and ancillary facilities such as a pump station and valve vaults.

Construction Schedule
Construction activities will take place between 0 7:00 a.m. to 0 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction work will occur on weekends or City observed holidays per Chapter 8.06, Community Noise Control, of the City’s Municipal Code.

2.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Reviewing Agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary authority but may review the Initial Study, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and/or Negative Declaration for adequacy and accuracy.

Responsible Agencies have discretionary approval authority for a project. Potential Reviewing Agencies include the following:

Reviewing Agencies
▪ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
▪ Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and tribes requesting consultation Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
65 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
7 2.4.1 Permits and Approvals
The following permits and approvals may be required prior to construction of the Project:
▪ Site Plan review
▪ Grading Permit
▪ Building Permit

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
66 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
8 Figure 1 - Project Location and Vicinity Map

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
67 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
9 Figure 2 – Site Plan

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
68 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21532
10 Figure 3 – CNDDB Occurrences
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
69 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 11
21532

SECTION 3.0 – FINDINGS
An Initial Study has been prepared to assess the Proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment and the significance of those impacts and was incorporated in the Draft MND. Based on this Initial Study, it has been determined that the Proposed Proj ect would not have any significant impacts on the environment once all proposed mitigation measures have been implemented. This conclusion is supported by the following findings:
▪ No potential was found for adverse impacts on Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, and Recreation, associated with the Proposed Project.
▪ Potential adverse impacts resulting from the Proposed Project were found to be less than significant in the following areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Geology and Soils (excluding paleontological resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems and Wildfire. ▪ Full implementation of the proposed mitigation measures included in this MND would reduce potential project -related adverse impact on Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils (paleontological resources), and Tribal Cultural Resources to a less than significant level.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
70 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 12
21532

SECTION 4.0 – MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scope of work for the Proposed Project and will be fully implemented by the City to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts identified in this MND. These mitigation measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for this Project.

MM CUL-1 The City shall retain the services of a Qualified Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards, or County requirements, whichever is the greater. The Qualified Archaeologist shall remain on-call throughout the Project.

Upon approval or request by the City, a cultural resources mitigation plan (CRMP) outlining procedures for cultural resources monitoring, mitigation, treatment, and data recovery of any unanticipated discovery shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the CRMP shall include consultations with the City, as well as a requirement that the curation of any significant cultural resources recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. If the City accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised.

If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the drafts of the CRMP shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the CRMP accordingly.

MM CUL-2 In the event of the discovery of previously unidentified and/or potential cultural Resources during Project activities , the City, and/or its Contractor, shall immediately cease all work activities within an area of not less than 60 feet of the discovery. The City or its Contractor shall immediately contact the City and the City-retained on-call Qualified Archaeologist, who must meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Except in the case of cultural items that fall within the scope of the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, or California PRC Section 5097.98, the discovery of any cultural resource within the Project site shall not be grounds for a project -wide “stop work” notice or otherwise interfere with the Project’s continuation except as outlined in this mitigation measure.

In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during construction, the City -retained Qualified Archaeologist, who must meet the Secretary of the Interior standards, shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the materials prior to resuming any construction -related activities in the vicinity of the find. If a CRMP is prepared for the Project, the protocols for the mitigation or treatment of cultural resources will be implemented. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the d iscovery constitutes a significant resource under CEQA and it cannot be avoided, the City shall implement an archaeological data recovery program.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
71 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 13
21532

Additionally, any consulting Native American Tribal groups that requested notification of any unanticipated discovery of cultural resources on the Project shall be notified and included in subsequent consultation appropriately.

Specifically, t he YSMN shall be contacted regarding any pre -contact finds and provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM-CUL-3 If cultural resources are encountered during the Project, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a report summarizing any and all prehistoric or historic archaeological finds as well as providing follow-up reports of any finds to the SCCIC, as required.

MM-CUL-4 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100 -foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

MM PAL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall be required to obtain the services of a Qualified Project Paleontologist to remain on call for the duration of the proposed ground disturbing construction activity. The paleontologist selected must be a pproved by the City. Upon approval or request by the City, a paleontological mitigation plan (PMP) outlining procedures for paleontological data recovery shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development a nd implementation of the PMP shall include consultations with the District’s Engineering Geologist, as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. If the District accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised. The PMP shall include developing a multilevel ranking system, or Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC), as a tool to demonstrate the potential yield of fossils within a given stratigraphic unit. The PMP shall outline the monitoring and salvage protocols to address paleontological resources encountered during Project -related ground- disturbing activities, as well as the appropriate recording, collection, and processing protocols to appropriately address any resources discovered.

MM PAL-2: At the completion of all ground -disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a final paleontological mitigation report summarizing all monitoring efforts and observations, as performed in line with the PMP, and all paleontological resources encountered, if any, as well as providing follow -up reports of any specific discovery, if necessary.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
72 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 14
21532

MM TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in CUL -1, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

MM TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the Project.

MM TCR-3 Native American Treatment Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for the Project. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall be on -site during all ground -disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground -disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources and/or tribal cultural resources.

MM TCR-4 Cultural Resource Management Plan . Prior to any ground -disturbing activities the project archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the Consulting Tribe[s] and at minimum, shall include the following: (1) the approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), (2) procedures for each MM/COA, (3) the contact information for all pertinent parties, (4) parties’ responsibilities, and (5) an overview of the project schedule.

MM TCR-5 Pre-Grade Meeting. The retained qualified archeologist and Consulting Tribe[s] representative shall attend the pre -grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.

MM TCR-6 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources . In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered /unearthed during construction, the qualified archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground -disturbance activities in the Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
73 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 15
21532

area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non -significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored ground -disturbing activity can proceed.

If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60-foot perimeter of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vici nity of the find(s), so that it/they can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. The archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the Consulting Tribe[s], and the Tribal monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the treatment and disposition of the Tribal Cultural Resource shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consul tation with the Tribe[s] and the Tribal monitor[s] and be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval.

Below are the possible treatments and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQA preference:

A. Full avoidance.

B. If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.

If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.

C. If all other options are proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and then curation in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards (36 CFR 79).

Unless otherwise agreed upon by all parties, all removed items from the Project shall be temporarily curated on -site in a secure and locked location (i.e., Conex box, a lockable office or drawer with restricted access to it, etc.). A periodic inventory must be maintained and provided to Consulting Tribe[s].

MM TCR-7 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations. No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the Consulting Tribe[s].

A. Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground -disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
74 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 16
21532

construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within a 100 -foot perimeter of the discovery.

The area s hall be protected by the establishment of an ESA with a marked boundary. Project personnel/observers will be restricted from entry into the ESA.

The County Coroner is to be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98.

B. In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC §7050.5.

C. The NAHC shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make his/her recommendation for final treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC §5097.98 D. If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians has been named the MLD or Co-MLD, the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance where they will reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial will not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations will be determined by the Tribe’s MLD, the landowner, a nd the City Planning Department.

MM TCR-8 FINAL REPORT: The final report[s] created as a part of the project (CRMP/AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] for review and comment.

After approval of all parties, th e final reports are to be submitted to the appropriate Information Center (IC), and the Consulting Tribe[s]

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
75 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 17
21532

SECTION 5.0 – CIRCULATION
On September 2, 2025, the City of Redlands circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups, and the general public. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30-day public review period for the IS/MND was provided from September 2, 2025 to October 2 nd, 2025. At the start of the public review period, the NOI was posted on the Ci ty’s website (https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/environmental-documents) and filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk at 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92415.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
76 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 18
21532

SECTION 6.0 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (b) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of negative declarations should be, “on the proposed finding that the project will not have a signifi cant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect; (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and; (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the co mments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” In accordance with Public Resources Code 21092.5 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall notify any public agency which comments on a negative declaration of the public hearing or hearings, if any, on the project for which the negative declaratio n was prepared. If notice to the commenting public agency is provided pursuant to Section 21092, the notice shall satisfy the requirement of this subdivision.

All Responses to Comments are incorporated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

6.1 RESPONSE TO COMMENT #1: CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD A comment was sent via email from the California State Water Resources Control Board on September 10th, 2025.

The commenter requested clarification on whether the Proposed Project would be a recycled water tank or public drinking water tank.

To clarify, the Proposed Project involves the construction of a recycled water reservoir that would operate independently of the public drinking water system and would not serve as a source of potable water supply or direct potable reuse. Revisions have been made to portions of the ISMND to clarify the Proposed Project. See Section 7 for details on these revisions.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
77 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 19
21532

SECTION 7.0 – REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Per CEQA Statute and Guidelines Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption. Notice of recirculation shall comply with Sections 15072 and 15073. (b) A “substantial revision” of the negative declaration shall mean:
(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required.
(c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1.
(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. (d) If during the negative declaration process there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project. It shall circulate the draft EIR for consultation and review pursuant to Sections 15086 and 15087, and advise reviewers in writing that a proposed negative declaration had previously been circulated for the project.

The following clarifications and revisions are intended to update the Draft MND in response to the comments received during the public review period. These modifications clarify, amplify, or make insignificant changes to the MND. Revisions to the MND have not resulted in new significant impacts or mitigation measures or increased the severity of an impact. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Statute and Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the MND is not required.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
78 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 20
21532

7.1 GLOBAL REVISIONS
Minor text edits were made throughout the IS/MND to clarify that the Proposed Project is a recycled water reservoir for City use and would not be connected to the public distribution system or used for direct potable purposes. These revisions are limited to clarifying language and terminology (e.g., replacing references to a “water tank” with “recycled water reservoir tank”) and do not alter the Project’s design, scope, or potential environmental effects. As such, the revisions do not constitute significant new information under CEQA and do not require recirculation of the Draft IS/MND. See Appendix D for the revised IS/MND.

7.2 SPECIFIC REVISIONS
The changes to the Draft MND are listed by section and page number. Text which has been removed is shown in this section with a strikethrough line, while text that has been added is shown underlined. See Appendix D for the revised IS/MND.

Section 1.1, Project Purpose and Background, Page 1
The City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (MUED) is proposing to construct a 2.75 million gallon (MG) recycled water reservoir and pump station (Project/Proposed Project) to be located at the existing City of Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in the City of Redlands (City).

The proposed recycled water reservoir would be for City use and would not be publicly distributed, nor would it be used for direct potable use.

In November 2024, California voters adopted Proposition 4 (The Act), the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act, which will provide funding to address California's current and future climate impacts. The Act designates approximately $3,800,000,000 for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resiliency projects and programs (Chapter 2, Section 91000). The Proposed Project will be submitted as a candidate for Proposition 4 funding. Submittal for project f unding requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Proposed Project will safeguard public health by expanding the capacities of the reservoirs to meet water demands, which is critical as the City continues to be impacted by a multi -decade drought. The Proposed Project will allow the City to treat and store more water during wet periods for distribution during dry periods.

Section 1.4, Required Permits and Approvals, Page 3
Reviewing Agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary powers but may review the Initial Study (IS), Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and/or Negative Declaration (ND) for adequacy and accuracy. Responsible Agencies have discretionary approval authority for a project.

Potential Reviewing Agencies and Responsible Agencies include the following:

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
79 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 21
21532

Responsible Agencies
▪ California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water Reviewing Agencies
▪ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
▪ Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and tribes requesting consultation.

Section 4.3.1 b), Air Quality, Page 16
The data provided in Table 4 -2 above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during operation of the Proposed Project. In general, the operation of the new recycled water reservoir tank and pump station will be passive, as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tank that creates air emissions. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tank is constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water tank occurs on a monthly and as-needed basis by City employees.

No change would occur between the maintenance activi ties for the existing water tank and the proposed reservoir tanks. As such, the operation of the Proposed Project would not create any additional air emissions beyond which is currently being created . Therefore, a less than significant regional or local air quality impact would occur from the operation of the Proposed Project.

Section 4.3.1 c), Air Quality, Page 18
The data provided in Table 4 -2 above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during operation of the Proposed Project. In general, the operation of the new recycled water reservoir tank and pump station will be passive, as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir s tanks that create air emissions. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tank is constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water tank occurs on a monthly and as-needed basis by City employees.

No change would occur between the maintenance activities for the existing water facility tank and proposed reservoir tanks . As such, the operation of the Proposed Project would not create any additional air emissions, beyond which is currently being created. Therefore, the operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
80 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Redlands, California

Chambers Group, Inc. 22
21532

SECTION 8.0 – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This document, along with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and the Notice of Determination, constitute the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir Project in the City of Redlands.

Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Redlands has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project and finds that these documents reflect the i ndependent judgment of the City of Redlands. The City, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the MND and MMRP.

Signature Date

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
81 of 932
APPENDIX A – AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
82 of 932

www.vistalb.com
March 19, 2025

Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Subject: City of Redlands – Recycled Water Reservoir and Pump Station Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Technical Memorandum.

Dear Ms. Bagwan:

Vista Environmental has conducted an analysis to evaluate whether the proposed recycled water reservoir and pump station (proposed project) would cause significant air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy consumption impacts. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.). The methodology follows the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommendations for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential air quality and GHG emissions impacts.

Project Location
The project site is located at the existing Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant at 1950 Nevada Street in the City of Redlands (City). Specifically, the proposed reservoir and pump station would be located on the empty lot west of the existing sludge drying beds and would be bounded by Waste Water Road to the north, sludge drying beds to the east, a vacated road easement and vacant land to the south, and Nevada Street and vacant land to the west.

Project Description
The City of Redlands Municipal Utilites and Engineering Department proposes the construction of a 2.75 Million Gallon (MG) recycled water reservoir and pump station on an approximately 2 acre area. The reservoir would be constructed as an above ground, 126 foot diameter steel tank and the pump station would be located in an approximately 800 square foot structure located on the east side of the reservoir.

There would also be an approximately 290 square foot structure for electrical equipment that would include solar PV panels and a chain link fence around the perimeter of the electrical equipment area.

In addition, an approximately 16,000 square foot contractor stging area located on the north side of Waste Water Road. A new 14 foot wide paved access road will be constructed to the proposed reservoir and would encircle the reservoir, that would total approximately 8,700 square feet of new paved area.

The project is expected to break ground in 2026 and be completed by 2027. Construction activities will take place between 06:00 a.m. to 04:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction work will occur on weekends or City observed holidays per the City’s Community Noise Control section, Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code (City 2023).

Operations at the treatment plant will continue to function while the new reservoir and pump station will be constructed. Maintenance will occur on a monthly and as-needed basis by City employees. The Project

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
83 of 932

www.vistalb.com
site will include installation of ornamental landscaping. Type of landscaping will be selected as recommended by the City and will be maintained by City staff.

Thresholds of Significance
Regional Air Quality
To estimate if the proposed parking lot may adversely affect the air quality in the region, the SCAQMD has prepared the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) to provide guidance to those who analyze the air quality impacts of proposed projects. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table A.

Table A – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55
Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55
Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf Local Air Quality
Project-related construction and operational air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO 2, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5.

The LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. As detailed above in Section 6.3, the project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 34, Central San Bernardino Valley. The Look-Up Tables provided in the LST Methodology include project site acreage sizes of 1-acre, 2-acres and 5-acres. Since the proposed project would disturb up to 2.4 acres, the 2-acre thresholds were utilized, since the 2-acre thresholds provide more conservative thresholds than the 5-acre thresholds.

The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is Packinghouse Christian Academy that is located as near as 4,100 feet (1,250 meters) south of the project site. As such, the 500 meter (1,640 foot) threshold was utilized, since that is the largest distance threshold available in the Look-up Tables. Table B below shows the LSTs for NO
2, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
84 of 932

www.vistalb.com
Table B – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Activity
Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction 684 23,304 205 104
Operation 684 23,304 50 25
Notes:
1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptor is the Packinghouse Christian Academy, located as near as 4,100 feet (1,250 meters) south of the project site. As such, the 500 meter threshold (largest threshold available) was utilized.

Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 34, San Bernardino Valley.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The City of Redlands Climate Action Plan (Redlands CAP), was adopted on December 5, 2017. The Redlands CAP was prepared pursuant to Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines to be utilized as a tiering document for the General Plan as well as future projects within the City that are consistent with the General Plan. The Redlands CAP incorporates the guidelines established in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.

The 2017 Scoping Plan was prepared to meet the GHG emissions reduction targets set in Executive Order S-3-15 and SB 32 that recommends local governments to develop plans to reduce GHG emissions to 6 MTCO
2e per capita per year by the year 2030 and 2 MTCO 2e per capita per year by the year 2050. Since the Redlands CAP was prepared in coordination with the General Plan that has a horizon year of 2035, the Redlands CAP provides a year 2035 target of 5 MTCO2e per capita per year, which was determined through interpolation of the 2030 and 2035 GHG emissions targets, which also aligns with the reduction targets provided in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Since a per capita threshold does not apply to the proposed project, the SCAQMD thresholds has been utilized, instead.

In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO
2e for all land use projects.

CalEEMod Model Input Parameters
The criteria pollutants and GHG emissions impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.29 CalEEMod is a computer model published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for estimating air pollutant and GHG emissions. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2021 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for the South Coast Air Basin portion of San Bernardino County for employee, vendor and haul truck vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy equipment operations. EMFAC2021 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour.

The project characteristics in the CalEEMod model were set to a project location of the South Coast Air Basin portion of San Bernardino County, utility companies of Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas and a project opening year of 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
85 of 932

www.vistalb.com
Land Use Parameters
The proposed project’s land use parameters that were entered into the CalEEMod model are shown in Table C.

Table C – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters
Proposed Land Use
Land Use Subtype in
CalEEMod
Land Use
Size1
Lot
Acreage2
Building3
(sq ft)
Landscaped
Area4 (sq ft)
Reservoir & Pump Station User Defined Industrial 13.6 TSF 2.20 13,559 9,587 Paved Area Other Asphalt Surfaces 8.68 TSF 0.20 -- 868
Notes:
1 TSF = Thousand square feet.
2 Lot acreage calculated based on the total disturbed area of 2.4 acres. 3 Building square feet represent area where architectural coatings will be applied 4 Landscaped area based on 10 percent of disturbed area landscaped.

Construction Parameters
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start in Fall 2025 and the CalEEMod default construction phasing and timing was utilized, which found that construction would be completed in approximately 13 months. The construction-related GHG emissions were based on a 30-year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009.

The worker trips and truck trips utilized for each phase of construction was based on the CalEEMod default values. For the construction equipment, the only change to the default values were the Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes equipment in the Site Preparation and Grading Phases were changed to Crawler Tractors, which has higher horsepower and load factor, in order to provide for a worst-case analysis. The demolition quantity of 8,385 tons of debris that was modeled in CalEEMod was based on demolition of the 118,192 square foot office building and 2.72 acres of paved area.

CalEEMod provides the selection of reduction measures to account for project conditions that would result in less emissions than a project without these conditions. This includes the required to adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions and was modeled in CalEEMod by selection of water all exposed areas three times per day, water unpaved roads twice daily, reduce vehicle speeds on dirt roads and sweep paved roads once per month.

Operational Parameters
In general, operation of the new reservoir tank will be passive as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tank that creates air emissions. However, the proposed pump station will use electricity to convey the stored water. The electricity utilized by the electric water pumps was based on the reservoir being drawn to empty two times per year, which would require the pumping of 5.5 MG. A Survey of Energy Use in Water Companies , prepared by Rachel Young, June 2015 found that, the average energy usage for water pumps to convey water require 1,100 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per million gallons. 1 As such,
6,050 kWh per year was entered into the CalEEMod model.

Since regular maintenance will be completed by existing City employees that currently work at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, the project vehicle trip rate was set to zero in CalEEMod, since no new trips

1 Obtained from: https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/water-company-energy-use.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
86 of 932

www.vistalb.com
would be generated for maintenance of the project. No other changes were made to the default operational parameters in CalEEMod.

Project Impacts
Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts
The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of up to 2.4 acres, building construction of the proposed reservoir and pump station, paving of the access road, and application of architectural coatings. The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related emissions from the proposed project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 7.1. The maximum daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project are shown below in Table D.

Table D – Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Season and Year of Construction VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Winter 2026 1.47 12.9 14.6 0.03 2.55 1.45
Summer 2026 1.20 10.2 12.2 0.02 0.45 0.36
Winter 2027 12.9 5.80 8.96 0.01 0.43 0.26
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 12.9 12.9 14.6 0.03 2.55 1.45 SCQAMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local Thresholds1 -- 684 23,304 -- 205 104
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 The nearest sensitive receptor is Packinghouse Christian Academy, located as near as 4,100 feet (1,250 meters) south of the pr oject site. As such, the 500-meter threshold (largest threshold available) was utilized. Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 34, San Bernardino Valley.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Table D shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant regional or local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.

Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Indi vidual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30 year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors (OEHHA, 2015).

Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
87 of 932

www.vistalb.com
Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. By January, 2026, 75 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher and by January, 2029 100 percent of all equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Therefore, no significant short-term DPM impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project.

Long-Term Operational Air Quality Impacts
The proposed project would consist of operation of the proposed recycled water reservoir and pump station. The proposed project would generate air emissions from area sources, and energy usage. The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model. The worst-case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO 2, PM10, and
PM2.5 daily emissions created from the proposed project’s long-term operations are summarized below in Table E and the CalEEMod emissions printouts are attached to this Memo.

Table E – Operations-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions Source
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Area Sources2 0.42 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy Usage3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total Operational Emissions 0.42 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local Thresholds4 -- 684 23,304 -- 205 104
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. As detailed above, operation of the project would not generat e any new trips.
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from natural gas usage. The project would not include any appliances that use natural gas. 4 The nearest sensitive receptor is Packinghouse Christian Academy, located as near as 4,100 feet (1,250 meters) south of the pr oject site. As such, the 500-meter threshold (largest threshold available) was utilized. Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 34, San Bernardino Valley.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1

The data provided in Table E above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant regional or local air quality impacts would occur from operation of the proposed project.

Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would result in the construction and operation of a recycled water reservoir and pump station. The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
88 of 932

www.vistalb.com
usage, waste disposal, water usage, refrigeration, and construction equipment. The project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model and the results is shown below in Table F.

Table F – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
Category CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Area Sources2 0.27 <0.01 <0.01 0.28
Energy Usage3 1.57 <0.01 <0.01 1.57
Water and Wastewater4 0.22 <0.01 <0.01 0.22
Solid Waste5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Construction6 8.42 <0.01 <0.01 8.45
Proposed Project Total GHG Emissions 10.48 <0.01 <0.01 10.52 SCAQMD Draft Threshold 3,000
Exceed Threshold? No
Notes:
1 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. As detailed above, operation of the project would not generate any new trips. 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater for landscaping. 5 Solid Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 7 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

The data provided in Table F above shows that the proposed project would create 10.52 MTCO2e per year.

According to the SCAQMD’s threshold of significance, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on-going operations would exceed 3,000 MTCO 2e per year.

Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from development of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
The proposed project would not conflict with any a pplicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The applicable plan for the proposed project is the Redlands CAP that was prepared pursuant to Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines to be utilized as a tiering document for the General Plan as well as future projects within the City that are consistent with the General Plan. Since the proposed project is cons istent with the General Plan, the proposed project meets the criteria allowed for use of the Redlands CAP for analysis of the proposed project.

In addition, as detailed above, the proposed project is anticipated to create 10.52 MTCO 2e per year, which
is well below the SCAQMD threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO 2e per year. The SCAQMD developed this threshold in order to meet the State GHG em issions reduction regulatio ns that was based on substantial evidence supporting the use of the re commended thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
89 of 932

www.vistalb.com
Energy Consumption
Setting
Energy use, especially through fossil fuel consumption and combustion, relates directly to environmental quality since it can adversely affect air quality and generate GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Electrical power is generated through a variety of sources, including fossil fuel combustion, hydropower, wind, solar, biofuels, and others. Natural gas is widely used to heat buildings, prepare food in restaurants and residences, and fuel vehicles, among other uses. Fuel use for transportation is related to the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and public tr ansportation; choice of different travel modes such as auto, carpool, and public transit; and miles traveled by these modes and is generally based on petroleum- based fuels such as diesel and gasoline. Electric vehicles (EVs) may not have any direct emissions but do have indirect emissions via the source of electricity generated to power the vehicle. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure also consume energy.

In 2022, San Bernardino County consumed 16,630 Gigawatt-hours per year of electricity

2. The proposed
project would not include any appliances that would use natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project would not consume any natural gas.

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

In 2023 897 million gallons of gasoline and 267 million gallons of diesel was sold in San Bernardino County

3. Construction Impacts
Construction activities would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., site clearing, and grad ing), and the actual construction of the reservoir and pump station. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

The off-road construction equipment diesel fuel usage was calculated through use of the off-road equipment assumptions provided in the CalEEMod output files and CARB’s off-road equipment fuel use assumptions. The off-road equipment diesel fuel calculations are attached to this Memo, which found that off-road equipment would consume 23,935 gallons of diesel fuel.

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction (obtained from the CalEEMod output file attached to this Memo, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) average miles per gallon rates estimated in the AR B Emission Factors (EMFAC) mobile source emission

2 Obtained from: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 3 Obtained from: https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
90 of 932

www.vistalb.com
model attached to this Memo, which found on-road construction-related vehicle trips would consume 1,019 gallons of gasoline and 675 gallons of diesel fuel during construction of the proposed project.

Construction activities associated with the Project would be required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment and on-road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards.

As such, construction activities for the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant.

During construction the proposed project would consume electricity to construct the new reservoir and pump station. Electricity would be supplied to the proje ct site by Southern California Edison and would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the project site. The use of electricity from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators would minimize impacts on energy use. Electricity consumed during project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.

Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the proposed project would require limited electricity consumption that would not be expected to have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Operational Impacts
The on-going operation of the proposed project would require the use of electricity for running the pumps and control systems. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage (for landscape irrigation), solid waste disposal, and landscape equipment. Since regular maintenance will be completed by existing City employees that currently work at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, no new trips would be generated for maintenance of the project. As such, no natural gas will be consumed and no increase in petroleum fuel will occur from operation of the proposed project and operational energy use will be limited to electricity consumption.

The CalEEMod model calculated that operation of the proposed project would consume 6,500 kilowatt- hours per year of electricity. This equates to 0.00004 percent of the electricity consumed annually in San Bernardino County. As such, the operations-related electricity use would be nominal, when compared to current electricity usage rates in the County.

It should be noted that, the proposed project would incorporate PV solar panels to reduce electricity usage. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to minimize electricity use and that existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s electricity demand. Thus, the project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of electricity and no mitigation measures would be required.

Energy Plan Consistency
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable energy plan for the proposed project is the City of Redlands General

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
91 of 932

www.vistalb.com
Plan 2035, adopted December 5, 2017, that includes Section 8.1 Energy Efficiency and Conservation. The proposed project consists of development of a reservoir for recycled water and associated pump station for conveyance of the recycled water, which will reduce the amount of water that will need to be imported to the City and promotes conservation of water, through re-using waste water. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information with regard to the above analysis. I can be reached at (949) 510-5355, or email me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Greg Tonkovich, AICP
Senior Analyst
Vista Environmental
949 510 5355
Encl.: CalEEMod Model Printouts
Petroleum Fuel Consumption Calculations

ENVIRONMENTAL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
92 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 1 / 40
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
93 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 2 / 40

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
94 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 3 / 40

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
95 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 4 / 40

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
96 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 5 / 40

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
97 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 6 / 40

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
98 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 7 / 40

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Y ear 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 11.2
Location 34.089315123985656, -117.21706682087867
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Redlands
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5393
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
User Defined
Industrial

13.6 User Defined
Unit 2.20 13,559 9,587 — — —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
99 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 8 / 40
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

8.68 1000sqft 0.20 0.00 868 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.20 10.2 12.2 0.02 0.45 0.36 2,347 0.10 0.03 0.45 2,359 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12.9 12.9 14.6 0.03 2.55 1.45 2,811 0.11 0.03 0.02 2,821 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.78 6.60 7.87 0.02 0.33 0.25 1,513 0.06 0.02 0.13 1,521 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.14 1.20 1.44 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 251 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 252 Exceeds
(Daily Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Exceeds
(Aver
age
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
100 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 9 / 40

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.20 10.2 12.2 0.02 0.45 0.36 2,347 0.10 0.03 0.45 2,359 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.47 12.9 14.6 0.03 2.55 1.45 2,811 0.11 0.03 0.02 2,821 2027 12.9 5.80 8.96 0.01 0.43 0.26 1,430 0.05 0.02 0.02 1,436 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.78 6.60 7.87 0.02 0.33 0.25 1,513 0.06 0.02 0.13 1,521 2027 0.36 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.70 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.14 1.20 1.44 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 251 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 252 2027 0.07 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.61

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.42 < 0.005 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 13.2 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 10.8 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.39 < 0.005 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 12.5 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
101 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 10 / 40
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.07 < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 2.07 Exceeds
(Daily Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Exceeds
(Aver
age
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold — — — — — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — No

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.42 < 0.005 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.51 Water — — — — — — 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30
Waste — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.42 < 0.005 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 13.2 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
102 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 11 / 40
Area 0.33 — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.51 Water — — — — — — 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30
Waste — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 10.8 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.39 < 0.005 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.51 Water — — — — — — 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30
Waste — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.39 < 0.005 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 12.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.07 < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.57 Water — — — — — — 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22
Waste — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.07 < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 2.07

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
103 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 12 / 40
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 9.84 10.8 0.03 0.42 0.39 2,716 0.11 0.02 — 2,725
Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — 0.41 0.04 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.4 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.71 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.02 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 96.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
104 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 13 / 40
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 0.53 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463
Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — 1.84 0.89 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.21 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 40.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.5 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — 0.03 0.01 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.70 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
105 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 14 / 40
—————< 0.0050.01————Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.03 127 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 128 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.18 10.1 11.8 0.02 0.36 0.33 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
106 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 15 / 40
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.18 10.1 11.8 0.02 0.36 0.33 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.71 6.09 7.09 0.01 0.22 0.20 1,327 0.05 0.01 — 1,331
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 1.11 1.29 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 220 0.01 < 0.005 — 220 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.41 0.00 0.07 0.02 78.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 79.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 67.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 70.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.02 72.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 73.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 67.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 70.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.01 44.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 44.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 40.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 42.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 7.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.39 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.06 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
107 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 16 / 40
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.67 5.88 8.19 0.01 0.25 0.23 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248
Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.15 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 31.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.7 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.26 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.82 0.00 0.20 0.05 190 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 192 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
108 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 17 / 40
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.96 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.65 5.74 8.20 0.01 0.23 0.21 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248
Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.89 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.81 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
109 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 18 / 40
Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.76 0.00 0.20 0.05 186 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 188 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
110 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 19 / 40
——————————12.8Architectural
Coatings
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architectural
Coatings

0.35 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architectural
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
111 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 20 / 40

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 9.47 < 0.005 <

0.005 — 9.51
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 9.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.51
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 9.47 < 0.005 <

0.005 — 9.51
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 9.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.51
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 1.57 < 0.005 <

0.005 — 1.57
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.57
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
112 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 21 / 40

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
113 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 22 / 40
Consumer
Products

0.29 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.04 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.10 < 0.005 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 Total 0.42 < 0.005 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Consumer
Products

0.29 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.04 — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.33 — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Consumer
Products

0.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 Total 0.07 < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 1.19 < 0.005 <

0.005 — 1.20
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
114 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 23 / 40
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11
Total — — — — — — 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 1.19 < 0.005 <

0.005 — 1.20
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.11 < 0.005 <

0.005 — 0.11
Total — — — — — — 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.20 < 0.005 <

0.005 — 0.20
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.02 < 0.005 <

0.005 — 0.02
Total — — — — — — 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
115 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 24 / 40

0.00—0.000.000.00——————User Defined
Industrial
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
116 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 25 / 40
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TPM2.5TPM10TSO2CONOxROGEquipment
Type
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
117 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 26 / 40
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TPM2.5TPM10TSO2CONOxROGEquipment
Type
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
118 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 27 / 40
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
119 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 28 / 40
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2026 2/3/2026 5.00 3.00 — Grading Grading 2/4/2026 2/12/2026 5.00 6.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/13/2026 12/18/2026 5.00 220 — Paving Paving 12/19/2026 1/2/2027 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/3/2027 1/17/2027 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
120 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 29 / 40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Av erage 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
121 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 30 / 40
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 5.69 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 2.22 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 1.14 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 20,339 6,780 521

5.6. Dust Mitigation
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
122 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 31 / 40

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 4.50 0.00 —
Grading — — 6.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.20 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
123 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 32 / 40

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 20,339 6,780 521

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) User Defined Industrial 6,500 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) User Defined Industrial 0.00 153,959
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
124 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 33 / 40
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 13,939

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
User Defined Industrial 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
125 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 34 / 40

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions
will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.20 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
126 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 35 / 40
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 6.46 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received o
ver a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation
location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate,
vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted
Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
127 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 36 / 40
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate
Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 100
AQ-PM 57.4
AQ-DPM 82.8
Drinking Water 96.3
Lead Risk Housing 29.2
Pesticides 74.7
Toxic Releases 44.2
Traffic 81.0
Effect Indicators —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
128 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 37 / 40
CleanUp Sites 81.9
Groundwater 47.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.8
Impaired Water Bodies 12.5
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 34.7
Cardio-vascular 45.1
Low Birth Weights 75.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 39.2
Housing 89.1
Linguistic 17.3
Poverty 55.9
Unemployment 14.4

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 37.76466059
Employed 27.51186963
Median HI 26.53663544
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 60.5800077
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 11.52316181
Transportation —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
129 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 38 / 40
Auto Access 62.47914795
Active commuting 28.56409598
Social —
2-parent households 37.02040293
Voting 39.83061722
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 30.07827538
Park access 50.53252919
Retail density 65.94379571
Supermarket access 72.28281791
Tree canopy 43.62889773
Housing —
Homeownership 9.303220839
Housing habitability 37.12305916
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.38637239 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 66.31592455
Uncrowded housing 31.19466188
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 48.58206082
Arthritis 92.2
Asthma ER Admissions 65.8
High Blood Pressure 95.2
Cancer (excluding skin) 82.6
Asthma 30.0
Coronary Heart Disease 94.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 71.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 92.6
Life Expectancy at Birth 79.7
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
130 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 39 / 40
Cognitively Disabled 52.2
Physically Disabled 60.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 32.7
Mental Health Not Good 41.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 95.6
Obesity 56.2
Pedestrian Injuries 53.3
Physical Health Not Good 67.2
Stroke 91.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 13.6
Current Smoker 36.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 67.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 7.3
Elderly 81.9
English Speaking 84.0
Foreign-born 37.0
Outdoor Workers 85.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 69.4
Traffic Density 74.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 54.2
Other Decision Support —
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
131 of 932
Recycled Water Reservoir & Pump Station Detailed Report, 3/18/2025 40 / 40
2016 Voting 58.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 72.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 32.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total area disturbed 2.4 acres. 10% of area landscaped.

Construction: Construction Phases No demolition required Operations: Energy Use Electric water pumps would utilize an average of 1,100 kWh/MG. Based on drain reservoir twice per y
ear would use 6,500 kWh per year
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
132 of 932
Petroleum Fuel Usage Calculations
Construction-Related Petroleum Fuels
The off-road construction equipment fuel usag e was calculated through use of the off-road equipment assumptions utilized in the CalEEMod model run provided in Appendix A and the fuel usage calculations provided in the 2017 Off-road Diesel Emission Factors spreadsheet, prepared by CARB. The Spreadsheet provides the following formula to calculate fuel usage from off-road equipment:

Fuel Used = Load Factor x Horsepower x Total Operational Hours x BSFC / Unit Conversion Where:

Load Factor - Obtained from CalEEMod default values
Horsepower – Obtained from CalEEMod default values
Total Operational Hours – Calculated by mult iplying CalEEMod default daily hours by the estimated number of working days for each phase of construction BSFC – Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (po unds per horsepower-hour) – If less than 100 Horsepower = 0.408, if greater than 100 Horsepower = 0.367 Unit Conversion – Converts pounds to gallons = 7.109
The Following Table shows the off-road construction equipment fuel calculations based on the above formula, which shows that the off-road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed project would consume 23,935 gallons of diesel fuel.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
133 of 932
Off-Road Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Fuel Used Equipment Type Equipment
Quantity
Horse-
Power Load
Factor
Operating
Hours Per
Day
Total
Operational
Hours1
Fuel
Used
(gallons)
Site Preparation
Grader 1 148 0.41 8 24 75
Scraper 1 423 0.48 8 24 252
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 0.37 8 24 43
Grading
Grader 1 148 0.41 8 48 150
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 367 0.4 8 48 364
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 84 0.37 7 84 150
Building Construction
Crane 1 367 0.29 8 1,760 9,670
Forklifts 2 82 0.2 7 3,080 2,889
Generator Set 1 14 0.74 8 1,760 1,046
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 0.37 6 1,320 2,355
Welders 3 46 0.45 8 5,280 6,273
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 10 0.56 8 80 26
Paver 1 81 0.42 8 80 156
Paving Equipment 1 89 0.36 8 80 147
Rollers 2 36 0.38 8 160 126
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 0.37 8 80 143
Architectural Coatings
Air Compressor 1 37 0.48 6 60 61
Total Off-Road Equipment Diesel Fuel used during Construction (gallons) 23,935 Notes:
1 Based on: 3 days for Site Preparation, 6 days for Grading , 220 days for Building Construction, 10 days for Paving, and 10 days for Architectural Coatings.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1, CARB, 2017.

The on-road construction-related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the default construction vehicle trip assumptions from the CalEEMod model run. The calculated total construction miles were then divided by the fleet average for the South Coast Air Basin portion of San Bernardino County miles per gallon rates for the year 2026 that were calculated through use of the EMFAC2021 model and the EMFAC2021 model printouts are attached. The worker trips were based on the combined fleet average miles per gallon rates for gasoline powered automobiles, SUVs and pickup trucks and the vendor and haul truck trips were based on the combined T4, T5, T6 and T7 diesel trucks fleet average miles per gallon rate. The following Table shows the on-road construction vehicle trips modeled in CalEEMod and the fuel usage calculations, which shows that the on-road cons truction-related vehicle trips would consume I I I
I I I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
134 of 932
1,019 gallons of gasoline and 675 gallons of diesel fuel during construction of the proposed project.

On-Road Construction Vehicle Trips Modeled in CalEEMod and Fuel Used Vehicle Trip Types / Fuel Type Daily
Trips
Trip
Length
(miles)
Total per
Day
(miles)
Total per
Phase
(miles)
Fleet Average
Miles per
Gallon
Fuel
Used
(gallons)
Site Preparation
Worker (Gasoline) 7.5 18.5 139 416 27.2 15
Grading
Worker (Gasoline) 10 18.5 185 1,110 27.2 41
Building Construction
Worker (Gasoline) 5.69 18.5 105 23,158 27.2 853
Vendor (Diesel) 2.22 10.2 23 4,982 7.4 675
Paving
Worker (Gasoline) 15 18.5 278 2,775 27.2 102
Architectural Coatings
Worker (Gasoline) 1.14 18.5 21 211 27.2 8
Total Gasoline Fuel Used from On-Road Construction Trips (gallons) 1,019 Total Diesel Fuel Used from On-Road Construction Trips (gallons) 675 Notes:
1 Based on 3 days for Site Preparation, 6 days for Grading , 220 days for Building Construction, 10 days for Paving, and 10 days for Architectural Coatings.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1, CARB, 2017.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
135 of 932
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: San Bernardino (SC)
Calendar Year: 2026
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC202x Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar
Y Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT Trips Fuel Consumption San Bernardino (SC) 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 456255 19874166 2117601 641.5 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 39064 1360018 169062 53.4 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 202613 8343535 949149 327.3 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 20884 122976 41769 2.9 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 147189 5833278 673333 282.9 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Delive
r Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 650 21918 9271 2.5
San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Delive r Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 785 26665 11205 3.0 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Delive r Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3132 105877 44697 11.9 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Delive r Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 571 30842 8143 3.4 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Other CAggregate Aggregate Diesel 1202 49842 13893 5.6 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Other CAggregate Aggregate Diesel 3114 133523 36000 15.0 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Other CAggregate Aggregate Diesel 2699 114244 31199 12.8 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Other CAggregate Aggregate Diesel 1591 73936 18391 8.1 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Tracto rAggregate Aggregate Diesel 25 1292 290 0.1 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T6 Instate Tracto rAggregate Aggregate Diesel 888 51794 10263 5.4 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T7 Single Concret Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 387 26532 3643 4.3 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T7 Single Dump C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 739 40939 6965 6.9 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T7 SWCV Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 380 24667 1748 9.0 San Bernardino (SC) 2026 T7 Tractor Class 8Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4051 296087 58863 47.3 Worker (Autos) vehicle miles per day 35,533,973 1,308 1,000 gall per day Workers (Autos) Avg Miles per gallon 27.2 1,308,072 gallons per day Diesel Truck vehicle miles per day 998,157 135 1,000 gall per day Diesel Truck Fleet Avg Miles per gallon 7.4 135,180 gallons per day Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
136 of 932

APPENDIX B – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
137 of 932

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
NEW 2.75 MG TANK AND PUMP STATION

AT THE REDLANDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California

CONVERSE PROJECT NO. 21-81-276-01
Prepared For:

CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.
707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 3920
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Presented By:

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
2021 Rancho Drive, Suite 1
Redlands, CA 92373
909-796-0544
August 23, 2023

Converse Consu ltants
Geotechmca l Engmeenng
Env1ronmental & Groundwater Science
Inspection & Testing Serv ices
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
138 of 932

August 23, 2023

Mr. Miko Aivazian, PE

Principal infrastructure Engineer
Vice President
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3920
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
Converse Project No. 21-81-276-01

Dear Mr. Aivazian:

Converse Consultants (Converse) has prepared this Ge otechnical Investigation Report to assist with the design and construction of the proposed new 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located 1950 Nevada Street, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California. This report was prepared in accordance with our second revised proposal dated November 29, 2022, and your Agreement for Professional Services dated November 30, 2022.

Based upon our field investigation, laboratory data, and analyses, the project site is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and development of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Carollo Engineers, Inc. and the City of Redlands. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at 909-474-2847.

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS

Hashmi S. E. Quazi, PhD, PE, GE
Principal Engineer

Dist.: 1 /Addressee (email)
SR/SM/RLG/HSQ/kvg

J2 __
- --2!!--­~ --
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
139 of 932
PRO

FESSIONAL CERTIFICATION

This
report has been prepared by the individuals whose seals and signatures appear hereon.

The findings, recommendations, specifications or professional opinions contained in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice in this area of Southern California. There is no warranty, either expressed or implied.

Sk Syfur Rahman, PhD, EIT Stephen McPherson
Senior Engineer Staff Geologist

Robert L. Gregorek II, PG, CEG Hashmi S. E. Quazi, PhD, PE, GE Senior Geologist Principal Engineer

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
140 of 932
T

ABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 I
NTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 1

4.0 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................... 2

4.1 Document Review ............................................................................................... 3

4.2 Project Set-up ...................................................................................................... 3

4.3 Subsurface Exploration ...................................................................................... 3

4.4 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................. 4

4.5 Analysis and Report Preparation ...................................................................... 4

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 4

5.1 Subsurface Profile .............................................................................................. 4

5.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 4

5.3 Expansive Soils ................................................................................................... 6

5.4 Collapse Potential ............................................................................................... 6

5.5 Excavatability ...................................................................................................... 7

5.6 Subsurface Variations ........................................................................................ 7

6.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING .......................................................................................... 7

6.1 Regional Geology .............................................................................................. 7

6.2 Local Geology .................................................................................................... 8

6.3 Flooding .............................................................................................................. 8

7.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................. 8

7.1 Faulting................................................................................................................. 8

7.2 Seismic Hazard Analysis ................................................................................. 10

7.3 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity ............................................................ 11

8.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ...................................................................... 12

8.1 Physical Testing ................................................................................................ 12

8.2 Chemical Testing - Corrosivity Evaluation ..................................................... 13

9.0 EARTHWORK/SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 14

9.1 General............................................................................................................... 14

9.2 Remedial Grading ............................................................................................. 14

9.3 Structural Fills .................................................................................................... 15

9.4 Shrinkage and Subsidence .............................................................................. 16

10.0 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL ........................................................................... 17

10.1 Pipe Sub-grade Preparation ............................................................................ 17

10.2 Pipe Bedding ..................................................................................................... 17

10.3 Trench Zone Backfill ......................................................................................... 18 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
141 of 932

11. 0 DESIGN A ND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 19

11.1 General Evaluation ........................................................................................... 19

11.2 Foundation Type and Bearing Pressures ...................................................... 19

11.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance to Lateral Loads .......................... 20

11.4 Settlement .......................................................................................................... 21

11.5 Temporary Sloped Excavations ...................................................................... 21

11.6 Shoring Design .................................................................................................. 22

11.7 Soil Corrosivity .................................................................................................. 25

11.8 Pavement Design and Construction ............................................................... 26

12.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION ............................... 26

13.0 CLOSURE .......................................................................................................... 27

14.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 28

FIGURES
Following Page No.

Figure No. 1, Approximate Project Location Map ........................................................... 1 Figure No. 2, Approximate Boring Locations Map ................................................................ 3 Figure No. 3, Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Braced Excavation ......................... 23 Figure No. 4, Lateral Earth Pressures on Temporary Cantilever Wall ................................ 24

TABLES
Page No.

Table No. 1, Summary of the Borings ............................................................................. 3 Table No. 2, Summary of USGS Groundwater Depth Data ............................................. 5 Table No. 3, Collapse Potential Values ........................................................................... 6 Table No. 4, Summary of Regional Faults ....................................................................... 8 Table No. 5, 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters .................................................... 10 Table No. 6, Recommended Site-Specific Seismic Acceleration Parameters ............... 11 Table No. 7, Equivalent Fluid Pressure ......................................................................... 20 Table No. 8, Slope Ratios for Temporary Excavations .................................................. 22 Table No. 9, Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring ....................................... 23 Table No. 10, Correlation Between Resistivity and Corrosion ....................................... 25 Table No. 11, Preliminary Pavement Sections .............................................................. 26

APPENDICES
Appendix A ............................................................................................ Field Exploration Appendix B .......................................................................... Laboratory Testing Program Appendix C ............................................................ Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis Appendix D ....................................................................... Site-Specific Seismic Analysis

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
142 of 932

1. 0 INTRODUCTION

This
report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed new 2.75 MG Prestressed Concrete Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located 1950 Nevada Street City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California. The approximate location of the project is shown on Figure No. 1, Approximate Project Location Map.

The purpose of this report is to provide seismic and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of proposed recycled water reservoir, pump station and other improvements.

This report is prepared for the project described herein and is intended for use solely by Carollo Engineers, Inc., City of Redlands, and its authorized agents for site evaluation purposes. It should not be used as a bidding document but may be made available to the potential contractors for information on factual data only. For bidding purposes, the contractors should be responsible for making their own interpretation of the data contained in this report.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed 2.75 MG reservoir and pump station will be located at the southeast corner of Mills Street and Nevada Street within the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility.

The prestressed concrete reservoir information is presented below.

 The reservoir diameter is 125.0 feet and water depth is 30.0 feet.  The reservoir will have a domed roof.
 The reservoir pad will be partially buried below grade.  The reservoir will be partially buried about 15 feet below the existing ground surface.
 The reservoir bottom will be a reinforced concrete pad and the roof (dome) will be supported by the reservoir wall. The reservoir wall will have continuous footings.

The pump station will be situated east of the reservoir. The size of the pump station is not known at this time. We anticipate it will be on a 40’ x 20’ concrete pad.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The project site is located approximately 1.6 miles north of the Interstate 10 (I -10) Freeway at 1950 Nevada Street, Redlands, California. The site is developed with different types of facilities and structures associated with the existing treatment plant.

After reviewing historical aerial photos (Framefinder - UCSB Library), the site is located atop an approximately 20 feet high river terrace that overlook s the main wastewater Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
143 of 932
Converse Consultants
Project No.

Figure No.
21-81-276-01Approximate Project Location Map
1 For:

Project:

Location:

Approximate Project Location
(Not to Scale)
Carollo Engineers, Inc.

New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
(J
re
Center
santa ,t,.na River
1,11\IS\
1,1111 St
~
-3
~ z
•
1\1\1\:·
1,1·11 St I
f Redlands wastewate r
Treatment Facility
:
,,.
ii,
er ..
~
!/2
Santa Ana River
Distribution Center Y
River Bluff Ave River Bluff Ave
ettoAve
Alta warehousing ft
& Logistics T
Core Healt h & ft
Fitness Redlands ... T
Palmetto Ave
Rockportq
Performance ft
Team · Redlands T
Palmetto Ave
MCS INDUSTRIESq
Palmetto In Redlandsf
Palmetto Ave Palmetto Ave Palmetto Ave
Burlington Coat ft
Factory WAREHOUSE T
Kuehne+ Nage l Inc q
erceft
nterT
Gbgq M Block & Sons q Pioneer Ave
Prime-line Products
OHL supply chain/ EXEL
q 9
Pioneer Ave
OHL Continental Tiresq
Google
LGB4 guardshack
Pioneer Ave ODW Logistics q q ,,.
ii,
g
3 .,
!/2
WO
Prologisq
Hodges Stadium 9
Warehouse
ft J~mporarily dos~d
T Amazon train·ng ft
~• T W Pioneer A
~
~
Map data ©2023 United Sta,es Terms Privacy
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
144 of 932
t
reatment plant that is situated to the north of the proposed 2.75 MG Tank . The site was formerly used for agriculture.

The approximately 1.0-acre site for the 2. 75 MG Prestressed Concrete Tank is located approximately 200 feet southeast of the main gate of the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Tank site is bounded to the east by sludge beds, to the south by a vacant lot, to the west by Nevada Street, and to the north by Wastewater Road.

Photographs Nos. 1 & 2 presents the general site conditions.

Photograph No. 1: Present site condition view to north looking over BH-03 (stake in foreground).

Photograph No. 2: Present site condition view to southwest from BH-05.

4.0 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of this investigation includes the following tasks presented below.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
145 of 932

4. 1 Document Review

We
reviewed the following available documents.

 Regional and local geology literature and maps.
 Flood hazards maps.
 Aerial photos.
 Faulting and seismicity, and any other documents that pertain to the site or the vicinity.
 Groundwater data.

4.2 Project Set-up

The project set-up consisted of the following tasks.

 Received a boring location exhibit via email on January 3, 2023, from Miko Aivazian, PE, Principal Infrastructure Engineer for Carollo Engineers, Inc.  Conducted site reconnaissance and marked the borings at locations designated by Miko Aivazian with Carollo Engineers, Inc.
 Notified Underground Service Alert (USA) at least 48 hours prior to drilling to clear the boring locations of any conflict with existing underground utilities.  Engaged a California-licensed driller to drill exploratory borings.

4.3 Subsurface Exploration

Five exploratory borings (BH-01 through BH-05) were drilled on January 20, 2023, within the footprint of the proposed improvements to investigate the subsurface conditions. The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow- stem augers. The boring details are presented in the following table.

Table No. 1, Summary of the Borings
Boring
No.

Boring Depth (ft, bgs) Groundwater
Depth (ft, bgs) Date Completed
Proposed Completed
BH-01 30.0 31.5 N/E 1/20/2023
BH-02 30.0 31.5 N/E 1/20/2023
BH-03 30.0 31.5 N/E 1/20/2023
BH-04 30.0 31.5 N/E 1/20/2023
BH-05 60.0 61.5 N/E 1/20/2023

The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure Nos. 2, Approximate Boring Locations Map. A detailed discussion of the subsurface exploration is presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
146 of 932
Converse Consultants
Project No.

Figure No.
21-81-276-01
Approximate Boring Locations Map
2 For:

Project:

Location:

Number/Depth and Approximate Location of
Exploratory Boring
150'
Carollo Engineers, Inc.

New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
0'
BH-05/61.5'
BH-01/31.5'
BH-03/31.5'
BH-02/31.5' BH-04/31.5'
BH-05/61.5'
0 •
Legend
.____IS ,
__ 1~
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
147 of 932

4.4 Laborator y Testing

Representative soil samples obtained from the soil borings were tested in our laboratory to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. Laboratory testing included the following.

 In-situ moisture content and dry unit weight (ASTM Standard D2216)  Expansion index (ASTM Standard D4829)
 R-value (California Test 301)
 Soil corrosivity tests (California Test 643, 422, 417, and 532)  Collapse potential (ASTM Standard D4546)
 Grain size analysis (ASTM Standard C136)
 Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content (ASTM Standard D1557)  Direct shear (ASTM D3080)
 Consolidation (ASTM D2435)

For a description of the laboratory test methods and test results, see Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program.

4.5 Analysis and Report Preparation

Data obtained from the field exploration and laboratory testing program was assembled and evaluated. Geotechnical analyses of the compiled data were performed, followed by the preparation of this report to present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed project.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

A general description of the subsurface conditions, various materials and groundwater conditions encountered at the site during our field exploration is discussed below.

5.1 Subsurface Profile

Based on the exploratory borings and laboratory test results, the subsurface materials primarily consist generally of a mixture of sand, silt, and clay. Scattered gravel up to about 1 inch in the largest dimension was encountered in boring BH-05 at 42.0 feet bgs.

Discernible fill soils were not identified in our subsurface exploration. For a detailed description of the subsurface materials encountered in the exploratory borings, see Drawings No. A-2 through A-6, Logs of Borings, in Appendix A-1, Field Exploration.

5.2 Groundwater

No Groundwater was encountered in the borings up to an explored depth of 61.5 feet bgs.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
148 of 932
For
comparison, regional groundwater data from the GeoTracker database (SWRCB, 2023) was
reviewed to evaluate the current and historical groundwater levels. No site with groundwater data were identified within a 1.0-mile radius of the project site.

The National Water Information System (USGS, 2023) was reviewed for current and historical groundwater data from sites within an approximately 1.0- mile radius of the proposed development and the results of that search are included below.

Table No. 2, Summary of USGS Groundwater Depth Data
Site No. Location
Groundwater
Depth Range
(ft. bgs)
Date Range
340519117130301 Approx. 15 feet NW of intersection of
Nevada St. and Pine Ave. 167-209 2003-2009
340527117130601 Approx. 600 feet NW of Nevada St. 168 2003 340506117122901 Approx. 50 feet NW of intersection of
Palmetto Ave. and Alabama St. 49-205 1931-2005

The California Department of Water Resources database (DWR, 2023) was reviewed for historical groundwater data from sites within a 1.0-mile radius of the project site. One site was identified within a 1.0- mile radius of the project site that contained groundwater elevation data. Details of that record are listed below.

 Well No. 01S03W17C005S (Station 340886N1172175W001), located approximately 600 feet southwest of the project site, reported groundwater at a depth ranging from 167.53 to 208.7 feet bgs between 2005 and 2008.  Well No. 01S03W09E002S (Station 341014N1172084W001), located approximately 5,200 feet northeast of the project site, reported groundwater at a depth ranging from 51.9 to 231.2 feet bgs between 1955 and 2008.  Well No. 01S03W17H001S (Station 340850N1172098W001), located approximately 600 feet southwest of the project site, reported groundwater at a depth ranging from 49.3 to 204.5.7 feet bgs between 1931 and 2005.

Based on available data, the historical high groundwater level reported at wells within approximately one mile of the site was approximately 49 feet bgs . Current groundwater is expected to be deeper than approximately 61.5 feet bgs. Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during excavation or construction. Please note that although the Santa Ana River is located approximately 1,000 feet from the project site, The project site is situated on top of a river terrace approximately 44 feet higher than the Santa Ana River bottom. Therefore, groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor during the excavation or construction of the 2.75 MG tank. It should be noted that the groundwater level could vary depending upon the seasonal precipitation and possible groundwater pumping activity in the site vicinity. Shallow perched groundwater may be present locally, particularly following precipitation.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
149 of 932

5. 3 Expansive Soils

Ex
pansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade. Depending on the extent and location below finish subgrade, expansive soils can have a detrimental effect on structures.

Based on the laboratory test results, the expansion indices (EI) of the upper 20 feet of site soils ranged between 0 to 7, corresponding to very low expansion potentials.

5.4 Collapse Potential

Soil deposits subjected to collapse/hydro- consolidation generally exist in regions of moisture deficiency. Collapsible soils are generally defined as soils that have potential to suddenly decrease in volume upon an increase in moisture content even without an increase in external loads. Moreover, some soils may have a different degree of collapse/hydro-consolidation based on the amount of proposed fill or structure loads.

Soils susceptible to collapse/hydro- consolidation include wind- blown silt, weakly cemented sand, and silt where the cementing agent is soluble (e.g., soluble gypsum, halite), alluvial or colluvial deposits within semi‐arid to arid climate, and certain weathered bedrock above the groundwater table.

Granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting in arid climate regions.

Collapse/hydro-consolidation may occur when the soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil matrix dissolve, causing the soil to densify from its loose/low density configuration from deposition.

The degree of collapse of a soil can be defined by the collapse potential value, which is expressed as a percent of collapse of the total sample using the Collapse Potential Test (ASTM D4546). According to the ASTM guideline, the severity of collapse potential is commonly evaluated by the following Table No. 3, Collapse Potential Values.

Table No. 3, Collapse Potential Values
Collapse Potential Value (%) Severity of Problem
0 None

0.1 to 2 Slight

2.1 to 6.0 Moderate

6.0 to 10.0 Moderately Severe
>10 Severe

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
150 of 932
B
ased on the results of the laboratory test performed on undisturbed ring samples (col
lapse potential of 0 to 0.6 percent), none to slight collapse potential is anticipated at the site. Collapse potential distress is typically considered a concern when col lapse potential is over 2% (LA County, 2013).

5.5 Excavatability

The subsurface materials of the project are expected to be excavatable by conventional heavy-duty earth moving equipment.

The phrase “conventional heavy -duty excavation equipment” is intended to include commonly used equipment such as excavators, scrapers, and trenching machines. It does not include hydraulic hammers (“breakers”), jackhammers, blasting, or other specialized equipment and techniques used to excavate hard earth materials. Selection of an appropriate excavation equipment models should be done by an experienced earthwork contractor.

5.6 Subsurface Variations

Based on results of the subsurface exploration and our experience, some variations in the continuity and nature of subsurface soil conditions within the project site should be anticipated. Because of the uncertainties involved in the nature and depositional characteristics of the earth material, care should be exercised in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond the boring locations.

6.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING

6.1 Regional Geology

The project site is located within the San Bernardino Valley, in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California, near the boundary with the adjacent Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province consists of a series of northwest -trending mountain ranges and valleys bounded on the north by the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains, on the west by the Los Angeles Basin, and on the southwest by the Pacific Ocean.

The province is a seismically active region characterized by a series of northwest-trending strike-slip faults. The most prominent of the nearby fault zones include the San Jacinto, Cucamonga, and San Andreas Fault Zones, all of which have been known to be active during Quaternary time.

Topography within the province is generally characterized by broad alluvial valleys separated by linear mountain ranges. This northwest-trending linear fabric is created by the regional faulting within the granitic basement rock of the Southern California Batholith.

Broad, linear, alluvial valleys have been formed by erosion of these principally granitic mountain ranges.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
151 of 932

6. 2 Local Geo logy

The project site is underlain by early to late Holocene-aged alluvial deposits of valley areas and stream channels. The alluvial deposits primarily consist of sand, gravel and clay deposits derived from adjacent mountains and stream channels (Dibblee and Minch, 2008.

The project site is located approximately 200 feet south of the Santa Ana River channel.

Where encountered during our investigation, the alluvium consisted primarily of silt, sand, gravel and cobbles.

6.3 Flooding

Review of National Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicates that the project si te is within a Flood Hazard Zone "X". The Zone “X” is designated as an area of minimal flood hazard and as an area with 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard (FEMA 2008). According to FEMA 2008, flood plain elevation of the site is approximately 1158.37 feet.

7.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

The approximate distance and seismic characteristics of nearby faults as well as seismic design coefficients are presented in the following subsections.

7.1 Faulting

The proposed site is situated in a seismically active region. As is the case for most areas of Southern California, ground- shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with nearby and more distant faults may occur at the project site. During the life of the project, seismic activity associated with active faults can be expected to generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. Review of recent seismological and geophysical publications indicates that the seismic hazard for the project is high.

The project site is not located within a currently mapped State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture (CGS, 2007). Table No. 4 , Summary of Regional Faults, summarizes selected data of known faults capable of seismic activity within 31 miles (100 kilometers) of the site. The data presented below was calculated using the National Seismic Hazard Maps Database (USGS, 2008) and other published geologic data.

Table No. 4, Summary of Regional Faults
Fault Name
and Section
Closest
Distance (km) Slip Sense Length
(km)
Slip Rate
(mm/year)
Maximum
Magnitude
S. San Andreas 5.98 strike slip 548 n/a 8.18
San Jacinto 6.69 strike slip 241 n/a 7.88
Cleghorn 20.96 strike slip 25 3.0 6.80
Cucamonga 23.16 thrust 28 5.0 6.70
North Frontal (West) 25.79 reverse 50 1.0 7.20

I I I I I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
152 of 932
Fault Name
and Section
Closest
Distance (km) Slip Sense Length
(km)
Slip Rate
(mm/year)
Maximum
Magnitude
Elsinore 43.33 strike slip 241 n/a 7.85
Chino, alt 2 43.64 strike slip 29 1.0 6.80
San Jose 43.85 strike slip 20 0.5 6.70
Chino, alt 1 43.94 strike slip 24 1.0 6.70
Helendale-So Lockhart 45.28 strike slip 114 0.6 7.40
Pinto Mtn 45.89 strike slip 74 2.5 7.30
North Frontal (East) 47.2 thrust 27 0.5 7.00
Sierra Madre Connected 48.52 reverse 76 2.0 7.30
Sierra Madre 48.52 reverse 57 2.0 7.20
Lenwood-Lockhart-Old
Woman Springs 60.21 strike slip 145 0.9 7.50
Clamshell-Sawpit 60.46 reverse 16 0.5 6.70
Puente Hills (Coyote
Hills) 63.82 thrust 17 0.7 6.90
Johnson Valley (No) 68.41 strike slip 35 0.6 6.90
San Joaquin Hills 68.68 thrust 27 0.5 7.10
Raymond 71.89 strike slip 22 1.5 6.80
Landers 72.82 strike slip 95 0.6 7.40
Burnt Mtn 74.2 strike slip 21 0.6 6.80
Eureka Peak 75.87 strike slip 19 0.6 6.70
Puente Hills (Santa Fe
Springs) 76.12 thrust 11 0.7 6.70
So Emerson-Copper Mtn 79.02 strike slip 54 0.6 7.10
Elysian Park (Upper) 81.62 reverse 20 1.3 6.70
Newport Inglewood
Connected alt 1 84.04 strike slip 208 1.3 7.50
Newport-Inglewood
(Offshore) 84.04 strike slip 66 1.5 7.00
Newport Inglewood
Connected alt 2 84.04 strike slip 208 1.3 7.50
Newport-Inglewood, alt 1 84.88 strike slip 65 1.0 7.20
Puente Hills (LA) 85.1 thrust 22 0.7 7.00
Verdugo 86.65 reverse 29 0.5 6.90
Calico-Hidalgo 88.82 strike slip 117 1.8 7.40
Gravel Hills-Harper Lk 91.12 strike slip 65 0.7 7.10
Hollywood 93.65 strike slip 17 1.0 6.70
Pisgah-Bullion Mtn-
Mesquite Lk 96.71 strike slip 88 0.8 7.30
Santa Monica Connected
alt 2 98.6 strike slip 93 2.4 7.40
(Source: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/)

I I I I I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
153 of 932

7.2 Seismic Hazard Analysis

Sei
smic hazard analysis is presented in the following sections.

7.2.1 Mapped Seismic Design Parameters

Seismic parameters based on the 2022 California Building Code (CBSC, 2022) and ASCE 7-16 are provided in the following table. These parameters were determined using the generalized coordinates (34.0888N, 117.2167W) and the Seismic Design Maps ATC online tool.

Table No. 5, 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Parameters
Site Coordinates 34.0888N,
117.2167W
Site Class D*
Risk Category III
Mapped Short period (0.2-sec) Spectral Response Acceleration, SS 2.028g Mapped 1-second Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 0.773g Site Coefficient (site class D), Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient (site class D), Fv 2.5
MCE 0.2-sec period Spectral Response Acceleration, SMS 2.028g MCE 1-second period Spectral Response Acceleration, SM1 1.933g Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period SDS 1.352g Design Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-second period, SD1 1.288g Site Modified Maximum Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.787g Long-period transition period (s), TL 8
*D,Stiff Soil

Site Class D was selected based on the estimated average shear wave velocity of the site in the upper 30 meters (100 feet), V
s30 of 267 meters/second. Vs30 was calculated
using the SPTPROP software (InfraGEO, 2020) based on the correlation with SPT blow counts by Brandenberg, Bellana and Shantz (2010). Extrapolation of estimated shear wave velocities from 50- ft depth to 100- ft depth was performed using the method proposed by Boore (2004). SPTPROP analysis results are attached in Appendix D, Plate No. D-1.

7.2.2 Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters

To develop site-specific seismic design parameters, ground motion study was performed in accordance with the 2022 CBC and ASCE 7- 16 design guidelines. The methodology and results of this study are presented in Appendix D, Site -Specific Seismic Analysis .

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
154 of 932
B
ased on the results of this study, site- spec ific seismic acceleration parameters were developed and summarized in the table below.

Table No. 6, Recommended Site-Specific Seismic Acceleration Parameters Seismic Parameters Values
MCE 0.2-sec period Spectral Response Acceleration, SMs 2.459g MCE 1-second period Spectral Response Acceleration, SM1 1.983g Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SDs 1.639g Design Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-second period, SD1 1.322g Site-Specific Maximum Peak Ground Acceleration, MCEG PGAM 0.834g

7.3 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity

In addition to ground shaking, effects of seismic activity on a project site may include surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, seismic settlement, tsunamis, seiches and earthquake-induced flooding. Results of a site-specific evaluation of each of the above secondary effects are explained below:

Surface Fault Rupture: The project site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake or San Bernardino county Fault Zone (CGS, 2007, SBC, 2010b).

Based on review of existing geologic information, no major surface fault crosses through or extends toward the site. The potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of a presently unrecognized fault beneath the site is not known with certainty but is considered very low.

Liquefaction: Liquefaction is defined as the phenomenon in a soil mass, because of the development of excess pore pressures, soil mass suffers a substantial reduction in its shear strength. During earthquakes, excess pore pressures in saturated soil deposits may develop as a result of induced cyclic shear stresses, resulting in liquefaction. Soil liquefaction occurs in submerged granular soils during or after strong ground shaking. There are several requirements for liquefaction to occur. They are as follows.

 Soils must be submerged.
 Soils must be primarily granular.
 Soils must be contractive, that is, loose to medium-dense.  Ground motion must be intense.
 Duration of shaking must be sufficient for the soils to lose shear resistance.

The site is located within an area designated for high liquefaction potential (San Bernardino County, 2010b). Based on a site- specific liquefaction analysis presented in Appendix C, Liquefaction and Settlement Analyses , the potential for liquefaction of th e site is expected to be negligible.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
155 of 932
S
eismic Settlement: Dyn amic dry settlement may occur in loose, granular, unsaturated soils during a large seismic event. Based on a site-specific liquefaction analysis presented in Appendix C, Liquefaction and Settlement Analyses , the potential for dry seismic settlement of the site is expected to be up to 0.15 inches.

Landslides: Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or after earthquakes in areas of significant relief. The project site is not adjacent to any steep slopes. In the absence of significant ground slopes, the potential for seismically induced landslides to affect the proposed site is considered to be low.

Lateral Spreading: Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials due to ground shaking. It differs from the slope failure in that complete ground failure involving large movement does not occur due to the relatively smaller gradient of the initial ground surface. Lateral spreading is demonstrated by near- vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved. Due to the absence of shallow groundwater and lack of liquefaction potential, the risk for lateral spreading to affect the site is considered low.

Tsunamis: Tsunamis are tidal waves generated in large bodies of water by fault displacement or major ground movement. Based on the location of the site, tsunamis do not pose a hazard to this site.

Seiches: Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Review of the area indicates that the project site is within close proximity to the Santa Ana River Channel. Additionally, there are onsite water reservoirs. Due to these reasons, seiching is considered to be a risk during significant seismic events.

Seiching within the new reservoir may result in flooding within the site after construction and filling of the reservoir is complete.

Earthquake-Induced Flooding: This type of flooding is caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures as a result of earthquakes Dams or other water- retaining structures may fail as a result of large earthquakes, resulting in flooding. The reservoir site is located within a State of California or San Bernardino County designated dam inundation area (DSOD, 2021 and SBC, 2021a). The potential for flooding of the site due to dam failure is considered extremely high.

8.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Results of the various laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program and in the following sections.

8.1 Physical Testing

Physical testing of selected soil samples to determine the engineering properties of the onsite soils was performed in Converse’s laboratory. The testing and results are summarized below.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
156 of 932
 In-situ Moisture and Dry Density - In-situ dry density within the upper 20 feet of soil ranged between 93 and 107 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with the moisture content ranging between 4 and 21 percent, respectively. The presence of high moisture in some depths of the soil could be attributed to a possible higher concentration of fine clay particles holding the moisture.
 Expansion Index – Five representative samples were tested to evaluate the expansion potential in accordance with ASTM Standard D4829. The expansion indices were 0 to 7, which corresponds to “Very Low” expansion potential.  R-value – One R-value test was performed on a representative bulk soil sample in accordance ASTM Standard D2844. Based on the test result, the R -value of the sample was 22.
 Collapse Potential – The collapse potentials of three relatively undisturbed samples collected in the 15 to 21 feet of soil range, the depth of the proposed reservoir, were tested under a vertical stress of 2.0 kips per square foot (ksf) in accordance with the ASTM Standard D4546 test method. These samples indicated collapse potentials ranging from 0.0 and 0. 6 percent, indicating none to slight collapse potential. Collapse potentials from consolidation tests were between 0. 3 to 0.5, indicating slight collapse potential.
 Grain Size Analysis – Five representative samples were tested to determine the relative grain size distribution in accordance with ASTM Standard D6913. The test results are graphically presented in Drawings No. B- 1, Grain Size Distribution Results.
 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content – Typical moisture-density relationship tests were performed on three representative samples in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results are presented in Drawing No. B-2, Moisture-Density Relationship Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. The laboratory maximum dry densities were 125.0, 126.0 and 127.0 pcf and the optimum moisture contents of 10.5, 9.5, and 9.0 percent respectively.
 Direct Shear – Four direct shear tests were performed on representative samples under saturated moisture condition in accordance with ASTM Standard D3080.

The direct shear test s indicated that the samples had moderate shear strengths

The results are presented in Drawing Nos. B-3 through B -6, Direct Shear Test Results in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program.
 Consolidation Test – Two consolidation tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard D2435 method. For test results, including sample density and moisture content, see Drawing Nos. B -7 and B-8, Consolidation Test Results in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program.

8.2 Chemical Testing - Corrosivity Evaluation

Three selected soil samples were tested by AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. (Pomona, CA) for corrosivity evaluation with respect to common construction materials such as concrete and steel. Tests were performed for pH, sulfate and chloride content, and saturated minimum electrical resistivity in accordance with California Test Methods 643, 422 and 417. The test results are summarized below and are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
157 of 932
 The pH measurements of the samples ranged between 7.8 and 8.2.  The sulfate contents of the samples tested ranged between 22 and 45 ppm.  The chloride concentrations of the samples tested ranged between 17 and 21 ppm.  The minimum electrical resistivities when saturated ranged between 3,960 and 10,595 ohm-cm.

9.0 EARTHWORK/SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 General

Prior to the start of construction, all existing underground utilities and appurtenances should be located within the project area. Such utilities should either be protected in-place or removed and replaced during construction as required by the project specifications.

Any existing utilities and pipelines will likely require careful research and marking. All excavations should be conducted in such a manner as not to cause loss of bearing and/or lateral support of existing utilities.

All debris, surface vegetation (if any), deleterious material, surficial soils containing roots and perishable materials should be stripped and removed from the site. The site should be stripped to the bottom of the roots of vegetation. The actual stripping depth required depends on site usage prior to construction and should be established in the field at the time of construction. Deleterious material, including organics, concrete, and debris generated during excavation, should not be placed as fill.

9.2 Remedial Grading

The following remedial grading recommendations are provided. Reservoir Pad/Footing, Pump Station footing , Slab-on-grade and P avements should be uniformly supported by compacted fill. To provide uniform support, structural areas should be over excavated, scarified, and recompacted as follows.

Table No. 6, Overexcavation Depths
Structure/Pavement Minimum Excavation Depth
Reservoir Pad/Footing 12 inches below footings or 4 feet below ground surface, whichever is deeper
Pump Station footing 12 inches below footings or 4 feet below ground surface, whichever is deeper
Slab-on-grade 18 inches below finished grade
Pavement 18 inches below finished grade

The change in depth of the over excavation below the footings and slabs-on-grade should be transitioned by a gradual slope. Generally, the over excavation should extend to at least 1 foot beyond the footprint of the reservoir foundation, 2 feet beyond the pump station and slab and at least 1 foot beyond the edge of the pavement. The over excavation bottom should be scarified and compacted as described in Section 9.3.2 Fill Compaction.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
158 of 932
I
f isolated pockets of very soft, loose, eroded, or pumping soil are encountered, the unstabl
e soil should be excavated as needed to expose undisturbed, firm, and unyielding soils. Any existing fill (if encountered) should be over excavated.

The contractor should determine the best manner to conduct the excavations, such that there are no losses of bearing and/or lateral support to the existing structures or utilit ies.

Consideration should be given to using slot cuts or other excavation methods which preserve lateral support during excavation operations near the existing structures.

9.3 Structural Fills

Recommendations regarding fill materials and compaction of structural fills are provided in the following sections.

9.3.1 Fill Materials

Fill materials should meet the following criteria.

 No particles larger than 3 inches in largest dimension.  At least 15 percent, but no more than 40 percent, passing the No. 200 sieve.  No more than 30 percent retained on the ¾-inch sieve.  Free of all organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material.  Have an expansion index of 30 or less.
 Liquid limit less than 35 and plastic index of 15 or less.  Corrosivity equal or less than the onsite soils.

The native soils encountered within the project site, free of debris or organic matter, are generally expected to be suitable for use as structural fill. Processing may involve cleaning roots and debris, mixing, and moisture conditioning before placing as compacted fill.

9.3.2 Fill Compaction

All surfaces to receive compacted fill should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. The approved bottoms of excavations should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to within ± 3 percent of optimum moisture content for coarse grained soil and +2% above the optimum moisture content for fine grained soil, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM Standard D1557 prior to placement of compacted fills.

Excavated site materials are suitable for re- use as compacted fill when cleared of deleterious materials. Fill materials should be placed on the scarified and recompacted bottom in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill lifts should be uniform in thickness and material type.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
159 of 932
A
ll fills should be moisture conditioned to within ± 3 percent of optimum moisture content for coarse grained soil and +2% above the optimum moisture content for fine grained soil and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM Standard D1557, unless a higher compaction is recommended below or elsewhere in this report.

The upper 12 inches of fill beneath pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. All bases and subbases for pavements should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.

Backfill behind any structural wall should be compacted using lightweight construction equipment to avoid overstressing the wall. The fill material should be moisture conditioned to within ± 3 percent of optimum moisture content for coarse grained soil and +2% above the optimum moisture content for fine grained soil and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Compaction of backfill adjacent to structural walls can produce excessive lateral pressures. Improper types and locations of compaction equipment and/or compaction techniques may damage the walls. The use of heavy compaction equipment should not be permitted within a horizontal distance of five feet from the wall. Only handheld compactors should be permitted to perform compaction within the recommended 5- foot zone. Loose soil, form work, and debris should be removed prior to backfilling.

9.4 Shrinkage and Subsidence

The volume of excavated and recompacted soils will decrease as a result of grading. The shrinkage would depend on, among other factors, the depth of cut and/or fill, and the grading method and equipment utilized. Based on our exploration as well as previous experience in the other projects in close vicinity of this site, for the preliminary estimation, shrinkage factors for various units of earth material at the site may be taken as presented below.

 The shrinkage factor (defined as a percentage of soil volume reduction when moisture conditioned and compacted to the average of 92 percent relative compaction) for the upper 10 feet of soils an average value of 15 percent may be used for preliminary earthwork planning.
 Subsidence (defined as the settlement of native materials from the equipment load applied during grading and proposed fill loads) would depend on the construction methods including type of equipment utilized. Ground subsidence is estimated to be approximately 0.20 foot to 0.25 foot.

Although these values are only approximate, they represent our best estimates of the factors to be used to calculate lost volume that may occur during grading. If more accurate shrinkage and subsidence factors are needed, it is recommended that field-testing using the actual equipment and grading techniques be conducted.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
160 of 932
1 0.0 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL

The fol
lowing sections present earthwork recommendations for utility trench backfill, including subgrade preparation and trench zone backfill.

Open cuts adjacent to existing roadways or structures are not recommended within a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) plane extending down and away from the roadway or structure perimeter (if any).

Soils from the trench excavation should not be stockpiled more than 6 feet in height or within a horizontal distance from the trench edge equal to the depth of the trench. Soils should not be stockpiled behind the shoring, if any, within a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the trench, unless the shoring has been designed for such loads.

10.1 Pipe Sub-grade Preparation

The final subgrade surface should be level, firm, uniform, and free of loose materials and properly graded to provide uniform bearing and support to the entire section of the pipe placed on bedding material. Protruding oversize particles larger than 2 inches in dimension, if any, should be removed from the trench bottom and replaced with compacted on-sites materials.

Any loose, soft and/or unsuitable materials encountered at the pipe subgrade should be removed and replaced with an adequate bedding material. During the digging of depressions for proper sealing of the pipe joints, the pipe should rest on a prepared bottom for as near its full length as is practicable.

10.2 Pipe Bedding

Bedding is defined as the material supporting and surrounding the pipe to 1 foot above the pipe. Pipe bedding should follow San Bernardino County guidelines. Additional recommendations for pipe bedding are provided below.

To provide uniform and firm support for the pipe, compacted granular materials such as clean sand, gravel or ¾ -inch crushed aggregate, or crushed rock may be used as pipe bedding material. Typically, soils with sand equivalent value of 30 or more are used as pipe bedding material. The pipe designer should determine if the soils are suitable as pipe bedding material.

The type and thickness of the granular bedding placed underneath and around the pipe, if any, should be selected by the pipe designer. The load on the rigid pipes and deflection of flexible pipes and, hence, the pipe design, depends on the type and the amount of bedding placed underneath and around the pipe.

Bedding materials should be vibrated in- place to achieve compaction. Care should be taken to densify the bedding material below the springline of the pipe. Prior to placing the pipe bedding material, the pipe subgrade should be uniform and properly graded to Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
161 of 932
pr
ovide uniform bearing and support to the entire section of the pipe placed on bedding materi
al.

Migration of fines from the surrounding native and/or fill soils must be considered in selecting the gradation of any imported bedding material. We recommend that the pipe bedding material should satisfy the following criteria to protect migration of fine materials.

i.

D15(F) ≤ 5 D85(B)
ii. D50(F) < 25 D50(B)
iii. Bedding Materials must have less than 5 percent passing No. 200 sieve (0.0074 mm) to avoid internal movement of fines.

Where,

F = Bedding Material
B = Surrounding Native and/or Fill Soils
D15(F) = Particle size through which 15% of bedding material will pass D85(B) = Particle size through which 85% of surrounding soil will pass D50(F) = Particle size through which 50% of bedding material will pass D50(B) = Particle size through which 50% of surrounding soil will pass

If the above criteria do not satisfy, commercially available geofabric used for filtration purposes (such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent) may be wrapped around the bedding material encasing the pipe to separate the bedding material from the surrounding native or fill soils.

10.3 Trench Zone Backfill

The trench zone is defined as the portion of the trench above the pipe bedding extending up to the final grade level of the trench surface. Excavated sites soil free of oversize particles and deleterious matter may be used to backfill the trench zone. Detailed trench backfill recommendations are provided below.

 Trench excavations to receive backfill should be free of trash, debris or other unsatisfactory materials at the time of backfill placement.  Trench zone backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as per ASTM D1557 test method. At least the upper 1 foot of trench backfill underlying pavement should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as per ASTM D1557 test method.  Particles larger than 1 inch should not be placed within 12 inches of the pavement subgrade. No more than 30 percent of the backfill volume should be larger than ¾-inch in the largest dimension. Gravel should be well mixed with finer soil. Rocks Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
162 of 932
l
arger than 3 inches in the largest dimension should not be placed as trench bac
kfill.
 Trench backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods, such as sheepsfoot, vibrating or pneumatic rollers or mechanical tampers to achieve the density specified herein. The backfill materials should be brought to within ± 3 percent of optimum moisture content for coarse- grained soil, and between optimum and 2 percent above optimum for fine-grained soil, then placed in horizontal layers. The thickness of uncompacted layers should not exceed 8 inches. Each layer should be evenly spread, moistened or dried as necessary, and then tamped or rolled until the specified density has been achieved.
 The contractor should select the equipment and processes to be used to achieve the specified density without damage to adjacent ground, structures, utilities and completed work.
 The field density of the compacted soil should be measured by the ASTM D1556 (Sand Cone) or ASTM D6938 (Nuclear Gauge) or equivalent.  Observations and field tests should be performed by the project soils consultant to confirm that the required degree of compaction has been obtained. Where compaction is less than that specified, additional compactive effort should be made with adjustment of the moisture content as necessary, until the specified compaction is obtained.
 It should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe working conditions during all phases of construction.
 Trench backfill should not be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations should not resume until field tests by the project’s geotechnical consultant indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are in compliance with project specifications.

11.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 General Evaluation

The various design recommendations provided in this section are based on the assumption that in preparing the site, the above earthwork and grading recommendations will be implemented.

11.2 Foundation Type and Bearing Pressures

The water reservoir can be founded on a ring footing and its roof (dome) will be supported by the wall having continuous footings. Continuous and isolated spread footings should be at least 18 inches wide and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade. Actual footing widths and reinforcement should be based on structural design.

Footings placed on recompacted soil at a depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade may be designed based on an allowable net bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf).

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
163 of 932
The al
lowable net bearing capacity is defined as the maximum allowable net bearing press
ure on the ground. It is obtained by dividing the net ultimate bearing capacity by a safety factor. The ultimate bearing capacity is the bearing stress at which ground fails by shear or experiences a limiting amount of settlement at the foundation. The net ultimate bearing capacity is obtained by subtracting the total overburden pressure on a horizontal plane at the foundation level from the ultimate bearing capacity.

The actual footing dimensions and reinforcement should be based on structural design.

The allowable bearing capacity can be increased by 500 pounds per square foot (psf) with each foot of additional embedment and 100 psf with each foot of additional width up to a maximum of 3,500 psf.

The net allowable bearing values indicated above are for the dead loads and frequently applied live loads and are obtained by applying a factor of safety of 3.0 to the net ultimate bearing capacity. If normal code requirements are applied for design, the above vertical bearing value may be increased by 33 percent for short duration loadings, which will include loadings induced by wind or seismic forces.

11.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance to Lateral Loads

In the following subsections, the lateral earth pressures and resistance to lateral loads are estimated by using on- site native soils compacted to the average of 92 percent of laboratory maximum dry density.

11.3.1 Active Earth Pressures

The active earth pressure behind wall of water reservoir depends primarily on the allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressures. The estimated lateral earth pressures are presented in the following table.

Table No. 7, Equivalent Fluid Pressure
Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf
Active earth condition (Free to deflect, level backfill) 46 At-rest (wall is restrained) 68
Seismic pressure on unrestrained (yielding)/retaining walls (at the top of reverse triangle where H is the height of the wall) 30 H

11.3.2 Passive Earth Pressure

Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. An ultimate coefficient of friction of 0.35 between concrete and native soils may be used with the dead load forces. An allowable passive earth pressure of 235 psf per foot of depth may be used for the sides of footings poured against recompacted native soils from upper depths . A factor of safety of 1.5 was applied in Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
164 of 932
c
alculating passive earth pressure. The maximum value of the passive earth pressure should
be limited to 2,500 psf for recompacted soil.

Vertical and lateral bearing values indicated above are for the total dead loads and frequently applied live loads. If normal code requirements are applied for design, the above vertical bearing and lateral resi stance values may be increased by 33 percent for short duration loading, which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces.

Due to the low overburden stress of the soil at shallow depth, the upper one foot of passive resistance should be neglected unless the soil is confined by pavement or slab.

11.4 Settlement

The settlement due to static loading of the foundations, designed as recommended above, from structural loads and short -term settlement of properly compacted fill is anticipated to be 1 inch or less. The differential settlement resulting from static loads is anticipated to be 0.5 inches or less over a horizontal distance of 40 feet.

Our analysis of the potential dynamic settlement is presented in Appendix C, Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis. Based on our analysis, we anticipate the reservoir site has the potential for up to 0.15 inches of seismically induced settlement. The differential settlement resulting from dynamic loads is anticipated to be half of the total dynamic settlement or less over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Structural engineer should consider this in the design.

Generally, static and dynamic settlement does not occur at the same time. For design purposes, the structural engineer should decide whether static and dynamic settlement will be combined or not.

11.5 Temporary Sloped Excavations

Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings, temporary excavations may be supported by shoring or constructed according to the slope ratios presented in the following table. Temporary cuts encountering soft and wet fine- grained soils, dry loose, cohesionless soils, or loose fill from trench backfill may have to be constructed at a flatter gradient than presented below.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
165 of 932
T
able No. 8 Slope R atios for Temporary Excavations
Soil Type OSHA
Soil Type
Depth of Cut
(feet)
Recommended Maximum
Slope (Horizontal:Vertical)¹
Silty Sand (SM), Sandy Silt
(ML), Sand with Silt (SP-SM),
Sand (SP), Sandy Clay (CL)
C
0-10 1:1
10-20 1.5:1
¹ Slope ratio assumed to be uniform from top to toe of slope.

For shallow excavations up to 4 feet bgs, wall slope can be vertical. For steeper temporary construction slopes or deeper excavations, or unstable soil encountered during the excavation, shoring or trench shields should be provided by the contractor as nec essary to protect the workers in the excavation.

Surfaces exposed in sloped excavations should be kept moist but not saturated to retard raveling and sloughing during construction. Adequate provisions should be made to protect the slopes from erosion during periods of rainfall. Surcharge loads, including construction materials, should not be placed within 5 feet of the unsupported slope edge.

Stockpiled soils with a height higher than 6 feet will require greater distance from trench edges.

All applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act and current amendments, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. The soil exposed in cuts should be observed during excavation by a competent person employed by the contractor. If potentially unstable soil conditions are encountered, modifications of slope ratios for temporary cuts may be required.

11.6 Shoring Design

Temporary shoring will be required where open sloped excavations will not be feasible due to unstable soils or due to nearby existing structures or facilities. Temporary shoring may consist of conventional soldier piles and lagging or sheet piles or any piles selected by contractor. The shoring for the pipe excavations may be laterally supported by walers and cross bracing or may be cantilevered. Drilled excavations for soldier piles will require the use of drilling fluids to prevent caving and to maintain an opened hole for pile installation.

The active earth pressure behind any shoring depends primarily on the allowable movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressures.

The lateral earth pressures to be used in the design of shoring is presented in the following table.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
166 of 932
T
able No. 9, Later al Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring Lateral Resistance Soil Parameters* Value
Active Earth Pressure (Braced Shoring) (psf) (A) 31
Active Earth Pressure (Cantilever Shoring) (psf) (B) 48 At-Rest Earth Pressure (Cantilever Shoring) (psf) (C) 68 Passive earth pressure (psf per foot of depth) (D) 235
Maximum allowable bearing pressure against native soils (psf) (E) 2,500 Coefficient of friction between sheet pile and native soils, fs (F) 0.25 * Parameters A through F are used in Figures No. 4 and 5 on the next page.

Restrained (braced) shoring systems should be designed based on Figure No. 3, Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Braced Excavation to support a uniform rectangular lateral earth pressure.

Figure No. 3, Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Braced Excavation

Unrestrained (cantilever) design of cantilever shoring consisting of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on- center or sheet piles, can be based on Figure No. 4 , Lateral Earth Pressures on Temporary Cantilever Wall.

Note:

All values of height (H) in feet, pressure (P) and surcharge (q) in pounds per square foot (psf).

Total Earth Pressure, P

P = Pq + Pa

Pq = 0.5q - incremental surcharge pressure

Pa = (A)H1 - active earth pressure (Braced walls)

Lateral Pressure Resistance

Pp = (D) H2 ≤ (E) psf - passive earth pressure (on native soils)

µ = (F) - ultimate friction coefficient
between steel sheet piles and soil

q (Surcho rge)
'
I I
l=mll
H,
_1__/. --
I Pp Pq Po
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
167 of 932
Fi
gure No. 4, Later al Earth Pressures on Temporary Cantilever Wall

The provided pressures assume no hydrostatic pressures. If hydrostatic pressures are allowed to build up, the incremental earth pressures below the ground-water level should be reduced by 50 percent and added to hydrostatic pressure for total lateral pressure.

Passive resistance includes a safety factor of 1.5. The upper 1 foot for passive resistance should be ignored unless the surface is confined by a pavement or slab.

In addition to the lateral earth pressure, surcharge pressures due to miscellaneous loads, such as soil stockpiles, vehicular traffic or construction equipment located adjacent to the shoring, should be included in the design of the shoring. A uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included in the upper 10 feet of the shoring to account for normal vehicular and construction traffic within 10 feet of the trench excavation. As previously mentioned, all shoring should be designed and installed in accordance with state and federal safety regulations.

The contractor should have provisions for soldier pile and sheet pile removal. All voids resulting from removal of shoring should be filled. The method for filling voids should be selected by the contractor, depending on construction conditions, void dimensions and available materials. The acceptable materials, in general, should be non-deleterious, and able to flow into the voids created by shoring removal (e.g., concrete slurry, “pea” gravel, etc.).

Excavations for the proposed pipeline should not extend below a 1:1 horizontal:vertical (H:V) plane extending from the bottom of any existing structures, utility lines or streets.

Any proposed excavation should not cause loss of bearing and/or lateral supports of the existing utilities or streets.

If the excavation extends below a 1:1 (H:V) plane extending from the bottom of the existing structures, utility lines or streets, a maximum of 10 feet of slope face parallel to Total Earth Pressure, P

P = Pq + Pa, Po

Pq = 0.5q - incremental surcharge pressure

Pa = (B)H1 - active earth pressure (Un-restrained)

Po = (C)H
1 - at rest earth pressure (Restrained)

Lateral Pressure Resistance

Pp = (D) H2 ≤ (E) psf - passive earth pressure (on native soils)

µ = (F) - ultimate friction coefficient between steel
sheet piles and soil
Note:

All values of height (H) in feet, pressure (P) and surcharge (q) in pounds per square foot (psf).

q (Surcharge)
I
HI
Pp
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
168 of 932
t
he existing improvement should be exposed at a time to reduce the potential for inst
ability. Backfill should be accomplished in the shortest period of time and in alternating sections.

11.7 Soil Corrosivity

The results of chemical testing of three representative samples of site soils were evaluated for corrosivity evaluation with respect to common construction materials such as concrete and steel. The test results are presented in Appendi x B, Laboratory Testing Program, Summary of Corrosivity Test Results, and are discussed below.

The sulfate contents of the soils tested correspond to American Concrete Institute (ACI) exposure category S0 for these sulfate concentration (ACI 318- 14, Table 19.3.1.1) ACI recommends a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi for exposure category S0 in ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.2.1.

We anticipate that concrete structures such as footings, slabs, pavement and flatwork will be exposed to moisture from precipitation and irrigation. Based on the project location and the results of chloride testing of the site soils, we do not anticipate that concrete structures will be exposed to external sources of chlorides, such as deicing chemicals, salt, brackish water, or seawater. ACI specifies exposure category C1 where concrete is exposed to moisture, but not to external sources of chlorides (ACI 318- 14, Table

19.3.1.1). ACI provides concrete design recommendations in ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.2.1, including a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi, and a maximum chloride content of 0.3 percent.

According to Romanoff, 1957, the following table provides general guidelines of soil corrosion based on electrical resistivity.

Table No. 10, Correlation Between Resistivity and Corrosion Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) per Caltrans CT 643 Corrosivity Category Over 10,000 Mildly corrosive
2,000 – 10,000 Moderately corrosive
1,000 – 2,000 corrosive
Less than 1,000 Severe corrosive

The measured values of the minimum electrical resistivities when saturated were between 3,682 and 10,595 Ohm -cm. This indicates that the soils tested are mild to moderately corrosive for ferrous metals in contact with the soils. Converse does not practice in the area of corrosion consulting. If needed, a qualified corrosion consultant should provide appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for ferrous metals in contact with the site soil.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
169 of 932
1 1.8 Pavement Design and Construction

Pav
ement has been designed based on R-value of 22. The site soils may be substantially mixed during construction and the R -value of the final sub- grade soils is likely to be different. The R -value of the sub -grade soils should be determined and the pavement structural sections should be reevaluated during construction.

Asphalt concrete pavement structural sections corresponding to Traffic Indices (TI) 5.0,

6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 are summarized in the following table.

Table No. 11, Preliminary Pavement Sections
Traffic Index
Preliminary Pavement Section
Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate Base
(inches)
Full Depth Asphalt
(inches)

5.0 4.5 4.0 6.0

6.0 6.0 5.0 7.5

7.0 7.5 6.0 8.5

8.0 9.0 7.0 10.0

Pavement sub-grade should be prepared in accordance with Section 301 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC, Public Works Standard, 2021).

The upper 12 inches of sub- grade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as per ASTM Standard D1557 test method.

Base materials should conform to Section 200- 2.2, "Crushed Aggregate Base," of the current SSPWC and should be placed in accordance with Section 301.2 of the SSPWC.

Asphaltic concrete materials should conform to Section 203 of the SSPWC and should be placed in accordance with Section 302.5 of the SSPWC.

12.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of the site, to prepare site grading recommendations, and to assist the structural engineer with the design of the proposed structures. Recommendations presented herein are based upon the assumption that earthwork monitoring will be provided by a qualified geotechnical consultant.

All excavation bottoms should be observed by a geotechnical representative prior to fill placement. Structural fill and backfill should be placed and compacted during continuous observation and testing. It is recommended that the footing excavations should be observed by a geotechnical consultant representative prior to placement of steel and concrete, to ensure that foundations are founded on satisfactory materials and excavations are free of loose and disturbed materials.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
170 of 932
1 3.0 CLOSURE

This
report is prepared for the project described herein and is intended for use solely by Carollo Engineers, Inc., the City of Redlands, and their authorized agents, to assist in the design and construction of the proposed project. Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted professional principles practiced in geotechnical engineering. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied.

Converse Consultants is not responsible or liable for any claims or damages associated with interpretation of available information provided to others. Site exploration identifies actual soil conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken.

Data derived through sampling and laboratory testing is extrapolated by Converse employees who render an opinion about the overall soil conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ. In the event that changes to the project occur, or additional, relevant information about the project is brought to our attention, the recommendations contained in this report may not be valid unless these changes and additional relevant information is reviewed, and the recommendations of this report are modified or verified in writing. In addition, the recommendations can only be finalized by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. Converse cannot be held responsible for misi nterpretation or changes to our recommendations made by others during construction.

As the project evolves, continued consultation and construction monitoring by a qualified geotechnical consultant should be considered an extension of geotechnical investigation services performed to date. The geotechnical consultant should review plans and specifications to verify that the recommendations presented herein have been appropriately interpreted, and that the design assumptions used in this report are valid.

Where significant design changes occur, Converse may be required to augment or modify the recommendations presented herein. Subsurface conditions may differ in some locations from those encountered in the explorations, and may require additional analyses and, possibly, modified recommendations.

Design recommendations given in this report are based on the assumption that the recommendations contained in this report are implemented. Additional consultation may be prudent to interpret Converse's findings for contractors, or to possibly refine these recommendations based upon the review of the actual site conditions encountered during construction. If the scope of the project changes, if project completion is to be delayed, or if the report is to be used for another purpose, this office should be consulted.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
171 of 932
1 4.0 REFERENCES

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE), 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings, ASCE/SEI Standard No. 7-16 (ASCE 7-16).

BOZORGNIA, Y., CAMPBELL, K., 2004, The Vertical- To-Horizontal Response Spectral Ratio and Tentative Procedures for Developing Simplified V/H and Vertical Design Spectra, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol 8, No. 2, 2004.

AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI), 201 9, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19).

BLAKE, T. F., 2000, EQFAULT, and EQSEARCH Computer Programs for Performing Probabilistic, and Seismic Coefficient Analysis and Historical Earthquake Search

BUDHU, M., 2007, Soil Mechanics and Foundations, published by Wiley, 2007.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION (CBC), 2022 , California Building Code (CBC).

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (DWR), 2022, Water Data Library (http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/), accessed June 2022.

CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (CGS), 2007, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps, Special Publication 42, revised 2007.

CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (CGS), 2008, Guid elines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, dated September 11, 2008.

CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB), 2022, GeoTracker database (http:// http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/), accessed June 2022.

Converse 2018, Phase 1 Upgrade: Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility, Converse Project No. 18-81-146-01.

Converse 2018, Wastewater Treatment Facility – Phase 2 Upgrade, Converse Project No. 18-81-146-02.

CAO, T., BRYANT, W.A., ROWSHANDEL, B., BRANUM, D., and WILLS, C.J., 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/Documents/2002 _CA_Hazard_Maps.pdf), dated June 2003.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
172 of 932
FLO
OD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM), San Bernardino County, California, Map No. 06071C78
95J, Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated September 26, 2014.

Framefinder - UCSB Library. (n.d.) (Framefinder - UCSB Library). Retrieved January 24, 2023, from https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/

MORTON, D.M. and MILLER, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangles, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 2006-1217.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (SBC), 2007a, San Bernardino County General Plan Hazard Overlays, Map Sheet FH31B, dated May 29, 2007.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (SBC), 2007b, San Bernardino County General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlays, Map Sheet FH31C, dated May 30, 2007.

RISK ENGINEERING, INC., 2012, EZ -FRISK: Software for Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation, version 8.07.

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS), 201 4, National Water Information System: Web Interface (http://nwis.waterdata.usga.gov/nwis/gwlevels), accessed on August 13, 2014.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
173 of 932
Appendix A
Field Exploration
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
174 of 932
APPEN
DIX A

FI

ELD EXPLORATION

Our field investigation included a site reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program consisting of drilling soil borings. During the site reconnaissance, the surface conditions were noted, and the borings were marked at locations approved by Mr. Mik o Aivazian with Carollo Engineers, Inc. The boring locations were established in the field using approximate distances from local streets as well as existing features as a guide and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to locate them.

Five exploratory borings (BH -01 through BH-05) were drilled on January 20 , 2023 , to investigate the subsurface conditions. The planned and actual depth of the borings are presented in the following table.

Table No. A-1, Summary of the Borings
Boring
No.

Boring Depth (ft, bgs) Groundwater
Depth (ft, bgs) Date Completed
Proposed Completed
BH-01 30.0 31.5 N/E 1/20/2023
BH-02 30.0 31.5 N/E 1/20/2023
BH-03 30.0 31.5 N/E 1/20/2023
BH-04 30.0 31.5 N/E 1/20/2023
BH-05 60.0 61.5 N/E 1/20/2023

The borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers for soils sampling. Encountered materials were continuously logged by a Converse Geologist and classified in the field by visual classification in ac cordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Where appropriate, the field descriptions and classifications have been modified to reflect laboratory test results.

Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using California Modified Samplers (2. 4 inches inside diameter and 3.0 inches outside diameter) lined with thin sample rings. The steel ring sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with successive drops of a 140-pound driving weight falling 30 inches. Blow counts at each sample interval are presented on the boring logs. Samples were retained in brass rings (2.4 inches inside diameter and 1.0 inch in height) and carefully sealed in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the Converse laboratory. Bulk samples of typical soil types were also obtained in plastic bags.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was also performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1586 test using 1.4 inches inside diameter and 2.0 inches outside diameter Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
175 of 932
s
plit-barrel sampler. The mechanically driven hammer for the SPT sampler was 140 pounds,
falling 30 inches for each blow. The recorded blow counts for every 6 inches for a total of 1.5 feet of sampler penetration are shown on the Logs of Borings.

The exact depths at which material changes occur cannot always be established accurately. Unless a more precise depth can be established by other means, changes in material conditions that occur between drive samples are indicated on the logs at the top of the next drive sample.

Following the completion of logging and sampling, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and compacted by pushing down with an auger using the drill rig weight. If construction is delayed, the surface of the borings may settle over time. We recommend the owner monitor the boring locations and backfill any depressions that might occur or provide protection around the boring locations to prevent trip and fall injuries from occurring near the area of any potential settlement.

For a key to soil symbols and terminology used in the boring logs, refer to Drawing Nos.

A-1a and A -1b, Unified Soil Classification and Key to Boring Log Symbols . For logs of borings, see Drawing Nos. A-2 through A-6, Logs of Borings. All elevations are based on Google Earth.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
176 of 932
1 Project No. Drawing No.
21-81-276-01 A-1a
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY

FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,

SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE

SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS

WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

LIQUID LIMIT LESS
THAN 50

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND
- SILT MIXTURES
OH
SC

SILTS AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION
PASSING ON NO. 4
SIEVE
MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR

NO FINES
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
OL

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,

LITTLE OR NO FINES

SANDS WITH
FINES
CL

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT
MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
SM

WELL-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE

OR NO FINES
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

OF FINES)
SP
SW
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,

LITTLE OR NO FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

SAMPLE TYPE
LETTER

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY

CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC
SILTS
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS

OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE

SAND OR SILTY SOILS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. 4
SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

OF FINES)
GC

DESCRIPTIONS

BORING LOG SYMBOLS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOL

S ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY
FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

SILTS AND
CLAYS
ML

TYPICAL
Split barrel sampler in accordance with
ASTM D-1586-84 Standard Test Method
No recovery

BULK SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER WHILE DRILLING

GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING
MH
GM
GW

SYMBOLS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS

WITH HIGH ORGANIC

CONTENTS

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50

MAJOR DIVISIONS

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
CH

GRAVELS
WITH
FINES
DRIVE SAMPLE 2.42" I.D. sampler (CMS).

DRIVE SAMPLE
CLEAN
SANDS
GRAVEL
AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS
CLEAN

GRAVELS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY
GP

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES
GRAPH
Converse Consultants

DRILLING METHOD SYMBOLS
C
CL
CP
CR
CU
DS
EI
M
OC
P
PA
PI
PL
PM
PP
R
SE
SG
SW
TV
UC
UU
UW

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS
Consolidation (ASTM D 2435)
Collapse Potential (ASTM D 4546)
Compaction Curve (ASTM D 1557)
Corrosion, Sulfates, Chlorides (CTM 643-99; 417; 422)
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D 4767)
Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080)
Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829)
Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216)
Organic Content (ASTM D 2974)
Permeablility (ASTM D 2434)
Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 6913 [2002])
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index
(ASTM D 4318)
Point Load Index (ASTM D 5731)
Pressure Meter
Pocket Penetrometer
R-Value (CTM 301)
Sand Equivalent (ASTM D 2419)
Specific Gravity (ASTM D 854)
Swell Potential (ASTM D 4546)
Pocket Torvane
Unconfined Compression - Soil (ASTM D 2166)
Unconfined Compression - Rock (ASTM D 7012)
Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D 2850)
Unit Weight (ASTM D 2937)
Auger Drilling Mud Rotary Drilling Dynamic Cone
or Hand Driven Diamond Core

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS Project ID: Template: KEY
WA Passing No. 200 Sieve
21-81-276-01.GPJ;
New 2.5 MG DN Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
[I]
·--· ·•· .. • ..•.
•
- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -
~
---­□
~
~ -----"E..__ ____ _
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
177 of 932

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
Descriptor
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard

APPARENT DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
Descriptor Criteria
Descriptor SPT N - Value (blows / foot)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
<4
4- 10
11 - 30
31 - 50
>50
Nonplastic
Low
Medium
High
Descriptor Criteria
Crumbles or breaks with handling or
little finger pressure.

Crumbles or breaks with considerable
finger pressure.

Will not crumble or break with finger
pressure.

Weak
Moderate
Strong
Unconfined Compressive
Strength (tsf) Torvane (tsf)
Pocket
Penetrometer
(tsf)
<0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 4.0
>4.0
Descriptor Criteria
Trace (fine)/
Few
Little
Some
Mostly
Particles are present but estimated
to be less than 5%
5 to 10%
15 to 25%
30 to 45%
50 to 100%

PERCENT OF PROPORTION OF SOILS

MOISTURE
Criteria
Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Damp but no visible water
Visible free water, usually soil is below
water table
Size
Coarse
Medium
Fine
> 12 inches
3 to 12 inches
Passing No. 200 Sieve
No. 10 Sieve to No. 4 Sieve
No. 40 Sieve to No. 10 Sieve
No. 200 Sieve to No. No. 40 Sieve
<0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 4.0
>4.0
60 PLASTICITY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Descriptor
Dry
Moist
Wet
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Descriptor
Coarse
Fine
3/4 inch to 3 inches
No. 4 Sieve to 3/4 inch
CEMENTATION/ Induration
A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

The thread can barely be rolled, and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

The thread is easy to roll, and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit; it cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

Field Approximation
Easily penetrated several inches by fist
Easily penetrated several inches by thumb
Can be penetrated several inches by thumb
with moderate effort
Readily indented by thumb but penetrated
only with great effort
Readily indented by thumbnail
Indented by thumbnail with difficulty
<0.12

0.12 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0
>2.0

SOIL PARTICLE SIZE
NOTE: This legend sheet provides descriptions and
associated criteria for required soil description components only. Refer to Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010), Section 2, for tables of additional soil description components and discussion of soil description and identification.

Project ID: Template: KEY
Converse Consultants

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS SPT Blow
Counts
< 2
2 - 4
5 - 8
9 - 15
16 - 30
>30
CA
Sampler
<3
3 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 25
26 - 50
>50
CA Sampler
<5
5 - 12
13 - 35
36 - 60
>60
Scattered (coarse)
Project No. Drawing No.
21-81-276-01 A-1b
21-81-276-01.GPJ;
New 2.5 MG DN Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

J
I I
I
I I I
J
I I l I l I
I 1-
- -
-
I -
J 1-
~
j
_J
I
i
J
J
j F
-
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
178 of 932
12" ASPHALT CONCRETE/ NO BASE

ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained, trace clay,
loose, moist, dark brown.
[email protected]': medium dense.
-@25': dense.

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): fine to coarse-grained,
dense, moist, gray.
12 12
4 8
12 11
9 3
106
106
105
101
102
96 1/3/4
3/4/6
3/4/5
3/5/6
5/8/9
3/6/7
10/16/22
10/15/17
CR
DS
C
EI, PA
PA
End of boring at 31.5 feet bgs.

Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and compacted by pushing down with an auger using drill rig weight on
A-2
Drawing No.

SAMPLES
Graphic
Log
Stephen McPherson Hashmi Quazi
BLOWS
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Checked By:

Depth (ft)
Equipment:

MOISTURE (%)
Logged by:

Depth to Water (ft, bgs):1185
21-81-276-01

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Depth (ft)
OTHER
5 10
15 20
25 30
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the Boring and at the time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

DRIVE
Project No.

NOT ENCOUNTERED
Log of Boring No. BH-01
Driving Weight and Drop:
1/20/2023
140 lbs / 30 in
BULK
8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Ground Surface Elevation (ft):

Graphic
Log
Date Drilled:

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: LOG
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
179 of 932
6" ASPHALT CONCRETE/ NO BASE

ALLUVIUM
SANDY SILT / SILTY SAND (ML/SM): fine to
medium-grained sand, trace clay, loose, moist, dark
brown.

SANDY SILT (ML): fine-grained sand, stiff, moist, dark
brown.
[email protected]': very stiff.
-@21': hard.

SAND (SP): fine to coarse-grained, scattered gravel up
to 1 inch maximum dimension, moist, dense, gray.
10 10
5 8
21 13
6 2
104
99 100
98 97
110
3/3/4
2/3/4
3/5/6
3/4/6
4/6/8
6/7/9
11/20/33
10/16/26
EI, R,
PA
CL, DS
End of boring at 31.5 feet bgs.

Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and compacted by pushing down with an auger using drill rig weight on
A-3
Drawing No.

SAMPLES
Graphic
Log
Stephen McPherson Hashmi Quazi
BLOWS
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Checked By:

Depth (ft)
Equipment:

MOISTURE (%)
Logged by:

Depth to Water (ft, bgs):1183
21-81-276-01

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Depth (ft)
OTHER
5 10
15 20
25 30
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the Boring and at the time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

DRIVE
Project No.

NOT ENCOUNTERED
Log of Boring No. BH-02
Driving Weight and Drop:
1/20/2023
140 lbs / 30 in
BULK
8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Ground Surface Elevation (ft):

Graphic
Log
Date Drilled:

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: LOG
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
180 of 932
9" ASPHALT CONCRETE/ NO BASE

ALLUVIUM
SANDY SILT (ML): fine to medium-grained, trace clay,
stiff, moist, dark brown.
[email protected]': loose.
medium stiff, moist, dark brown
[email protected]': stiff.
[email protected]': very stiff
SAND (SP): fine to coarse-grained, trace clay, dense,
moist, grayish brown.
19 10
8 8
18 14
14 6
102
101
103
95 105
111
9/9/9
3/3/4
3/3/4
3/4/6
3/4/4
6/10/15
7/9/12
12/19/31
EI, CP
PA
CL
End of boring at 31.5 feet bgs.

Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and compacted by pushing down with an auger using drill rig weight on
A-4
Drawing No.

SAMPLES
Graphic
Log
Stephen McPherson Hashmi Quazi
BLOWS
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Checked By:

Depth (ft)
Equipment:

MOISTURE (%)
Logged by:

Depth to Water (ft, bgs):1186
21-81-276-01

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Depth (ft)
OTHER
5 10
15 20
25 30
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the Boring and at the time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

DRIVE
Project No.

NOT ENCOUNTERED
Log of Boring No. BH-03
Driving Weight and Drop:
1/20/2023
140 lbs / 30 in
BULK
8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Ground Surface Elevation (ft):

Graphic
Log
Date Drilled:

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: LOG
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
181 of 932
13" ASPHALT CONCRETE/ NO BASE

ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained sand, loose,
moist, dark brown.
[email protected]': medium dense.

SANDY SILT (ML): fine-grained sand, medium stiff,
moist, dark brown.

SAND (SP): fine to coarse-grained, very dense, moist,
grayish brown.
[email protected]': dense.
11 7
4 11
14 7
3 4
102
98 95
93 107
104
4/4/5
4/4/5
4/6/7
4/5/7
6/10/11
6/7/7
18/37/41
11/24/25
CR, CP
DS, CL
EI
End of boring at 31.5 feet bgs.

Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and compacted by pushing down with an auger using drill rig weight on
A-5
Drawing No.

SAMPLES
Graphic
Log
Stephen McPherson Hashmi Quazi
BLOWS
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Checked By:

Depth (ft)
Equipment:

MOISTURE (%)
Logged by:

Depth to Water (ft, bgs):1186
21-81-276-01

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Depth (ft)
OTHER
5 10
15 20
25 30
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the Boring and at the time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

DRIVE
Project No.

NOT ENCOUNTERED
Log of Boring No. BH-04
Driving Weight and Drop:
1/20/2023
140 lbs / 30 in
BULK
8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Ground Surface Elevation (ft):

Graphic
Log
Date Drilled:

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: LOG
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
182 of 932

9.5" ASPHALT CONCRETE/ NO BASE

ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained, trace clay,
loose, moist, dark brown.

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): fine to coarse-grained,
loose, moist, grayish brown.

SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained, trace clay,
loose, moist, dark brown.
[email protected]': medium dense.

SANDY SILT (ML): medium stiff, moist, dark brown.
[email protected]"; medium dense.
[email protected]': very dense.
-@22': stiff
SAND (SP): fine to coarse-grained, dense, moist,
grayish brown.
12 11
4 10
7 17
14 9
8 3
3 99
104
100
95 101
97 113
103
3/4/3
3/3/4
3/4/6
4/5/6
4/7/8
4/7/9
3/3/4
6/12/20
5/6/7
10/24/35
11/18/19
EI, CP
DS
CR
C
A-6a
Drawing No.

SAMPLES
Graphic
Log
Stephen McPherson Hashmi Quazi
BLOWS
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Checked By:

Depth (ft)
Equipment:

MOISTURE (%)
Logged by:

Depth to Water (ft, bgs):1185
21-81-276-01

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Depth (ft)
OTHER
5 10
15 20
25 30
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the Boring and at the time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

DRIVE
Project No.

NOT ENCOUNTERED
Log of Boring No. BH-05
Driving Weight and Drop:
1/20/2023
140 lbs / 30 in
BULK
8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Ground Surface Elevation (ft):

Graphic
Log
Date Drilled:

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: LOG
Ji!!
iJI:_;;/:.:..,{_,_/-1---
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
183 of 932

ALLUVIUM
SAND (SP): fine to coarse-grained, dense, moist,
grayish brown.
[email protected]': very dense.

SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained, trace clay,
scattered gravel up to 1 inch maximum dimension,
medium dense, moist, dark brown.
[email protected]': more sand content, very dense.
[email protected]': dense.
[email protected]': very dense.

SAND (SP): fine to coarse-grained, very densedense,
moist, grayish brown.
3 11
1 8
10 3
108
118
116
23/50-5.5"
13/9/14
46/50-6"
18/24/25
26/50-3.5"
25/44/44
PA
End of boring at 61.5 feet bgs.

Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and compacted by pushing down with an auger using drill rig weight on
01/20/2023.

A-6b
Drawing No.

SAMPLES
Graphic
Log
Stephen McPherson Hashmi Quazi
BLOWS
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Checked By:

Depth (ft)
Equipment:

MOISTURE (%)
Logged by:

Depth to Water (ft, bgs):1185
21-81-276-01

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Depth (ft)
OTHER
40 45
50 55
60 New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the Boring and at the time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

DRIVE
Project No.

NOT ENCOUNTERED
Log of Boring No. BH-05
Driving Weight and Drop:
1/20/2023
140 lbs / 30 in
BULK
8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Ground Surface Elevation (ft):

Graphic
Log
Date Drilled:

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: LOG
t-
t-
t-
t-
t-
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
184 of 932
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing Program
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
185 of 932
APPEN
DIX B

LABO

RATORY TESTING PROGRAM

Tests were conducted in our laboratory on representative soil samples for the purpose of classification and evaluation of their physical properties and engineering characteristics.

The amount and selection of tests were based on the geotechnical parameters required for this project. Test results are presented herein and on the Logs of Borings, in Appendix A, Field Exploration. The following is a summary of the various laboratory tests conducted for this project.

In-Situ Moisture Content and Dry Density
In-situ dry density and moisture content tests were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples, in accordance with ASTM Standard D2216 & D2937 to aid soils classification and to provide qualitative information on strength and compressibility characteristics of the site soils. For test results, see the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

Expansion Index (EI)
Five samples were tested to evaluate the expansion potential in accordance with ASTM Standard D4829. The test results are presented in the following table.

Table No. B-1, Expansion Index Test Result
Boring
No.

Depth
(feet) Soil Description Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential
BH-01 20.0-21.5 Silty Sand (SM) 0 Very Low
BH-02 0.0-5.0 Sandy Silt (ML)/Silty Sand (SM) 0 Very Low BH-03 3.0-8.0 Sandy Silt (ML) 0 Very Low
BH-04 21.0-22.5 Silty Sand (SM) 0 Very Low
BH-05 5.0-10.0 Silty Sand (SM)/Sand with Silt (SP-
SM) 7 Very Low

R-value
One representative bulk soil sample was tested in accordance with California Test Method CT301 for resistance value (R-value). The test provides a relative measure of soil strength for use in pavement design. The test result is presented in the following table.

Table No. B-2, R-Value Test Result
Boring No. Depth (feet) Soil Classification Measured R-value BH-02 0-5 Sandy Silt (ML) 22

I I I I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
186 of 932
Soil Corrosivity Test (CR)
Three representative soil samples were tested to determine minimum electrical resistivity (wet condition), pH, and chemical content, including soluble sulfate and chloride concentrations. The purpose of these tests was to determine the corrosion potential of site soils when placed in contact with common construction materials. The tests were performed by AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. (Pomona, CA) in accordance with Caltrans Tests 643, 422 and 417. Test results are presented in the following table.

Table No. B-3, Summary of Soil Corrosivity Test Results Boring
No.

Depth
(feet) pH
Soluble Sulfates
(CA 417)
(ppm)
Soluble
Chlorides
(CA 422) (ppm)
Min. Resistivity
(CA 643)
(Ohm-cm)
BH-01 5.0-10.0 8.2 22 17 10,595
BH-04 1.0-5.0 7.8 27 20 6,862
BH-05 17.0-18.5 8.1 45 21 3,960

Collapse
To evaluate the moisture sensitivity (collapse/swell potential) of the encountered soils, three collapse tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D4546 laboratory procedure. The samples were loaded to approximately 2 kips per square foot (ksf), allowed to stabilize under load, and then submerged. The tests results are presented in the following table.

Table No. B-4, Collapse Test Results
Boring No. Depth (ft) Soil Classification Percent Swell (+) Percent Collapse (-)
Collapse
Potential
BH-02 15.0-16.5 Sandy Silt (ML) -0.6 Slight
BH-03 19.0-20.5 Sandy Silt (ML) -0.3 Slight
BH-04 21.0-22.5 Sandy Silty (ML) 0.0 None

Grain-Size Analyses
To assist in classification of soils, mechanical grain-size analyses were performed on five select samples in accordance with the ASTM Standard ASTM D6913 test method. Grain- size curves are shown in Drawing No. B-1, Grain Size Distribution Results.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
187 of 932
T
able No. B-5, Gr ain Size Distribution Test Results
Boring No. Depth (ft) Soil Classification % Gravel % Sand %Silt %Clay BH-01 20.0-21.5 Silty Sand (SM) 0.0 76.7 23.3
BH-01 30.0-31.5 Sand with Silt (SP-SM) 0.0 92.9 7.1
BH-02 0.5-5.0 Sandy Silt (ML)/ Silty
Sand (SM)

0.0 49.8 50.2
BH-03 10.0-15.0 Sandy Silt (CL) 0.0 38.3 61.7
BH-05 47.0-52.0 Silty Sand (SM) 0.0 71.9 28.1

Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Content
Laboratory maximum dry density -optimum moisture content relationship test s were performed on three representative bulk soil samples. The test s were conducted in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 test method. The test results are presented in Drawing No. B- 2, Moisture-Density Relationship Results, and are summarized in the following table.

Table No. B-6, Summary of Moisture-Density Relationship Results Boring
No.

Depth
(feet) Soil Description Optimum
Moisture (%)
Maximum
Density (lb/cft)
BH-03 3.0-8.0 Sandy Silt (ML), Dark Brown 9.0 127.0
BH-04 1.0-5.0 Silty Sand (SM), Dark Brown 9.5 126.0
BH-05 5.0-10.0 Silty Sand (SM)/ Sand with Silt
(SP-SM), Dark to Grayish Brown 10.0 125.0

Direct Shear
Four direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples under soaked moisture condition in accordance with ASTM D3080. For the test, three samples contained in brass sampler rings were placed, one at a time, directly into the test apparatus and subjected to a range of normal loads appropriate for the anticipated conditions. The samples were then sheared at a constant strain rate of 0.02 inch/minute.

Shear deformation was recorded until a maximum of about 0.25-inch shear displacement was achieved. Ultimate strength was selected from the shear-stress deformation data and plotted to determine the shear strength parameters. For test data, including sample density and moisture content, see Drawing No. B -3 through B -6, Direct Shear Test Results, and the following table.

I I I I I I

I I I I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
188 of 932
T
able No. B-7, Sum mary of Direct Shear Test Results
Boring
No.

Depth
(feet) Soil Description
Peak Strength Parameters
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
BH-01 8.0-9.5 Silty Sand (SM) 31 140
BH-02 15.0-16.5 Sandy Silt (ML) 29 90
BH-04 16.0-17.5 Sandy Silt (ML) 28 150
BH-05 14.5-16.0 Sandy Silt (ML) 29 190

Consolidation Test
Two consolidation tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard D2435 method. Data obtained from these tests performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples were used to evaluate the settlement characteristics of the on -site soils under load.

Preparation for these tests involved trimming the sample, placing it in a 1-inch-high brass ring, and loading it into the test apparatus, which contained porous stones to accommodate drainage during testing. Normal axial loads were applied to one end of the sample through the porous stones, and the resulting deflections were recorded at various time periods. The load was increased after the sample reached a reasonable state of equilibrium. Normal loads were applied at a constant load -increment ratio, successive loads being generally twice the preceding load. For test results, including sample density and moisture content, see Drawing Nos. B-7 and B-8, Consolidation Test Results.

Sample Storage
Soil samples presently stored in our laboratory will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report, unless this office receives a specific request to retain the samples for a longer period.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
189 of 932
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 95
100

0.0010.010.1110100
4 200
Drawing No.

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
100

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS
coarse
6 5020
%Gravel
Description PI Cc
mediumfine

0.105

0.221

0.081

0.094
Depth (ft) D100 %Sand %Clay
4 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
coarse
2 SILTY SAND (SM)

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

SANDY SILT (ML)/SILTY SAND (SM)

SANDY SILT (ML)

SILTY SAND (SM)
Depth (ft) Cu
141 3

SILT OR CLAY
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
3/8
GRAVEL
140

COBBLES
Project No.

4.60 20.0-21.5

30.0-31.5

0.5-5.0

14.0-15.5

47.0-52.0
D10 %Silt
Boring No. PL
21-81-276-01 B-1
10 BH-01
BH-01
BH-02
BH-03
BH-05
BH-01
BH-01
BH-02
BH-03
BH-05

76.7 92.9

49.8 38.3

71.9 0.3

0.433

0.104

0.227

20.0-21.5

30.0-31.5

0.5-5.0

14.0-15.5

47.0-52.0
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
6 30 403

HYDROMETER

1.20 23.3

7.1 50.2

61.7 28.1
D30
SAND

4.75 4.75

1.18 1.18

4.75 Boring No. D60
LL

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 1683/4

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

1.5 1/2
fine
60 Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: GRAIN SIZE
Converse Consultants
I I I I - ~ : I I
: I' \ \1\
: ~' : \ \ \
: :\ \ \
: \ ~ \
: \ \
: \
\ ~
\:
•
Ill
•
* @
I
•
Ill
•
* @
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
190 of 932
90 95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DRY DENSITY, pcf

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP RESULTS
B-2
Drawing No.

2.80 2.70

2.60 9.0

9.5 10.5
WATER CONTENT, %
DEPTH (ft) DESCRIPTION
ASTM

TEST METHOD

OPTIMUM
WATER, %

MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY, pcf
BH-03
BH-04
BH-05
127
126
125

3.0-8.0

1.0-5.0

5.0-10.0
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:

Project No.
21-81-276-01
SYMBOL BORING NO.

SANDY SILT (ML), DARK BROWN
SILT

Y SAND (SM) DARK BROWN

SILTY SAND (SM) /SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM
D1557 A
D1557 A
D1557 A
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: COMPACTION
Converse Consultants
DARK to GRAYISH BROWN
•
Ill
...

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
191 of 932
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
DESCRIPTION :

SURCHARGE PRESSURE, psf
31:

Project No.
21-81-276-01
:
:

8.0-9.5
DRY DENSITY (pcf)

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
:BORING NO.

SILTY SAND (SM)
B-3
: 4.0
140
105.0
Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)
BH-01
NOTE: Ultimate Strength.

DEPTH (ft)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)
:

New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: DIRECT SHEAR
' -
-'
-'
j.
/
I
I
L_
/
/ L -
,/
~
'
L ~
~~ l I l l l l _J
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
192 of 932
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
DESCRIPTION :

SURCHARGE PRESSURE, psf
29:

Project No.
21-81-276-01
:
:

15.0-16.5
DRY DENSITY (pcf)

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
:BORING NO.

SANDY SILT (ML)
B-4
: 21.0
90 97.0
Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)
BH-02
NOTE: Ultimate Strength.

DEPTH (ft)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)
:

New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: DIRECT SHEAR
' -
-'
-'
I
I -
'
/
/
L -
L /
V
'
L
~: l l l _J l I l
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
193 of 932
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
DESCRIPTION :

SURCHARGE PRESSURE, psf
28:

Project No.
21-81-276-01
:
:

16.0-17.5
DRY DENSITY (pcf)

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
:BORING NO.

SANDY SILT (ML)
B-5
: 14.0
150
107.0
Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)
BH-04
NOTE: Ultimate Strength.

DEPTH (ft)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)
:

New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: DIRECT SHEAR
' -
-'
-'
I
I -
L'
/
L__ -
~'
' V
I
L~ l I l l l l _J
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
194 of 932
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
DESCRIPTION :

SURCHARGE PRESSURE, psf
29:

Project No.
21-81-276-01
:
:

14.5-16.0
DRY DENSITY (pcf)

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
:BORING NO.

SANDY SILT (ML)
B-6
: 17.0
190

97.0 Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)
BH-05
NOTE: Ultimate Strength.

DEPTH (ft)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)
:

New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Converse Consultants
Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: DIRECT SHEAR
' -
-'
-'
I
I -
•
/
/
/
L -
-V
'
/ L
L ,
L:~ l I l l l l _J
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
195 of 932
0 2
4 6
8 10

0.1 1 10 100
NOTE: SOLID CIRCLES INDICATE READINGS AFTER ADDITION OF WATER

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
BH-01BORING NO.

SILTY SAND (SM)
Project No.
21-81-276-01
VOID
RATIO
DEPTH (ft)

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

INITIAL
FINAL
Drawing No.

DESCRIPTION :
:

B-7
STRESS, psf
12 PERCENT

SATURATION
STRAIN, %

0.620
: 15.0-16.5
102.0 51
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: CONSOLIDATION
Converse Consultants
I
-r-- I ~ I ,,-- -
\
I\
.---- ,~----l---+--i--r 1 1--1---1----- ---+-- I --, ,i---i---r--~ l I l I I l 1 J
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
196 of 932
0 2
4 6
8 10

0.1 1 10 100
NOTE: SOLID CIRCLES INDICATE READINGS AFTER ADDITION OF WATER

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
BH-05BORING NO.

SANDY SILT (ML)
Project No.
21-81-276-01
VOID
RATIO
DEPTH (ft)

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

INITIAL
FINAL
Drawing No.

DESCRIPTION :
:

B-8
STRESS, psf
9 PERCENT

SATURATION
STRAIN, %

0.610
: 19.5-21.0
113.0 51
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1950 Nevada Street
City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California
For: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Project ID: 21-81-276-01.GPJ; Template: CONSOLIDATION
Converse Consultants

I I I I-

I I I ' I
I I I I I 11
I
I
I
I~
l~f"'-.
~~~.
(:,l
i-----
~
- - .---
I~~
" I"-
(~r-..
l"t \.._ -'
~
I •r------._, i:}.
-
~ '7----. 1---
- -'..1
' -~
,--- ~ - - ,-- ,-- ~~
I I l 11 LI I 1 I I I I I l I l I l I I l 1 J
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
197 of 932
Appendix C
Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
198 of 932
A

PPENDIX C

LIQ

UEFACTION AND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

The subsurface data obtained from the borings were used to evaluate the liquefaction potential and associated dry seismic settlement when subjected to ground shaking during earthquakes.

A simplified liquefaction hazard analysis was performed using the program SPTLIQ (InfraGEO Software, 2021) using the liquefaction triggering analysis method by Boulanger and Idriss (2014). A modal earthquake magnitude of M 7. 1 was selected for the site based on the results of seismic disaggregation analysis using the USGS interactive online tool (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/).

A peak ground acceleration (PGA
M) of 0.787g for the MCE design event, where g is the
acceleration due to gravity, were selected for this analysis. The PGA was based on the 2022 CBC seismic design parameters presented in Section 7.2, Seismic Hazard Analysis.

The results of our analyses are presented on Plate Appendix C -1 through C -3 and summarized in the following table.

Table No. C-1, Estimated Dynamic Settlements
Location
Groundwater
Current Depth
(feet bgs)
Groundwater
Historical Depth
(feet bgs)
Dry Seismic
Settlement
(inches)
Liquefaction Induced
Settlement
(inches)
BH-05 > 61.5 >49.0 0.15 negligible

Based on our analysis, we anticipate the site has the potential for up to 1.02 inches of seismically induced settlement and negligible potential for liquefaction induced settlement. The differential settlement resulting from dynamic loads is anticipated to be half (0.51 inches) of the total seismically induced settlement or less over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. The structural engineer should consider this in the design. __ 1 I
-
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
199 of 932

7.10 0.79

1.20 BH-05
1,185.00
1,185.00

61.50 49.00

8.00 140.00

30.00 80.00 %

5.00 TSC3

5.00 <<= Enter (L/H) Enter H =>> 15.00 feet
(feet) (feet) USCS Group Symbol
(ASTM D2487) (pcf) (blows/ft) (%)

0.00 7.00
SM N 118.0 MCal 7.00 28.00

7.00 10.00 SP-SM N 104.0 MCal 10.00 7.00

10.00 15.00 SM N 109.0 MCal 13.00 28.00

15.00 25.00 CL N 118.0 SPT1 13.00 60.00

25.00 27.00 CL N 118.0 SPT1 13.00 60.00

27.00 30.00 SP Y 109.0 MCal 38.00 15.00

30.00 40.00 SP Y 109.0 SPT1 37.00 15.00

40.00 42.00 SP Y 109.0 MCal 50.00 20.00

42.00 45.00 SM Y 123.5 SPT1 23.00 20.00

45.00 50.00 SM Y 123.5 MCal 50.00 20.00
Total Soil
Unit Weight
t
Field
Blow Count
Nfield
Liquefaction
Screening
Susceptible Soil?
(Y, N)

INPUT SOIL PROFILE DATA
Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, FS
Material TypeDepth to
Top of
Soil Layer
Depth to
Bottom of
Soil Layer
Fines
Content
FC
feet
- Ground Slope, S (%)
feet GWL Depth Measured During Test

SELECTED METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Triggering of Liquefaction
Analysis Description
Hashmi S. Quazi

SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS ASSESSMENT USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) DATA (Copyright © 2015, 2021, SPTLIQ, All Rights Reserved; By: InfraGEO Software)

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 21-81-276-01
1950 Nevada Street, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California Sk Syfur Rahman Analyzed By
Project No.

Project Location
Reviewed By
pounds Hammer Weight
feet
(Level Ground with Nearby Free Face)
Hammer Distance to Ground Surface
Hammer Energy Efficiency Ratio, ER (%)
GWL Depth Used in Design
Borehole Diameter inches
feet
- Free Face Distance to Slope Height Ratio, (L/H)
<<= Leave this blank
Topographic Site Condition:
inches
Earthquake Moment Magnitude, Mw
feet
Proposed Grade Elevation
Ground Surface Elevation
Boring No.

BORING DATA AND SITE CONDITIONS
Peak Ground Acceleration, Amax
Type of
Soil
Sampler

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Residual Shear Strength of Liquefied Soil
Boulanger-Idriss (2014)
Pradel (1998)
Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992)
Idriss and Boulanger (2008)
LPI: Liquefaction Potential Index based on Iwasaki et al. (1978) Zhang et al. (2004)
Severity of Liquefaction
Seismic Compression Settlement (Dry/Unsaturated Soil)
Liquefaction-Induced Settlement (Saturated Soil)
Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading
g
Hammer Drop
SPTLIQ(cc)-BH-05 C-1
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
200 of 932
Severity of Liquefaction:

Total Thickness of Liquefiable Soils: 0.00 feet (cumulative total thickness in the upper 65 feet) Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI): 0.00 *** (Very low risk, with no surface manifestation of liquefaction) Seismic Ground Settlements: Upper 30 feet Upper 50 feet Upper 65 feet Seismic Compression Settlement: 0.06 inches 0.15 inches 0.15 inches

7.10 Liquefaction-Induced Settlement: 0.00 inches 0.00 inches 0.00 inches

0.79 Total Seismic Settlement: 0.06 inches 0.15 inches 0.15 inches

1.20 Seismic Lateral Displacements: Upper 30 feet Upper 50 feet Upper 65 feet Cyclic Lateral Displacement: 0.07 inches 0.14 inches 0.14 inches (During Ground Shaking) BH-05 Lateral Spreading Displacement: 0.00 inches 0.00 inches 0.00 inches (After Ground Shaking) 1,185.00
1,185.00

61.50 feet

49.00 feet

8.00 inches
140.00 pounds

30.00 inches

80.00 %

5.00 feet
TSC3
N/A

5.00 H =
+ Reference: Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2014), "CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures," University of California Davis, Center for Geotechnical Modeling Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, 1-134.

Depth to
Top of
Soil Layer
Depth to
Bottom of
Soil Layer
Material Type
USCS
Group Symbol
(ASTM D2487)
Liquefaction
Susceptibility
Screening
++
Susceptible
Soil? (Y/N)
Total Soil
Unit
Weight
t
Type of
Soil
Sampler
Field
SPT Blow
Count
Nfield
Fines
Content
FC
Total
Vert.

Stress
(Design)
vo
Effective
Vert.

Stress
(Design)
'vo
SPT
Corr.
for
Vert.

Stress
CN
SPT
Corr.
for
Hammer
Energy
CE
SPT
Corr.
for
Borehole
Size
CB
SPT
Corr.
for
Rod
Length
CR
SPT
Corr.
for
Sampling
Method
CS
Corrected
SPT Blow
Count
N60
Normalized
SPT Blow
Count
(N1)60
Fines
Corrected
SPT Blow
Count
(N1)60cs
Shear
Stress
Reduction
Coefficient
rd
Correction
for High
Overburden
Stress
K
Cyclic
Stress
Ratio
CSR
Cyclic
Resistance
Ratio
CRR
Factor of
Safety
*
FSliq
Liquefaction
Analysis
Results
(feet) (feet) (pcf) (blows/ft) (%) (psf) (psf) (psf) (%) (inches) (inches) (inches)

0.00 7.00 SM N 118.00 MCal 7.00 28.00 413.00 413.00 0.997 0.510 0.15 0.14 0.00

7.00 10.00 SP-SM N 104.00 MCal 10.00 7.00 982.00 982.00 0.981 0.502 0.15 0.14 0.00

10.00 15.00 SM N 109.00 MCal 13.00 28.00 1,410.50 1,410.50 0.966 0.494 0.15 0.14 0.00

15.00 25.00 CL N 118.00 SPT1 13.00 60.00 2,273.00 2,273.00 0.933 0.477 0.15 0.14 0.00

25.00 27.00 CL N 118.00 SPT1 13.00 60.00 2,981.00 2,981.00 0.904 0.463 0.15 0.14 0.00

27.00 30.00 SP Y 109.00 MCal 38.00 15.00 3,262.50 3,262.50 0.843 1.333 1.150 1.000 0.650 37.9 31.9 35.2 0.892 0.891 0.456 0.15 0.14 0.00

30.00 40.00 SP Y 109.00 SPT1 37.00 15.00 3,971.00 3,971.00 0.840 1.333 1.150 1.000 1.000 56.7 47.7 50.9 0.858 0.794 0.439 0.09 0.07 0.00

40.00 42.00 SP Y 109.00 MCal 50.00 20.00 4,625.00 4,625.00 0.773 1.333 1.150 1.000 0.650 49.8 38.5 43.0 0.825 0.749 0.422 0.09 0.07 0.00

42.00 45.00 SM Y 123.50 SPT1 23.00 20.00 4,919.25 4,919.25 0.695 1.333 1.150 1.000 1.000 35.3 24.5 29.0 0.812 0.857 0.415 0.09 0.07 0.00

45.00 50.00 SM Y 123.50 MCal 50.00 20.00 5,413.25 5,382.05 0.726 1.333 1.150 1.000 0.650 49.8 36.2 40.6 0.790 0.701 0.407 0.00 0.00 0.00 (Dry/Unsaturated Soils)
(Saturated Soils)Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992)

SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS ASSESSMENT USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) DATA (Copyright © 2015, 2021, SPTLIQ, All Rights Reserved; By: InfraGEO Software) New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater Treatm Sk Syfur Rahman
Hashmi S. Quazi
Analyzed By
Reviewed By

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Analysis Method

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name
Analysis Method
Tokimatsu and Asaka (1998)
Zhang et al. (2004)
Pradel (1998)
g
feet
21-81-276-01
1950 Nevada Street, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Earthquake Moment Magnitude, Mw
Borehole Diameter
Hammer Weight
GWL Depth Measured During Test
GWL Depth Used in Design
Boring No.

Ground Surface Elevation
Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, FS
Project No.

Project Location

BORING DATA AND SITE CONDITIONS
Peak Ground Acceleration, Amax
- Ground Slope, S
Proposed Grade Elevation
Hammer Distance to Ground Surface
Topographic Site Condition:
feet
(Level Ground with Nearby Free Face)
Hammer Drop
Hammer Energy Efficiency Ratio, ER
+ This method of analysis is based on observed seismic performance of level ground sites using correlation with normalized and fines-corrected SPT blow count, (N1)60cs = f{(N1)60, FC} where (N1)60 = Nfield CN CE CB CR CS * FS liq = Factor of Safety against liquefaction = (CRR/CSR), where CRR = CRR7.5 MSF K K , MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor, K = f[(N1)60, 'vo], K =1.0, (level ground), ++ Liquefaction susceptibility screening is performed to identify soil layers assessed to be non-liquefiable based on laboratory test results using the criteria proposed by Cetin and Seed (2003), Bray and Sancio (2006), or Idriss and Boulanger (2008).

NOTES AND REFERENCES
** Residual strength values of liquefied soils are based on correlation with post-earthquake, normalized and fines-corrected SPT blow count derived by Idriss and Boulanger (2008).

CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio = 0.65 Amax (vo/'vo) rd , and CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio is a function of (N1)60cs and corrected for an earthquake magnitude Mw of 7.5. *** Based on Iwasaki et al. (1978) and Toprak and Holzer (2003) Cumulative
Lateral
Spreading
Displacement
Seismic
Porewater
Pressure
Ratio
ru
Cumulative
Seismic
Settlement
- Free Face (L/H) Ratio 15 feet
INPUT SOIL PROFILE DATA Residual
Shear
Strength
**
Sr
LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING ANALYSIS BASED ON R.W. BOULANGER AND I.M. IDRISS (2014) METHOD + Cumulative Cyclic
Lateral
Displacement
SPTLIQ(cc)-BH-05 C-2
I
I
I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
201 of 932
Seismic Settlements: Cyclic Lateral Displacements: Lateral Spreading:

Boulanger-Idriss (2014) Above GWL: Pradel (1998) Pradel (1998) Zhang et al. (2004) Below GWL: Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) Tokimatsu and Asaka (199 8) REFERENCES:

1. Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2014), "C PT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures," University of California Davis, Center for Geotechnical Modeling Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, 1-134.

2. Bray, J.D., and Sancio, R.B. (2006). "Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils," Journal of Geotech. and Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE 132 (9), 1165-1177.

3. Cetin, K.O. and Seed, R.B., et al. (2004), "Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deter ministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential," Journal of Geotech. and Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE 130 (12), 1314- 1340.

4. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008), "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes", Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Monograph MNO-12.

5. Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M. (1992), "Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes," Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, 32 (1), 173-188.

6. Iwasaki, T., et al. (1978), "A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction pote ntial based on case studies at various sites in Japan," Proceed ings Of 3rd International Conference of Microzonation, San Fran cisco, 885-896.

7. Olson, S.M. and Johnson, C.I. (2008), "Analyzing Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreads Using Strength Ratios," Journal of Geotech. and Geoenv. E ngineering, ASCE 134 (8), 1035-1049.

8. Pradel, D. (1998), "Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 12 4 (4), pp. 364-368.

9. Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F. (1990), "SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation a nd undrained residual strength, Proceedings Of Seed Memorial Sy mposium, Vancouver, B.C., 351-376.

10. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. (1987), "Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 113 (GT8), 86 1-878.

11. Tokimatsu, K. and Asaka, Y. (1998), "Effects of liquefaction-induced ground displacementson pile performance in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake," Soils and Foundations, Special Issue, Japan Geotechnical Society, 163 -177.

12. Toprak, S. and Holzer, T.L. (2003), "Liquefaction Potential Index: Field Assessment," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, ASCE 129 (4), 315-322.

13. Youd, T.L, Idriss, I.M., et al. (2001), "Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops", Journal of Geotech. and Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE 127 (10), 817-833.

14. Zhang, G, Robertson, P.K. and Brachman, R.W.I. (2004), "Estimating liquefaction-induced lateral displacement us ing the standard penetration test or cone penetration test," Jo urnal of Geotech. and Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE 130 (8), 861-871.

Analysis Methods Used ==>>
Project Location
Analyzed By
Liquefaction Triggering:

Reviewed By
21-81-276-01
1950 Nevada Street, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California Sk Syfur Rahman
Hashmi S. Quazi

SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS ASSESSMENT USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) DATA (Copyright © 2015, 2021, SPTLIQ, All Rights Reserved; By: InfraGEO Software)

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name
Project No.

New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater Tr eatment Plant (WWTP) 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio;
CRR = Cyclic Resistance Ratio
CSR (Load)
CRR (Resistance)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Factor of Safety, FS
Required FS
Computed FS
GWL
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0 25 50 75 100 125
Soil Depth During Test (feet)
SPT N-values and Fines Content
N60, (N1)60cs ; FC (%)
SPT N60
SPT (N1)60cs
FC (%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Seismic Settlement (in.)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Cyclic Lateral Displacement (in.)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75

0.00 0.50 1.00
Lateral Spreading (in.)
SPTLIQ(cc)-BH-05 C-3
- - I -- 1 1 --X
' ,, ' x- + + + ' ' - - C
'
+
-- ~ ... ... ... --+- ' -- -- ... ,,
·- + + c- + + ... -I -- X + + ' ... ,, ' +
- x L.si
X ' ,, ' f- + ... ... ... ' ·~
-- + + +
X 6 0 --+- ' -- -i---
·-
+ X 6 0 ' '
- X 6:__lJ --r
' c- + + ' -- +-- -- '--- ... '
... ... --- -- ... -- ...
j j
... + + ... ... -- ...
l + + + ...
-- + -+ -- ...

I
0 I
-- 6
H = I H -- I
-- ... +
" -
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
202 of 932
Appendix D
Site-Specific Seismic Analysis
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
203 of 932
APPEN
DIX D

SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC ANALYSIS

A site -specific response spectrum was developed for the project for a Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), defined as a horizontal peak ground acceleration that has a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (return period of approximately 2,475 years).

In accordance with ASCE 7- 16, Section 21.2, the site -specific response spectra can be taken as the lesser of the probabilistic maximum rotated component of MCE ground motion and the 84
th percentile of deterministic maximum rotated component of MCE ground motion response spectra. The design response spectra can be taken as 2/3 of site-specific MCE response spectra but should not be lower than 80 percent of CBC general response spectra. The risk coefficient C
R has been incorporated at each spectral
response period for which the acceleration was computed in accordance with ASCE 7-16, Section 21.2.1.1.

The 2022 CBC mapped acceleration parameters are provided in the following table.

These parameters were determined using the ATC hazard by location Seis mic Design Maps website application, and in accordance with ASCE 7- 16 Sections 11.4, 11.6, 11.8 and 21.2.

Table No. D-1, 2022 CBC Mapped Acceleration Parameters
Site Class D Risk Category III
Ss 2.028 CRS 0.917
S1 0.773 CR1 0.891
Fa 1 T0 0.191
Fv 2.5 TS 0.953
SMS 2.028 TL 8
SM1 1.933
SDS 1.352
SD1 1.288

A site -specific response analysis, using faults within 200 kilometers of the site, was developed using the computer program EZ-FRISK Version 8.07 (Fugro, 2021).

The weighted mean maximum -rotated horizontal spectral acceleration values were computed by multiplying the weighted mean geometric spectral values derived from four next-generation attenuation (NGA) West 2 ground motion attenuation models by Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014), and Chiou and Youngs (2014) with the scale factors provided in ASCE 7-16 Section 21.2. An average shear wave velocity at upper 30 meters of soil profile (V s30) of 2 67 meters per
second was determined (Plate No. D -1), and a shear wave velocity 1,000 meters per Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
204 of 932
s
econd at 200 meters below grade, and a shear wave velocity is 2,500 meters per second at 550 met
ers below grade were selected for EZ-Frisk Analysis.

The probabilistic response spectrum results and peak ground acceleration for each attenuation relationship are presented in the following table.

Table No. D-2, Probabilistic Response Spectrum Data
Attenuation
Relationship
Probabilisti
c Mean
Abrahams
on et al.
(2014)
Boore et al.
(2014)
Campbell-
Bozorgnia
(2014)
Chiou-
Youngs
(2014)
Peak Ground
Acceleration (g) 1.047 1.012 1.187 0.794 1.050
Spectral
Period (sec) 2% in 50yr Probabilistic Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.05 1.191 0.995 1.485 1.000 1.155

0.10 1.689 1.265 2.259 1.383 1.551

0.20 2.218 2.198 2.573 1.467 2.258

0.30 2.495 2.637 2.588 1.768 2.709

0.40 2.598 2.794 2.522 2.085 2.859

0.50 2.563 2.554 2.560 2.164 2.883

0.75 2.191 1.976 2.163 2.036 2.517

1.00 1.831 1.552 1.788 1.793 2.098

2.00 1.045 0.917 1.033 1.188 1.004

3.00 0.728 0.614 0.746 0.898 0.593

4.00 0.532 0.473 0.583 0.638 0.383

5.00 0.370 0.335 0.426 0.443 0.222

Applicable response spectra data are presented in the table below and on Plate No. D-2, Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum. These curves correspond to response values obtained from above attenuation relations for horizontal elastic single-degree-of-freedom systems with equivalent viscous damping of 5 percent of critical damping.

Table No. D-3, Probabilistic MCE
R Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period
(sec)
2% in 50yr
Probabilistic Spectral
Acceleration (g)
Geometric Mean
Risk
Coefficient CR
Scale Factors
for MCER
Probabilistic MCER
Spectral Acceleration
(g)

0.05 1.191 0.917 1.100 1.056

0.10 1.689 0.917 1.100 1.201

0.20 2.218 0.917 1.100 1.704

0.30 2.495 0.917 1.125 2.237

0.40 2.598 0.914 1.150 2.565

0.50 2.563 0.911 1.175 2.720

0.75 2.191 0.907 1.238 2.732

1.00 1.831 0.899 1.300 2.438

I I I I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
205 of 932
Period
(sec)
2% in 50yr
Probabilistic Spectral
Acceleration (g)
Geometric Mean
Risk
Coefficient CR
Scale Factors
for MCER
Probabilistic MCER
Spectral Acceleration
(g)

2.00 1.045 0.891 1.350 1.257

3.00 0.728 0.891 1.400 0.908

4.00 0.532 0.891 1.450 0.687

5.00 0.370 0.891 1.500 0.465

Deterministic response spectra parameters were determined using PEER spread sheet and presented in Table No. D -4. The following fault parameters were used to calculate the spectrum.

 S. San Andreas Fault, Mw–8.18, RRUP–5.98 km, RJB–5.98 km, Rx–5.98 km and dip angle are 90 degrees. The San Jacinto Fault is an approximately 241-km long fault generally trending in a southeast to northwest direction from the Santa Rosa Mountains to the San Gabriel Mountains. The branch of the S. San Andreas Fault that is located in the vicinity of this project site traverses across the Inland Santa Ana Basin. The fault trends northwest and has a vertical dip. The nearest mapped trace of the S. San Andreas is located approximately 3.72 miles (5.98 kilometers) west of the project site.

Table No. D-4, Site-Specific Response Spectrum Data
Period
(sec)
84th
Percentile
Deterministic
Response
Spectrum, (g)
Geometric
Mean
Scale
Factors for
MCER
84th
Percentile
Deterministic
MCE
Response
Spectrum, (g)
Site-Specific
MCER
Spectral
Acceleration
(g)
80% CBC
Design
Response
Spectrum
Site-Specific
Design
Spectral
Acceleration
(g)

0.05 0.973 1.100 1.070 1.070 0.603 0.71

0.10 1.422 1.100 1.564 1.564 0.773 1.04

0.20 1.986 1.100 2.185 2.185 1.082 1.46

0.30 2.336 1.125 2.628 2.565 1.082 1.71

0.40 2.482 1.150 2.854 2.720 1.082 1.81

0.50 2.406 1.175 2.828 2.732 1.082 1.82

0.75 1.917 1.238 2.372 2.372 1.082 1.58

1.00 1.526 1.300 1.983 1.983 1.031 1.32

2.00 0.699 1.350 0.944 0.944 0.515 0.63

3.00 0.403 1.400 0.564 0.564 0.344 0.38

4.00 0.258 1.425 0.374 0.374 0.258 0.26

5.0 0.180 1.500 0.270 0.270 0.206 0.21

The site-specific design response parameters are provided in the following table. These parameters were determined from Design Response Spectra presented in table above and following guidelines of ASCE Section 21.4.

I I I I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
206 of 932
T
able No. D-5, Site-Speci fic Seismic Design Parameters
Parameter Value
(5% Damping)
Lower Limit, 80% of CBC Design
Spectra
Site-Specific 0.2-second period Spectral
Response Acceleration, SMS

2.459 1.622
Site-Specific1-second period Spectral
Response Acceleration, SM1

1.983 1.546
Site-Specific Design Spectral Response
Acceleration for short period SDS

1.639 1.082
Site-Specific Design Spectral Response
Acceleration for 1-second period, SD1

1.322 1.031

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
207 of 932
Project Name - Based on the recommendations by Idriss and Boulanger (2008), - For granular soils, the effective peak friction angle, φ', is estimated from correlations with the normalized SPT blow Project No. the normalized SPT blow count is defined as (N1)60 = N60 CN count, (N1)60 from Bowles (1996) and recommended adjustments from Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (2014).

Project Location where N60 = Nfield CE CB CR CS - For cohesive soils, the undrained shear strength, Su, is based on field measurements with torvane or pocket Analyzed By penetrometer. When only SPT values are available, Su is estimated using the correlation chart with (N1)60 value Reviewed By Dr = 15 [(N1)60]0.5 in percent provided in the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (2014). - Modulus of Elasticity, Es, values for granular soils and cohesive soils are estimated from correlations with SPT N60 and undrained shear strength, Su, respectively summarized by Bowles (1996). - Shear wave velocities are estimated based on empirical correlations - Shear Modulus, G = Es / [3 (1 - 2μ)] and Bulk Modulus, K = Es / [2 (1 + μ)] based on theory of elasticity BH-05 with SPT N60 values for various soil types, as derived by Brandenberg, where μ is the Poisson's ratio of the soil. Typical values of Poisson's ratio are estimated from various references. 1185.00 Bellana and Shantz (2010) from regression analyses. 1185.00 - Site classification is analyzed using the method by Boore (2004). REFERENCES:
120.00 Ave. Shear Wave Velocity (Top Depth d), Vs,d = 224.30 m/s 1. AASHTO, 1988. Manual on Subsurface Investigations.

8.00 Ave. Shear Wave Velocity (Top 30 m), Vs,30 = 10 a + b log (Vs,d) 2. Boore, D.M., 2004. "Estimating Vs(30) (or NEHRP Site Classes) f rom shallow velocity models 140.00 where a = 0.01380 (depths < 30 m)", Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 94(2), pp. 591-597.

30.00 b = 1.02630 3. Brandenberg, S.J., Bellana, N. and Shantz, T., 2010. "Shear Wave Velocity as a Statistical Function of Standard

86.60 Coefficients a and b vary with depth, as derived by Boore (2004). Penetration Test Resistance and Vertical Effective Stress at Caltrans Bridge Sites," PEER Report 201/03.

5.00 Computed Vs,30 = 267.0 m/s 4. FHWA, 2002. Subsurface Investigations Reference Manual, Geotechnical Site Characterization.

61.50 Site Class = D 5. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008, "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes", EERI Monograph MNO-12.

Depth to
Top of
Soil Layer
Depth to
Bottom of
Soil Layer
Material Type
USCS
Group Symbol
(ASTM D2487)
Total
Soil Unit
Weight
t
Type of
Soil
Sampler
Field
Blow
Count
Nfield
Pocket
Penetrometer
Shear Test
Results
PP
Torvane
Shear
Test
Results
TV
Bottom of
Soil
Layer
Elevation
Soil
Depth
During
Test
SPT
Corr.

For
Vert.

Stress
CN
SPT
Corr.

For
Hammer
Energy
CE
SPT
Corr.

For
Borehole
Size
CB
SPT
Corr.

For
Rod
Length
CR
SPT
Corr.

For
Sampling
Method
CS
Corrected
SPT Blow
Count
N60
Normalized
SPT Blow
Count
(N1)60
Relative
Density
Dr
Shear
Wave
Velocity
Vs
Effective
Peak
Friction
Angle
φ'
Undrained
Shear
Strength
Su
Apparent Density /
Soil Consistency
Description
FHWA (2002) and
AASHTO (1988)
Poisson's
Ratio
μ
Modulus of
Elasticity
Es
Shear
Modulus
G
Bulk
Modulus
K
(feet) (feet) (pcf) (blows/ft) (tsf) (tsf) (feet) (feet) (%) (ft/s) (deg) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf)

0.00 7.00 SM 118.0 MCal 7.00 1178.00 3.50 1.700 1.443 1.150 0.750 0.650 5.7 9.6 47.00 447.48 31.00 Loose Sand 0.25 260.47 173.64 104.19

7.00 10.00 SP-SM 104.0 MCal 10.00 1175.00 8.50 1.427 1.443 1.150 0.850 0.650 9.2 13.1 54.00 574.96 34.00 Loose Sand 0.25 319.99 213.00 128.00

10.00 15.00 SM 109.0 MCal 13.00 1170.00 12.50 1.191 1.443 1.150 0.850 0.650 11.9 14.2 57.00 642.23 32.00 Medium Dense Sand 0.30 361.05 301.00 139.00

15.00 25.00 CL 118.0 SPT1 13.00 1160.00 20.00 0.938 1.443 1.150 0.950 1.000 20.5 19.2 770.98 2.48 Very Stiff Clay 0.45 1,730.64 5,769.00 597.00

25.00 27.00 CL 118.0 SPT1 13.00 1158.00 26.00 0.819 1.443 1.150 0.950 1.000 20.5 16.8 806.03 2.48 Very Stiff Clay 0.45 1,730.64 5,769.00 597.00

27.00 30.00 SP 109.0 MCal 38.00 1155.00 28.50 0.783 1.443 1.150 1.000 0.650 41.0 32.1 85.00 881.32 38.00 Dense Sand 0.35 692.03 769.00 256.00

30.00 40.00 SP 109.0 SPT1 37.00 1145.00 35.00 0.710 1.443 1.150 1.000 1.000 61.4 43.6 99.00 959.68 40.00 Very Dense Sand 0.40 881.69 1,469.00 315.00

40.00 42.00 SP 109.0 MCal 50.00 1143.00 41.00 0.658 1.443 1.150 1.000 0.650 53.9 35.5 89.00 982.53 39.00 Very Dense Sand 0.40 814.49 1,357.00 291.00

42.00 45.00 SM 123.5 SPT1 23.00 1140.00 43.50 0.638 1.443 1.150 1.000 1.000 38.2 24.3 74.00 964.39 35.00 Dense Sand 0.35 664.07 738.00 246.00

45.00 50.00 SM 123.5 MCal 50.00 1135.00 47.50 0.608 1.443 1.150 1.000 0.650 53.9 32.8 86.00 1,019.70 37.00 Very Dense Sand 0.40 814.49 1,357.00 291.00 Hashmi S. Quazi

GENERAL INPUT DATA

SIMPLIFIED EVALUATION OF SITE CLASS AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) DATA (Copyright © 2015, 2020, SPTPROP, All Rights Reserved; By: InfraGEO Software ) and the relative density of granular soils is estimated as

SOIL STRENGTH AND DEFORMATION MODULUS PARAMETERS PROJECT INFORMATION New 2.5 MG DN Tank and a Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater 21-81-276-01
1950 Nevada Street, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, Californ Sk Syfur Rahman

SPT BLOW COUNT AND RELATIVE DENSITY

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY AND SITE CLASSIFICATION
Analysis Description
Boring ID No.

ESTIMATED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Ground Surface Elevation
Proposed Grade Elevation
Site Class and Vs30
Total Unit Weight of New Fill

INPUT SOIL PROFILE DATA
Groundwater Depth During Test
Hammer Dist. to Ground Surface
Borehole Diameter
Hammer Weight
Hammer Drop
Hammer Efficiency Ratio, ER
feet
%
feet
feet
feet
pcf
inches
pounds
inches
SPTPROPcc D-1
I I
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
208 of 932
Note: Calculated using EZFRISK program Risk Engineering, version 8.07 21-81-276-01
Plate No.

D-2Converse Consultants
For : Carollo Engineers, Inc.

SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
New 2.75 MG Tank and Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 1950 Nevada Street, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California Project Number:
0 1
2 3
01234
Spectral Acceleration (g)
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum
Probabilistic MCE_R Spectrum
Deterministic Spectrum
80% of CBC Spectrum

I I I I
- >--
-------
>--
-------' --, ~
' ' -----I --·,,: I I
' ' "
l -, •• .. '·.

I ' \ ' .. , . ' . .
' . '
1 \ . .. ' . ;, . .. ~-. ,, ·•. ,, ,,
~ .. ··. ,,
~ " '"
. . •, ,, . •, ,, . :, ' . •, . •; , ~ . . •, ~
'"
.
~ . . ..
,: . . ~, " . ..
~
'
. •, . '• ~ . . ---if ~
. ........... . .
' j ------------, ....
. . --......... .... . ---I ~ ...
"'
. --........ I i,,,..._ --'-.. .......... -----. j I ... ... ----- ·-----!/ -.... .. '
............ - ----.. ......... -- --------I
- ---......
~
--- ·------i-----------.. ..... ----... -------- --------- -- - @)
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
209 of 932
3/8/23, 11:21 AM ATC Hazards by Location
https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/seismic?lat=34.0888&lng=-117.2167&address=  This is a beta release of the new ATC Hazards by Location website. Please contact us with feedback.  The ATC Hazards by Location website will not be updated to support ASCE 7-22. Find out why.

Hazards by Location
Search Information
Coordinates: 34.0888, -1

17.2167
Elevation: 1184 ft
Timestamp: 2023-03-08T19:21:02.174Z
Hazard Type: Seismic
Reference Document: ASCE7-16
Risk Category: III
Site Class: D
Basic Parameters
Name Value Description
SS 2.028 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)
S1 0.773 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)
SMS 2.028 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 * null Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SDS 1.352 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA
SD1 * null Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA
* See Section 11.4.8
Additional Information
Name Value Description
SDC * null Seismic design category
Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2s
Fv * null Site amplification factor at 1.0s
CRS 0.917 Coefficient of risk (0.2s)
CR1 0.891 Coefficient of risk (1.0s)
PGA 0.836 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 0.919 Site modified peak ground acceleration
TL 8 Long-period transition period (s)
SsRT 2.68 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s) SsUH 2.923 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
SsD 2.028 Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s) S1R
T 1.061 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s) S1UH 1.191 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
S1D 0.773 Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s) PGAd 0.836 Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA) * See Section 11.4.8
The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with design.

Please note that the ATC Hazards by Location website will not be updated to support ASCE 7-22.

Find out why.
1184 ft
Map data ©2023 Google, INEGI
Report a map error
D-3
L\TC
Victirv ille l
0 Hesperia
P.alm Deserto
Twentyn ine
Pa~ms
Joshua
National
1ngL
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
210 of 932
3/8/23, 12:08 PM https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144/detailed https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144/detailed Site-Specific MCE & Design Response Spectral Accelerations New 2.5 MG DN Tank and a Pump Station at the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (generated 03/08/2023)
R
Summary (/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144) Detailed Download All (/ugms-mcerGM- tool_v18.4/report/144/download)
Input Parameters
Coordinates 34.0888, -117.2167
Vs30 267 m/s
Values used in Computation
Vs30 267 m/s
Z1.0 200 m
Z2.5 550 m
Reset Map View
Map data ©2023 Google, INEGI Report a map error (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0888,-117.2167,8z/data=!5m1!1e4!10m1!1e1!12b1?source=apiv3&rapsrc=apiv3)(https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.0888,-117.2167&z=8&t=p&hl=en-US&gl=US&mapclient=apiv3) Computed Results
Site-Specific Design Parameters (Sect. 21.4)
S = 1.454 S = 2.182
S = 1.372 S = 2.058
DS MS
D1 M1
MCE Peak Ground Acceleration (Sect. 21.5)
PGA = 0.787 g
G
M
MCE Response Spectrum
NOTE: The MCE response spectrum must be checked against the minimum ASCE 7-16 requirement on the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool (https://asce7hazardtool.online/) website; see the User Guide (/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/guide) for details.

R
R
MCE Response SpectraR
D-4
Go gle
AN NSF+USGS CENTER
·.no.....------ , f
I"'.,
~ ,J"
l
. ,(
..,":1,. ',1,
~
;tt
~~-
1{~ ;;
~
:;. ✓
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
211 of 932
3/8/23, 12:08 PM https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144/detailed https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144/detailed MCE Response Spectra ComparisonR
D-5
-

2.5 2.4

2.3 2.2

2.1 2

1.9 1.8

1.7 1.6

1.5 1.4
~1.3
~ 1.2

1.1 1

0.9 0.8

0.7 0.6

0.5 0.4

0.3 0.2

0.1 o ~-----------------------------~
1 2 3 4 5
Period (s)
6 7
-site Specific MCE R - Design Response Spectrum
8 9 10
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
212 of 932
3/8/23, 12:08 PM https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144/detailed https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144/detailed SA (g)
Period (s) GMPE Sa (g) CyberShake Sa (g) Site-Specific MCE Sa (g)

0.01 0.945 0.945

0.02 0.947 0.947

0.03 0.951 0.951

0.05 1.034 1.034

0.075 1.223 1.223

0.1 1.392 1.392

0.15 1.673 1.673

0.2 1.901 1.901

0.25 2.102 2.102

0.3 2.271 2.271

0.4 2.424 2.424

0.5 2.391 2.391
R *
D-6

2.5 2.4

2.3 2.2

2.1 2

1.9 1.8

1.7 1.6

1.5 1.4
-~1.3
~ 1.2

1.1 1

0.9 0.8

0.7 0.6

0.5 0.4

0.3 0.2

0.1 0
1 ' ' ' ' ' '
2 '
3 ---
4 5
Period (s)
6 7
- GMPE MCER - CyberShake MCER-Site Specific MCER
8 9 10
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
213 of 932
3/8/23, 12:08 PM https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144/detailed https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/report/144/detailed

0.75 2.017 2.017

1.0 1.714 1.714

1.5 1.283 1.283

2.0 0.999 0.781 0.999

3.0 0.686 0.515 0.686

4.0 0.506 0.376 0.506

5.0 0.389 0.322 0.389

7.5 0.209 0.202 0.209

10.0 0.124 0.112 0.124
Site-Specific MCE response spectrum obtained using weighted geometric averaging procedure. See User Guide (/ugms-mcerGM- tool_v18.4/guide).
* R
D-7
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
214 of 932
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
215 of 932

APPENDIX C –MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
216 of 932

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project

CITY OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

CITY OF REDLANDS
Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department
35 Cajon Street, Suite 15A
Redlands, CA 92373
Prepared by:

CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F208
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(949) 261-5414
October 2025
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
217 of 932
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21532

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 (Assembly Bill 3180) requires that mitigation measures identified in environmental review documents prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are implemented after a project is approved. Therefore, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during the demolition and construction phases of the WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project (Proposed Project).

The City of Redlands is the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND. This MMRP provides the City of Redlands with a convenient mechanism for quickly reviewing all the mitigation measures including the ability to focus on select information such as timing. The MMRP includes the following information for each mitigation measure:
▪ The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be implemented; ▪ The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be monitored; and ▪ The enforcement agency.

The MMRP includes a checklist to be used during the mitigation monitoring period. The checklist will verify the name of the monitor, the date of the monitoring activity, and any related remarks for each mitigation measure.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
218 of 932

Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21532

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Less than Significant (LTS)
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: The City shall retain the services of a Qualified Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards, or County requirements, whichever is the greater. The Qualified Archaeologist shall remain on -call throughout the Project. Upon approval or re quest by the City, a cultural resources mitigation plan (CRMP) outlining procedures for cultural resources monitoring, mitigation, treatment, and data recovery of any unanticipated discovery shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the CRMP shall include consultations with the City, as well as a requirement that the curation of any significant cultural resources recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. If the City accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised.

If significant pre -contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the drafts of the CRMP shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the CRMP accordingly.

Pre-Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
219 of 932

Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21532

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Less than Significant (LTS)
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
CUL-2: In the event of the discovery of previously unidentified and/or potential cultural Resources during Project activities , the City, and/or its Contractor, shall immediately cease all work activities within an area of not less than 60 feet of the discovery. The City or its Contractor shall immediately contact the City and the City -retained on -call Qualified Archaeologist, who must meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards .

Except in the case of cultural items that fall within the scope of the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, or California PRC Section 5097.98, the discovery of any cultural resource within the Project site shall not be grounds for a project-wide “stop work” notice or otherwise interfere with the Project’s continuation except as outlined in this mitigation measure.

In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during construction, the City -retained Qualified Archaeologist, who must meet the Secretary of the Interior standards, shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the materials prior to resuming any construction -related activities in the vicinity of the find. If a CRMP is prepared for the Project, the protocols for the mitigation or treatment of cultural resources will be implemented. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the discovery constitutes a significant resource under CEQA and it cannot be avoided, the City shall implement an archaeological data recovery program.

Additionally, any consulting Native American Tribal groups that requested notification of any unanticipated discovery of cultural resources on the Project shall be notified and included in subsequent consultation appropriately. Specifically, the YSMN shall be contacted regarding any pre- contact finds and provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS
CUL-3: If cultural resources are encountered during the Project, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a report summarizing any and all prehistoric or historic archaeological finds as well as providing follow -up reports of any finds to the SCCIC, as required.

Post-Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS
CUL-4: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

Construction Construction

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
220 of 932

Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21532
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
Geology and Soils
PAL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall be required to obtain the services of a Qualified Project Paleontologist to remain on call for the duration of the proposed ground disturbing construction activity.

The paleontologist selected must be approved by the City. Upon approval or request by the City, a paleontological mitigation plan (PMP) outlining procedures for paleontological data recovery shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the PMP shall include consultations with the District’s Engineering Geologist, as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. If the District accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised. The PMP shall include developing a multilevel ranking system, or Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC), as a tool to demonstrate the potential yield of fossils within a given stratigraphic unit. The PMP shall outline the monitoring and salvage protocols to address paleontological resources encountered during Project -related ground -disturbing activities, as well as the appropriate recording, collection, and processing protocols to appropriately address any resources discovered.

Pre-Construction/Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS PAL-2: At the completion of all ground -disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a final paleontological mitigation report summarizing all monitoring efforts and observations, as performed in line with the PMP, and all paleontological resour ces encountered, if any, as well as providing follow-up reports of any specific discovery, if necessary.

Post-Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in CUL- 1, of any pre -contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

Pre-Construction/Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
221 of 932

Chambers Group, Inc. 6
21532
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Less than Significant (LTS)
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
TCR-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or appli cant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the Project.

Pre-Construction/Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS TCR-3: Native American Treatment Agreement . Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for the Project. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall be on -site during all ground -disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor(s) shall ha ve the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground -disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources and/or tribal cultural resources.

Pre-Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS
TCR-4: Cultural Resource Management Plan. Prior to any ground - disturbing activities the project archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeologi cal and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the Consulting Tribe[s] and at minimum, shall include the following: (1) the approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA) , (2) procedures for each MM/COA, (3) the contact information for all pertinent parties, (4) parties’ responsibilities, and (5) an overview of the project schedule.

Pre-Construction Pre-Construction City of Redlands LTS
TCR-5: Pre-Grade Meeting . The retained qualified archeologist and Consulting Tribe[s] representative shall attend the pre-grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.

Pre-Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
222 of 932

Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21532
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Less than Significant (LTS)
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
TCR-6: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources . In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered /unearthed during construction, the qualified archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground-disturbance ac tivities in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored ground-disturbing activity can proceed.

If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60 -foot perimeter of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vici nity of the find(s), so that it/they can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. The archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the Consulting Tribe[s], and the Tribal monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the treatment and disposition of the Tribal Cultural Resource shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Tribal monitor[s] and be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval.

Below are the possible treatments and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQA preference:

A. Full avoidance.

B. If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.

If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.

C. If all other options are proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and then curation in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards (36 CFR 79).

Unless otherwise agreed upon by all parties, all removed items from the Project shall be temporarily curated on-site in a secure and locked location (i.e., Conex box, a lockable office or drawer with restricted access to it, etc.). A periodic inventory must be maintained and provided to Consulting Tribe[s].

Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
223 of 932

Chambers Group, Inc. 8
21532
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Less than Significant (LTS)
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
TCR-7: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains . The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations. No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the Consulting Tribe[s].

A. Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground -disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, exca vation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within a 100- foot perimeter of the discovery. The area shall be protected by the establishment of an ESA with a marked boundary. Project personnel/observers will be restricted from entry into the ESA. The County Coroner is to be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98.

B. In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC §7050.5.

C. The NAHC shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make his/her recommendation for final t reatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC §5097.98

D. If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians has been named the MLD or Co- MLD, the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance where they will reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial will not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations will be determined by the Tribe’s MLD, the landowner, and the City Planning Department
Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS
TCR-8: FINAL REPORT: The final report[s] created as a part of the project (CRMP/AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] for review and comment. After approval of all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the appropriate Information Center (IC), and the Consulting Tribe[s]
Post-Construction Construction City of Redlands LTS
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
224 of 932

Chambers Group, Inc. 9
21532

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
225 of 932

APPENDIX D –REVISED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
226 of 932

INITIAL STUDY
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Prepared for:

City of Redlands
Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department
35 Cajon St, Suite 15A
P.O. Box 3005
Redlands, CA 92373
Prepared by:

CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F208
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(949) 261-5414
October 2025
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
227 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. ii
21532

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................ ............... 1

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 1

1.2.1 Project Site Location ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2.2 Project Site History........................................................................................................... 1

1.2.3 Project Site Access and Circulation .................................................................................. 1

1.2.4 General Plan Designation/Zoning .................................................................................... 1

1.2.5 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................... 2

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 2

1.3.1 Parking and Hardscape .................................................................................................... 2

1.3.2 Operations and Ongoing Maintenance ............................................................................ 2

1.3.3 Construction ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS.......................................................................................... 3

1.4.1 Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ................................ ................................ ............. 7

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ................................................................ 7

2.2 DETERMINATION .......................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 3.0 – EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS................................ ................................ 8 SECTION 4.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ................................ ................................ ....... 9

4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................... 9

4.1.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 9

4.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................................... 11

4.2.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 11

4.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 12

4.3.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 13

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 19

4.4.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 20

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 22

4.5.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 23

4.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 27

4.6.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 27

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 29

4.7.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 29

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 33

4.8.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 33

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................................................... 35 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
228 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. iii
21532

4.9.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 36

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 38

4.10.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 39

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 43

4.11.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 43

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 44

4.12.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 44

4.13 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 45

4.13.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 45

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 49

4.14.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 49

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................... 50

4.15.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 50

4.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................... 52

4.16.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 52

4.17 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................... 52

4.17.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 53

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 54

4.18.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 54

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 58

4.19.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 59

4.20 WILDFIRE..................................................................................................................................... 60

4.20.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 60

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................. 62

4.21.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 62 SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 65 APPENDIX A – AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY TECHNCIAL MEMORANDUM APPENDIX B – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4-1. Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions .................................................................... 15 Table 4-2. Operations-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions ....................................................................... 16 Table 4-3. Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions .................................................................. 33 Table 4-4. Common Outdoor and Indoor Noises ........................................................................................ 46 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
229 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. iv
21532

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 - Project Location and Vicinity ....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3 – CNDDB Occurrences ..................................................................................................................... 6 Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
230 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21532
SECTION 1.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (MUED) is proposing to construct a

2.75 million gallon (MG) recycled water reservoir and pump station ( Project/Proposed Project) to be located at the existing City of Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in the City of Redlands (City).

The proposed recycled water reservoir would be for City use and would not be publicly distributed, nor would it be used for direct potable use.

In November 2024, California voters adopted Proposition 4 (The Act), the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act, which will provide funding to address California's current and future climate impacts. The Act designates approximately $3,800,000,000 for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resiliency projects and programs (Chapter 2, Section 91000).

The Proposed Project will be submitted as a candidate for Proposition 4 funding. Submittal for project funding requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Proposed Project will safeguard public health by expanding the capacities of the reservoirs to meet water demands, which is critical as the City continues to be impacted by a multi-decade drought. The Proposed Project will allow the City to treat and store more water during wet periods for distribution during dry periods.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

1.2.1 Project Site Location
The new recycled water reservoir and pump station would be located at the WWTP’s parcel along Nevada Street at Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 029204136, and address at 1950 Nevada St, Redlands, CA 92373. The reservoir and pump station will be on the empty lot west of the existing sludge beds on the facility site. The Project is located on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Redlands, California 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle, Township 1 South, Range 3 West.

1.2.2 Project Site History
The WWTP was constructed in the 1960s , currently employs a staff of 28 people , and is located on approximately 50 acres of land. The treatment capacity is approximately 9.5 MG per day based on annual dry weather flow conditions. Six MG of the capacity is treated via a membrane bioreactor system, and 3.5 MG via a conventional activated sludge process.

1.2.3 Project Site Access and Circulation
Project site access would be via Nevada Street. Nevada Street is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10 (I -10) and 1 mile east of Interstate 210 (I -210). Entrance to the Project Site is off Nevada Street, before Waste Water Road.

1.2.4 General Plan Designation/Zoning
The Project site is zoned as Educational and Public Institutional (E,EV/PI) according to the City’s General Plan Zoning Map ( City 2022 ). Its land use designation according to the City’s General Plan is Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
231 of 932
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
232 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21532

1.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Reviewing Agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary powers but may review the Initial Study (IS), Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and/or Negative Declaration (ND) for adequacy and accuracy. Responsible Agencies have discretionary approval authority for a project. Potential Reviewing Agencies and Responsible Agencies include the following:

Responsible Agencies
▪ California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water Reviewing Agencies
▪ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
▪ Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and tribes requesting consultation.

1.4.1 Permits and Approvals
The following permits and approvals may be required prior to construction of the Project:
▪ Site Plan review
▪ Grading Permit
▪ Building Permit

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
233 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21532
Figure 1 - Project Location and Vicinity
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
234 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21532
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
235 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 6
21532
Figure 3 – CNDDB Occurrences

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
236 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21532
SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklists on the following pages.

For each of the potentially affected factors, mitigation measures are recommended that would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology /Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities /Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

1. I find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

2. I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)will be prepared.

3. I find the Proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

4. I find that the Proposed Project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated impact” on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

5. I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Name Title
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
237 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 8
21532
SECTION 3.0 – EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact ” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites. A “No Impact ” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact ” is appropriate if substantial evidence exists that an effect may be significant. If one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries are marked when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact. ” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or ND Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measur es based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a ref erence to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
238 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 9
21532
SECTION 4.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

4.1 AESTHETICS

1. AESTHETICS.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?

(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.)
If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?

4.1.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The City implements regulations to protect and enhance the unique visual resources of the City. These visual resources include the community’s hillside setting, diverse topographic forms, and scenic qualities , including the San Bernardino Mountains and San Timoteo Nature Sanctuary. The Project site is bounded by the Santa Ana River/open space to the north, a vacant parcel to the east, and undeveloped land, commercial/industrial lands, and businesses to the south and west. The Santa Ana River lies between t he Project site and the San Bernardino International Airport. Although the San Bernardino Mountains are visible from the Project Site, the height of the machinery for construction and the height of the reservoir will not exceed the height of the surrounding buildings. The above-ground height of the reservoir would be 15 feet, which is lower than the height of the surrounding buildings. The Proposed Project would not block views from key public viewpoints, such as major roads, parks, or public trails. None of the public views of the San Bernardino Mountains, San Timoteo Nature Sanctuary, or surrounding community parks would be hindered by the Project site due to the distance from and the height of these scenic vistas. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located on disturbed land as a result of the existing reservoir infrastructure and adjacent industrial land uses. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway System, Route 38 is listed as an eligible scenic highway (Caltrans 2023). Route 38, located approximately 2.33 miles southeast, is not visible from the Project site. The Proposed Project is not located within a state scenic highway , and there are no historic buildings or rock outcroppings within the Proposed Project vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
239 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 10
21532
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently a vacant and visibly disturbed lot on the property of an existing water facility reservoir. Aerial images from Google Earth Pro indicate signs of disturbance on the Project site: tire marks, grey-colored ground, and a possibly graded, flat surface.

While the Proposed Project would alter the site’s existing visual character through the addition of a 15-foot-high recycled water reservoir and pump station, this change would not substantially degrade public views. The site is situated in a predominantly commercial and industrial area, where large-scale infrastructure is common and consistent with the visual context. The proposed facilities would be similar in scale and appearance to nearby structures, ensuring compatibility with the surrounding built environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Existing light sources within the Project vicinity include lights from vehicles along adjacent roadways and outdoor lighting from adjacent industrial land uses. Night lighting is present for security purposes on the existing WWTP site. Besides light spillover from existing structures and vehicle lights, no other lighting is currently located within the Project site. During construction, the Proposed Project would generate light and glare from the presence and operation of vehicles and equipment. Construction would be scheduled between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction work will occur on weekends or City observed holidays per Chapter 8.06 , Community Noise Control , of the City’s Municipal Code. Once constructed, any security lighting will be designed per the City’s Lighting Development Standards, Section 18.156.750 of the Municipal Code. The proposed recycled water reservoir tanks would be coated with antiglare coating and would blend in with the existing surroundings; therefore , any impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
240 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 11
21532

4.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES

2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?

(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or the
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

4.2.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Less than Significant Impact. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), administered by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) , produces maps and statistical data to analyze impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The Proposed Project site is categorized as Urban and Built-Up land, which is land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres (DOC 2022). There is a Citrus Grove that is categorized as Prime Farmland, approximately 85 feet from the western boundary of the Project site . However, the Proposed Project would not encroach onto the Citrus Grove boundaries. Given that the Project site is not within Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
241 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 12
21532
of Statewide Importance, there will not be a conversion of uses. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is zoned as EV/PI and is designated under the General Plan Land Use Map as Public/Institutional. None of the Project’s parcels are in a Williamson Act contract or conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use (City 2017). No impact would occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defi ned by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The Project site has minimal existing vegetation and is located on a vacant plot. All existing trees on-site will be protected in place under the Proposed Project. The site is not currently zoned for forest land or timberland; the Proposed Project would therefore not conflict with existing zoning of forest land or timberland (DOC 2022). No impact would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. See discussion in sections b) and c), above. The Project site is zoned as EV/PI and is not located within forest land or timberland (DOC 2022). All existing trees on -site will be protected in place under the Proposed Project. No forest land would be lost or converted to non-forest uses with the implementation of the Proposed Project. No impact would occur. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project site contains one existing water facility tank and is adjacent to City-Owned Citrus Groves to the west, the Santa Ana River/open space to the north, a vacant parcel to the east, and undeveloped, commercial/industrial lands, and businesses to the south and west. While City-Owned Citrus Groves located on Prime Farmland are adjacent to the Project site, the Proposed Project will not encroach on the Citrus Grove boundaries, thus will not result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. The Project site itself is not designated as farmland or forest land , nor does it contain such resources . Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.3 AIR QUALITY

3. AIR QUALITY.

Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
242 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 13
21532

3. AIR QUALITY.

Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(d) Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?

4.3.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact . An Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Technical Memorandum (Air Report) was prepared for the Proposed Project by Vista Environmental in March 2025. The full report and models are provided in Appendix A.

The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The following section discusses the Proposed Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.

SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan
The CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a Proposed Project and applicable general plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Proposed Project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the Proposed Project with the AQMP.

The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Proposed Project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision -makers determine that a Proposed Project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider Project modifications or the inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan i s usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
243 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 14
21532
Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in Appendix A, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance and local thresholds of significance. The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The analysis for long -term local air quality impa cts indicates that local pollutant concentrations would not exceed the air quality standards (Table 4-2).

Therefore, based on the information provided above, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion. A less than significant long-term impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed Project in relation to the assumptions used in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP.

The AQMP is developed using planning forecasts provided in the Connect SoCal and the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). Connect SoCal serves as a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. It is a federally and state- mandated long-range plan prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and is updated every four years. The 2019 FTIP provides long-range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis for their planning efforts to ensure consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this Project, the City’s General Plan Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP.

The Project site is currently designated as EV/PI in the General Plan. The proposed reservoir and pump stations are an allowed use within this land use designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

Based on the above discussion, the Proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur in relation to the implementation of the AQMP.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact . The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard.

The analysis below assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project -related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project -specific impacts would be Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
244 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 15
21532
considered cumulatively considerable. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed Project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards.

Construction-Related Emissions
The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of up to 2.4 acres, building construction of the proposed reservoir and pump station, paving of the access road, and application of architectural coatings. The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related emissions from the Proposed Project, and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 7.1 of the Air Report (Appendix A). The maximum daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the Proposed Project are shown below in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Season and Year of
Construction
Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Winter 2026 1.47 12.9 14.6 0.03 2.55 1.45
Summer 2026 1.20 10.2 12.2 0.02 0.45 0.36
Winter 2027 12.9 5.80 8.96 0.01 0.43 0.26
Maximum Daily
Construction Emissions 12.9 12.9 14.6 0.03 2.55 1.45
SCQAMD Regional
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local
Thresholds -- 684 23,304 -- 205 104
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Notes: 1 The nearest sensitive receptor is Packinghouse Christian Academy, located as near as 4,100 feet (1,250 meters) south of the project site. As such, the 500-meter threshold (largest threshold available) was utilized. Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look -up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 34, San Bernardino Valley.

Table 4-1 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the Proposed Project. Therefore, a less than significant regional or local air quality impact would occur from the construction of the Proposed Project.

Long-Term Operational Air Quality Impacts
The Proposed Project would consist of the operation of the proposed recycled water reservoir and pump station. The Proposed Project would generate air emissions from area sources and energy usage. The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the Proposed Project have been analyzed through the use of the CalEEMod model. The worst-case summer or winter volatile organic compounds ( VOC), nitrogen oxide ( NOx), carbon monoxide ( CO), sulfur dioxide ( SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns ( PM10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns ( PM2.5) daily emissions created from the Proposed Project’s long -term operations are summarized below in Table 4-2, and the CalEEMod emissions printouts are in Appendix A.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
245 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 16
21532
Table 4-2. Operations-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Sources1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Area Sources2 0.42 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy Usage3 <0/01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total Operational
Emissions 0.42 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
SCQAMD Regional
Thresholds 55 55 530 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local
Thresholds -- 684 23,304 -- 205 104
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Notes:
1 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. As detailed above, the operation of the project would not generate any new trips.
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from natural gas usage. The project would not include any appliances that use natural gas.
4 The nearest sensitive receptor is Packinghouse Christian Academy, located as near as 4,100 feet (1,250 meters) south of the project site. As such, the 500-meter threshold (the largest threshold available) The data provided in Table 4-2 above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during operation of the Proposed Project. In general, the operation of the new recycled water reservoir tank and pump station will be passive, as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tank that creates air emissions. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tank is constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water tank occurs on a monthly and as-needed basis by City employees.

No change would occur between the maintenance activi ties for the existing water tank and the proposed reservoir tanks. As such, the operation of the Proposed Project would not create any additional air emissions beyond which is currently being created . Therefore, a less than significant regional or local air quality impact would occur from the operation of the Proposed Project. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact . The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is Packinghouse Christian Academy that is located as near as 4,100 feet (1,250 meters) south of the Project site. As such, the 500 -meter (1,640 foot) threshold was utilized in the Air Report . The local concentrations of criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions that are produced in the nearby vicinity of the Proposed Project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations, have been calculated for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
246 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 17
21532
Construction-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts
Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant emissions created from on- site construction equipment, which are described below and in Appendix A.

Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction
The local air quality impacts from construction of the Proposed Project have been analyzed and found that the construction of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 thresholds of significance (see Table 4-2). Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant construction-related impact on local air quality and sensitive receptors, and no mitigation would be required.

Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts from Construction
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual cancer risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70 -year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30 -year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors.

Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short -term construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long -term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits the idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment , and provides annual reports to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently, no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0, Tier 1 , or Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictio ns, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between the years 2014 and 2023. By January 2026, 75 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher , and by January 2029, 100 percent of all equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Therefore, no significant short-term DPM impacts would occur during construction of the Proposed Project.

Construction of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Operations-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts
The Proposed Project would consist of the operation of the proposed recycled water reservoir and pump station. The Proposed Project would generate air emissions from area sources and energy usage. The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the Proposed Project have been analyzed through the use of the CalEEMod model. The worst -case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
247 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 18
21532
SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the Proposed Project’s long-term operations are summarized in Table 4-2, and the CalEEMod emissions printouts are in Appendix A.

The data provided in Table 4 -2 above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during operation of the Proposed Project. In general, the operation of the new recycled water reservoir tank and pump station will be passive, as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir s tanks that create air emissions. The existing water tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tank is constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water tank occurs on a monthly and as-needed basis by City employees.

No change would occur between the maintenance activities for the existing water facility tank and proposed reservoir tanks . As such, the operation of the Proposed Project would not create any additional air emissions, beyond which is currently being created. Therefore, the operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
d) Would the project result in other emissions , such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in an ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor.

Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone.

The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and t he recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people who live and work in the immediate vicinity of the Project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality and is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below.

Construction-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints, solvents, and emissions from diesel equipment. Standard construction requirements that limit the time of day when construction may occur as well as SCAQMD Rule 1108, which limits volatile organic compounds (VOC) content in asphalt, and Rule 1113, which limits the V OC content in paints and solvents, would minimize odor impacts from construction. As such, the objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
248 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 19
21532
temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project site’s boundaries. Through compliance with the applicable regulations that reduce odors and due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than signifi cant odor impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Operations-Related Odor Impacts
The Proposed Project would consist of the development of an enclosed recycled water reservoir tank and pump station. Enclosed reservoir tanks are not a known source of odors. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fis h
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?

(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?

(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
249 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 20
21532

4.4.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project h ave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact . The Project site is located on vacant , disturbed land. Historical aerial images from Google Earth Pro show signs of disturbance on the Project site: trucks and machinery present, tire marks, grey -colored ground, and a possibly graded, flat surface. There is minimal vegetation on the Project site. The Project site is currently used as a worksite for a water treatment facility.

Based on a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), there have been no special- status species recorded within the Project site. However, approximately 7 special-status species have been recorded within a 1-mile radius of the Project site – all within the Santa Ana River located 0.20 miles north (refer to Figure 3). These species include California glossy snake ( Arizona elegans occidentalis), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse ( Chaetodipus fallax fallax ), San Bernardino kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys merriami parvus ), Los Angeles pocket mouse ( Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus).

According to the City of Redlands General Plan 2035, the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat, located between the Santa Ana River and the Project site, is designated as a special status habitat due to its limited occurrence or vulnerability (City 2017). Special status species commonly present in this habitat include Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), Sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp), and California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica).

However, the Project site is not directly located on the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Habitat.

Development of a buffer zone will be unnecessary because there is an existing WWTP infrastructure water reservoir development between the Project Site and the special status habitat. The existing vegetation on the Project site is minimal and, due to existing development on the WWTP site, the area is disturbed and unsuitable for supporting special -status species. This is consistent with the CNDDB review that shows no special status species have been recorded on the Project site.

The Proposed Project will not have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (UFWS). Impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact . The P roject site is adjacent to an annual grassland, the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and Riparian Habitat to the north and agriculture to the west (City 2017). As previously discussed above, the Project site is not located directly on special status Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The existing Project Site is heavily disturbed, has minimal vegetation, does not contain suitable habitat, and there is existing development between the Project Site and sensitive habita t.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
250 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 21
21532
Therefore, the Proposed Project will have no substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located on an existing disturbed vacant lot. There are no state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) within the Project site. Therefore, no direct removal, filling, or alteration of wetland habitat would occur.

The Santa Ana River, located approximately 0.20 miles north from the Project site, was established as a state -protected wetland in 2014 by Senate Bill (SB) 1390 ( California 2014). Given the 0.20-mile distance and existing WWTP infrastructure between the Santa Ana River and the Project site , the Proposed Project will not result in direct encroachment, modification, or disturbance to this protected wetland area.

The declining slope between the Project site and the Santa Ana River is 2.82 percent. The Project site sits at a slightly higher elevation, so while drainage patterns may connect to the river, the Project does not involve activities that would alter its hydrology, such as redirecting water flow, increasing runoff, or introducing contaminants.

Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 13.54.180, a ny new construction activity shall use best management practices (BMPs) to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm water system (MS4) to the maximum extent practicable. Responsible parties must also ensure the proper removal and disposal of potential pollutants (e.g. fuels, waste fuels, and chemicals) from areas exposed to stormwater.

The Proposed Project will comply with all applicable stormwater management regulations, including BMPs to prevent erosion, sediment transport, and water quality degradation. These measures ensure that construction and operation activities will not affect nearby wetland areas. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
d) Would the project Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the County of San Bernardino (County) General Plan Open Space Element map, the Project Site is near the Santa Ana River wildlife corridor (County 2007a). The City’s Critical Habitat and Principal Waters figure in the City’s General Plan shows that the Project site is not located within any listed critical habitats (City 2017).

The Project site is a previously disturbed, vacant parcel with minimal vegetation and limited ecological function. Existing WWTP infrastructure lies between the Project site and the Santa Ana River wildlife corridor. As such, the Project site does not serve as a native wildlife nursery site or an active migratory corridor. Furthermore, the Proposed Project involves passive infrastructure – a recycled water storage tank - which will not introduce significant noise, light, or ongoing human activity that could disrupt wildlife movement in the nearby Santa Ana River.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
251 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 22
21532
The San Bernardino County Airport , located directly north of the Santa Ana River , produces noise levels that would exceed those occurring during the construction of the Proposed Project. Given the existing noise environment, there will be minimal noise impacts the Proposed Project would have on native wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridors within the Santa Ana River area. There will be no increase in staff for the Proposed Project that would create long-term noise impacts. Operation of the recycled water tanks would be passive and would not create significant noise. Thus, impacts towards native resident species, migratory fish, wildlife species, wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant.
e) Would the project c onflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan and Municipal Code outlines various preservation policies and ordinances to protect the City’s biological resources. Policies 6-P.7 through 6-P.10 and 6-A.11 through 6-A.16 in the General Plan provide guiding principles and actions for the City’s protection of biological resources, including habitat preservation, buffer zone requirements, and managing activities within the Santa Ana River Wash and Upper Santa Ana River Land Management Habitat Conservation Plan (City 2017).

Chapter 12.52 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes tree protection policies within the City, including preservation of mature and healthy public trees, designation of native and specimen trees, and tree maintenance.

The Project site is a previously disturbed, vacant parcel, with minimal vegetation and limited ecological function. The existing WWTP infrastructure water tank between the Proposed Project and the Santa Ana River would effectively serve as a buffer between Project activities and biological resources contained in the Santa Ana River. All trees on the Project site will be protected in place, and there is no proposed tree removal for the Project. Additionally, the Project boundaries do not encroach onto the adjacent Citrus Groves. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; impacts would be less than significant. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservancy Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan policy 6-A.21 ensures that future activities in the Santa Ana River Wash are consistent with the habitat conservation policies of the Upper Santa Ana River Land Management Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan) (City 2017). The Project site is located approximately 0.45 miles south of the Wash Plan’s boundary (USFW 2019). The Project site is located outside of the established Wash Plan boundary, with existing WWTP development in between, and is located on a disturbed vacant lot; therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
252 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 23
21532

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?

(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

4.5.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact . The City of Redlands is renowned for its well -preserved historical character, reflecting its development during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Founded in the 1880s and incorporated in 1888, Redlands became known for its mature street trees, citrus groves, and detailed historic buildings , many of which still exist today. The City features several designated historic districts and landmarks, including the Smiley Park Historic District, the Redlands Bowl, the A.K.

Smiley Public Library, and various Mission Revival and Victorian -era homes. Redlands’ commitment to historic preservation is reflected in its Historic and Scenic Preservation Element of the General Plan, and its local Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission oversees the identification and protection of historic resources. Numerous properties in the city are listed as a City of Redlands Historic Resource, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or are eligible for listing under California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) due to their architectural style, historical associations, or contribution to the city’s cultural heritage (City 2017).

To confirm the Project site does not contain historic resources, on February 12, 2025 , Chamber’s Group submitted a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Data Request for historic resources within a ½ mile radius of the Project site. On April 14, 2025, the search results were received from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and indicated the lack of historical resources on the Project site, as discussed below.

The CHRIS search results indicate that while there is potential for the WWTP to be listed under the NRHP and CRHR, there are several criteria the site does not meet for eligibility in the NRHP, CRHR, or a City of Redlands Historic Resource defined in City Municipal Code Section 2.24.020. To summarize, the following lists the reasons from the CHRIS search results on why the Project site is ineligible for listing as a historic resource:
▪ Lack of Historical Significance : The site is currently composed of historic -age and modern buildings, structures , and infrastructure that are not associated with any significant historical events or individuals (NRHP/CRHR Criteria A and B; City Criteria A–C). ▪ No Distinctive Architecture or Engineering: While the facility retains many of its original features from 1962 and 1972, it does not exhibit unique or innovative architectural or engineering qualities, nor is it the work of a master designer. The site has undergone several upgrades in 1987, 1989, 2003, 2006, and 2022 (NRHP/CRHR Criterion C; City Criteria D–F, H).

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
253 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 24
21532
▪ Not a Unique Example : The WWTP design and function are typical of mid -20th century wastewater treatment facilities nationwide. Its features and construction techniques are common, industrial, and utilitarian (NRHP/CRHR Criterion C; City Criteria H, I). ▪ Lacks Research Value: The site and its few pre -existing features (like the orchard remnants and refuse deposit) do not offer significant information potential due to disturbance and lack of uniqueness (NRHP/CRHR Criterion D).
▪ No Local Landmark Qualities : The WWTP is obscured from public view and does not serve as a familiar or visually significant community feature (City Criterion G), nor does it enhance the city’s historic or scenic character (City Criteria J, K).

The lack of historic resources on the Project site and its vicinity suggests that the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on a historical resource of architectural significance.

Additionally, the existing water facility tank will not be affected by the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated . The Redlands area has a rich cultural history, with evidence of long -term occupation by the Serrano and Gabrielino (Tongva) peoples.

Paleontological resources, including fossils, have been found in the Redlands area, and there is potential for archaeological and paleontological finds to occur in remaining, unexcavated open space areas within the City. Areas near springs and streams (such as San Timoteo Canyon Creek, Yucaipa Creek in Live Oak Canyon), tributaries and their canyons, and adjacent to larger water bodies (such as the bluffs, terraces, and hillsides above the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek) are considered particularly sensitive for archaeological resources (City 2017).

The CHRIS Data Request search results that Chambers Group received from the SCCIC on April 14, 2025, indicate there is one potential archaeological resource within the Project site boundary. “Feature 38,” from a n Archaeological Site Record in the CHRIS data system, is the remnant of a concrete pad and steel base for a wind machine – likely used for agricultural activities in the mid-20th Century. This pad has been moved from its original location, which was on the terrace above the WWTP to the east. It is a square-shaped concrete pad, measuring 5 x 5 feet and 4 inches thick. It has a large steel base for a wind machine; it is assumed the pad was used in an orchard for a wind machine.

Inscribed into the concrete are the words “Armstrong Ranch/circle 4/1958.” The pad has been partially demolished. According to the Archaeological Site Record, Feature 38 is heavily disturbed, not unique for the time period, and cannot provide important information about the history of the area.

This feature will also not be disturbed during the construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

Other than Feature 38, there are no other historic or prehistoric resources recorded within the Project boundary. The soils that compose the terrace above the river in the southern portion of the WWTP property (including the Project site) may have buried sites, but the property has had heavy disturbances from the construction and expansion of the WWTP over time, and intact subsurface archaeological deposits are not expected to exist; however, this does not preclude the possibility of undisturbed subsurface deposits. The City’s General Plan identifies the bluffs, terraces, and hillsides above the Santa Ana River as arch aeologically sensitive areas (City 2017). Extensive excavation and grading during construction could result in the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
254 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 25
21532
Furthermore, based on Tribal Consultation discussed in Section 4.18, in the event that the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) requested language to be incorporated into the Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures.

Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to ensure that potential impacts to cultural and archaeological resources would result in less than significant impacts.

MM CUL-1 The City shall retain the services of a Qualified Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards, or County requirements, whichever is the greater. The Qualified Archaeologist shall remain on-call throughout the Project.

Upon approval or request by the City, a cultural resources mitigation plan (CRMP) outlining procedures for cultural resources monitoring, mitigation, treatment, and data recovery of any unanticipated discovery shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the CRMP shall include consultations with the City, as well as a requirement that the curation of any significant cultural resources recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. If the City accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised.

If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the drafts of the CRMP shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the CRMP accordingly.

MM CUL-2 In the event of the discovery of previously unidentified and/or potential cultural Resources during Project activities , the City, and/or its Contractor, shall immediately cease all work activities within an area of not less than 60 feet of the discovery. The City or its Contractor shall immediately contact the City and the City-retained on-call Qualified Archaeologist, who must meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Except in the case of cultural items that fall within the scope of the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, or California PRC Section 5097.98, the discovery of any cultural resource within the Project site shall not be grounds for a project -wide “stop work” notice or otherwise interfere with the Project’s continuation except as outlined in this mitigation measure.

In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during construction, the City -retained Qualified Archaeologist, who must meet the Secretary of the Interior standards, shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the materials prior to resuming any construction -related activities in the vicinity of the find. If a CRMP is prepared for the Project, the protocols for the mitigation or treatment of cultural resources will be implemented. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the d iscovery constitutes a significant resource under CEQA and it cannot be avoided, the City shall implement an archaeological data recovery program.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
255 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 26
21532
Additionally, any consulting Native American Tribal groups that requested notification of any unanticipated discovery of cultural resources on the Project shall be notified and included in subsequent consultation appropriately.

Specifically, t he YSMN shall be contacted regarding any pre -contact finds and provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM-CUL-3 If cultural resources are encountered during the Project, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a report summarizing any and all prehistoric or historic archaeological finds as well as providing follow-up reports of any finds to the SCCIC, as required.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The Project site is vacant and undeveloped. As previously discussed, no cultural resources were recorded within the Project site.

The Project area is not otherwise known to be a previous cemetery or burial site. Given the potential for buried cultural resources based on the Project site’s proximity to the Santa Ana River, encountering human remains during Project construction is possible.

In the event that human remains are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, then the Proposed Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If human r emains are found during ground-disturbing activities, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Secti on 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner shall notify the National American Heritage Commission (NAH C), which shall notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

Based on Tribal Consultation discussed in Section 4.18, in the event that the unanticipated discovery of human remains, the YSMN requested language to be incorporated into the Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.

MM-CUL-4 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100 -foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
256 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 27
21532

4.6 ENERGY

6. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

4.6.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impacts. The analysis for the Proposed Project’s energy usage for both construction and operations are provided below.

Construction Impacts
Construction activities would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, the preparation of the site (e.g., site clearing and grading), and the actual construction of the reservoir and pump station. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

The off-road construction equipment diesel fuel usage was calculated through the use of the off-road equipment assumptions provided in the CalEEMod output files and CARB’s off -road equipment fuel use assumptions. The off-road equipment diesel fuel calculations are in the Air Report, which found that off-road equipment would consume 23,935 gallons of diesel fuel (Appendix A).

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Project was also estimated. Such trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the Project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the Proposed Project would generate during construction (obtained from the CalEEMod output file attached to Appendix A , (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) average miles per gallon rates estimated in the ARB Emission Factors (EMFAC) mobile source emission model attached to Appendix A, which found on-road construction- related vehicle trips would consume 1,019 gallons of gasoline and 675 gallons of diesel fuel during construction of the Proposed Project.

Construction activities associated with the Project would be required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off -road equipment and on -road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the Proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
257 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 28
21532
During construction, the Proposed Project would consume electricity to construct the new reservoir and pump station. Electricity would be supplied to the Project site by Southern California Edison and would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the Project site. The use of electricity from existing power lines , rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators , would minimize impacts on energy use. Electricity consumed during Project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be tempor ary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of constru ction. Overall, construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would require limited electricity consumption that would not be expected to have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during Project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Operational Impacts
The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would require the use of electricity for running the pumps and control systems. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage (for landscape irrigation), solid waste disposal, and landscape equipment. Since regular maintenance will be completed by existing City employees who currently work at the WWTP, no new trips would be generated for maintenance of the Project. As such, no natural gas will be consumed and no increase in petroleum fuel will occur from operation of the Proposed Project. Operational energy use will be limited to electricity consumption.

The CalEEMod model calculated that operation of the Proposed Project would consume 6,500 kilowatt-hours per year of electricity. This equates to 0.00004 percent of the electricity consumed annually in the County. As such, the operation-related electricity use would be nominal when compared to current electricity usage rates in the County.

It should be noted that the Proposed Project would incorporate photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to reduce electricity usage. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project will be designed and built to minimize electricity use and that existing, planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the Proposed Project’s electricity demand. Thus, the Project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of electricity, and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable energy plan for the Proposed Project is the City of Redlands General Plan 2035, adopted December 5, 2017, that includes Section 8.1 Energy Efficiency and Conservation . The Proposed Project consists of the development of a reservoir for recycled water and an associated pump station for conveyance of the recycled water, which will reduce the amount of water that will need to be imported to the City and promote conservation of water through reusing wastewater. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
258 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 29
21532

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on - or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?

(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?

(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site , or unique geologic
feature?

4.7.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact . The Proposed Project site is in Southern California, which is a seismically active area. As such, many areas in Southern California could be subject to some seismic activity. Within the Project area, there are no currently known active surface faults that traverse or trend toward this site, and the Project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, or a fault zone delineated by the County or City. The closest fault is the San Jacinto Fault, located approximately 3 miles west of the Project site. The Geotechnical Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
259 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 30
21532
Investigation Report confirms that the Proposed Project is not located within a currently mapped State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Appendix B).

The Proposed Project will be designed and constructed to comply with the California Building Code’s standards to protect life safety and prevent collapse , and will implement the appropriate seismic design parameters as defined by the California Geological Survey. Because the Project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and does not propose construction of buildings that would house residents, impacts would be less than significant. ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant. As previously discussed, the Southern California region is seismically active, and areas within this region will experience ground shaking. The Geotechnical Investigation Report confirms that the Project site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake or San Bernardino County Fault Zone, thus potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of a presently unrecognized fault beneath the site is not known with certainty but is considered very lo w ( Appendix B). The Proposed Project will be developed according to the California Building Code, taking into account seismic load criteria. Conformance to building standards would result in less than significant impacts related to ground shaking. iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact . Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to a buildup of excess porewater pressure during strong and long -duration ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, relatively uniform fine -to medium -grained, c lean cohesionless soils. As the shaking action of an earthquake progresses, soil granules are rearranged, and the soil densifies within a short period. This rapid densification of soil results in a buildup of pore-water pressure. When the pore -water pressure approaches the total overburden pressure, soil shear strength reduces abruptly and temporarily and behaves similar to a fluid.

According to the County’s General Plan, the Project site is located within an area designated for high liquefaction potential (County 2020). However, based on site -specific analysis, which can be found in Appendix C of the Geotechnical Investigation Report, the potential for liquefaction of the Project site is expected to be negligible (Appendix B). Impacts would be less than significant. iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. According to the San Bernadino County General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlays Map EHFH C, the Proposed Project is not located in an area susceptible to landslides (County 2020). Furthermore, the Project site is relatively flat (Google 2025).

The Geotechnical Investigation Report notes that the Project site is not adjacent to any steep slopes. In the absence of significant ground slopes, the potential for seismically induced landslides to affect the proposed site is considered to be low (Appendix B). Landslides due to seismic shaking are unlikely to occur; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
260 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 31
21532
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Topsoil is the top layer of soil that usually holds high concentrations of organic matter, which are typically found in fields and other vegetated areas. Loss of topsoil or any type of soil erosion occurs when dirt is left exposed to physical factors such as strong winds, rain, and flowing water. The Project site is located on existing disturbed and vacant dirt parcel that is zoned for Public/Institutional uses. Any existing vegetation on the Project site is not used for agricultural uses that would benefit from topsoil. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality , the Proposed Project shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) along with appropriate erosion and sediment control plans, as well as construction and operational BMPs, to prevent substantial soil erosion. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project site is not located within a liquefaction nor a landslide susceptibility area (County 2020). The Project site has an existing water facility reservoir, and the area has historically been sufficient to support such structures. As previously discussed, construction
of the water reservoirs will be done in compliance with building standards and seismic retrofit requirements in addition to City requirements on preparing a conceptual grading plan. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would not cause ground disturbance or destabilization of the geologic unit. According to the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library, the groundwater table is approximately 200 feet from the ground surface in this area, which is well below the depth that would typically contribute to soil instability, liquefaction, or subsidence concerns (DWR 2025).

Furthermore, a Geotechnical Investigation Report was completed for the Proposed Project. According to this report, no groundwater was encountered in the borings up to an explored depth of 61.5 feet below ground surface ( bgs) (Appendix B). The report also notes that due to the absence of shallow groundwater and lack of liquefaction potential, the risk for lateral spreading to affect the site is considered low. The Proposed Project will be constructed on a flat surface. Potential for the Proposed Project to result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils (shrink-swell) are fine-grained clay soils generally found in historical floodplains and lakes. Expansive soils are subject to swelling and shrinkage in relation to the amount of moisture present in the soil. The entire Project Site is located on Hanford sandy loam with 0-2 percent slopes (USDA 2023). This particular soil type consists of deep, well-drained soils, thus it is not considered an expansive soil. Furthermore, the Geotechnical Investigation Report confirmed that the soils underlying the proposed water reservoir have very low expansion potential (Appendix B). Impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
261 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 32
21532
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The Proposed Project would include the construction of a recycled water reservoir and pump station. No habitable structures that require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be built as a result of the Proposed Project. No impact would occur. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site , or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated . The Redlands area has a rich cultural history, with evidence of long -term occupation by the Serrano and Gabrielino (Tongva) peoples.

Paleontological resources, including fossils, have been found in the Redlands area, and there is potential for archaeological and paleontological finds to occur in remaining, unexcavated open space areas within the City. Areas near springs and streams (such as San Timoteo Canyon Creek, Yucaipa Creek in Live Oak Canyon), tributaries and their canyons, and adjacent to larger water bodies (such as the bluffs, terraces, and hillsides above the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek) are considered particularly sensitive for archaeological resources (City 2017).

On February 12, 2025, Chambers Group requested a Paleontology Record Search from the Western Science Center (WSC). On March 27, 2025, the results were received and indicated that there are no fossil localities within the Project area or a 1-mile radius. However, the report stated that the soils mapped within the Project site (Quaternary alluvial units) are considered to be fossiliferous and highly paleontologically sensitive. The City’s General Plan requires that if the potential for fossil discovery is moderate to high, project applicants are required to provide a paleontological monitor during rough grading of the project. Thus, d ue to the potential sensitivity of the Project site for paleontological resources, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to result in a less than significant impact on resources that may be uncovered.

MM PAL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall be required to obtain the services of a Qualified Project Paleontologist to remain on call for the duration of the proposed ground disturbing construction activity. The paleontologist selected must be approved by the City. Upon approval or request by the City, a paleontological mitigation plan (PMP) outlining procedures for paleontological data recovery shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The de velopment and implementation of the PMP shall include consultations with the District’s Engineering Geologist , as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. If the District accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised. The PMP shall include developing a multilevel ranking system, or Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC), as a tool to demonstrate the potential yield of fossils with in a given stratigraphic unit. The PMP shall outline the monitoring and salvage protocols to address paleontological resources encountered during Project -related ground- disturbing activities, as well as the appropriate recording, collection, and processing protocols to appropriately address any resources discovered.

MM PAL-2: At the completion of all ground -disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a final paleontological mitigation report summarizing all monitoring Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
262 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 33
21532
efforts and observations, as performed in line with the PMP, and all paleontological resources encountered, if any, as well as providing follow -up reports of any specific discovery, if necessary.

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?

(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

4.8.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of a recycled water reservoir and pump station. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions from area sources, energy usage, waste disposal, water usage, refrigeration, and construction equipment. The Project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model and the results are shown below in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Mobile Sources1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Area Sources2 0.27 <0.01 <0.01 0.28
Energy Usage3 1.57 <0.01 <0.01 1.57
Water and Wastewater4 4.97 <0.01 <0.01 0.22
Solid Waste5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Construction6 8.42 <0.01 <0.01 8.45
Proposed Project Total GHG Emissions 10.48 <0.01 <0.01 10.52 SCAQMD Draft Threshold 3,000
Exceed Threshold? No
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
263 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 34
21532
Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Notes:
1 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. As detailed above, operation of the project would not generate any new trips.
2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
3 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage 4 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater for landscaping.
5 Solid Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills 6 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009.

The data provided in Table 4-3 above shows that the Proposed Project would create 10.52 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year. According to the SCAQMD’s threshold of significance, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the ongoing operations would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The Proposed Project GHG emissions are well below this threshold. Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from the development of the Proposed Project. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Redlands Climate Action Plan (Redlands CAP) was adopted on December 5, 2017. The Redlands CAP was prepared pursuant to Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines to be utilized as a tiering document for the General Plan as well as future project s within the City that are consistent with the General Plan. The Redlands CAP incorporates the guidelines established in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. The 2017 Scoping Plan was prepared to meet the GHG emissions reduction targets set in Executive Order S -3-15 and SB 32 that recommends local governments to develop plans to reduce GHG emissions to 6 MTCO2e per capita per year by the year 2030 and 2 MTCO2e per capita per year by the year 2050. Since the Redlands CAP was prepared in coordination with the General Plan that has a horizon year of 2035, the Redlands CAP provides a year 2035 target of 5 MTCO2e per capita per year, which was determined through interpolation of the 2030 and 2035 GHG emissions targets, which also aligns with th e reduction targets provided in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Since a per capita threshold does not apply to the Proposed Project, the SCAQMD thresholds have been utilized instead.

In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided a detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010, Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects.

Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The applicable plan for the Proposed Project is the Redlands CAP that was prepared pursuant to Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines to be Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
264 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 35
21532
utilized as a tiering document for the General Plan as well as future projects within the City that are consistent with the General Plan. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan, the Proposed Project meets the criteria allowed for use of the Redlands CAP for analysis of the Proposed Project.

In addition, as detailed above, the Proposed Project is anticipated to create 10.52 MTCO2e per year, which is well below the SCAQMD threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD developed this threshold in order to meet the State GHG emissions reduction regulations that were based on substantial evidence supporting the use of the recommended thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy , or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use , or
disposal of hazardous materials?

(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or th e
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?

(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?

(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites comp iled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?

(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan had not been adopted, within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project
area?

(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

(g) Expose people or structures , either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
265 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 36
21532

4.9.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve routine transport of large quantities of hazardous materials. As noted by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Code of Federal Regulations, generators producing hazardous waste exceeding 220 pounds would be considered to be significant quantities (DTSC 2025a). Small quantities of potentially hazardous substances (e.g. petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain equipment) may be utilized and stored on-site. However, none of these materials will be stored at the Project facilities in quantities considered to be a significant hazard.

Construction of the Proposed Project would result in the generation, transport, and use of various waste materials that would require recycling and/or disposal. Some of the waste generated could be classified as hazardous waste/hazardous materials. Hazardous materials typically consist of chemicals that may be toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive, an irritant, or a strong sensitizer. During construction, the Proposed Project will use potentially hazardous materials from petroleum -based fuels, lubricants, cleaning products, and other similar materials. The quantities of the used chemicals that will be present at the Project site would be limited and temporary.

During ongoing operations of the water tank, potentially hazardous materials such as grease, oils, cleaning products, fuel, and other similar materials will involve routine use, handling, and disposal.

However, the listed materials above will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment because the handling, storage, and disposal of these materials during construction and operations shall be done in compliance with the manufacturer’s standards for storage and spill procedures, and existi ng regulations such as the California Health and Safety Code, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Project also proposes the installation of pump stations for the existing chlorine contact tanks and for the new water reservoir. The pump station serves to regulate water flow between storage tanks, thus will not introduce or generate hazardous materials. While routine maintenance may involve minimal amounts of lubricants or cleaning materials, these are managed in compliance with best practices to prevent environmental or hazardous exposure.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or th e environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the DTSC databases, the Project site is not located within a hazardous cleanup site in the Geotracker (SWRCB 2025) and Envirostor database (DTSC 2025b).

As discussed in part a), the Proposed Project will utilize potentially hazardous chemicals during construction and operations. While hazardous materials will be present on-site, the quantities will be limited, and the materials will be handled and stored according to the manufacturer’s guidelines and be disposed of according to local, state, and federal guidelines. Any potential spills will be addressed through implementing construction BMPs to minimize the risk of release of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
266 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 37
21532
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact . There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the Project site. The nearest school is Packinghouse Christian Academy, located as near as 4,100 feet (0.78 miles) south of the Project site.

The distance between the school and the Project site indicates that no impacts would occur. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Review of the EnviroStor and the GeoTracker database shows that the Project site is not listed in government databases as a hazardous material site (SWRCB 2025; DTSC 2025b). According to the EnviroStor database, t he nearest hazardous material site is the California Street Landfill, which is west of the WWTP, across Nevada Street. The groundwater beneath the landfill is impacted by perchlorate, tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and 1,2-dibromo- 3-chloropropane (DBCP). In 2004, the City submitted a report that demonstrated that all groundwater contamination originated from sources other than the landfill. No further action is required. Other EnviroStor sites are located farther (more than 0.5 mile) from the site and would not pose environmental concerns at the site.

Review of the GeoTracker database shows there are no Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Cleanup Sites, Permitted Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), DTSC Hazardous Waste Sites, Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) sites, Cleanup Program Sites, or Military Cleanup Sites within 0.5 mile of the WWTP.

Review of information on underlying groundwater resources identified the presence of contaminant plumes in the Upper Santa Ana River watershed. The Crafton-Redlands plume is located south of the site, and the Norton plume is located west of the site; neith er plume underlies the site (SBVWCD 2020). The Project would confine the proposed reservoir and pump stations to the WWTP site and would not require excavation activities that would impact the underlying groundwater. The WWTP would also continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with pertinent hazardous material regulations. Thus, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Impacts would be considered less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan had not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact . The Project Site is located approximately 0.60 miles from the San Bernadino International Airport southeastern boundary and 2.6 miles to the west from the Redlands Airport. The Project site is not within the boundaries of the designated Area of Special Compatibility Concern for the Redlands Airport but is within the airport influence area for the San Bernardino International Airport; however, no airport land use compatibility plan has been adopted for the San Bernardino International Airport. At the same time, the Proposed Project does not change the land use of the site. The proposed water reservoir would be 15 feet, which is at the same or lower heights as the existing facilities at the WWTP; therefore, the proposed structures would not result in obstructions to navigable air space, as defined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 77. Impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
267 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 38
21532
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would be confined to the WWTP site and would not affect emergency response and evacuation at adjacent streets or the surrounding areas. There are no road closures planned for the duration of construction. Ingress and egress to the Project site would be from Nevada Street on Waste Water Road. The proposed construction work would not block the main gate on the WWTP. Therefore, impacts on emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Resources (CALFIRE) has prepared Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for the State, and the Project site is not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CALFIRE 2023) . The nearest Ver y High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 3 miles south from the Project site in an open space area adjacent to the San Timoteo Wash (CALFIRE 2023). While the Project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, the open spaces could create an environment where wildland fires could occur , especially during dry and high wind seasons. The Proposed Project will conform to City guidelines and regulations for new development to minimize fire hazard as outlined in the General Plan (Fire Hazards Policies). These requirements include but are not limited to using appropriate building material and design features, siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations, incorporate fuel modification and brush clearances, and coordination with the Redlands Fire Department and other fire prevention agenci es to review all applications for development. Conformanc e with these guidelines would result in less than significant impacts.

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?

(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?

(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces , in a manner which
would:

i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flood on- or off-site;

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
268 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 39
21532

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

4.10.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to water quality would be categorized under short-term construction related impacts and long-term operational impacts. Construction-related activities have the potential to degrade surface and groundwater quality by exposing soils to surf ace runoff from debris and other materials, including runoff from various construction equipment. Pollutants of concern during typical construction activities include sediments, dry and wet solid wastes, petroleum products, solvents, cleaning agents and other similar chemicals. During ground -disturbing activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby creating potential for soil erosion. During a storm event or water spill, these pollutants and soil could be spilled, leaked, or transported as runoff into drainages or downstream waters, and potentially into receiving waters such as the Santa Ana River.

The Proposed Project will construct a new water reservoir tank, and a pump station located on City property to treat and store more water to meet public demands. Construction and operation of the reservoir tanks will result in ground disturbances and introduce impervious surfaces to the Project site. However, only a p ortion of the City -owned parcel will be paved and the rest will remain undisturbed. There will be approximately 20,000 square feet of ground coverage from the proposed extended driveway and water reservoir. This proposed paved and covered area comprises of 5.9% percent of the Project site. Thus, there is a relatively small area of impervious surface being added to the WWTP that would not pose a significant impact to existing drainage in the area.

The Geotechnical Investigation Report noted that although the Santa Ana River is located approximately 1,000 feet from the Project site, the Project site is situated on top of a river terrace approximately 44 feet higher than the Santa Ana River bottom. Therefore, groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor during the excavation or construction of the 2.75 MG tank (Appendix B).

The purpose of the City of Redlands Storm Water Program is to implement the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, which is federally mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address water pollution. Since the disturbance area will exceed one acre of soil, the Proposed Project must comply with the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (Order No. R8 - 2010-0036) for the San Bern ardino County Flood Control District, the County, and its incorporated Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
269 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 40
21532
cities within the Santa Ana Region. As a result, the Project must implement a SWPPP along with appropriate erosion and sediment control plans, as well as construction and operational BMPs, to prevent runoff from becoming a nuisance to downstream properties and stream channels. Examples of BMPs include, but ar e not limited to, the use of drip pans, stabilizers, dust control measures, temporary drains, and fences (RWQCB 2010).

The Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor would it affect surface or groundwater quality. The Proposed Project will implement the requirements of the NPDES program with construction and operational BMPs to minimize polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. EPA's Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Program was established under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 44 Federal Register (FR) 52751, as published on September 10, 1979. Since 1977, this program has been used by communities to help prevent contamination of groundwater from federally funded projects. The SSA program allows for EPA environmental review of any project that is financially assisted by federal grants or federal loan guarantees. These projects are evalu ated to determine whether they have the potential to contaminate a sole source aquifer. The Project site is not within the area designated by EPA as an SSA.

No impact on an SSA would occur with the project.

The Project site is underlain by the Bunker Hill groundwater subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley groundwater basin. This subbasin is part of the San Bernardino Basin Area. According to the most recent Engineering Investigation of the Bunker Hill Basin, the Project site’s depth to the groundwater table is between 200-250 ft (SBVWCD 2025).

Construction and operation of the reservoir tanks will result in ground disturbances and introduce impervious surfaces to the Project site. However, only a portion of the City-owned parcel will be paved and the rest will remain undisturbed. There will be a pproximately 20,000 square feet of ground coverage from the proposed extended driveway and water reservoir. This proposed paved and covered area comprises 5.9 percent of the Project site. Thus, there is a relatively small area of impervious surface being a dded to the WWTP that would not pose a significant impact to existing drainage in the area.

The Geotechnical Investigation Report noted that although the Santa Ana River is located approximately 1,000 feet from the Project site, The Project site is situated on top of a river terrace approximately 44 feet higher than the Santa Ana River bottom. Therefore, groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor during the excavation or construction of the 2.75 MG tank (Appendix B).

While the Proposed Project’s new water reservoir will be partially underground, the Project does not propose groundwater wells or excavation that would extend into the underlying groundwater. The installation of the water tank and extended driveway will introduce impervious surfaces to the area, which would introduce runoff. However, the majority of the City property will allow for continued percolation. Impacts therefore would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
270 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 41
21532
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is on an alluvial terrace on the south side of the Santa Ana River and is generally flat. No work within the Santa Ana River is proposed by the Project.

Earthen berms along the boundaries of the main facility prevent erosion or siltation into the Santa Ana River. The proposed water reservoir and extended driveway would increase impervious areas on the site and reduce potential erosion. Existing landscaping at the central section of the WWTP prevents slope erosi on. Erosion may occur during construction when ground -disturbance and excavation and trenching activities are ongoing, but this would be temporary. Erosion control measures, including a SWPPP and BMPs, would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for sediment to be picked up and transported offsite or by runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed water reservoir and extended driveway would increase impervious areas on the site but would not substantially increase surface runoff rates as surrounding unpaved areas will remain unchanged. The Proposed Project activities will not alter the path of any stream or rivers through the site and the majority of the existing drainage patterns will remain. Construction and operation of the reservoir tanks will result in ground disturbances and introduce impervious surfaces to the Project site. However, only a portion of the City -owned parcel will be paved and the rest will remain undisturbed. There will be approximately 20,000 square feet of ground coverage from the proposed extended driveway and water reservoir. This proposed paved and covered area comprises 5.9 percent of the Project site. Thus, there is a relatively small area of impervious surface being added to the WWTP that would not pose a significant impact to existing drainage in the area.

The Proposed Project shall require compliance with the NPDES Program and implement BMPs involving site design source control, and other appropriate methods to minimize runoff. These include but are not limited to silt fencing and straw waddles. Conformance with these requirements would result in a less than significant impact. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project will install a new recycled water reservoir tank, an extended driveway, and a pump station within City property to increase water storage in the City to meet the existing and planned water demand . The Proposed Project would generate stormwater runoff with the introduction of impervious surfaces where the water tank and extended driveway will be constructed. The remaining undeveloped areas on the Project site will allow for water to percolate into the soil. Additionally, the Proposed Project does not introduce construction of new residences or businesses, or activities that would create a significant increase in water use that would create additional runoff. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant contribution to runoff that would exceed the drainage systems.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
271 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 42
21532
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact . Flood flows result from off -site flows of water during rainy periods or when a stream or river overflows due to debris. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard map, the Project site i s not located within a designated flood hazard zone (FEMA 2024) . The Proposed Project is not within a 100-year flood zone or a 500 -year flood zone. While the northern half of the WWTP is located in an area with a

0.2 percent annual chance of flooding, the elevation difference between this area and the southern portion of the WWTP, where the Project site is located, indicates that flooding is not a hazard for the Proposed Project.

Construction and operation of the reservoir tanks will result in ground disturbances and introduce impervious surfaces to the Project site. However, only a portion of the City -owned parcel will be paved and the rest will remain undisturbed. There will be a pproximately 20,000 square feet of ground coverage from the proposed extended driveway and water reservoir. This is proposed paved and covered area comprises 5.9 percent of the Project site. Thus, there is a relatively small area of impervious surface being added to the WWTP that would not pose a significant impact to existing flood flows in the area.

Proper site grading and drainage improvements will ensure that runoff continues to follow existing flow patterns without obstruction. The project will also comply with NPDES permit requirements and local stormwater regulations, implementing BMPs to prevent unintended hydrological impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project i n flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located near the coast; therefore, it is not subject to the Coastal Barriers Resources Act and Coastal Zone Management Act. The Proposed Project would not be exposed to flood hazards associated with a tsunami (sea waves). The Project site is also outside of the 100-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain.

Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Review of the area indicates that the Project site is within close proximity to the Santa Ana River Channel.

Additionally, there are onsite water reservoirs. According to the Geotechnical Report, the reservoir site is located within a State of California or San Bernardino County designated dam inundation area and the potential for flooding of the site due to earthquake -caused dam failure is considered extremely high. Due to these reasons, seiching is considered to be a risk during significant seismic events. Seiching within the new reservoir may result in flooding within the site after construction and filling of the reservoir is complete (Appendix B).

However, t he reservoir will adhere to the latest California Building Code (CBC) and seismic safety regulations, ensuring structural integrity. Any overflow will be managed within the site through drainage infrastructure designed to contain excess water and prevent off -site impacts. Also, within the Project area, there are no currently known active surface faults that traverse or trend toward this site, and the Project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, or a fault zone delineated by the County or City. The closest fault is the San Jacinto Fault, located approximately 3 miles west from the Project site. The Geotechnical Investigation Report confirms that the Proposed Project is not located within a currently mapped State of California Earthq uake Fault Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
272 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 43
21532
Zone (Appendix B). Compliance with seismic building regulations and the lack of faults in the Project area makes impacts less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No impact. The Project site is located south of the Santa Ana River, and the water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River identifies the beneficial uses of surface and groundwater resources within this watershed (CWB 2008). The site is within Reach 5 of the Upper Santa Ana River, which has beneficial uses for Municipal and Domestic Supply, Agricultural Supply, Groundwater Recharge, Water-contact Recreation, Non -contact Water Recreation, Warm Freshwater Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, and Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species. Water quality objectives are also provided in the Basin Plan for the protection of water quality and to prevent antidegradation.

The Proposed Project does not propose any improvements in the Santa Ana River and would not result in any discharges into the river. The Project site overlies the Bunker Hill groundwater subbasin, which has beneficial uses for Municipal and Domestic Supply, Agricultural Supply, Industrial Service Supply, and Industrial Process Supply. The Proposed Project would not extend into the underlying groundwater, and no increases in water use would occur; therefore, no conflict with the beneficial uses and water quality objectives in the Basin Plan would occur with the Proposed Project.

As indicated above, the Project site overlies groundwater resources in the San Bernardino Basin Area, which is adjudicated by the Western -San Bernardino Watermaster to regulate the amount of groundwater that is extracted. No direct impacts to groundwater resources would occur with the Proposed Project, therefore, the Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the underlying groundwater basin.

Impacts on the Basin Plan for the Santa Ana River and the groundwater management plan for the San Bernardino Basin Area would not occur.

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

11. LAND USE/PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Physically divide an established community?
(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

4.11.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Proposed Project includes the construction of a water reservoir and pump station for the purpose of storing water. The Proposed Project Site is located on disturbed land as a result of the existing reservoir infrastructure and adjacent industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned as EV/PI and does not have any adjacent residential neighborhoods. The closest residential community is separated from the Project vicinity by the Interstate 210 Highway to the east. Thus, Proposed Project activities would not prevent resident access to the nearby roadways, transit facilities, or any other Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
273 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 44
21532
public service and utility, either during constriction or operation of the facilities. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact . The Proposed Project is located within a n EV/PI zone, which allows for public infrastructure projects such as water reservoirs. The Project is consistent with the existing land use designation and aligns with applicable land use plans and policies. Additionally, the site is on City - owned property and adjacent to an existing City -operated water facility reservoir, reinforcing its compatibility with surrounding land uses. Since the Project does not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, there would be no impact related to land use conflicts.

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?

(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

4.12.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than Significant Impact . The California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources’ (DOGGR) Well Finder shows there are no oil, geothermal, or gas wells (either active, inactive, plugged, or abandoned) on or near (within 1.0 mile) the site (CalGEM 2025).

Redlands is required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) to adopt policies recognizing the importance of the identified mineral resources, clarifying the intent that this information is to be used when making land use decisions in are as designated to be of statewide or regional significance, and emphasizing the conservation and development of identified mineral deposits. Based on the Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area prepared by the California Department of Co nservation, the Project site is in the San Bernardino Production Consumption region, an area containing regionally significant mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel resources). The Project area and surrounding areas are designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) - 2, an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists, primarily due to the location of the Santa Ana River just north of the site (DOC 1995). While the Project site may be underlain by sand and gravel resources, the Project site area is on a disturbed vacant lot within the existing WWTP boundaries. Thus, it is unlikely that the site be subject to mining operations in the future. At the same time, the Project would not obstruct ongoing or future mining operations in the Santa Ana River and Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
274 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 45
21532
adjacent areas. Thus, the impact of the Project on the availability of known regionally significant mineral resources is less than significant.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed above in section a), the Project area and surrounding areas are designated as MRZ -2, an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists, primarily due to the location of the Santa Ana River north of the site (DOC 1995). The City of Redlands is required by SMARA to adopt policies recognizing the importance of the identified mineral resources, clarifying the intent that this information is to be used when making land use decisions in areas designated to be of statewide or regional significance, and emphasizing the conservation and development of identified mineral deposits (City 2017).

While the Proposed Project would be on an area with locally important mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel), the Project would occur within a site that is now disturbed with adjacent , existing wastewater treatment facilities. Because there are no mining operations adjacent to the site, the Proposed Project would also not interfere with existing mining operations in the area. Therefore, impacts on local mineral resources are less than significant.

4.13 NOISE

13. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
(c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?

4.13.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. Noise levels are based on equivalent noise levels (Leq) and are decibels, or dBA. Leq describes sounds levels that vary over time and is a single decibel that takes the total sound energy over a period of time. A community noise level (CNEL) is the weighted average of a noise level over time, typically a 24 -hour average. The Ldn is the day to night average sound level and is approximately numerically equal to the CNEL for most environmental settings (County 2007 b). The Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
275 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 46
21532
decibel levels of common outdoor and indoor noises according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are provided in the table below.

Table 4-4. Common Outdoor and Indoor Noises
Sound
Pressure
Level (dB)
Activity
100-110 Rock Band at 5 meters/Jet Flyover at 300 meters 90-100 Inside New York Subway Train/ Gas Lawn Mower
at 1 meter
80-90 Diesel Truck at 15 meters/Food blender 1 meter
70-80 Noise Urban Daytime / Garbage Disposal at 1
meter / Shouting at 1 meter
60-70
Gas Lawn Mower at 30 meters/Commercial area/
Vacuum Cleaner at 3 meters / Normal Speech at 1
meter
50-60 Large Business Office
40-50 Dishwasher next room / Quiet Urban Daytime
30-40 Quiet urban/ Suburban Nighttime / Small theater / Large Conference Room (Background) / Library
20-30 Bedroom at night / Concert Hall (Background) /
Quiet Rural Nighttime
10-20 Broadcast and Recording Studio
0-10 Threshold of hearing
Source: Federal Highway Administration; Public Roads; 2003 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/03jul/06.cfm According to the U.S. Department of Transportation FHWA Construction Noise Handbook, typical sound levels produced by typical construction equipment at a 50 foot distance are described as follows: compactors (82 dBA), loaders (85 dBA), backhoes (80 dBA), scrapers (89 dBA), graders (85 dBA), drill rigs (85 dBA), and pumps (76 dBA) (FHWA 2006). Noise levels reduce (or drops off) with distance from a project location. Noise drops off approximately 3 dB per doubling of distance for line sources (such as a roadway) and 6 dB per doubling of distance for point sources over an open terrain (FTA 2018).

The Project site is in an industrial area where industrial sources of noise such as outdoor activities by trucks, machinery, and pumps characterize the noise environment. Adjacent land uses include the Santa Ana River to the north, the California Street La ndfill to the west, SR -210 to the east, and warehouses, agricultural fields, and vacant land to the south. Farther south and southwest of the site are various industrial uses and warehouses. The nearest noise-sensitive uses, single-family residences, are located approximately 0.7 miles to the southeast. The Proposed Project would involve the use of noise generating construction equipment that would increase ambient noise levels in the immediate surroundings.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
276 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 47
21532
Construction-Related Noise
The Redlands General Plan includes a Healthy Community chapter that addresses noise. This chapter includes principles to reduce noise from mobile sources; eliminate noise problems; make new development compatible with the noise environment; guide the locat ion of noise sources; and regulate development around the Redlands Airport. Industrial uses are considered “Clearly Compatible” in areas with noise levels up to 75 dB CNEL and “Normally Compatible” in areas with noise levels 80 dB CNEL and above. There is no exterior noise standard and a 60-dB CNEL interior noise standard for manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, and utilities land uses.

Chapter 8.06, Community Noise Control, of the Redlands Municipal Code prohibits “loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitivity in the area”. The ordinance sets exterior noise limits of 75 A -weighted dBA in industrial areas, which cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour; with the limit plus 20 dB not permitted for any period of time. The ordinance also sets interior noise limits of 60 dBA in industrial areas. Lower exterior noise limits are set for residential and commercial uses, but there are no residential and commercial uses near the site.

Construction and/or demolition activities are only allowed between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays but not on Sundays or holidays, except for emergency work.

However, under the City’s Noise Ordinance, permitted construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. are exempt from community noise standards. Construction of the proposed improvements would occur during the daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays, in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance.

Construction noise impacts would be temporary and would not adversely affect adjacent land uses, including the Santa Ana River, warehouse s, vacant land/agricultural land, and the California Street Landfill. The noise intensity and duration of construction equipment operations, the lack of noise - sensitive receptors near the Project site, and the distances between the site and nearby land uses would prevent violation of the City’s noise regulations. Impacts are less than significant.

Operations-Related Noise
In general, the operation of the new reservoir tank will be passive as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tanks that creates noise. The Proposed Project would include installation of a new water pump station pad to fill the reservoir tanks, and a chlorine contact tank pump station to control water flows into the chlorine contact tank. The pumps would be located either in underground vaults or inside a pump house to protect pumps from outdoor elements. This would also result in insulating the noise from the pumps so that the pumps would not be audible at nearby properties.

The existing water facility tank will continue to function while the new reservoir tank and pump stations are constructed. Currently, maintenance on the existing water facility tank occurs on a monthly and as-needed basis by City employees. No change would occur between the maintenance activities for the existing water facility tank and proposed reservoir tank. As such, operation of the Proposed Project would not create any additional sources of noise, over which is currently being created, and no operatio nal noise modeling was performed. As such, less than significant noise impacts would occur from operation of the Proposed Project.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
277 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 48
21532
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. Analysis for construction and operational impacts relating to groundborne vibration and groundbourne noise is detailed below.

Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
The Proposed Project involves construction of a new water reservoir tank, an extended driveway to access the new tank, a pump station pad, and a chlorine contact tank pump station. Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off-road equipment. Groundborne vibration is measured using the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) annoyance threshold of 72 VdB (vibrational velocity level) (FTA 2018). Due to the distance of the nearest residences (0.7 mile), intermittent and short-term vibration from construction activities at the Project site are not expected to affect residents in the area. Impacts from excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would be less than significant.

Operational-Related Vibration Impacts.

In general, the operation of the new reservoir tank will be passive as there will be no equipment installed on the reservoir tanks that creates noise. The Proposed Project would include installation of a new water pump station pad to fill the reservoir tanks and a chlorine contact tank pump station to control water flows into the chlorine contact tank. The pumps would be located either in underground vaults or inside a pump house to protect pumps from the elements. This would also result in insulating the noise from the pumps so that the pumps would not be audible at nearby properties No new long -term noise-generating activities above existing ambient noise levels in this industrial zone would occur from the Proposed Project. The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would not include the operation of any equipment that creates vibration and would not include any other known vibration sources. Therefore, a less than significant vibration impact is anticipated from the operation of the Proposed Project.
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 us e airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact . The Project Site is located approximately 0.60 miles from the San Bernadino International Airport southeastern boundary and 2.6 miles to the west from the Redlands airport. The Project site is not within the boundaries of the designated Area of Special Com patibility Concern for the Redlands Airport but is within the airport influence area for the San Bernardino International Airport; however, no airport land use compatibility plan has been adopted for the San Bernardino International Airport.

While the Project site is within the airport influence area for San Bernardino International Airport, it is not within a designated high -noise contour as identified by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines or local airport studies (Vista 2023). The existing staff will maintain the new water reservoir along with the existing water infrastructure reservoir at the WWTP. Thus, the Proposed Project would not expose people working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The Proposed Project does not involve the construction of noise -sensitive uses such as residential, educational, or healthcare Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
278 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 49
21532
facilities. Additionally, the nature of the Project - limited to water infrastructure installments - does not introduce new long-term noise-sensitive receptors. Impacts are less than significant.

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

4.14.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The Proposed Project does not provide permanent housing or include operations that could result in unplanned growth such as extension of roadways or expansion of existing infrastructure. The Proposed Project would provide additional recycled water for City use. The additional water storage facility would address the water supply for the existing population and planned future growth. During operations, there will be no change in the number of personnel of the WWTP. No impact would occur
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There are no residential units on the Project site or in the surrounding areas. The Project would not displace any housing units, households, or residents. In addition, no businesses or employees would be displaced by the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in any impacts to people or housing nor require replacement housing. No impacts would occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
279 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 50
21532

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

15. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

i) Fire Protection?
ii) Police Protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

4.15.1 Impact Analysis
a) i) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts ass ociated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not affect the service standards related to fire protection. The Proposed Project site is located approximately 1.6 miles northwest of Redlands Fire Station 263 (Google 2025). The Proposed Project would provide recycled water for City use and would not be used to meet demand due to population growth. The Proposed Project will safeguard public health by expanding the capacities of the reservoirs to meet public drinking recycled water demands which is c ritical as the City continues to be impacted by multi -decade drought. Development of the Proposed Project would not necessitate the expansion of services as it would not result in permanent population growth. While there may be temporary travel delays during construction with the presence of construction vehicles and equipment traveling along the roadways, th is would occur during construction and is not expected to create long -term and significant delay for fire protection in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. ii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not affect the service standards related to police protection. The Redlands Police Department provides law enforcement and police protection services in the City, including the Project site. The Proposed Project site is located approximately 2.25 miles northwest of the Redlands Police Station (Google 2025). The WWTP site Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
280 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 51
21532
would remain fenced, and personnel would also be stationed at the WWTP 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The Proposed Project would not attract crime to the area, nor will it result in population growth in the area requiring the expansion of existing services or the creation of new services. The Project area that is currently being serviced by the Redlands Police Station would continue to receive the same services as nearby land uses. While there may be temporary travel delays during construction, these would occur during construction and is not expected to create a long-term and significant delay for police protection in the area. Thus, the Project would not result in the need for new police stations in the area or otherwise adversely impact existing police services. Demand for police protection services at the site is expected to remain unchanged.

Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
iii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest school is the Packinghouse Christian Academy, located 4,100 feet ( 0.78 miles) south of the Project site. Despite its proximity, the development of the Proposed Project would not induce population growth requiring the creation of new services.

Additionally, The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for schools in the City. Impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth requiring the extension of existing or creation of new park services . The Proposed Project site is located 1 mile west of a future park, 1.81 miles west of Israel Beal Park, 3.80 miles north from Hulda Crooks Park, 2.6 miles north from Heritage Park, and 2.30 miles north from Citrus Trails Community Park.

While there may be temporary travel delays during construction with the presence of construction vehicles and equipment traveling along the roadway, th is would occur during construction and is not expected to create long term and significant delay in access to these parks. Additionally, the Proposed Project will not induce unplanned popula tion growth that would create demand for additional park and recreation facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. vi) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would not induce growth requiring the extension of existing or creation of new services. Construction of the water tank and pump station would not result in the demand for expansion or the addition of new service areas. The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for other public facilities. In fact, the intent of the Proposed Project is to increase water storage to meet existing demands in times of drought . No new or additional personnel would be needed to operate the additional water reservoir and pump station. No impact would occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
281 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 52
21532

4.16 RECREATION

16. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?

(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?

4.16.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The Proposed Project site is located 1 mile west of a future park, 1.81 miles west of Israel Beal Park, 3.80 miles north from Hulda Crooks mark, 2.6 miles north from Heritage Park, and 2.30 miles north from Citrus Trails Community Park. The Proposed Project does not include features or activities that would contribute to the increased use of the surrounding neighborhoods, regional parks, other recreational facilities and would not cause substantial deterioration of existing public facilities. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth as it does not include permanent or temporary housing. No impact would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Proposed Project site is located 1 mile west of a future park, 1.81 miles west of Israel Beal Park, 3.80 miles north from Hulda Crooks Park, 2.6 miles north from Heritage Park, and 2.30 miles north from Citrus Trails Community Park. The Proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Proposed Project does not include introducing new job opportunities that would increase populations beyond what has been analyzed nor increase demands on recreational resources. No impacts will occur.

4.17 TRANSPORTATION

17. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

(b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
282 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 53
21532

17. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?

(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

4.17.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would introduce a 14-foot-wide road, off of Waste Water Road, that would provide access to the new water reservoir. The Proposed Project will be located within City property, adjacent to an existing water facility tank that is being maintained and operated by the City.

The City's General Plan emphasizes maintaining a safe and efficient circulation system that accommodates various modes of transportation, including vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The proposed 14-foot-wide extended driveway is designed primarily for maintenance vehicles accessing the reservoir and pump station. Given its specific utility purpose and location within the WWTP premises, it is not intended for general public use or as a thoroughfare for regular traffic. Site plans for the extended driveway will also be subject to review by the City’s Engineering Department.

While the Project site may experience delays during construction, this will be temporary in nature.

Operation of the new reservoir tanks will not increase the presence of employees on the site that would create interference with the existing circulation. Therefore, it does not interfere with existing circulation systems, including transit, public roadways, bicycle paths, or pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact. The Proposed Project would introduce a 14’ wide road, off of Waste Water Road, that would provide access to the new water reservoir. Implementation of the Proposed Project, which includes a new recycled water reservoir and pump station, would not result in the addition of new personnel. The existing faculty would manage the operations of the Proposed Project. Because t he Project would not increase the number of employees at the WWTP nor increase vehicle miles traveled, it would not be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1). There would be no impact related to increased travel with the Project. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact . The Proposed Project would introduce a 14’ wide road, off of Waste Water Road, that would provide access to the new water reservoir. The Proposed Project does not propose any hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Furthermore, the Proposed Project will be on City property , will be accessible only to City employees , and is not open to the general public. Any additional roadways or entrances that may be included in the Project Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
283 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 54
21532
area will be done in conformance with City engineering guidelines and with the approval of the City Engineer. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. Project site access would be along Nevada Street via Waste Water Road.

The Proposed Project would introduce a 14’ wide extended driveway, off of Waste Water Road, that would provide access to the new water reservoir. This proposed driveway will be subject to review by the Redlands Fire Department for compliance with applicable California Fire and Building Codes.

Compliance with fire safety regulations would make impacts relating to emergency access less than significant.

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or

(b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

4.18.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5.1, the WWTP is not eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR.

Although the WWTP was built in 1962, sequential updates and surrounding modern development has resulted in the site losing any potential historic character. The CHRIS Data Request results that Chambers Group received from the SCCIC on April 12, 2025, indicated that there are no previously recorded historical resources recorded within the Project site. No tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, or local designation as a Historic Resource would be affected by the Proposed Project. No impacts would occur.

Redlands Regular Meeting 11-18-25
284 of 932
WWTP Recycled Water Reservoir CEQA Project
City of Redlands, CA
Chambers Group, Inc. 55
21532
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to crit eria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. On February 12, 2025, Chambers Group sent a Sacred Lands File and Native American Contracts List Request to th e NAHC. On February 13, 2025, Chambers Group received an email response from the NAHC, stating that the results were positive, indicating that sacred or culturally significant Native American lands are known to exist in or near the Project area.

Assembly Bill 52 requires public agencies to consult with tribes that may have a traditional affiliation to a project area to gather information on a site’s sensitivity and identify if any mitigation measures would be required to preserve discovered or und iscovered tribal cultural resources. The City of Redlands Development Services Planning Division has a list of Native American tribes that have standing notification request s per AB 52. This list contains ten contacts representing six different tribes. On April 11, 2025 the City sent notification letters to all six of these tribes: the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

After review of the Project information , the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Na tion requested consultation. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians responded and indicated that, although the Project is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, they will defer the Project to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel provided their mitigation measures (MM TCR-1 and MM TCR-2) to be incorporated into the Proposed Project.