Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Redlands City Council
April 7, 2026

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
April 7, 2026
Body
Redlands City Council
Pages
55
Original file
176.9 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on s3.us-west-004.backblazeb2.com. That file is the official record.

Phase One
• 165,000 sf maximum, 4- story Ambulatory Surgery Center/Medical Office Building 2 (ASC/MOB 2) (shown as MOB 2/ASC in the site plan)
Phase Two
• 400,000 square feet of Hospital comprising of 213 beds • 35,000 square foot Central Utility Plant (shown as CUP in the site plan) • 464,000 square feet (6 level – 1218 parking stalls, 70 handicap stalls) Medical Center Parking Structure
Phase Three
• 83,000 square feet of MOB (shown as MOB3 in the site plan) Phase Four
• 180,000 square foot expansion to the Phase Two Hospital comprising of an additional 108 beds, 5 levels and basement
Access to the Project will be provided by the two existing full access driveways along California Street and Lugonia Avenue. The Project proposes three additional driveways, two on Almond Avenue and one on Lugonia Avenue (west of the existing Lugonia Avenue driveway). While all driveways will be full access the westerly driveways on Almond Avenue and Lugonia Avenue will primarily service ambulances and delivery trucks.

VMT Assessment
According to the City of Redlands CEQA Assessment VMT Analysis Guidelines (2020), there are three types of screening that can be applied to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment.
 Transit Priority Area (TPA Screening)
 Low VMT Area Screening
 Project Type Screening
Fehr & Peers will review the Project under the City’s guideline screening criteria and determine if the Project may be screened from VMT Assessment. If the Project is not eligible for screening, we will conduct a VMT Assessment consistent with the methodologies presented in the City’s guidelines.

City of Redlands
August 16, 2024

Page 3 of 8 ends

LOS Traffic Study
The City of Redlands does not currently have traffic study guidelines that detail the requirements for LOS analysis. However, the City has adopted Measure U which includes the following policies:

5.20a Maintain LOS C or better as the standard for all intersections presently at LOS C or better

5.20b Within the area identified in GP Figure 5-1, including that unincorporated County area identified on GP Figure 5-1 as the “donut hole”, maintain LOS C or better; however, accept a reduced LOS on a case by case basis upon approval by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the total authorized membership of the City Council
Section 2-B Exemptions: Exemptions from Traffic and Socio-Economic Study Requirements Only. Development projects that directly further the primary institutional purposes of churches, hospitals, schools (including private schools and universities), and organizations such as the YMCA and YWCA, on sites held by such entities as of March 1, 1997, are exempt from the traffic level of service requirements and the requirement for a socioeconomic study established by this initiative measure so long as such development projects are either 1) non-residential in character, or 2) provide only dormitory, staff housing or senior congregate care facilities for those exempt entities.

As the Project proposes to construct hospital and supporting facilities, and has been owned by Kaiser since 1991, it has been determined that the Project is exempt from mitigation at location intersections though Measure U.

Existing traffic counts have been collected at off-site intersections and existing Level of Service will be calculated as described below. This information will be provided to the City for informational purposes only and no off-site intersection improvements will be recommended as part of this study.

Analysis Methodologies
Fehr & Peers will use methodologies consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022) to evaluate all proposed study locations’ intersection operations. The HCM 7th Edition methodology for signalized intersections estimates the average control delay for vehicles at the intersection. After the quantitative delay estimates are complete, the methodology assigns a qualitative letter grade which represents the operations of the intersection. These grades range from level of service (LOS) A (minimal delay) to LOS F (congested conditions). LOS E represents at-capacity operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades for signalized intersections are provided in Table 1.

City of Redlands
August 16, 2024

Page 4 of 8 ends

Table 1: HCM Intersection Level of Service Criteria

City of Redlands
August 16, 2024

Page 5 of 8 ends

Analysis Scenarios
The existing baseline and existing plus project conditions will be provided for all study intersections for informational purposes only. Project trip assignment will also be provided for all study intersections.
 Existing (2024) Baseline Conditions – 2022 and 2024 traffic turning movement counts. 2022 counts will be compared to 2024 volumes to determine if any changes in traffic volume have occurred in the study area and if any adjustments to 2022 counts should be made.

Intersection turning movement volumes and LOS will be provided for all study intersections.  Existing (2024) With Phase 1-4 Conditions – Existing Without Project Conditions traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the Project Phases 1-4. Intersection turning movement volumes will be provided at all intersections for this scenario, but Kaiser will only be responsible for improvements at site access locations necessary for safe ingress/egreess from the site.

Trip Generation
Trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2021) were used to estimate the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips associated with the Project and are provided in Table 2. ITE trip generation rates for Medical-Dental Office Building (ITE Code 720) and Hospital (ITE 610) were used to estimate project trips. No existing credits or reductions were applied to the Project’s trip generation estimates.

As presented in Table 2, the Project is expected to generate approximately 16,093 daily trips, including approximately 1,343 trips (1,020 inbound/323 outbound) during the AM peak hour, and approximately 1,517 trips (471 inbound/1,046 outbound) during the PM peak hour.

Rate % In % Out Rate % In % Out In Out Total In Out Total 720 165 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 36.00 3.10 79% 21% 3.93 30% 70% 5,940 404 108 512 194 454 648 5,940 404 108 512 194 454 648
610 213 Beds 22.32 1.79 72% 28% 1.69 33% 67% 4,754 274 107 381 119 241 360 -- 35 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4,754 274 107 381 119 241 360
720 83 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 36.00 3.10 79% 21% 3.93 30% 70% 2,988 203 54 257 98 228 326 2,988 203 54 257 98 228 326
610 108 Beds 22.32 1.79 72% 28% 1.69 33% 67% 2,411 139 54 193 60 123 183 2,411 139 54 193 60 123 183
16,093 1,020 323 1,343 471 1,046 1,517
Notes: 1. The Central Utility Plant will house hospital equipment and devices. As such, no additional vehicle trips from the site will be generated from this section of the expansion and only hospital employees would access the building.

Hospital
Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Volume 4, 2021.

Notes:

Medical-Dental Office Building
Project Trips Total
Proposed Project
Project Trips Total
HospitalUtility (Central Utility Plant)1
Project Trips Total
Phase 3Phase 4
Medical-Dental Office Building
Project Trips Total
Phase 1Phase 2
Table 2: Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use ITE Land Code Quantity Unit Trip Generation Rates Estimated Trip Generation Daily Rate
AM Peak PM Peak Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak
City of Redlands
August 16, 2024

Page 7 of 8 ends

Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would use to travel to and from the project site. Surrounding land uses, existing roadway network characteristics, local knowledge of the study area, and professional judgement were used to develop the trip distribution. The proposed trip distributions for the Project land uses are shown in Figure 1. The trip distribution has been updated based on the City’s comments.

Once the scoping memorandum has been accepted by the City, the trip distribution will be applied and the project trip assignment will be developed. These turning movements will show the project trips at every study intersection and the project driveways and will be submitted with the draft traffic study.

Study Locations
Based on the proposed trip distribution and regional/local access to the site, we anticipate that project traffic will primarily utilize the following major intersections to access the site and affect their intersection operations. Seven intersections are proposed to be included in the LOS Assessment are listed below and shown in Figure 2:

1. California Street and San Bernardino Avenue

2. California Street and Almond Avenue

3. California Street and Lugonia Avenue

4. California Street and Orange Tree Lane

5. California Street and I-10 Westbound Ramps

6. California Street and I-10 Eastbound Ramps

7. California Street and Redlands Boulevard

8. Mountain View Avenue and Almond Avenue

9. Mountain View Avenue and I-10 Westbound Ramps

10. Mountain View Avenue and I-10 Eastbound Ramps
The Project’s driveways will also be reviewed to determine what, if any, traffic control measures would be warranted to allow for pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular access.

Data Collection
Fehr & Peers collected peak hour (7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM) multimodal traffic counts at intersections 1 through 6, under fair weather conditions, on Tuesday May 10th, 2022. Fehr & Peers collected traffic counts at intersections 7, 8, and 9 in early 2024.

City of Redlands
August 16, 2024

Page 8 of 8 ends

Fehr & Peers will collect the following information in a field visit to the study area:
• Lane configurations
• Signal phasing
• Land uses in the study area
• Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• On-street parking conditions
• Transit service
Figures
Figure 1 – Project Trip Distribution
Figure 2 – Study Area
Attachments
Attachment One – Project Site Plan
Tennessee Street
SouthTippecanoeAvenue
R
e
dla
n
ds
B
o
u
l
e
vard
California Street
Ea
st San Bernar
din
o Ave
nue
Alabama Street
Mounta ni V ei wAvenue
Redlands Boulevard
R
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
B
o
u
l
e
va
r
d
C
olt
o
n
Av
e
n
u
e
SouthTippecanoe Avenue
Tennessee Street
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
Ave
n
u
e
Redlands
Boulevard
Anderson Street
Californai Street
West Sa
n B
e
r
n
a
r
din
o
Ave
n
u
e
We
st
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
Ave
n
u
e
Citrus P al zaDr vi e
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
Ave
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
L
u
go
n
i
a
Ave
n
u
e
MissionRoad
California Street
Mounta ni V ei wAvenue
·
210
"!
10 C:\Users\bissifu\OneDrive - Fehr & Peers\Desktop\Delia\background_map_delia\background_map_delia.aprx Project Distribution
!
Figure 2
W
e
s
t
L
u
go
n
i
a
Ave
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
L
u
go
n
i
a
Ave
n
u
e
Almond Avenue Almond Avenue
Orange Tree Lane
4%
12%
8%
4%
4%
15%
2%
2%
8%
17%
12%
10%
2%
Legend
ProjectSite
Project Distribution
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1 2
3 5
6 4
7 9
10 8
"!10

ORANGE TR EE LN

ALMOND AVE

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

CALIFORNIA ST

REDLANDS BLVD

SAN BERNARDINO AVE

LUGONIA AVEMARIGOLD AVE
A
D E
C B
Study Area
Figure 2
! Study Intersections
Project Driveways
Project Site
Page | 43
Appendix B: Existing Traffic Counts
T42321
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3384
Tue, May 10, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 1
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 37 33 11 0 17 10 2 25 14 5 60 0 214 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 58 32 6 2 16 7 16 36 17 7 65 0 262 0 0 0 1 1
7:30 AM 54 31 7 2 22 5 7 30 20 19 71 3 271 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 52 31 6 1 20 6 12 44 30 25 95 2 324 0 0 0 1 1
8:00 AM 32 17 9 1 12 5 4 79 29 19 66 0 273 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 28 21 7 3 29 2 3 59 33 16 70 0 271 0 1 0 0 1
8:30 AM 33 20 9 1 13 6 4 36 16 15 68 3 224 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 24 26 6 4 22 9 5 44 16 22 53 1 232 0 0 0 3 3
VOLUMES 318 211 61 14 151 50 53 353 175 128 548 9 2,071 0 1 0 6 7 APPROACH % 54% 36% 10% 7% 70% 23% 9% 61% 30% 19% 80% 1% APP/DEPART 590 / 274 215 / 448 581 / 433 685 / 916 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 166 100 29 7 83 18 26 212 112 79 302 5 1,139
APPROACH % 56% 34% 10% 6% 77% 17% 7% 61% 32% 20% 78% 1% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.802 0.794 0.781 0.791 0.879
APP/DEPART 295 / 132 108 / 272 350 / 249 386 / 486 0
4:00 PM 37 16 21 4 23 18 7 95 46 12 79 0 358 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 44 30 16 2 24 17 13 121 41 10 60 3 381 0 1 0 0 1 4:30 PM 24 31 13 4 49 21 10 133 31 11 73 2 402 1 2 0 0 3 4:45 PM 32 17 22 3 36 7 11 117 31 13 53 1 343 0 1 0 0 1 5:00 PM 36 34 15 1 29 12 7 152 46 9 63 0 404 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 33 20 19 2 18 10 15 158 35 14 59 0 383 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 36 15 11 0 17 5 14 152 47 16 50 1 364 0 0 1 1 2 5:45 PM 31 17 11 0 14 13 7 106 33 14 61 1 308 0 0 0 1 1 VOLUMES 273 180 128 16 210 103 84 1,034 310 99 498 8 2,943 1 4 1 2 8 APPROACH % 47% 31% 22% 5% 64% 31% 6% 72% 22% 16% 82% 1% APP/DEPART 581 / 275 329 / 618 1,428 / 1,176 605 / 874 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 125 102 69 10 132 50 43 560 143 47 248 3 1,532
APPROACH % 42% 34% 23% 5% 69% 26% 6% 75% 19% 16% 83% 1% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.871 0.649 0.897 0.866 0.948
APP/DEPART 296 / 151 192 / 323 746 / 636 298 / 422 0
California

NORTH SIDE
San Bernardino WEST SIDE EAST SIDE San Bernardino

SOUTH SIDE
California

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 4 0 1 1 6 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 5
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 6
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
5:45 PM 0 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5
TOTAL 0 2 0 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 18 20

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:30 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
California
San Bernardino

U-TURNS
California California San Bernardino San Bernardino
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
544 153 361 30 TOTAL 549
329 103 210 16 PM 275
215 50 151 14 AM 274
685 605
1,290
1,790
874 916
9 8
17 548 498
1,046
TOTAL
PM
AM
128
99 227
137
84 53
AM
PM
TOTAL
1,387 1,034
353
485 310 175
433
1,176 1,609
2,009 1,428
581
448 AM 318 211 61 590
618 PM 273 180 128 581
1,066 TOTAL 591 391 189 1,171
300 68 215 17 TOTAL 283
192 50 132 10 PM 151
108 18 83 7 AM 132
386 298 684
908 422 486
5 3 8
302 248 550
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
79 47
126
69 43 26
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
772 560 212
PM 4:30 PM
3:45 PM
255 143 112
249 636 885
1,096
746 350
272 AM 166 100 29 295
323 PM 125 102 69 296
595 Total 291 202 98 591
California
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
California
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Redlands
SC3384

ALL HOURS
California
California
San Bernardino
San Bernardino

PEAK HOUR
T42321
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3384
Tue, May 10, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 2
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 2 2 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 7 81 12 1 30 3 0 6 4 6 5 0 155 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 17 92 5 0 38 3 2 8 4 7 6 1 183 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 10 90 10 0 52 6 1 5 7 11 16 3 211 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 9 83 12 3 60 12 1 16 4 4 14 2 220 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 11 56 12 1 51 4 2 10 10 10 9 2 178 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 5 51 6 1 74 3 2 6 9 5 6 0 168 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 8 63 13 0 38 5 2 11 8 6 11 1 166 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 8 53 6 0 50 6 3 11 7 6 11 1 162 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 75 569 76 6 393 42 13 73 53 55 78 10 1,443 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 10% 79% 11% 1% 89% 10% 9% 53% 38% 38% 55% 7% APP/DEPART 720 / 592 441 / 501 139 / 155 143 / 195 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 47 321 39 4 201 25 6 39 25 32 45 8 792
APPROACH % 12% 79% 10% 2% 87% 11% 9% 56% 36% 38% 53% 9% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.893 0.767 0.795 0.708 0.900
APP/DEPART 407 / 335 230 / 258 70 / 82 85 / 117 0
4:00 PM 1 75 16 3 64 5 1 29 4 12 18 5 233 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 6 76 9 1 66 6 3 18 4 11 22 1 223 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 10 62 13 3 88 3 4 28 12 16 21 4 264 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 12 65 16 0 74 4 2 28 16 6 13 5 241 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 4 76 11 2 78 4 8 32 13 5 16 2 251 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 13 67 10 5 58 8 4 32 14 13 15 0 239 1 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 4 52 13 3 63 7 5 27 16 9 17 3 219 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 20 52 13 0 61 5 4 22 15 7 12 2 213 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 70 526 101 17 552 42 31 216 94 79 134 22 1,884 1 0 0 0 1 APPROACH % 10% 75% 14% 3% 90% 7% 9% 63% 28% 34% 57% 9%
APP/DEPART 697 / 579 611 / 726 341 / 334 235 / 245 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 39 270 50 10 298 19 18 120 55 40 65 11 995
APPROACH % 11% 75% 14% 3% 91% 6% 9% 62% 28% 34% 56% 9%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.965 0.870 0.910 0.707 0.942
APP/DEPART 359 / 299 327 / 394 193 / 180 116 / 122 0
California

NORTH SIDE
Almond WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Almond

SOUTH SIDE
California

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 14 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 15
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 14 0 1 2 17 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 2 17
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 1 5 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 5
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
5:15 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
5:45 PM 0 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5
TOTAL 1 1 2 19 23 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 18 21

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:30 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
California
Almond

U-TURNS
California California Almond Almond
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
1,052 84 945 23 TOTAL 1,171
611 42 552 17 PM 579
441 42 393 6 AM 592
143 235 378
440 245 195
10 22 32
78 134 212
TOTAL
PM
AM
55 79
134
44 31 13
AM
PM
TOTAL
289 216
73 147
94 53
155 334 489
480 341 139
501 AM 75 569 76 720
726 PM 70 526 101 697
1,227 TOTAL 145 1,095 177 1,417
557 44 499 14 TOTAL 634
327 19 298 10 PM 299
230 25 201 4 AM 335
85 116 201
239 122 117
8 11 19
45 65
110
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:15 AM
8:45 AM
32 40 72
24 18
6 #N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
159 120
39 PM 4:30 PM
3:45 PM
80 55 25
82 180 262
263 193
70 258 AM 47 321 39 407
394 PM 39 270 50 359
652 Total 86 591 89 766
California
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
California
Almond
Almond
Redlands
SC3384

ALL HOURS
California
California
Almond
Almond

PEAK HOUR
T42321
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3384
Tue, May 10, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 3
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 25 105 8 1 38 1 0 7 16 17 7 2 227 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 26 120 18 3 44 1 0 7 28 22 11 12 292 1 0 0 0 1
7:30 AM 30 121 17 2 59 1 0 2 22 27 15 5 301 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 42 128 23 7 53 4 1 6 23 28 19 8 342 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 48 89 30 5 55 5 1 5 17 23 13 5 296 1 0 0 0 1
8:15 AM 52 101 28 13 67 6 1 4 15 20 10 11 328 0 1 0 0 1 8:30 AM 47 109 36 11 33 4 0 6 19 34 8 11 318 1 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 36 104 33 7 59 4 0 6 26 24 18 12 329 2 0 0 0 2
VOLUMES 306 877 193 49 408 26 3 43 166 195 101 66 2,433 5 1 0 0 6 APPROACH % 22% 64% 14% 10% 84% 5% 1% 20% 78% 54% 28% 18% APP/DEPART 1,376 / 947 483 / 774 212 / 284 362 / 428 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 189 427 117 36 208 19 3 21 74 105 50 35 1,284
APPROACH % 26% 58% 16% 14% 79% 7% 3% 21% 76% 55% 26% 18% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.949 0.765 0.817 0.864 0.939
APP/DEPART 733 / 466 263 / 389 98 / 173 190 / 256 0
4:00 PM 30 84 24 18 102 2 2 18 37 38 15 11 381 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 21 85 43 11 97 1 3 13 34 30 9 8 355 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 11 71 27 18 130 4 3 13 49 44 8 13 391 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 18 80 47 15 108 2 0 17 36 37 12 7 379 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 22 89 37 11 108 1 3 20 45 41 8 11 396 5 0 0 0 5 5:15 PM 13 67 25 9 90 2 1 13 32 42 11 3 308 1 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 18 74 53 15 91 2 0 10 36 35 8 6 348 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 23 81 35 8 89 2 1 9 22 34 20 5 329 1 0 0 0 1
VOLUMES 156 631 291 105 815 16 13 113 291 301 91 64 2,887 7 0 0 0 7 APPROACH % 14% 59% 27% 11% 87% 2% 3% 27% 70% 66% 20% 14% APP/DEPART 1,078 / 708 936 / 1,414 417 / 509 456 / 256 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 72 325 154 55 443 8 9 63 164 152 37 39 1,521
APPROACH % 13% 59% 28% 11% 88% 2% 4% 27% 69% 67% 16% 17% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.924 0.832 0.868 0.877 0.960
APP/DEPART 551 / 373 506 / 764 236 / 272 228 / 112 0
California

NORTH SIDE
Lugonia WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Lugonia

SOUTH SIDE
California

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 1 5 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 5
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 5 0 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 10
5:15 PM 1 0 1 2 4 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
5:45 PM 1 0 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 6
TOTAL 7 0 9 15 31 1 0 1 2 4 6 0 8 13 27

U-TURNS
California California Lugonia Lugonia
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
California
Lugonia

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:45 AM
PM
4:15 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
1,419 42 1,223 154 TOTAL 1,655
936 16 815 105 PM 708
483 26 408 49 AM 947
362 456 818
684 256 428
66 64
130
101
91 192
TOTAL
PM
AM
195 301 496
16 13
3 AM
PM
TOTAL
156 113
43 457 291 166
284 509 793
629 417 212
774 AM 306 877 193 1,376
1,414 PM 156 631 291 1,078
2,188 TOTAL 462 1,508 484 2,454
769 27 651 91 TOTAL 839
506 8 443 55 PM 373
263 19 208 36 AM 466
190 228 418
368 112 256
35 39 74
50 37 87
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:45 AM
8:45 AM
105 152 257
12 9 3
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
84 63 21
PM 4:15 PM
3:45 PM
238 164
74 173 272 445
334 236
98 389 AM 189 427 117 733
764 PM 72 325 154 551
1,153 Total 261 752 271 1,284
California
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
California
Lugonia
Lugonia
Redlands
SC3384

ALL HOURS
California
California
Lugonia
Lugonia

PEAK HOUR
T42321
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3384
Tue, May 10, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 4
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 8 139 21 0 70 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 251 8 0 0 0 8
7:15 AM 5 158 37 0 91 0 0 0 0 14 0 2 307 4 0 0 0 4
7:30 AM 3 166 42 4 104 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 330 3 0 0 0 3
7:45 AM 5 192 69 2 90 0 0 0 0 24 0 2 384 5 0 0 0 5
8:00 AM 4 168 42 5 96 0 0 0 0 13 0 3 331 4 0 0 0 4
8:15 AM 5 177 45 2 96 0 0 0 0 22 0 6 353 5 0 0 0 5
8:30 AM 4 188 55 1 90 0 0 0 0 28 0 3 369 4 0 0 0 4
8:45 AM 3 169 59 6 105 0 0 0 0 19 0 4 365 3 0 0 0 3
VOLUMES 37 1,357 370 20 742 0 0 0 0 142 0 22 2,690 36 0 0 0 36 APPROACH % 2% 77% 21% 3% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 87% 0% 13%
APP/DEPART 1,764 / 1,379 762 / 920 0 / 390 164 / 1 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 18 725 211 10 372 0 0 0 0 87 0 14 1,437
APPROACH % 2% 76% 22% 3% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 86% 0% 14%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.897 0.946 0.000 0.815 0.936
APP/DEPART 954 / 739 382 / 477 0 / 221 101 / 0 0
4:00 PM 6 127 30 8 158 0 0 0 0 59 0 3 391 6 0 0 0 6
4:15 PM 3 138 32 6 157 1 0 0 0 59 0 8 404 3 0 0 0 3
4:30 PM 0 100 31 4 222 0 0 0 0 58 0 3 418 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 5 137 26 3 167 0 0 0 0 58 0 9 405 5 0 0 0 5
5:00 PM 2 120 19 8 181 0 0 0 0 89 0 13 432 2 1 0 0 3
5:15 PM 5 106 30 10 171 0 0 0 0 68 0 6 396 5 0 0 0 5
5:30 PM 4 141 20 4 159 0 0 0 0 57 0 7 392 4 0 0 0 4
5:45 PM 8 125 21 2 132 0 0 0 0 26 0 6 320 7 0 0 0 7
VOLUMES 33 994 209 45 1,347 1 0 0 0 474 0 55 3,158 32 1 0 0 33 APPROACH % 3% 80% 17% 3% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90% 0% 10%
APP/DEPART 1,236 / 1,050 1,393 / 1,853 0 / 253 529 / 2 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 10 495 108 21 727 1 0 0 0 264 0 33 1,659
APPROACH % 2% 81% 18% 3% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 89% 0% 11%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.886 0.829 0.000 0.728 0.960
APP/DEPART 613 / 529 749 / 1,001 0 / 128 297 / 1 0
California

NORTH SIDE
Orange Tree WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Orange Tree

SOUTH SIDE
California

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 5 1 5 2 13 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 4 2 12
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 5
5:15 PM 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1
5:30 PM 0 2 4 0 6 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 4
5:45 PM 0 0 5 2 7 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 0 5
TOTAL 6 3 23 4 36 1 2 3 2 8 5 1 20 2 28

U-TURNS
California California Orange Tree Orange Tree
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
California
Orange Tree

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:45 AM
PM
4:15 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
2,155 1 2,089 65 TOTAL 2,429
1,393 1 1,347 45 PM 1,050
762 0 742 20 AM 1,379
164 529 693
3 2 1
22 55 77
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
142 474 616
0 0 0
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
0 0 0
390 253 643
0 0 0
920 AM 37 1,357 370 1,764
1,853 PM 33 994 209 1,236
2,773 TOTAL 70 2,351 579 3,000
1,131 1 1,099 31 TOTAL 1,268
749 1 727 21 PM 529
382 0 372 10 AM 739
101 297 398
1 1 0
14 33 47
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:45 AM
8:45 AM
87 264 351
0 0 0
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
PM 4:15 PM
3:45 PM
0 0 0
221 128 349
0 0 0
477 AM 18 725 211 954
1,001 PM 10 495 108 613
1,478 Total 28 1,220 319 1,567
California
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
California
Orange Tree
Orange Tree
Redlands
SC3384

ALL HOURS
California
California
Orange Tree
Orange Tree

PEAK HOUR
T42321
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3384
Tue, May 10, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 5
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 2 X X 3 1 X X X 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 81 122 0 0 33 57 0 0 0 57 1 48 399 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 65 130 0 0 49 54 0 0 0 98 4 70 470 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 71 137 0 0 51 66 0 0 0 95 2 74 496 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 76 169 0 0 48 71 0 0 0 102 6 97 569 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 80 129 0 0 39 74 0 0 0 72 0 85 479 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 65 140 0 0 49 74 0 0 0 53 1 87 469 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 77 156 0 0 48 74 0 0 0 93 0 91 539 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 73 144 0 0 55 72 0 0 0 64 0 87 495 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 588 1,127 0 0 372 542 0 0 0 634 14 639 3,916 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 34% 66% 0% 0% 41% 59% 0% 0% 0% 49% 1% 50%
APP/DEPART 1,715 / 1,766 914 / 1,006 0 / 0 1,287 / 1,144 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 298 594 0 0 184 293 0 0 0 320 7 360 2,056
APPROACH % 33% 67% 0% 0% 39% 61% 0% 0% 0% 47% 1% 52%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.910 0.970 0.000 0.838 0.903
APP/DEPART 892 / 954 477 / 504 0 / 0 687 / 598 0
4:00 PM 76 111 0 0 89 134 0 0 0 51 0 52 513 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 82 145 0 0 105 114 0 0 0 78 2 28 554 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 88 106 0 0 128 152 0 0 0 65 0 31 570 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 79 138 0 0 108 122 0 0 0 74 0 30 551 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 112 128 0 0 131 138 0 0 0 73 0 13 595 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 82 108 0 0 116 128 0 0 0 63 0 33 530 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 83 133 0 0 90 130 0 0 0 73 0 32 541 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 77 111 0 0 81 84 0 0 0 68 0 43 464 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 679 980 0 0 848 1,002 0 0 0 545 2 262 4,318 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 41% 59% 0% 0% 46% 54% 0% 0% 0% 67% 0% 32%
APP/DEPART 1,659 / 1,242 1,850 / 1,393 0 / 0 809 / 1,683 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 361 517 0 0 472 526 0 0 0 290 2 102 2,270
APPROACH % 41% 59% 0% 0% 47% 53% 0% 0% 0% 74% 1% 26%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.915 0.891 0.000 0.912 0.954
APP/DEPART 878 / 619 998 / 762 0 / 0 394 / 889 0
California

NORTH SIDE
I-10 WB Ramps WEST SIDE EAST SIDE I-10 WB Ramps

SOUTH SIDE
California

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 0 4 4 9 1 0 4 3 8 0 0 0 1 1
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 3 0 3
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 6 0 6
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 5 0 5
5:45 PM 0 0 6 2 8 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 6
TOTAL 0 0 34 2 36 0 0 14 2 16 0 0 20 0 20

U-TURNS
California California I-10 WB Ramps I-10 WB Ramps
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
California
I-10 WB Ramps

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:45 AM
PM
4:15 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
2,764 1,544 1,220 0 TOTAL 3,008
1,850 1,002 848 0 PM 1,242
914 542 372 0 AM 1,766
1,287
809
2,096
2,827 1,683 1,144
639 262 901
14 2
16 TOTAL
PM
AM
634 545
1,179
0 0 0
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1,006 AM 588 1,127 0 1,715
1,393 PM 679 980 0 1,659
2,399 TOTAL 1,267 2,107 0 3,374
1,475 819 656 0 TOTAL 1,573
998 526 472 0 PM 619
477 293 184 0 AM 954
687 394
1,081
1,487
889 598
360 102 462
7 2 9
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:45 AM
8:45 AM
320 290 610
0 0 0
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
PM 4:15 PM
3:45 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
504 AM 298 594 0 892
762 PM 361 517 0 878
1,266 Total 659 1,111 0 1,770
California
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
California
I-10 WB Ramps
I-10 WB Ramps
Redlands
SC3384

ALL HOURS
California
California
I-10 WB Ramps
I-10 WB Ramps

PEAK HOUR
T42321
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3384
Tue, May 10, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 6
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: X 3 1 1 2 X 0 1 0 X X X 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 121 48 15 75 0 82 1 96 0 0 0 438 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 105 57 22 125 0 98 0 115 0 0 0 522 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 108 69 13 133 0 100 1 118 0 0 0 542 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 135 78 15 135 0 110 1 111 0 0 0 585 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 110 72 21 90 0 99 0 114 0 0 0 506 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 114 61 32 70 0 91 0 124 0 0 0 492 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 133 58 20 119 0 100 1 119 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 121 74 27 92 0 96 1 146 0 0 0 557 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 0 947 517 165 839 0 776 5 943 0 0 0 4,192 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 65% 35% 16% 84% 0% 45% 0% 55% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 1,464 / 1,723 1,004 / 1,782 1,724 / 687 0 / 0 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 458 276 71 483 0 407 2 458 0 0 0 2,155
APPROACH % 0% 62% 38% 13% 87% 0% 47% 0% 53% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.862 0.923 0.976 0.000 0.921
APP/DEPART 734 / 865 554 / 941 867 / 349 0 / 0 0
4:00 PM 0 126 107 43 97 0 61 0 96 0 0 0 530 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 156 91 36 147 0 71 0 100 0 0 0 601 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 145 117 53 140 0 53 0 98 0 0 0 606 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 164 108 39 143 0 53 1 91 0 0 0 599 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 190 118 58 144 0 50 1 84 0 0 0 645 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 140 88 47 132 0 50 2 92 0 0 0 551 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 157 92 39 124 0 59 2 105 0 0 0 578 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 121 75 25 124 0 67 0 103 0 0 0 515 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 0 1,199 796 340 1,051 0 464 6 769 0 0 0 4,625 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 60% 40% 24% 76% 0% 37% 0% 62% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 1,995 / 1,663 1,391 / 1,820 1,239 / 1,142 0 / 0 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 655 434 186 574 0 227 2 373 0 0 0 2,451
APPROACH % 0% 60% 40% 24% 76% 0% 38% 0% 62% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.884 0.941 0.880 0.000 0.950
APP/DEPART 1,089 / 882 760 / 947 602 / 622 0 / 0 0
California

NORTH SIDE
I-10 EB Ramps WEST SIDE EAST SIDE I-10 EB Ramps

SOUTH SIDE
California

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 6 4 10 0 0 6 3 9 0 0 0 1 1
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 1
4:45 PM 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 5
5:00 PM 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 5 0 5
5:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 4 0 4
5:45 PM 0 0 5 2 7 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 0 5
TOTAL 0 0 37 3 40 0 0 16 2 18 0 0 21 1 22
Queue NB AM/PM

U-TURNS
California California I-10 EB Ramps I-10 EB Ramps
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
California
I-10 EB Ramps

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:15 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
2,395 0 1,890 505 TOTAL 3,386
1,391 0 1,051 340 PM 1,663
1,004 0 839 165 AM 1,723
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
0 0 0
1,240
464 776
AM
PM
TOTAL
11 6 5
1,712
769 943
687
1,142 1,829
2,963 1,239 1,724
1,782 AM 0 947 517 1,464
1,820 PM 0 1,199 796 1,995
3,602 TOTAL 0 2,146 1,313 3,459
1,314 0 1,057 257 TOTAL 1,747
760 0 574 186 PM 882
554 0 483 71 AM 865
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:15 AM
8:45 AM
0 0 0
634 227 407
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
4 2 2
PM 4:15 PM
3:45 PM
831 373 458
349 622 971
1,469
602 867
941 AM 0 458 276 734
947 PM 0 655 434 1,089
1,888 Total 0 1,113 710 1,823
California
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
California
I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Redlands
SC3384

ALL HOURS
California
California
I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps

PEAK HOUR
T42321
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3384
Tue, May 10, 22 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 7
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 23 103 7 34 88 17 13 19 9 7 41 27 388 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 25 101 6 38 117 44 20 45 27 4 63 31 521 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 29 113 7 54 131 44 24 43 73 15 74 32 639 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 45 111 18 56 80 37 28 61 92 22 99 47 696 0 0 0 1 1 8:00 AM 31 85 11 52 117 39 33 68 19 15 74 33 577 0 0 0 1 1 8:15 AM 32 115 13 51 84 17 25 68 19 14 71 42 551 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 20 81 14 68 108 18 24 73 10 18 79 50 563 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 23 109 10 57 115 20 23 52 9 14 52 42 526 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 228 818 86 410 840 236 190 429 258 109 553 304 4,461 0 0 0 2 2 APPROACH % 20% 72% 8% 28% 57% 16% 22% 49% 29% 11% 57% 31% APP/DEPART 1,132 / 1,312 1,486 / 1,205 877 / 927 966 / 1,017 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 137 424 49 213 412 137 110 240 203 66 318 154 2,463 APPROACH % 22% 70% 8% 28% 54% 18% 20% 43% 37% 12% 59% 29% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.876 0.832 0.764 0.801 0.885
APP/DEPART 610 / 688 762 / 679 553 / 504 538 / 592 0
4:00 PM 22 123 18 45 87 28 57 139 40 17 132 65 773 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 29 107 14 47 110 30 50 127 31 23 97 48 713 0 0 0 1 1 4:30 PM 12 98 11 46 92 24 54 139 34 28 130 70 738 0 0 0 1 1 4:45 PM 26 117 26 61 91 20 44 132 29 24 101 62 733 0 0 0 2 2 5:00 PM 24 124 19 62 90 23 36 148 39 26 112 79 782 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 14 96 19 57 106 26 46 185 35 33 124 62 803 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 20 98 24 53 114 23 45 136 33 25 95 54 720 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 17 83 16 57 89 26 29 120 22 16 88 47 610 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 164 846 147 428 779 200 361 1,126 263 192 879 487 5,872 0 0 0 4 4 APPROACH % 14% 73% 13% 30% 55% 14% 21% 64% 15% 12% 56% 31% APP/DEPART 1,157 / 1,694 1,407 / 1,230 1,750 / 1,705 1,558 / 1,243 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 76 435 75 226 379 93 180 604 137 111 467 273 3,056 APPROACH % 13% 74% 13% 32% 54% 13% 20% 66% 15% 13% 55% 32% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.867 0.923 0.866 0.933 0.951
APP/DEPART 586 / 888 698 / 624 921 / 908 851 / 636 0
California

NORTH SIDE
Redlands WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Redlands

SOUTH SIDE
California

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
7:30 AM 1 2 3 3 9 1 2 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 5 6 0 2 13 5 5 0 2 12 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 2 4 2 3 11 2 3 2 2 9 0 1 0 1 2
8:15 AM 4 3 2 0 9 4 2 2 0 8 0 1 0 0 1
8:30 AM 2 0 1 1 4 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1
8:45 AM 3 2 2 1 8 3 2 2 0 7 0 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 18 17 10 10 55 17 14 10 7 48 1 3 0 3 7
4:00 PM 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 3 1 2 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 5
4:30 PM 3 1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1
4:45 PM 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 3 2 0 1 6 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 3
5:45 PM 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1
TOTAL 14 6 3 4 27 10 2 1 4 17 4 4 2 0 10

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:30 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
California
Redlands

U-TURNS
California California Redlands Redlands
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
2,893 436 1,619 838 TOTAL 3,006
1,407 200 779 428 PM 1,694
1,486 236 840 410 AM 1,312
966
1,558 2,524
2,260 1,243 1,017
304 487 791
553 879
1,432
TOTAL
PM
AM
109 192 301
551 361 190
AM
PM
TOTAL
1,555 1,126
429
521 263 258
927
1,705 2,632
2,627 1,750
877
1,205 AM 228 818 86 1,132
1,230 PM 164 846 147 1,157
2,435 TOTAL 392 1,664 233 2,289
1,460 230 791 439 TOTAL 1,576
698 93 379 226 PM 888
762 137 412 213 AM 688
538 851
1,389
1,228
636 592
154 273 427
318 467 785
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
66 111 177
290 180 110
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
844 604 240
PM 4:30 PM
3:45 PM
340 137 203
504 908
1,412
1,474
921 553
679 AM 137 424 49 610
624 PM 76 435 75 586
1,303 Total 213 859 124 1,196
California
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
California
Redlands
Redlands
Redlands
SC3384

ALL HOURS
California
California
Redlands
Redlands

PEAK HOUR
T101823
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC4423
Tue, Jan 30, 24 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 1
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 4 106 16 7 53 2 4 6 4 9 10 12 233 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 3 100 21 10 53 4 1 6 6 20 19 16 259 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 2 85 15 9 71 4 3 9 10 9 24 18 259 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 3 82 19 15 54 1 3 21 9 9 19 17 252 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 3 79 22 10 50 3 3 16 15 16 20 10 247 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 5 85 28 8 33 0 1 15 14 20 24 16 249 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 7 62 35 6 57 2 1 12 10 15 27 8 242 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 11 62 28 8 63 4 4 19 7 12 17 13 248 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 38 661 184 73 434 20 20 104 75 110 160 110 1,989 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 4% 75% 21% 14% 82% 4% 10% 52% 38% 29% 42% 29% APP/DEPART 883 / 791 527 / 619 199 / 361 380 / 218 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 11 346 77 44 228 12 10 52 40 54 82 61 1,017
APPROACH % 3% 80% 18% 15% 80% 4% 10% 51% 39% 27% 42% 31% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.875 0.845 0.750 0.895 0.982
APP/DEPART 434 / 417 284 / 322 102 / 173 197 / 105 0
4:00 PM 6 68 12 12 99 0 1 22 7 28 24 25 304 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 5 59 20 10 91 1 2 20 5 15 14 19 261 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 9 64 15 9 110 2 7 37 12 26 24 15 330 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 6 80 14 10 77 3 3 29 11 13 24 4 274 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 5 50 22 16 96 1 1 43 4 18 24 19 299 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 9 63 16 18 91 3 4 32 8 11 13 16 284 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 4 66 16 12 97 5 5 35 17 13 19 8 297 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 6 63 26 5 86 2 1 21 5 11 23 8 257 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 50 513 141 92 747 17 24 239 69 135 165 114 2,306 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 7% 73% 20% 11% 87% 2% 7% 72% 21% 33% 40% 28% APP/DEPART 704 / 651 856 / 951 332 / 472 414 / 232 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 29 257 67 53 374 9 15 141 35 68 85 54 1,187
APPROACH % 8% 73% 19% 12% 86% 2% 8% 74% 18% 33% 41% 26% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.883 0.901 0.853 0.796 0.899
APP/DEPART 353 / 326 436 / 477 191 / 261 207 / 123 0
Mountain View Ave

NORTH LEG
E Victoria Ave WEST LEG EAST LEG Almond Ave

SOUTH LEG
Mountain View Ave

N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL NL SL EL WL TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
7:30 AM 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3
7:45 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
TOTAL 4 1 3 1 9 2 0 1 0 3 2 1 2 1 6
4:00 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 3 0 1 4 0 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
4:45 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 8 1 3 13 0 6 1 3 10 1 2 0 0 3

U-TURNS
Mountain View Ave Mountain View Ave E Victoria Ave Almond Ave INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
Mountain View Ave
Almond Ave

BICYCLE & SCOOTER CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:30 PM
ALL PED + BIKE & SCOOTER PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
1,383 37 1,181 165 TOTAL 1,442
856 17 747 92 PM 651
527 20 434 73 AM 791
380 414 794
450 232 218
110 114 224
160 165 325
TOTAL
PM
AM
110 135 245
44 24 20
AM
PM
TOTAL
343 239 104
144
69 75
361 472 833
531 332 199
619 AM 38 661 184 883
951 PM 50 513 141 704
1,570 TOTAL 88 1,174 325 1,587
720 21 602 97 TOTAL 743
436 9 374 53 PM 326
284 12 228 44 AM 417
197 207 404
228 123 105
61 54
115
82 85
167
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:15 AM
8:45 AM
54 68
122
25 15 10
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
193 141
52 PM 4:30 PM
3:45 PM
75 35 40
173 261 434
293 191 102
322 AM 11 346 77 434
477 PM 29 257 67 353
799 Total 40 603 144 787
Mountain View Ave
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Mountain View Ave
E Victoria Ave
Almond Ave

ALL HOURS
Mountain View Ave
Mountain View Ave
E Victoria Ave
Almond Ave

PEAK HOUR
Redlands
SC4423
T101823
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC4423
Tue, Jan 30, 24 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 2
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1.5 1.5 X X 2 0 X X X 1.3 0.3 1.3 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 105 94 0 0 48 43 0 0 0 111 0 52 453 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 102 109 0 0 58 43 0 0 0 117 1 43 473 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 95 96 0 0 74 62 0 0 0 136 0 56 519 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 93 103 0 0 75 43 0 0 0 143 3 58 518 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 89 88 0 0 88 43 0 0 0 88 0 56 452 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 92 99 0 0 72 52 0 0 0 93 6 60 474 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 89 91 0 0 75 36 0 0 0 92 5 55 443 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 95 77 0 0 57 49 0 0 0 121 2 52 453 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 760 757 0 0 547 371 0 0 0 901 17 432 3,785 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 50% 50% 0% 0% 60% 40% 0% 0% 0% 67% 1% 32%
APP/DEPART 1,517 / 1,189 918 / 1,448 0 / 0 1,350 / 1,148 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 369 386 0 0 309 200 0 0 0 460 9 230 1,963
APPROACH % 49% 51% 0% 0% 61% 39% 0% 0% 0% 66% 1% 33%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.895 0.936 0.000 0.857 0.946
APP/DEPART 755 / 616 509 / 769 0 / 0 699 / 578 0
4:00 PM 153 80 0 0 98 71 0 0 0 76 0 52 530 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 143 69 0 0 94 68 0 0 0 77 2 48 501 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 164 66 0 0 101 79 0 0 0 71 0 45 526 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 141 66 0 0 126 68 0 0 0 94 3 55 553 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 152 73 0 0 96 59 0 0 0 55 2 44 481 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 143 70 0 0 113 44 0 0 0 72 0 55 497 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 111 95 0 0 106 69 0 0 0 83 1 54 519 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 101 82 0 0 92 52 0 0 0 76 1 57 461 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 1,108 601 0 0 826 510 0 0 0 604 9 410 4,068 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 65% 35% 0% 0% 62% 38% 0% 0% 0% 59% 1% 40%
APP/DEPART 1,709 / 1,011 1,336 / 1,430 0 / 0 1,023 / 1,627 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 601 281 0 0 419 286 0 0 0 318 5 200 2,110
APPROACH % 68% 32% 0% 0% 59% 41% 0% 0% 0% 61% 1% 38%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.946 0.909 0.000 0.860 0.954
APP/DEPART 882 / 481 705 / 737 0 / 0 523 / 892 0
Mountain View Ave

NORTH LEG
I-10 WB Ramps WEST LEG EAST LEG I-10 WB Ramps

SOUTH LEG
Mountain View Ave

N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL NL SL EL WL TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 1 0 1 3 5 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 0 1 2 4 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
TOTAL 2 0 3 7 12 2 0 2 6 10 0 0 1 1 2
4:00 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1
4:15 PM 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 5 13 18 0 0 4 10 14 0 0 1 3 4

U-TURNS
Mountain View Ave Mountain View Ave I-10 WB Ramps I-10 WB Ramps INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
Mountain View Ave
I-10 WB Ramps

BICYCLE & SCOOTER CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:00 AM
PM
4:00 PM
ALL PED + BIKE & SCOOTER PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
2,254 881 1,373 0 TOTAL 2,200
1,336 510 826 0 PM 1,011
918 371 547 0 AM 1,189
1,350 1,023 2,373
2,775 1,627 1,148
432 410 842
17 9
26 TOTAL
PM
AM
901 604
1,505
0 0 0
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1,448 AM 760 757 0 1,517
1,430 PM 1,108 601 0 1,709
2,878 TOTAL 1,868 1,358 0 3,226
1,214 486 728 0 TOTAL 1,097
705 286 419 0 PM 481
509 200 309 0 AM 616
699 523
1,222
1,470
892 578
230 200 430
9 5
14 TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:00 AM
8:45 AM
460 318 778
0 0 0
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
PM 4:00 PM
3:45 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
769 AM 369 386 0 755
737 PM 601 281 0 882
1,506 Total 970 667 0 1,637
Mountain View Ave
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Mountain View Ave
I-10 WB Ramps
I-10 WB Ramps

ALL HOURS
Mountain View Ave
Mountain View Ave
I-10 WB Ramps
I-10 WB Ramps

PEAK HOUR
Redlands
SC4423
T101823
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC4423
Tue, Jan 30, 24 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 3
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: X 2 0 1 2 X 1 0.5 1.5 X X X 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 127 60 20 138 0 73 0 172 0 0 0 590 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 135 64 34 140 0 77 0 179 0 0 0 629 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 135 76 34 176 0 56 1 214 0 0 0 692 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 139 76 35 182 0 58 0 257 0 0 0 747 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 120 86 46 129 0 57 1 182 0 0 0 621 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 126 101 54 111 0 65 2 151 0 0 0 610 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 117 65 49 118 0 63 1 142 0 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 120 68 30 147 0 52 0 151 0 0 0 568 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 0 1,019 596 302 1,141 0 501 5 1,448 0 0 0 5,012 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 63% 37% 21% 79% 0% 26% 0% 74% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 1,615 / 1,520 1,443 / 2,589 1,954 / 903 0 / 0 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 529 302 149 627 0 248 2 832 0 0 0 2,689
APPROACH % 0% 64% 36% 19% 81% 0% 23% 0% 77% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.966 0.894 0.859 0.000 0.900
APP/DEPART 831 / 777 776 / 1,459 1,082 / 453 0 / 0 0
4:00 PM 0 202 121 53 120 0 31 4 108 0 0 0 639 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 183 112 54 117 0 30 2 77 0 0 0 575 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 197 106 56 115 0 33 8 85 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 183 108 74 146 0 24 11 93 0 0 0 639 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 194 125 59 91 0 31 11 69 0 0 0 580 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 194 116 63 121 0 20 12 74 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 173 120 56 133 0 34 4 88 0 0 0 608 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 142 85 40 128 0 41 15 95 0 0 0 546 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 0 1,468 893 455 971 0 244 67 689 0 0 0 4,787 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 62% 38% 32% 68% 0% 24% 7% 69% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 2,361 / 1,712 1,426 / 1,660 1,000 / 1,415 0 / 0 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 765 447 237 498 0 118 25 363 0 0 0 2,453
APPROACH % 0% 63% 37% 32% 68% 0% 23% 5% 72% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.938 0.835 0.885 0.000 0.960
APP/DEPART 1,212 / 883 735 / 861 506 / 709 0 / 0 0
Mountain View Ave

NORTH LEG
I-10 EB Ramps WEST LEG EAST LEG I-10 EB Ramps

SOUTH LEG
Mountain View Ave

N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL NL SL EL WL TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
7:45 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 2 1 1 4 0 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
TOTAL 0 4 3 6 13 0 4 2 5 11 0 0 1 1 2
4:00 PM 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1
4:15 PM 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 0 2 0 2 4 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 1 2 2 5 0 1 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 4 5 12 21 0 4 4 9 17 0 0 1 3 4

U-TURNS
Mountain View Ave Mountain View Ave I-10 EB Ramps I-10 EB Ramps INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Redlands
Mountain View Ave
I-10 EB Ramps

BICYCLE & SCOOTER CROSSINGS

AM PM AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:00 PM
ALL PED + BIKE & SCOOTER PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
2,869 0 2,112 757 TOTAL 3,232
1,426 0 971 455 PM 1,712
1,443 0 1,141 302 AM 1,520
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
0 0 0
745 244 501
AM
PM
TOTAL
72 67
5 2,137
689
1,448
903
1,415 2,318
2,954 1,000 1,954
2,589 AM 0 1,019 596 1,615
1,660 PM 0 1,468 893 2,361
4,249 TOTAL 0 2,487 1,489 3,976
1,511 0 1,125 386 TOTAL 1,660
735 0 498 237 PM 883
776 0 627 149 AM 777
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:15 AM
8:45 AM
0 0 0
366 118 248
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
27 25
2 PM 4:00 PM
3:45 PM
1,195
363 832
453 709
1,162
1,588
506
1,082
1,459 AM 0 529 302 831
861 PM 0 765 447 1,212
2,320 Total 0 1,294 749 2,043
Mountain View Ave
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Mountain View Ave
I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps

ALL HOURS
Mountain View Ave
Mountain View Ave
I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps

PEAK HOUR
Redlands
SC4423
Page | 44
Appendix C: LOS Worksheets
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 1: California St & San Bernardino Ave Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 212 112 79 302 5 166 100 29 7 83 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 212 112 79 302 5 166 100 29 7 83 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 241 53 90 343 6 189 114 17 8 94 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cap, veh/h 53 545 115 114 921 16 236 841 123 16 459 19
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1527 3623 762 1527 4430 77 1527 2667 390 1527 2976 126 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 192 102 90 226 123 189 64 67 8 48 50 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1527 1459 1466 1527 1459 1588 1527 1523 1533 1527 1523 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 2.7 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.0 5.4 1.4 1.4 0.2 1.2 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 2.7 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.0 5.4 1.4 1.4 0.2 1.2 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 53 439 220 114 607 330 236 480 484 16 235 243 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.44 0.46 0.79 0.37 0.37 0.80 0.13 0.14 0.50 0.20 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 1606 807 1008 1606 874 672 1174 1181 672 1174 1216 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.6 17.6 17.6 20.7 15.4 15.5 18.5 11.1 11.1 22.4 16.8 16.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.9 0.7 1.5 8.7 0.4 0.7 4.7 0.1 0.1 16.4 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.5 18.2 19.1 29.3 15.8 16.2 23.3 11.2 11.3 38.7 17.2 17.2 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 324 439 320 106
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.5 18.7 18.3 18.8
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 19.6 8.7 12.1 12.3 12.3 6.1 14.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 3.4 4.6 4.9 7.4 3.3 2.9 5.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.8
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 2: California St & Almond Ave Existing - AM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 39 25 32 45 8 47 321 39 4 201 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 39 25 32 45 8 47 321 39 4 201 25 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 43 5 36 50 6 52 357 22 4 223 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Cap, veh/h 174 174 167 241 86 10 175 900 402 8 1009 71
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 151 1391 1334 409 689 77 2908 2991 1334 1499 4094 289 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 0 5 92 0 0 52 357 22 4 155 84
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1542 0 1334 1174 0 0 1454 1495 1334 1499 1432 1518 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 0.3 0.1 1.1 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 0.3 0.1 1.1 1.2 Prop In Lane 0.14 1.00 0.39 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 348 0 167 337 0 0 175 900 402 8 706 374 V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.40 0.05 0.49 0.22 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1859 0 1516 1710 0 0 2204 3967 1769 1136 3800 2013 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 0.0 10.1 11.2 0.0 0.0 11.9 7.3 6.6 13.1 7.9 7.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.1 15.7 0.2 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.6 0.0 10.2 11.6 0.0 0.0 12.8 7.7 6.6 28.8 8.1 8.4 LnGrp LOS B B B B A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 55 92 431 243
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 11.6 8.3 8.6
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 6.6 11.5 8.3 5.1 12.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 20.0 35.0 30.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 2.5 3.2 4.2 2.1 4.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.4 0.0 3.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.9
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 3: California St & Lugonia Ave Existing - AM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 21 74 105 50 35 189 427 117 36 208 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 21 74 105 50 35 189 427 117 36 208 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 22 14 112 53 7 201 454 63 38 221 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cap, veh/h 120 237 215 364 220 215 256 657 556 67 869 383 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 75 1499 1359 1077 1386 1359 1527 1604 1359 1527 3047 1341 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 25 0 14 112 53 7 201 454 63 38 221 6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1574 0 1359 1077 1386 1359 1527 1604 1359 1527 1523 1341 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.4 1.2 0.2 4.7 8.7 1.1 0.9 2.1 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.3 3.9 1.2 0.2 4.7 8.7 1.1 0.9 2.1 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 0 215 364 220 215 256 657 556 67 869 383 V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.31 0.24 0.03 0.78 0.69 0.11 0.57 0.25 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1346 0 1092 1123 1114 1092 818 1719 1457 818 3266 1437 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.4 0.0 13.4 15.1 13.7 13.3 14.9 9.1 6.8 17.5 10.3 9.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 5.2 1.9 0.1 7.5 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.6 2.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 13.5 0.0 13.5 15.6 14.3 13.3 20.1 10.9 7.0 25.0 10.5 9.6 LnGrp LOS B B B B B C B A C B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 39 172 718 265
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 15.1 13.2 12.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 20.3 10.9 10.8 15.6 10.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 10.7 2.5 6.7 4.1 5.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.1 0.4 2.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 4: California St & Orange Tree Ln Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 87 0 14 18 725 211 10 372 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 87 0 14 18 725 211 10 372 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 93 0 0 19 771 181 11 396 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Cap, veh/h 0 142 0 328 0 0 38 1666 387 23 1400 625
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.46 0.46 0.01 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1633 0 1238 0 0 1555 3614 841 1555 3103 1384 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 93 0 0 19 633 319 11 396 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1633 0 1238 0 0 1555 1486 1482 1555 1552 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.8 4.8 0.2 2.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.8 4.8 0.2 2.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 142 0 328 0 0 38 1370 683 23 1400 625 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.28 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1249 0 1166 0 0 809 3181 1586 809 3321 1481 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 15.8 6.0 6.1 16.0 5.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.3 0.6 15.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 25.8 6.3 6.7 31.3 5.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C A A C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 93 971 407
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 15.2 6.8 6.5
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 20.1 7.7 5.3 19.8 7.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.5 5.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 35.0 25.0 17.0 35.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 6.8 0.0 2.4 4.6 4.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.2
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 5: California St & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 7 360 298 594 0 0 184 293 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 7 360 298 594 0 0 184 293 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1663 1663 1663 1663 1663 0 0 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 356 8 264 331 660 0 0 204 98
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 16 16 16 16 16 0 0 16 16
Cap, veh/h 402 9 366 628 2018 0 0 876 267
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.79 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1551 35 1409 1584 3243 0 0 4689 1384
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 0 264 331 660 0 0 204 98
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1585 0 1409 1584 1580 0 0 1513 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.1 0.0 17.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 6.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.1 0.0 17.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 6.1 Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 411 0 366 628 2018 0 0 876 267
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.00 0.72 0.53 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 634 0 564 628 2018 0 0 876 267
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.6 0.0 33.7 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.1 35.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.1 0.0 5.8 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 42.1 0.0 34.8 7.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 34.7 38.9 LnGrp LOS D C A A C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 628 991 302
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.0 2.8 36.1
Approach LOS D A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 68.8 44.6 24.2 31.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 4.9 * 4.9 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.8 26.0 * 19 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 9.4 8.1 24.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.0 0.4 0.7 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.8
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 6: California St & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 407 2 458 0 0 0 0 458 276 71 483 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 407 2 458 0 0 0 0 458 276 71 483 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1693 1693 1693 0 1693 1693 1693 1693 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 442 2 368 0 498 124 77 525 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 14 14 14 0 14 14 14 14 0
Cap, veh/h 496 2 443 0 2107 652 142 1895 0
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.18 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1605 7 1434 0 4773 1430 1612 3300 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 444 0 368 0 498 124 77 525 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1612 0 1434 0 1540 1430 1612 1608 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 26.3 0.0 23.9 0.0 6.6 5.2 4.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.3 0.0 23.9 0.0 6.6 5.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 498 0 443 0 2107 652 142 1895 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.54 0.28 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 790 0 703 0 2107 652 193 1895 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.99 0.99 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 16.6 16.2 39.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.7 0.0 8.4 0.0 2.2 1.7 1.6 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 38.2 0.0 34.5 0.0 16.8 16.7 40.5 0.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C B B D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 812 622 602
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.5 16.8 5.5
Approach LOS D B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 50.5 36.2 63.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.9 5.3 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 24.3 49.0 40.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 8.6 28.3 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 2.6 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 21.3
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 7: California St & Redlands Blvd Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 110 240 203 66 318 154 137 424 49 213 412 137 Future Volume (veh/h) 110 240 203 66 318 154 137 424 49 213 412 137 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 124 270 58 74 357 36 154 476 18 239 463 127 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Cap, veh/h 156 705 305 102 596 261 193 720 302 288 675 183 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1668 3328 1438 1668 3328 1455 1668 3504 1469 1668 2573 700 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 270 58 74 357 36 154 476 18 239 298 292 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1668 1664 1438 1668 1664 1455 1668 1752 1469 1668 1664 1608 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 3.9 1.9 2.4 5.5 1.2 5.0 7.0 0.6 7.8 9.0 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 3.9 1.9 2.4 5.5 1.2 5.0 7.0 0.6 7.8 9.0 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 156 705 305 102 596 261 193 720 302 288 436 422 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.38 0.19 0.73 0.60 0.14 0.80 0.66 0.06 0.83 0.68 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 595 1483 640 595 1483 648 595 1873 785 595 890 860 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.9 19.0 18.2 25.9 21.2 19.4 24.2 20.5 17.9 22.4 18.6 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.4 0.1 0.1 3.7 0.4 0.1 2.9 0.4 0.0 2.4 0.7 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.9 0.4 1.9 2.5 0.2 2.9 3.1 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.3 19.1 18.3 29.6 21.5 19.5 27.0 20.9 18.0 24.8 19.3 19.4 LnGrp LOS C B B C C B C C B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 452 467 648 829
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 22.7 22.3 20.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.2 16.8 7.9 17.2 11.0 20.0 9.8 15.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.3 4.5 * 5.3 4.5 * 5.3 4.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 30.0 20.0 * 25 20.0 * 30 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 9.0 4.4 5.9 7.0 11.2 6.1 7.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.8 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 21.7
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 7: California St & Redlands Blvd Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 8: Mountain View Ave & Almond Ave Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 52 40 54 82 61 11 346 77 44 228 12 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 52 40 54 82 61 11 346 77 44 228 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 53 7 55 84 11 11 353 55 45 233 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 Cap, veh/h 367 173 23 385 200 167 22 594 92 79 789 27
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1084 1346 178 1119 1559 1302 1485 2566 396 1485 2920 100 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 10 0 60 55 84 11 11 202 206 45 118 123 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1084 0 1524 1119 1559 1302 1485 1481 1481 1485 1481 1539 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 0.9 1.2 1.3 0.2 0.2 3.1 3.2 0.8 1.6 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.9 2.1 1.3 0.2 0.2 3.1 3.2 0.8 1.6 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 367 0 195 385 200 167 22 343 343 79 400 416 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.31 0.14 0.42 0.07 0.50 0.59 0.60 0.57 0.29 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1289 0 1491 1337 1525 1274 872 2028 2028 872 2028 2107 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.0 0.0 10.1 11.1 10.3 9.8 12.5 8.7 8.8 11.8 7.4 7.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 6.5 0.6 0.6 2.3 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 11.0 0.0 10.4 11.1 10.8 9.9 19.0 9.3 9.4 14.1 7.5 7.5 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 70 150 419 286
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.5 10.8 9.6 8.6
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 5.4 11.9 8.3 6.4 10.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 15.0 35.0 25.0 15.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 2.2 3.6 4.1 2.8 5.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 9.6
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 9: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 460 9 230 369 386 0 0 309 200 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 460 9 230 369 386 0 0 309 200 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1722 1722 1722 0 0 1722 1722 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 509 0 49 265 579 0 0 325 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 12 12
Cap, veh/h 615 0 273 291 2378 0 0 1135 350
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.35 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 3280 0 1457 1640 3444 0 0 2539 756
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 509 0 49 265 579 0 0 215 212
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 0 1457 1640 1722 0 0 1636 1573 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.4 0.0 2.5 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 7.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.4 0.0 2.5 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 7.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 615 0 273 291 2378 0 0 757 728
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.18 0.91 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 838 0 372 346 2378 0 0 757 728
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.2 0.0 30.7 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 15.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.0 0.3 14.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 0.0 0.9 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.2 0.0 31.1 42.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.9 16.0 LnGrp LOS D C D A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 558 844 427
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.4 13.5 15.9
Approach LOS D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 67.6 20.5 47.2 22.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 56.0 19.0 32.5 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 15.9 9.5 15.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.0 0.1 2.3 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.0
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 10: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 248 2 832 0 0 0 0 529 302 149 627 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 248 2 832 0 0 0 0 529 302 149 627 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 0 1781 1781 1781 1781 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 276 0 501 0 588 246 166 697 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 0
Cap, veh/h 377 0 671 0 814 340 1056 3498 0
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 0 3019 0 2415 972 1697 3474 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 276 0 501 0 428 406 166 697 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 0 1510 0 1692 1605 1697 1692 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.6 0.0 13.9 0.0 19.8 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.6 0.0 13.9 0.0 19.8 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.61 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 377 0 671 0 592 562 1056 3498 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.16 0.20 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 377 0 671 0 592 562 1056 3498 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 0.0 32.6 0.0 25.4 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.9 0.0 7.4 0.0 7.4 7.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 8.6 8.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 44.4 0.0 40.1 0.0 32.9 33.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D C C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 777 834 863
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.6 33.1 0.1
Approach LOS D C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 62.5 37.0 25.5 99.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 32 20.0 59.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 21.8 15.9 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.5 0.8 5.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 24.3
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 1: California St & San Bernardino Ave Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 560 143 47 248 3 125 102 69 10 132 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 43 560 143 47 248 3 125 102 69 10 132 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 45 589 120 49 261 3 132 107 25 11 139 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Cap, veh/h 78 1007 201 83 1326 15 169 673 153 24 426 60 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.01 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1654 3954 790 1654 4833 55 1654 2672 606 1654 2892 408 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 45 469 240 49 170 94 132 65 67 11 78 81 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1654 1581 1583 1654 1581 1727 1654 1650 1628 1654 1650 1650 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 6.2 6.3 1.4 2.0 2.0 3.7 1.5 1.5 0.3 2.0 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 6.2 6.3 1.4 2.0 2.0 3.7 1.5 1.5 0.3 2.0 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 805 403 83 868 474 169 416 410 24 243 243 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.20 0.20 0.78 0.16 0.16 0.47 0.32 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 696 1662 832 1044 1662 908 696 1215 1198 696 1215 1215 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.2 15.5 15.6 22.1 13.2 13.2 20.8 13.8 13.9 23.3 18.2 18.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 0.7 1.4 4.9 0.1 0.2 5.7 0.2 0.2 10.3 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 1.7 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 27.1 16.2 17.0 27.0 13.3 13.4 26.6 14.0 14.1 33.6 18.9 19.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 754 313 264 170
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.1 15.5 20.3 19.9
Approach LOS B B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.2 17.3 7.7 17.4 10.2 12.3 6.7 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 3.5 3.4 8.3 5.7 4.1 3.3 4.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.1 3.8 0.2 0.8 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 17.6
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 2: California St & Almond Ave Existing - PM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 18 120 55 40 65 11 39 270 50 10 298 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 18 120 55 40 65 11 39 270 50 10 298 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19 128 11 43 69 8 41 287 23 11 317 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 169 270 254 226 147 14 154 882 384 24 1087 48 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 130 1541 1447 286 839 80 3155 3244 1413 1626 4573 200 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 147 0 11 120 0 0 41 287 23 11 214 117 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 0 1447 1206 0 0 1577 1622 1413 1626 1554 1666 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 0.2 1.6 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 0.2 1.6 1.6 Prop In Lane 0.13 1.00 0.36 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 439 0 254 387 0 0 154 882 384 24 738 396 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.33 0.06 0.46 0.29 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1899 0 1557 1680 0 0 2263 4073 1775 1167 3902 2092 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 0.0 9.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 12.8 8.1 7.5 13.6 8.7 8.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 5.1 0.3 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.8 0.0 9.6 11.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 8.4 7.6 18.7 9.0 9.3 LnGrp LOS B A B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 158 120 351 342
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.7 11.0 9.0 9.4
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 6.4 11.6 9.9 5.4 12.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 20.0 35.0 30.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 2.3 3.6 5.0 2.2 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 0.1 2.9 0.6 0.0 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 9.7
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 3: California St & Lugonia Ave Existing - PM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 63 164 152 37 39 72 325 154 55 443 8 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 63 164 152 37 39 72 325 154 55 443 8 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 66 39 158 39 10 75 339 61 57 461 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Cap, veh/h 129 377 341 433 347 335 122 546 450 100 994 436 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 78 1645 1485 1026 1514 1460 1668 1752 1444 1668 3328 1461 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 75 0 39 158 39 10 75 339 61 57 461 4 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1722 0 1485 1026 1514 1460 1668 1752 1444 1668 1664 1461 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.8 4.4 0.7 0.2 1.6 6.0 1.1 1.2 4.1 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 0.8 5.7 0.7 0.2 1.6 6.0 1.1 1.2 4.1 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 506 0 341 433 347 335 122 546 450 100 994 436 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.00 0.11 0.36 0.11 0.03 0.62 0.62 0.14 0.57 0.46 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1505 0 1225 1153 1250 1205 918 1928 1589 918 3663 1608 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.3 0.0 11.1 13.6 11.1 10.9 16.4 10.7 9.0 16.6 10.4 9.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 5.0 1.7 0.2 5.0 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.8 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 11.4 0.0 11.2 14.1 11.2 10.9 21.3 12.3 9.2 21.6 10.9 9.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B B C B A C B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 114 207 475 522
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.3 13.4 13.3 12.0
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 16.3 13.3 7.2 15.9 13.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 8.0 3.3 3.6 6.1 7.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.3 0.4 0.1 4.5 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.7
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 4: California St & Orange Tree Ln Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 264 0 33 10 495 108 21 727 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 264 0 33 10 495 108 21 727 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 275 0 0 10 516 75 22 757 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Cap, veh/h 0 460 0 522 0 0 22 1565 223 45 1284 560
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1767 0 1339 0 0 1682 4244 604 1682 3357 1464 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 275 0 0 10 388 203 22 757 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1767 0 1339 0 0 1682 1608 1634 1682 1678 1464 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.6 3.7 0.5 7.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.6 3.7 0.5 7.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 460 0 522 0 0 22 1185 602 45 1284 560 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.33 0.34 0.48 0.59 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1062 0 978 0 0 688 2706 1375 688 2825 1232 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 20.4 9.4 9.5 19.9 10.2 7.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.2 0.4 7.8 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 34.2 9.6 9.9 27.7 10.8 7.9 LnGrp LOS B C A A C B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 275 601 780
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 15.1 10.1 11.2
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 20.3 15.6 5.0 20.9 15.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.5 5.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 35.0 25.0 17.0 35.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 5.7 0.0 2.2 9.5 9.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 6.3 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.5
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 5: California St & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 290 2 102 361 517 0 0 472 526 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 290 2 102 361 517 0 0 472 526 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 0 0 1781 1781 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 305 2 26 380 544 0 0 497 199
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 8
Cap, veh/h 350 2 313 761 2338 0 0 939 291
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1686 11 1510 1697 3474 0 0 5024 1510
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 0 26 380 544 0 0 497 199
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 0 1510 1697 1692 0 0 1621 1510 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 0.0 1.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 12.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 0.0 1.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 12.3 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 352 0 313 761 2338 0 0 939 291
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.08 0.50 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 679 0 604 761 2338 0 0 939 291
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.4 0.0 32.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.3 37.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 10.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.4 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 41.0 0.0 32.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 38.0 47.6 LnGrp LOS D C A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 333 924 696
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.3 1.5 40.7
Approach LOS D A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 74.0 49.8 24.2 26.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 4.9 * 4.9 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.8 26.0 * 19 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.2 14.3 19.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 0.5 1.3 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 6: California St & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 227 2 373 0 0 0 0 655 434 186 574 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 227 2 373 0 0 0 0 655 434 186 574 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1796 1796 0 1796 1796 1796 1796 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 239 2 156 0 689 183 196 604 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 7 7 0 7 7 7 7 0
Cap, veh/h 284 2 254 0 1437 424 665 2495 0
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.78 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 14 1522 0 5065 1447 1711 3503 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 241 0 156 0 689 183 196 604 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1711 0 1522 0 1635 1447 1711 1706 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 0.0 9.5 0.0 11.6 10.2 3.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 0.0 9.5 0.0 11.6 10.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 286 0 254 0 1437 424 665 2495 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.48 0.43 0.29 0.24 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 513 0 457 0 1437 424 665 2495 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.97 0.97 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.4 0.0 38.6 0.0 29.1 28.6 7.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.9 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.5 3.7 1.0 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 43.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 29.9 30.8 7.2 0.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D C C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 397 872 800
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.6 30.1 1.9
Approach LOS D C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.8 34.2 22.0 78.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 * 4.9 5.3 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 * 29 30.0 59.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 13.6 15.7 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.1 1.1 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 21.4
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 7: California St & Redlands Blvd Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 180 604 137 111 467 273 76 435 75 226 379 93 Future Volume (veh/h) 180 604 137 111 467 273 76 435 75 226 379 93 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 636 67 117 492 113 80 458 23 238 399 80 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 235 870 383 150 701 310 108 641 271 287 804 160 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 3497 1538 1753 3497 1546 1753 3681 1560 1753 2906 578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 636 67 117 492 113 80 458 23 238 239 240 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1749 1538 1753 1749 1546 1753 1841 1560 1753 1749 1735 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 10.0 2.0 3.9 7.8 3.8 2.7 7.0 0.7 7.9 6.8 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 10.0 2.0 3.9 7.8 3.8 2.7 7.0 0.7 7.9 6.8 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 235 870 383 150 701 310 108 641 271 287 484 480 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.73 0.18 0.78 0.70 0.36 0.74 0.72 0.08 0.83 0.49 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 586 1462 643 586 1462 646 586 1846 782 586 877 870 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.2 20.6 17.6 26.8 22.2 20.6 27.6 23.3 20.7 24.2 18.1 18.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.4 0.1 3.3 0.5 0.3 3.7 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 3.5 0.6 1.6 2.9 1.2 1.1 2.8 0.2 3.1 2.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 27.6 21.1 17.7 30.1 22.7 20.9 31.3 23.9 20.8 26.5 18.4 18.5 LnGrp LOS C C B C C C C C C C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 892 722 561 717
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 23.6 24.8 21.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.3 15.7 9.6 20.2 8.2 21.8 12.5 17.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.3 4.5 * 5.3 4.5 * 5.3 4.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 30.0 20.0 * 25 20.0 * 30 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 9.0 5.9 12.0 4.7 9.0 8.3 9.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.2 0.1 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.8
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 7: California St & Redlands Blvd Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 8: Mountain View Ave & Almond Ave Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 141 35 68 85 54 29 257 67 53 374 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 141 35 68 85 54 29 257 67 53 374 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 157 29 76 94 13 32 286 46 59 416 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Cap, veh/h 435 272 50 363 333 281 64 536 85 106 706 15
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1162 1385 256 1082 1693 1430 1612 2779 442 1612 3218 70 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 0 186 76 94 13 32 164 168 59 208 217 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1162 0 1641 1082 1693 1430 1612 1608 1612 1612 1608 1680 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 2.8 1.9 1.3 0.2 0.5 2.5 2.6 1.0 3.2 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 2.8 4.7 1.3 0.2 0.5 2.5 2.6 1.0 3.2 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 435 0 323 363 333 281 64 310 311 106 353 369 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.58 0.21 0.28 0.05 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.59 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1261 0 1490 1132 1536 1298 878 2043 2049 878 2043 2135 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.1 0.0 10.0 12.2 9.4 9.0 13.0 10.0 10.0 12.5 9.6 9.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.1 0.0 10.6 12.3 9.6 9.0 15.2 10.5 10.6 14.1 10.2 10.2 LnGrp LOS B B B A A B B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 203 183 364 484
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 10.7 10.9 10.7
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 6.1 11.0 10.4 6.8 10.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 15.0 35.0 25.0 15.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 2.5 5.2 6.7 3.0 4.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.7
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 9: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 318 5 200 601 281 0 0 419 286 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 318 5 200 601 281 0 0 419 286 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 0 0 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 356 0 42 633 296 0 0 441 180
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 10 10
Cap, veh/h 457 0 203 593 1298 0 0 1181 477
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 3337 0 1485 3337 1752 0 0 2388 930
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 356 0 42 633 296 0 0 318 303
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1668 0 1485 1668 1752 0 0 1664 1566 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 0.0 2.3 16.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 10.3 10.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 0.0 2.3 16.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 10.3 10.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.59
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 457 0 203 593 1298 0 0 854 804
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.21 1.07 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 779 0 346 593 1298 0 0 854 804
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.5 0.0 34.5 42.4 13.4 0.0 0.0 13.2 13.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.9 0.0 0.5 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 0.0 0.8 9.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.5 0.0 35.0 76.4 13.4 0.0 0.0 14.4 14.6 LnGrp LOS D C F B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 398 929 621
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.9 56.3 14.5
Approach LOS D E B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 72.2 20.5 51.7 17.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 58.0 16.0 37.5 21.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.2 18.0 12.5 11.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.0 3.6 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 39.6
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 10: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 118 25 363 0 0 0 0 765 447 237 498 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 118 25 363 0 0 0 0 765 447 237 498 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 0 1811 1811 1811 1811 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 86 66 0 797 372 247 519 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 0
Cap, veh/h 479 503 426 0 766 356 997 3365 0
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.32 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1811 1535 0 2351 1051 1725 3532 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 123 86 66 0 606 563 247 519 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 0 1721 1591 1725 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 3.2 2.9 0.0 30.5 30.5 10.9 9.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 3.2 2.9 0.0 30.5 30.5 10.9 9.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.66 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 479 503 426 0 583 539 997 3365 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.17 0.15 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.25 0.15 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 479 503 426 0 583 539 997 3365 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.3 24.6 24.5 0.0 29.8 29.8 19.8 4.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.0 47.8 50.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 1.5 1.1 0.0 19.4 18.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 26.6 25.4 25.3 0.0 77.5 80.5 20.3 4.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C F F C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 275 1169 766
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.9 79.0 9.3
Approach LOS C E A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.5 36.0 30.5 94.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 * 31 25.0 54.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 32.5 7.0 11.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.5 3.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 48.2
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 1: California St & San Bernardino Ave Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 212 135 161 302 5 173 105 55 7 99 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 212 135 161 302 5 173 105 55 7 99 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 241 66 183 343 6 197 119 22 8 112 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cap, veh/h 52 474 123 228 1187 21 243 779 141 16 397 28 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1527 3463 898 1527 4430 77 1527 2577 466 1527 2883 204 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 201 106 183 226 123 197 69 72 8 59 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1527 1459 1442 1527 1459 1588 1527 1523 1520 1527 1523 1564 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 3.2 3.5 5.9 3.1 3.1 6.3 1.7 1.8 0.3 1.8 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 3.2 3.5 5.9 3.1 3.1 6.3 1.7 1.8 0.3 1.8 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 52 399 197 228 782 426 243 460 459 16 210 215 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.50 0.54 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.81 0.15 0.16 0.50 0.28 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 601 1435 709 901 1435 781 601 1048 1046 601 1048 1076 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.2 20.3 20.4 20.9 14.8 14.8 20.6 13.0 13.0 25.0 19.7 19.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.3 1.0 2.3 4.9 0.2 0.4 4.8 0.1 0.2 16.7 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 1.0 1.1 2.0 0.8 0.9 2.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.6 21.3 22.7 25.7 15.0 15.1 25.4 13.1 13.2 41.7 20.4 20.4 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B C B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 337 532 338 128
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.7 18.7 20.3 21.7
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 20.7 12.9 12.3 13.4 12.3 6.2 18.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 3.8 7.9 5.5 8.3 3.8 3.0 5.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 20.4
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 2: California St & Almond Ave Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 40 131 48 49 8 175 354 44 4 309 37 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 40 131 48 49 8 175 354 44 4 309 37 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 1574 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 44 24 53 54 7 194 393 26 4 343 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Cap, veh/h 169 188 188 237 96 11 381 1101 491 8 986 76
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.01 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 198 1329 1334 474 678 75 2908 2991 1334 1499 4062 315 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 0 24 114 0 0 194 393 26 4 240 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1527 0 1334 1227 0 0 1454 1495 1334 1499 1432 1512 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.4 0.1 2.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 0.0 0.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.0 0.4 0.1 2.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 0.21 1.00 0.46 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 0 188 344 0 0 381 1101 491 8 695 367 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.00 0.13 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.36 0.05 0.49 0.35 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1560 0 1294 1432 0 0 1881 3385 1510 969 3242 1712 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8 0.0 11.6 12.7 0.0 0.0 12.5 7.1 6.3 15.3 9.7 9.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.1 15.8 0.4 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 12.0 0.0 11.9 13.2 0.0 0.0 13.6 7.4 6.4 31.1 10.1 10.5 LnGrp LOS B B B B A A C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 80 114 613 374
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.0 13.2 9.3 10.5
Approach LOS B B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 9.1 12.5 9.4 5.2 16.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 20.0 35.0 30.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 3.9 4.2 4.8 2.1 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.5 3.3 0.5 0.0 3.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.2
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 3: California St & Lugonia Ave Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 24 103 105 58 68 344 927 117 46 381 46 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 24 103 105 58 68 344 927 117 46 381 46 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 26 16 112 62 11 366 986 91 49 405 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cap, veh/h 114 183 207 260 211 207 405 945 801 68 1124 495 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.27 0.59 0.59 0.04 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 287 1199 1359 1012 1386 1359 1527 1604 1359 1527 3047 1341 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 0 16 112 62 11 366 986 91 49 405 18 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1486 0 1359 1012 1386 1359 1527 1604 1359 1527 1523 1341 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.7 6.2 2.7 0.5 15.7 40.0 2.0 2.1 6.6 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.7 7.6 2.7 0.5 15.7 40.0 2.0 2.1 6.6 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 296 0 207 260 211 207 405 945 801 68 1124 495 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.08 0.43 0.29 0.05 0.90 1.04 0.11 0.72 0.36 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 708 0 601 599 613 601 450 945 801 450 1796 791 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.0 0.0 24.7 28.3 25.5 24.6 24.1 13.9 6.1 32.0 15.6 13.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.1 20.2 41.1 0.1 13.5 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.8 0.1 7.3 20.9 0.4 1.0 2.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 25.2 0.0 24.8 29.4 26.3 24.7 44.3 55.0 6.2 45.5 15.9 13.7 LnGrp LOS C C C C C D F A D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 54 185 1443 472
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.1 28.1 49.2 18.9
Approach LOS C C D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 45.0 15.3 22.5 30.0 15.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 42.0 3.4 17.7 8.6 9.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 4.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 40.1
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 4: California St & Orange Tree Ln Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 87 0 55 18 1339 211 23 561 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 87 0 55 18 1339 211 23 561 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 1633 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 93 0 0 19 1424 209 24 597 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Cap, veh/h 0 143 0 263 0 0 36 2261 332 45 1804 805
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.58 0.58 0.03 0.58 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1633 0 1238 0 0 1555 3926 576 1555 3103 1384 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 93 0 0 19 1078 555 24 597 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1633 0 1238 0 0 1555 1486 1530 1555 1552 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 11.2 11.2 0.7 4.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 11.2 11.2 0.7 4.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 143 0 263 0 0 36 1712 881 45 1804 805 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.63 0.63 0.54 0.33 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 878 0 821 0 0 569 2238 1152 569 2336 1042 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 22.4 6.6 6.6 22.3 5.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.5 0.9 9.7 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 2.1 0.3 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 33.5 7.0 7.5 32.0 5.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C A A C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 93 1652 621
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 21.7 7.5 6.2
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.8 31.8 8.9 5.6 32.0 8.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.5 5.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 35.0 25.0 17.0 35.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 13.2 0.0 2.6 6.6 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.7
HCM 7th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 5: California St & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 7 513 298 1055 0 0 321 345 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 7 513 298 1055 0 0 321 345 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1663 1663 1663 1663 1663 0 0 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 356 8 526 331 1172 0 0 357 79
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 16 16 16 16 16 0 0 16 16
Cap, veh/h 604 14 549 422 1607 0 0 876 267
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.53 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1551 35 1409 1584 3243 0 0 4689 1384
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 0 526 331 1172 0 0 357 79
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1585 0 1409 1584 1580 0 0 1513 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.2 0.0 36.4 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 4.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.2 0.0 36.4 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 4.9 Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 617 0 549 422 1607 0 0 876 267
V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.96 0.78 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 634 0 564 422 1607 0 0 876 267
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.2 0.0 29.7 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 34.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.0 27.1 6.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.8 0.0 15.9 4.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 25.1 0.0 56.8 27.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 36.7 37.2 LnGrp LOS C E C A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 890 1503 436
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.8 7.8 36.8
Approach LOS D A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.8 31.6 24.2 44.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 4.9 * 4.9 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.8 26.0 * 19 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 18.8 8.9 38.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.5 0.3 1.2 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 23.6
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 6: California St & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 586 2 458 0 0 0 0 740 276 119 572 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 586 2 458 0 0 0 0 740 276 119 572 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1693 1693 1693 0 1693 1693 1693 1693 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 637 2 418 0 804 87 129 622 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 14 14 14 0 14 14 14 14 0
Cap, veh/h 684 2 611 0 1524 471 157 1518 0
Arrive On Green 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.94 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1607 5 1434 0 4773 1428 1612 3300 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 639 0 418 0 804 87 129 622 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1612 0 1434 0 1540 1428 1612 1608 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 37.7 0.0 23.6 0.0 14.1 4.3 7.7 1.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 37.7 0.0 23.6 0.0 14.1 4.3 7.7 1.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 687 0 611 0 1524 471 157 1518 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.53 0.18 0.82 0.41 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 790 0 703 0 1524 471 193 1518 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.92 0.92 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 0.0 23.3 0.0 27.2 23.9 39.5 1.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.5 15.9 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.8 0.0 8.0 0.0 5.1 1.5 3.4 0.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 42.6 0.0 24.9 0.0 28.0 24.4 55.3 2.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1057 891 751
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.6 27.6 11.4
Approach LOS D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.2 37.9 47.9 52.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.9 5.3 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 24.3 49.0 40.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 16.1 39.7 3.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 2.9 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.2
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 7: California St & Redlands Blvd Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 168 240 203 66 318 276 137 526 49 213 444 155 Future Volume (veh/h) 168 240 203 66 318 276 137 526 49 213 444 155 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 270 64 74 357 59 154 591 19 239 499 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Cap, veh/h 229 837 363 93 566 247 191 802 337 282 717 209 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1668 3328 1442 1668 3328 1453 1668 3504 1471 1668 2530 736 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 270 64 74 357 59 154 591 19 239 327 318 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1668 1664 1442 1668 1664 1453 1668 1752 1471 1668 1664 1602 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 4.4 2.3 2.9 6.6 2.3 6.0 10.4 0.7 9.2 11.7 11.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 4.4 2.3 2.9 6.6 2.3 6.0 10.4 0.7 9.2 11.7 11.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 229 837 363 93 566 247 191 802 337 282 472 454 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.32 0.18 0.79 0.63 0.24 0.81 0.74 0.06 0.85 0.69 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 501 1250 542 501 1250 546 501 1579 663 501 750 722 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.9 20.3 19.5 31.0 25.7 23.9 28.8 23.8 20.0 26.8 21.3 21.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.1 0.1 5.5 0.4 0.2 3.0 0.5 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 1.5 0.7 1.2 2.4 0.7 2.4 3.9 0.2 3.6 4.1 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.7 20.4 19.6 36.6 26.1 24.1 31.8 24.3 20.1 29.6 21.9 22.0 LnGrp LOS C C B D C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 523 490 764 884
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.0 27.4 25.7 24.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.7 20.5 8.2 22.0 12.1 24.2 13.7 16.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.3 4.5 * 5.3 4.5 * 5.3 4.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 30.0 20.0 * 25 20.0 * 30 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.2 12.4 4.9 6.4 8.0 13.8 9.3 8.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.8 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 25.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 7: California St & Redlands Blvd Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 8: Mountain View Ave & Almond Ave Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 134 40 85 108 68 11 346 155 66 228 12 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 134 40 85 108 68 11 346 155 66 228 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 1559 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 137 28 87 110 14 11 353 98 67 233 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 Cap, veh/h 392 269 55 349 335 280 22 548 150 105 857 33 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1056 1253 256 1018 1559 1303 1485 2290 627 1485 2906 112 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 10 0 165 87 110 14 11 226 225 67 118 124 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1056 0 1509 1018 1559 1303 1485 1481 1436 1485 1481 1536 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 3.0 2.6 1.9 0.3 0.2 4.3 4.4 1.4 1.9 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.0 3.0 5.6 1.9 0.3 0.2 4.3 4.4 1.4 1.9 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 392 0 324 349 335 280 22 354 343 105 437 453 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.51 0.25 0.33 0.05 0.51 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.27 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1003 0 1197 937 1237 1033 707 1645 1594 707 1645 1706 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.4 0.0 10.9 13.4 10.5 9.8 15.4 10.8 10.8 14.3 8.5 8.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 6.7 0.7 0.8 2.4 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 11.4 0.0 11.4 13.5 10.7 9.9 22.1 11.5 11.6 16.7 8.6 8.6 LnGrp LOS B B B B A C B B B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 175 211 462 309
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.4 11.8 11.8 10.4
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.8 5.5 14.3 11.8 7.2 12.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 15.0 35.0 25.0 15.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 2.2 3.9 7.6 3.4 6.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.4
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 9: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 478 9 230 369 464 0 0 318 222 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 478 9 230 369 464 0 0 318 222 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1722 1722 1722 0 0 1722 1722 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 529 0 50 292 622 0 0 335 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 12 12
Cap, veh/h 634 0 282 316 2358 0 0 1092 327
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.39 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 3280 0 1457 1640 3444 0 0 2558 740
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 529 0 50 292 622 0 0 220 217
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 0 1457 1640 1722 0 0 1636 1576 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.0 0.0 2.6 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 8.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.0 0.0 2.6 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 8.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.47
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 634 0 282 316 2358 0 0 723 696
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.18 0.92 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 838 0 372 346 2358 0 0 723 696
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.9 0.0 30.3 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 0.0 0.3 13.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.9 0.0 0.9 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.5 0.0 30.6 40.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.3 17.4 LnGrp LOS D C D A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 579 914 437
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.7 13.1 17.4
Approach LOS D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 67.1 21.9 45.2 22.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 56.0 19.0 32.5 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 17.3 10.0 16.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.4 0.1 2.3 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 10: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 300 2 832 0 0 0 0 555 360 149 654 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 300 2 832 0 0 0 0 555 360 149 654 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 0 1781 1781 1781 1781 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 333 0 525 0 617 282 166 727 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 088880
Cap, veh/h 377 0 671 0 790 361 1056 3498 0
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 0 3019 0 2345 1031 1697 3474 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 333 0 525 0 463 436 166 727 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 0 1510 0 1692 1594 1697 1692 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.1 0.0 14.7 0.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 0.0 14.7 0.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.65 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 377 0 671 0 592 558 1056 3498 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.16 0.21 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 377 0 671 0 592 558 1056 3498 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.9 0.0 33.0 0.0 26.2 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.6 0.0 8.8 0.0 9.9 10.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.4 0.0 6.1 0.0 9.9 9.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 58.5 0.0 41.8 0.0 36.0 36.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 858 899 893
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.3 36.3 0.1
Approach LOS D D A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 62.5 37.0 25.5 99.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 32 20.0 59.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 24.0 19.1 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.2 0.3 5.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.0
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
11: California St & Driveway A Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 149.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 154 422 584 313 175
Future Vol, veh/h 47 154 422 584 313 175
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 110 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 100 210 - - 190
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 20 20 20 20 20 20
Mvmt Flow 50 164 449 621 333 186
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1589 276 629 0 - 0
Stage 1 443 -----
Stage 2 1146 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.1 7.5 5.7 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 7 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 4 4.1 3.3 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 130 575 530 - - -
Stage 1 482 -----
Stage 2 207 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 6 515 475 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 6 -----
Stage 1 ~ 23 -----
Stage 2 186 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v $ 1136.43 24.55 0

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 475 - 6 515 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.946 - 8.89 0.318 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 58.5 -$ 4810.2 15.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS F - F C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 11.5 - 7.9 1.4 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
12: Lugonia Ave & Driveway B Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 110 270 178 28 11
Future Vol, veh/h 10 110 270 178 28 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 20 20 20 20 20 20
Mvmt Flow 11 117 287 189 30 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 477 0 - 0 520 238
Stage 1 - - - - 382 -
Stage 2 - - - - 138 -
Critical Hdwy 4.4 - - - 6.9 7.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.7 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.39 - - - 3.69 3.49
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 981 - - - 464 717
Stage 1 - - - - 617 -
Stage 2 - - - - 841 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 981 - - - 459 717
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 459 -
Stage 1 - - - - 611 -
Stage 2 - - - - 841 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.73 0 12.66

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 981 - - - 511
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - - 0.081
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 - - - 12.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3
HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
13: Lugonia Ave & Driveway C Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 108 269 12 12 5
Future Vol, veh/h 10 108 269 12 12 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 20 20 20 20 20 20
Mvmt Flow 11 115 286 13 13 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 299 0 - 0 429 149
Stage 1 - - - - 293 -
Stage 2 - - - - 136 -
Critical Hdwy 4.4 - - - 6.9 7.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.7 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.39 - - - 3.69 3.49
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1152 - - - 530 822
Stage 1 - - - - 688 -
Stage 2 - - - - 843 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1152 - - - 525 822
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 525 -
Stage 1 - - - - 681 -
Stage 2 - - - - 843 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.69 0 11.32

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 153 - - - 587
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - 0.031
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - - 11.3
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
14: Driveway D & Almond Ave Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 223 10 10 159 6 6
Future Vol, veh/h 223 10 10 159 6 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 22 22 22 22 22 22
Mvmt Flow 248 11 11 177 7 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 259 0 364 253
Stage 1 - - - - 253 -
Stage 2 - - - - 111 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.43 - 6.93 6.53
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.73 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.13 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.409 - 3.709 3.509
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1184 - 578 731
Stage 1 - - - - 737 -
Stage 2 - - - - 851 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1184 - 572 731
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 572 -
Stage 1 - - - - 737 -
Stage 2 - - - - 842 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.54 10.73

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 642 - - 213 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - 0.009 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 10.7 - - 8.1 0.1
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
15: Driveway E & Almond Ave Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 153 76 117 144 25 29
Future Vol, veh/h 153 76 117 144 25 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 22 22 22 22 22 22
Mvmt Flow 170 84 130 160 28 32
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 254 0 552 212
Stage 1 - - - - 212 -
Stage 2 - - - - 340 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.43 - 6.93 6.53
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.73 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.13 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.409 - 3.709 3.509
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1188 - 440 773
Stage 1 - - - - 771 -
Stage 2 - - - - 645 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1188 - 389 773
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 389 -
Stage 1 - - - - 771 -
Stage 2 - - - - 571 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 3.97 12.65

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 531 - - 1136 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 - - 0.109 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.6 - - 8.4 0.4
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.4 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 1: California St & San Bernardino Ave Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 560 153 85 248 3 148 119 153 10 139 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 43 560 153 85 248 3 148 119 153 10 139 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 1737 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 45 589 126 89 261 3 156 125 58 11 146 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Cap, veh/h 77 979 205 117 1402 16 199 581 256 23 398 59 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.01 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1654 3916 822 1654 4833 55 1654 2228 982 1654 2872 424 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 45 473 242 89 170 94 156 91 92 11 83 85 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1654 1581 1576 1654 1581 1727 1654 1650 1560 1654 1650 1646 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 6.7 6.9 2.7 2.0 2.1 4.6 2.2 2.3 0.3 2.3 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 6.7 6.9 2.7 2.0 2.1 4.6 2.2 2.3 0.3 2.3 2.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 77 790 394 117 917 501 199 431 407 23 229 228 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.78 0.21 0.23 0.47 0.36 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 656 1566 781 984 1566 856 656 1145 1082 656 1145 1142 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.6 16.7 16.8 23.0 13.4 13.4 21.5 14.6 14.6 24.7 19.7 19.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.7 1.6 7.4 0.1 0.2 5.0 0.2 0.3 10.5 1.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 1.9 2.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.8 17.4 18.3 30.4 13.5 13.6 26.5 14.8 14.9 35.1 20.7 20.8 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 760 353 339 179
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 17.8 20.2 21.6
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.2 18.5 8.9 17.9 11.4 12.3 6.8 19.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 4.3 4.7 8.9 6.6 4.4 3.3 4.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.1 3.8 0.2 0.9 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 2: California St & Almond Ave Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 124 185 47 67 11 151 377 67 10 348 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 35 124 185 47 67 11 151 377 67 10 348 25 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 132 79 50 71 9 161 401 32 11 370 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 177 267 273 204 155 15 369 1104 482 24 1082 52 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 231 1415 1447 279 819 82 3155 3244 1414 1626 4550 219 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 169 0 79 130 0 0 161 401 32 11 252 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1646 0 1447 1179 0 0 1577 1622 1414 1626 1554 1662 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.1 0.5 0.2 2.2 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 1.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.1 0.5 0.2 2.2 2.2 Prop In Lane 0.22 1.00 0.38 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 444 0 273 374 0 0 369 1104 482 24 739 395 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.29 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.36 0.07 0.47 0.34 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1575 0 1320 1368 0 0 1918 3452 1505 989 3306 1768 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.0 0.0 11.4 12.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 8.2 7.3 16.1 10.4 10.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 5.2 0.4 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 12.5 0.0 12.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 14.3 8.4 7.4 21.3 10.8 11.1 LnGrp LOS B B B B A A C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 248 130 594 399
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.4 12.6 10.0 11.2
Approach LOS B B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 8.9 12.8 11.2 5.5 16.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 20.0 35.0 30.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 3.6 4.2 5.8 2.2 5.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.4 3.4 0.7 0.0 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 3: California St & Lugonia Ave Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 71 257 152 41 54 144 557 154 89 1003 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 41 71 257 152 41 54 144 557 154 89 1003 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 74 46 158 43 10 150 580 84 93 1045 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Cap, veh/h 174 260 337 313 344 331 191 843 696 120 1459 641 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 438 1145 1485 897 1514 1459 1668 1752 1448 1668 3328 1463 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 0 46 158 43 10 150 580 84 93 1045 11 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1583 0 1485 897 1514 1459 1668 1752 1448 1668 1664 1463 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 1.6 8.3 1.5 0.4 5.8 16.9 2.1 3.6 16.9 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 0.0 1.6 12.0 1.5 0.4 5.8 16.9 2.1 3.6 16.9 0.3 Prop In Lane 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 434 0 337 313 344 331 191 843 696 120 1459 641 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.14 0.50 0.13 0.03 0.79 0.69 0.12 0.78 0.72 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 786 0 677 586 691 666 507 1065 880 507 2024 890 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.1 0.0 20.3 26.1 20.2 19.8 28.4 13.2 9.4 30.0 15.1 10.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.0 7.0 1.7 0.1 10.3 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 0.5 2.2 0.5 0.1 2.5 5.7 0.6 1.7 5.5 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.4 0.0 20.5 27.3 20.4 19.8 35.4 15.0 9.5 40.4 16.1 10.5 LnGrp LOS C C C C B D B A D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 163 211 814 1149
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.1 25.6 18.2 18.1
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 36.6 19.9 12.0 33.8 19.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 18.9 5.7 7.8 18.9 14.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.6 0.7 0.3 9.9 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 4: California St & Orange Tree Ln Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 264 0 52 10 780 108 63 1338 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 264 0 52 10 780 108 63 1338 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 275 0 0 10 812 95 66 1394 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Cap, veh/h 0 432 0 445 0 0 21 2039 237 93 1710 746
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1767 0 1339 0 0 1682 4365 507 1682 3357 1465 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 275 0 0 10 597 310 66 1394 1 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1767 0 1339 0 0 1682 1608 1657 1682 1678 1465 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 7.4 7.5 2.4 21.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 7.4 7.5 2.4 21.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 432 0 445 0 0 21 1502 774 93 1710 746 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.40 0.40 0.71 0.82 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 721 0 664 0 0 467 1836 946 467 1917 837 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 10.7 10.7 28.5 12.6 7.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.2 0.4 9.7 2.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 2.3 1.1 6.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.0 44.9 10.9 11.1 38.2 15.3 7.4 LnGrp LOS C D B B D B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 275 917 1461
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 23.4 11.3 16.3
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 33.6 19.8 5.3 36.2 19.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.5 5.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 35.0 25.0 17.0 35.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 9.5 0.0 2.4 23.4 14.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 7.9 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 15.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 5: California St & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 290 2 173 361 731 0 0 919 690 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 290 2 173 361 731 0 0 919 690 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 0 0 1781 1781 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 305 2 74 380 769 0 0 967 291
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 8
Cap, veh/h 351 2 314 760 2335 0 0 939 291
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1686 11 1510 1697 3474 0 0 5024 1510
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 0 74 380 769 0 0 967 291
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 0 1510 1697 1692 0 0 1621 1510 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 0.0 4.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.3 19.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 0.0 4.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.3 19.3 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 353 0 314 760 2335 0 0 939 291
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.24 0.50 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 679 0 604 760 2335 0 0 939 291
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.3 0.0 33.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.4 40.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 29.6 38.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.4 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.9 0.0 33.1 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 69.9 78.4 LnGrp LOS D C A A F E
Approach Vol, veh/h 381 1149 1258
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.4 1.3 71.9
Approach LOS D A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 73.9 49.7 24.2 26.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 4.9 * 4.9 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.8 26.0 * 19 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.2 21.3 19.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.5 0.0 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 38.3
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 6: California St & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 310 2 373 0 0 0 0 786 434 343 864 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 310 2 373 0 0 0 0 786 434 343 864 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1796 1796 0 1796 1796 1796 1796 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 326 2 281 0 827 161 361 909 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 7 7 0 7 7 7 7 0
Cap, veh/h 373 2 334 0 1437 424 576 2317 0
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.67 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1701 10 1522 0 5065 1447 1711 3503 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 328 0 281 0 827 161 361 909 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1711 0 1522 0 1635 1447 1711 1706 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.5 0.0 17.7 0.0 14.3 8.8 11.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 0.0 17.7 0.0 14.3 8.8 11.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 375 0 334 0 1437 424 576 2317 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.58 0.38 0.63 0.39 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 513 0 457 0 1437 424 576 2317 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.81 0.81 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.7 0.0 37.4 0.0 30.1 28.1 12.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.6 0.0 7.6 0.0 1.1 1.6 1.3 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.6 0.0 7.2 0.0 5.5 3.1 3.2 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 47.3 0.0 45.0 0.0 31.1 29.7 14.1 0.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D C C B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 609 988 1270
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.2 30.9 4.3
Approach LOS D C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.6 34.2 27.2 72.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 * 4.9 5.3 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 * 29 30.0 59.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 16.3 20.5 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 3.4 1.4 4.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.4
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 7: California St & Redlands Blvd Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 207 604 137 111 467 330 76 482 75 226 484 152 Future Volume (veh/h) 207 604 137 111 467 330 76 482 75 226 484 152 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 218 636 64 117 492 133 80 507 24 238 509 137 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 264 915 403 150 688 304 104 682 289 285 787 211 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 3497 1538 1753 3497 1546 1753 3681 1560 1753 2726 730 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 218 636 64 117 492 133 80 507 24 238 326 320 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1749 1538 1753 1749 1546 1753 1841 1560 1753 1749 1708 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 10.5 2.1 4.2 8.5 4.9 2.9 8.4 0.8 8.5 10.5 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 10.5 2.1 4.2 8.5 4.9 2.9 8.4 0.8 8.5 10.5 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 264 915 403 150 688 304 104 682 289 285 505 493 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.69 0.16 0.78 0.72 0.44 0.77 0.74 0.08 0.84 0.64 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 546 1361 598 546 1361 601 546 1719 728 546 816 797 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.5 21.4 18.3 28.8 24.1 22.7 29.8 24.7 21.7 26.1 20.0 20.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.4 0.1 3.3 0.5 0.4 4.5 0.6 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 3.8 0.7 1.8 3.2 1.6 1.3 3.4 0.3 3.4 3.8 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 29.0 21.8 18.3 32.1 24.7 23.1 34.3 25.3 21.7 28.6 20.5 20.6 LnGrp LOS C C B C C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 918 742 611 884
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.2 25.5 26.4 22.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.9 17.2 10.0 22.1 8.3 23.8 14.2 17.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.3 4.5 * 5.3 4.5 * 5.3 4.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 30.0 20.0 * 25 20.0 * 30 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.5 10.4 6.2 12.5 4.9 12.6 9.8 10.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 24.2
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 7: California St & Redlands Blvd Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 8: Mountain View Ave & Almond Ave Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 179 35 167 169 77 29 257 103 63 374 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 179 35 167 169 77 29 257 103 63 374 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 1693 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 199 32 186 188 32 32 286 57 70 416 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Cap, veh/h 473 489 79 444 583 493 61 468 92 112 665 14
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1049 1419 228 1039 1693 1432 1612 2678 526 1612 3218 70 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 0 231 186 188 32 32 170 173 70 208 217 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1049 0 1647 1039 1693 1432 1612 1608 1597 1612 1608 1680 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 3.9 6.1 3.0 0.5 0.7 3.6 3.7 1.5 4.3 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 3.9 10.0 3.0 0.5 0.7 3.6 3.7 1.5 4.3 4.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 473 0 568 444 583 493 61 281 279 112 332 347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.41 0.42 0.32 0.06 0.52 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 830 0 1128 798 1159 980 662 1541 1531 662 1541 1610 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.1 0.0 9.1 12.9 8.8 8.0 17.2 13.9 13.9 16.5 13.2 13.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.8 0.8 2.1 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.1 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.1 0.0 9.3 13.2 8.9 8.0 19.8 14.7 14.8 18.6 13.9 13.9 LnGrp LOS B A B A A B B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 248 406 375 495
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.3 10.8 15.2 14.6
Approach LOS A B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.6 6.4 12.5 17.6 7.5 11.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 15.0 35.0 25.0 15.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 2.7 6.3 12.0 3.5 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.9
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 9: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 377 5 200 601 317 0 0 448 356 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 377 5 200 601 317 0 0 448 356 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 0 0 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 416 0 38 633 334 0 0 472 227
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 10 10
Cap, veh/h 517 0 230 593 1266 0 0 1075 513
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3337 0 1485 3337 1752 0 0 2259 1037
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 416 0 38 633 334 0 0 361 338
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1668 0 1485 1668 1752 0 0 1664 1544 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.8 0.0 2.0 16.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 12.6 12.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.8 0.0 2.0 16.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 12.6 12.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.67
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 517 0 230 593 1266 0 0 824 765
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.17 1.07 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 779 0 346 593 1266 0 0 824 765
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.7 0.0 33.0 42.4 14.8 0.0 0.0 14.6 14.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 0.3 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 0.0 0.7 9.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.4 0.0 33.3 76.4 14.9 0.0 0.0 16.3 16.5 LnGrp LOS D C F B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 454 967 699
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.8 55.1 16.4
Approach LOS D E B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 70.6 20.5 50.1 19.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 58.0 16.0 37.5 21.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 18.0 14.7 12.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 0.0 4.1 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 39.1
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 10: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 142 25 363 0 0 0 0 777 474 237 586 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 142 25 363 0 0 0 0 777 474 237 586 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 0 1811 1811 1811 1811 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 148 86 66 0 809 392 247 610 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 0
Cap, veh/h 479 503 426 0 756 364 997 3365 0
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.32 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1811 1535 0 2322 1076 1725 3532 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 86 66 0 623 578 247 610 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 0 1721 1586 1725 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 3.2 2.9 0.0 30.5 30.5 10.9 11.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 3.2 2.9 0.0 30.5 30.5 10.9 11.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.68 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 479 503 426 0 583 538 997 3365 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.17 0.15 0.00 1.07 1.08 0.25 0.18 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 479 503 426 0 583 538 997 3365 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.7 24.6 24.5 0.0 29.8 29.8 19.8 4.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 56.8 60.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 1.5 1.1 0.0 20.8 19.8 4.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 27.3 25.4 25.3 0.0 86.6 90.4 20.3 4.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C F F C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 300 1201 857
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.3 88.4 9.2
Approach LOS C F A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.5 36.0 30.5 94.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 * 31 25.0 54.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 32.5 8.1 13.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.6 4.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 51.7
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
11: California St & Driveway A Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 24.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 153 500 196 456 499 81
Future Vol, veh/h 153 500 196 456 499 81
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 210 - - 190
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13
Mvmt Flow 163 532 209 485 531 86
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1142 265 617 0 - 0
Stage 1 531 -----
Stage 2 611 -----
Critical Hdwy 5.96 7.36 5.56 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.86 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.26 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.93 4.03 3.23 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 242 600 560 - - -
Stage 1 439 -----
Stage 2 434 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 152 600 560 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 152 -----
Stage 1 275 -----
Stage 2 434 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v66.97 4.57 0

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 560 - 152 600 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.373 - 1.072 0.886 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 15.2 - 153.1 40.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS C - F E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 - 8.5 10.5 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
12: Lugonia Ave & Driveway B Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 243 126 79 126 42
Future Vol, veh/h 1 243 126 79 126 42
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mvmt Flow 1 253 131 82 131 44
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 214 0 - 0 428 107
Stage 1 - - - - 172 -
Stage 2 - - - - 255 -
Critical Hdwy 4.25 - - - 6.75 7.05
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.95 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.55 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.295 - - - 3.595 3.395
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1304 - - - 552 904
Stage 1 - - - - 820 -
Stage 2 - - - - 765 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1304 - - - 551 904
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 551 -
Stage 1 - - - - 819 -
Stage 2 - - - - 765 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.03 0 13.24

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1304 - - - 611
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.286
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 - - - 13.2
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.2
HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
13: Lugonia Ave & Driveway C Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 237 159 9 7 4
Future Vol, veh/h 9 237 159 9 7 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mvmt Flow 9 247 166 9 7 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 175 0 - 0 436 88
Stage 1 - - - - 170 -
Stage 2 - - - - 266 -
Critical Hdwy 4.25 - - - 6.75 7.05
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.95 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.55 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.295 - - - 3.595 3.395
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1348 - - - 545 931
Stage 1 - - - - 822 -
Stage 2 - - - - 757 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1348 - - - 541 931
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 541 -
Stage 1 - - - - 815 -
Stage 2 - - - - 757 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.28 0 10.74

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 66 - - - 638
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.018
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 - - 10.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
14: Driveway D & Almond Ave Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 255 13 11 278 6 5
Future Vol, veh/h 255 13 11 278 6 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13
Mvmt Flow 271 14 12 296 6 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 285 0 449 278
Stage 1 - - - - 278 -
Stage 2 - - - - 171 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.295 - 6.795 6.395
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.595 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.995 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.3235 - 3.6235 3.4235
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1207 - 529 730
Stage 1 - - - - 739 -
Stage 2 - - - - 813 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1207 - 523 730
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 523 -
Stage 1 - - - - 739 -
Stage 2 - - - - 805 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.38 11.11

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 601 - - 137 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.1 - - 8 0.1
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis
15: Driveway E & Almond Ave Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 234 26 47 196 93 110
Future Vol, veh/h 234 26 47 196 93 110
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13
Mvmt Flow 249 28 50 209 99 117
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 277 0 467 263
Stage 1 - - - - 263 -
Stage 2 - - - - 204 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.295 - 6.795 6.395
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.595 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.995 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.3235 - 3.6235 3.4235
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1216 - 516 745
Stage 1 - - - - 752 -
Stage 2 - - - - 782 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1216 - 493 745
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 493 -
Stage 1 - - - - 752 -
Stage 2 - - - - 748 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 1.76 14.24

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 604 - - 696 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.358 - - 0.041 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 14.2 - - 8.1 0.2
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - - 0.1 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 3: California St & Lugonia Ave Existing Plus Project Improvements - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 24 103 105 58 68 344 926 117 46 381 46 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 24 103 105 58 68 344 926 117 46 381 46 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 26 16 112 62 11 366 985 91 49 405 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cap, veh/h 96 176 215 204 220 215 399 1076 912 59 1368 602 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.26 0.67 0.67 0.04 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 337 1113 1359 877 1386 1359 1527 1604 1359 1527 3047 1341 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 0 16 112 62 11 366 985 91 49 405 18 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1450 0 1359 877 1386 1359 1527 1604 1359 1527 1523 1341 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 10.3 4.3 0.8 25.7 57.7 2.6 3.5 9.3 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 0.0 1.1 14.7 4.3 0.8 25.7 57.7 2.6 3.5 9.3 0.8 Prop In Lane 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 273 0 215 204 220 215 399 1076 912 59 1368 602 V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.55 0.28 0.05 0.92 0.92 0.10 0.83 0.30 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 524 0 456 412 465 456 727 1351 1145 78 1368 602 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.0 0.0 39.5 47.3 40.9 39.4 39.6 15.4 6.4 52.6 19.3 17.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.7 0.1 9.0 9.1 0.1 40.3 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.4 3.0 1.5 0.3 10.3 19.9 0.7 2.0 3.2 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.2 0.0 39.6 49.6 41.6 39.4 48.6 24.6 6.5 92.9 19.5 17.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D D D C A F B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 54 185 1442 472
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.0 46.3 29.5 27.0
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 79.0 22.5 33.3 54.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.6 92.9 37.0 52.5 46.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 59.7 6.4 27.7 11.3 16.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 14.3 0.2 1.1 4.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 30.7
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 5: California St & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing Plus Project Improvements - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 7 513 298 1055 0 0 321 345 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 7 513 298 1055 0 0 321 345 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1663 1663 1663 1663 1663 0 0 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 356 8 526 331 1172 0 0 357 79
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 16 16 16 16 16 0 0 16 16
Cap, veh/h 604 14 549 422 1607 0 0 876 267
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.53 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1551 35 1409 1584 3243 0 0 4689 1384
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 0 526 331 1172 0 0 357 79
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1585 0 1409 1584 1580 0 0 1513 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.2 0.0 36.4 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 4.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.2 0.0 36.4 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 4.9 Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 617 0 549 422 1607 0 0 876 267
V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.96 0.78 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 634 0 564 422 1607 0 0 876 267
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.2 0.0 29.7 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 34.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.0 27.1 6.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.8 0.0 15.9 4.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 25.1 0.0 56.8 27.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 36.7 37.2 LnGrp LOS C E C A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 890 1503 436
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.8 7.8 36.8
Approach LOS D A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.8 31.6 24.2 44.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 4.9 * 4.9 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.8 26.0 * 19 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 18.8 8.9 38.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.5 0.3 1.2 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 23.6
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 10: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing Plus Project Improvements - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 300 2 832 0 0 0 0 555 360 149 654 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 300 2 832 0 0 0 0 555 360 149 654 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 0 1781 1781 1781 1781 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 333 0 525 0 617 282 166 727 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 0
Cap, veh/h 377 0 671 0 790 361 1056 3498 0
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 0 3019 0 2345 1031 1697 3474 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 333 0 525 0 463 436 166 727 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 0 1510 0 1692 1594 1697 1692 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.1 0.0 14.7 0.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 0.0 14.7 0.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.65 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 377 0 671 0 592 558 1056 3498 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.16 0.21 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 377 0 671 0 592 558 1056 3498 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.9 0.0 33.0 0.0 26.2 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.6 0.0 8.8 0.0 9.9 10.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.4 0.0 6.1 0.0 9.9 9.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 58.5 0.0 41.8 0.0 36.0 36.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 858 899 893
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.3 36.3 0.1
Approach LOS D D A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 62.5 37.0 25.5 99.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 32 20.0 59.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 24.0 19.1 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.2 0.3 5.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.0
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 11: California St & Driveway A Existing Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 154 422 584 313 175
Future Volume (veh/h) 47 154 422 584 313 175
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 164 449 621 333 186
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 20 20 20 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 252 224 616 2438 2438 757
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
Sat Flow, veh/h 1527 1359 757 4522 4522 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 164 449 621 333 186
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1527 1359 757 1459 1459 1359
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 3.7 16.8 2.4 1.2 2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 3.7 18.0 2.4 1.2 2.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 252 224 616 2438 2438 757
V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.73 0.73 0.25 0.14 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 850 757 616 2438 2438 757
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.7 12.8 8.8 3.7 3.4 3.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 4.6 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 1.2 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 12.0 17.4 13.1 3.8 3.5 3.8
LnGrp LOS B B B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 214 1070 519
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.1 7.7 3.6
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 9.8 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.0 5.7 4.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.5
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 3: California St & Lugonia Ave Existing Plus Project Improvements - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 71 256 152 41 54 144 557 154 89 1003 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 71 256 152 41 54 144 557 154 89 1003 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 74 45 158 43 10 150 580 84 93 1045 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Cap, veh/h 162 271 333 314 339 327 191 845 698 120 1463 643 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 393 1208 1485 910 1514 1459 1668 1752 1448 1668 3328 1463 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 112 0 45 158 43 10 150 580 84 93 1045 11 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1601 0 1485 910 1514 1459 1668 1752 1448 1668 1664 1463 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.6 8.3 1.5 0.3 5.7 16.7 2.1 3.6 16.8 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 0.0 1.6 11.7 1.5 0.3 5.7 16.7 2.1 3.6 16.8 0.3 Prop In Lane 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 433 0 333 314 339 327 191 845 698 120 1463 643 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.14 0.50 0.13 0.03 0.79 0.69 0.12 0.78 0.71 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 797 0 682 594 695 670 511 1072 886 511 2038 896 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.0 0.0 20.3 25.9 20.2 19.8 28.2 13.1 9.3 29.8 15.0 10.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.0 7.0 1.7 0.1 10.3 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 0.5 2.2 0.5 0.1 2.5 5.6 0.6 1.7 5.4 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.3 0.0 20.5 27.1 20.4 19.8 35.1 14.8 9.4 40.2 16.0 10.4 LnGrp LOS C C C C B D B A D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 157 211 814 1149
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.1 25.4 18.0 17.9
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 36.5 19.6 12.0 33.7 19.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 18.7 5.5 7.7 18.8 13.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.6 0.6 0.3 10.0 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.8
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 5: California St & I-10 Westbound Ramps Existing Plus Project Improvements - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 290 2 173 361 731 0 0 919 690 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 290 2 173 361 731 0 0 919 690 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 0 0 1781 1781 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 305 2 74 380 769 0 0 967 291
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 8
Cap, veh/h 340 2 304 523 2358 0 0 1649 512
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.62 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1686 11 1510 1697 3474 0 0 5024 1510
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 0 74 380 769 0 0 967 291
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 0 1510 1697 1692 0 0 1621 1510 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.6 0.0 4.1 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 15.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.6 0.0 4.1 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 15.8 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 342 0 304 523 2358 0 0 1649 512
V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.00 0.24 0.73 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 395 0 352 523 2358 0 0 1649 512
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.9 0.0 33.5 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 27.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.2 0.0 0.2 3.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.1 0.0 1.5 4.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 5.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 58.1 0.0 33.7 20.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 28.1 29.5 LnGrp LOS E C C A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 381 1149 1258
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.4 6.8 28.4
Approach LOS D A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 74.6 35.8 38.8 25.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 4.9 * 4.9 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.5 28.1 * 34 23.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 17.5 18.4 19.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.4 4.5 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.9
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 10: Mountain View Ave & I-10 Eastbound Ramps Existing Plus Project Improvements - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 142 25 363 0 0 0 0 777 474 237 586 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 142 25 363 0 0 0 0 777 474 237 586 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 0 1811 1811 1811 1811 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 148 86 66 0 809 392 247 610 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 0
Cap, veh/h 240 252 213 0 1079 520 987 3843 0
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.48 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1811 1535 0 2323 1076 1725 3532 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 86 66 0 623 578 247 610 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 0 1721 1588 1725 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 3.9 3.5 0.0 26.4 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 3.9 3.5 0.0 26.4 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.68 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 252 213 0 832 767 987 3843 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.34 0.31 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.16 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 240 252 213 0 832 767 987 3843 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.5 35.0 34.9 0.0 18.8 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.4 3.7 3.7 0.0 6.1 6.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 1.9 1.5 0.0 10.7 10.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 47.9 38.7 38.6 0.0 24.9 25.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D C C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 300 1201 857
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.2 25.3 0.2
Approach LOS D C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.0 49.0 18.0 107.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 * 44 12.5 66.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 28.6 9.3 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 6.9 0.2 4.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.4
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Kaiser Redlands Traffic Analysis 11: California St & Driveway A Existing Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 153 500 196 456 499 81
Future Volume (veh/h) 153 500 196 456 499 81
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 163 532 209 485 531 86
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13
Cap, veh/h 648 577 399 1858 1858 577
Arrive On Green 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1626 1447 736 4815 4815 1447
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 163 532 209 485 531 86
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1626 1447 736 1554 1554 1447
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 15.5 11.9 3.1 3.4 1.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 15.5 15.4 3.1 3.4 1.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 648 577 399 1858 1858 577
V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.92 0.52 0.26 0.29 0.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 660 587 404 1891 1891 587
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.9 12.7 14.3 9.0 9.1 8.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 20.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 7.2 1.6 0.7 0.8 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 9.1 32.8 15.5 9.0 9.1 8.6
LnGrp LOS A C B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 695 694 617
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.2 11.0 9.1
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.2 22.2 22.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.4 17.5 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.2 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 16.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Page | 45
Appendix D: Kaiser Provided Data
The following data was compiled and shared by Kaiser. The data for members was compiled by the member’s zip code for their place of residence and reflects 2021 membership. This data represents members that used medical services at the Kaiser Fontana and Redlands Medical Office Building (MOB).

The data analysis measured the distance from the member’s home zip code to the Fontana MOB and then measured the distance from the member’s home zip code to the proposed expanded Redlands MOB. The analysis shows that for most Kaiser members, the distance to an MOB campus is reduced.

Comparison of Miles Traveled for Kaiser Members
Attending Redlands MOB vs. Fontana MOB
Change in Miles Number of Members
Reduced by more than 12 52,763
Reduced by 11 to 12 10,172
Reduced by 10 to 11 8,208
Reduced by 9 to 10 3,932
Reduced by 8 to 9 3,063
Reduced by 7 to 8 5,238
Reduced by 6 to 7 4,842
Reduced by 5 to 6 33,650
Reduced by 4 to 5 10,983
Reduced by 3 to 4 8,059
Reduced by 2 to 3 7,696
Reduced by 1 to 2 5,626
Reduced by 0 to 1 9,924
Increased by 0 to 1 1,909
Increased by 1 to 2 378
Increased by 2 to 3 3
Increased by 3 to 4 9
Increased by 4 to 5 5
Increased by 5 to 6 67,484
Page | 46
The following data was compiled and provided by Kaiser. The miles traveled for employees and physicians was calculated using the home and work locations for each employee as provided by Kaiser’s Human Resources department. The data represents the employment at Kaiser facilities in Fontana, Ontario, and Redlands in 2022. The compiled data shows that employees and physicians currently employed at the Redlands MOB travel fewer miles on average than employees and physicians at nearby facilities in Fontana and Ontario.

Kaiser Employee Comparison
Facility Miles Traveled Employees Miles/Employee
Fontana 146,140 8,770 16.66
Redlands MOB 2,294 175 13.11
Ontario (w/ Hospital) 33,194 1,946 17.06
Ontario (w/ out Hospital) 10,827 707 25.85
Kaiser Physician Comparison
Facility Miles Traveled Physicians Miles/Physician
Fontana 18,787 714 26.31
Redlands MOB 497 57 8.72
Ontario 4,432 199 22.27
Page | 47
Appendix E: Signal Warrant
Intersection 11 Project Kaiser Redlands
Major Street California St Scenario Existing Plus Project Phase 1 (2024) Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Driveway A Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 167 0 16 0 x North/South
Through 512 277 0 0 East/West
Right 0 69 51 0
Total 679 346 67 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met California St Driveway A * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Number of Approach Lanes 3 2
NO
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,025 67
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Intersection 11 Project Kaiser Redlands
Major Street California St Scenario Existing Plus Project Phase 1 (2024) Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Driveway A Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 80 0 66 0 x North/South
Through 407 439 0 0 East/West
Right 0 34 217 0
Total 487 473 283 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met California St Driveway A * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Number of Approach Lanes 3 2
NO
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 960 283
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Intersection 11 Project Kaiser Redlands
Major Street California St Scenario Existing Plus Project Phase 1- 2 (2024) Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Driveway A Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 310 0 34 108 x North/South
Through 553 297 0 0 East/West
Right 0 128 108 0
Total 863 425 142 108
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met California St Driveway A * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Number of Approach Lanes 3 2
NO
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,288 142
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Intersection 11 Project Kaiser Redlands
Major Street California St Scenario Existing Plus Project Phase 1- 2 (2024) Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Driveway A Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 136 0 111 0 x North/South
Through 431 470 0 0 East/West
Right 0 56 362 0
Total 567 526 473 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met California St Driveway A * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Number of Approach Lanes 3 2
YES
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,093 473
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Intersection 11 Project Kaiser Redlands
Major Street California St Scenario Existing Plus Project Phase 1- 3 (2024) Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Driveway A Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 394 0 41 0 x North/South
Through 576 307 0 0 East/West
Right 0 163 134 0
Total 970 470 175 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met California St Driveway A * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Number of Approach Lanes 3 2
NO
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,440 175
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Intersection 11 Project Kaiser Redlands
Major Street California St Scenario Existing Plus Project Phase 1- 3 (2024) Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Driveway A Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 177 0 144 0 x North/South
Through 449 493 0 0 East/West
Right 0 73 470 0
Total 626 566 614 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met California St Driveway A * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Number of Approach Lanes 3 2
YES
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,192 614
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Intersection 11 Project Kaiser Redlands
Major Street California St Scenario Existing Plus Project Phase 1- 4 (2024) Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Driveway A Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 422 0 47 0 x North/South
Through 584 313 0 0 East/West
Right 0 175 154 0
Total 1,006 488 201 0
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Number of Approach Lanes 3 2
YES
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,494 201
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met California St Driveway A 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Intersection 11 Project Kaiser Redlands
Major Street California St Scenario Existing Plus Project Phase 1- 4 (2024) Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Driveway A Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 196 0 153 0 x North/South
Through 456 499 0 0 East/West
Right 0 81 500 0
Total 652 580 653 0
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Number of Approach Lanes 3 2
YES
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,232 653
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met California St Driveway A 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2012 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane

PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CENTER
SCH # 2025010666
Prepared for:

City of Redlands
City of Redlands
Kevin Beery, Senior Planner
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
Redlands, CA 92373
Prepared by:

UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949.788.4900
FAX: 949.788.4901
www.ultrasystems.com
November 2025
Project No. 7214
Ul traSyst ms env i fOnmenta I• management• planning
This page is left intentionally blank.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page iii Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose of this Draft Program EIR ...............................................................................................1-1

1.2 Draft EIR Focus and Effects Found Not to Be Significant....................................................1-1

1.3 Draft PEIR Organization....................................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Existing Project Site Conditions.....................................................................................................1-4

1.5 Brief Description of the Proposed Project.................................................................................1-4

1.6 Public Review Process .......................................................................................................................1-1

1.7 Areas of Controversy..........................................................................................................................1-1

1.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................1-1

1.9 Project Design Features ..................................................................................................................1-10

1.10 Mitigation Measures .........................................................................................................................1-11

1.11 Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................................1-21

2.0 Project Description.............................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location....................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Background.............................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Project Overview..................................................................................................................................2-1

2.4 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................2-1

2.5 Proposed Project Features...............................................................................................................2-2

2.6 Offsite Improvements ......................................................................................................................2-20

2.7 Construction Activities ....................................................................................................................2-20

2.8 Discretionary Actions.......................................................................................................................2-22

3.0 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Overview of Environmental Setting.............................................................................................3-1

3.2 Project Location and Surrounding Uses .....................................................................................3-1

3.3 Existing Project Site Conditions.....................................................................................................3-5

3.4 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis................................................................................3-9

4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis.....................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................4.1-1

4.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................4.2-1

4.3 Biological Resources........................................................................................................................4.3-1

4.4 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................4.4-1

4.5 Energy....................................................................................................................................................4.5-1

4.6 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................................4.6-1

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................................................4.7-1

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................4.8-1

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................4.9-1

4.10 Noise....................................................................................................................................................4.10-1

4.11 Public Services ................................................................................................................................4.11-1

4.12 Transportation................................................................................................................................4.12-1

4.13 Tribal Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................4.13-1

4.14 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................4.14-1

5.0 Alternatives...........................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................5-1  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page iv Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

5.2 Overview of Selected Alternatives................................................................................................5-2

5.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected as Infeasible .............................................................5-3

5.4 Alternatives Analysis Format..........................................................................................................5-3

5.5 Analysis of Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative............................5-9

5.6 Analysis of Alternative 2 – No Project/General Plan Buildout Alternative ...............5-16

5.7 Analysis of Alternative 3 – Reduced Intensity Alternative...............................................5-23

5.8 Analysis of Alternative 4 – Dispersed Facilities Alternative ............................................5-30

5.9 Environmentally Superior Alternative......................................................................................5-36

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.............................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ...................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Reasons Why the Project is Being Proposed, Notwithstanding Significant Unavoidable Impacts ...................................................................................................6-2

6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes....................................................................6-2

6.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts.................................................................................................................6-5

6.5 Potential Secondary Effects of Mitigation Measures.............................................................6-6

6.6 Effects Not Found to be Significant.............................................................................................6-10

7.0 References .............................................................................................................................................7-1

8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................................................8-1

9.0 List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................9-1

9.1 CEQA Lead Agency...............................................................................................................................9-1

9.2 Project Applicant..................................................................................................................................9-1

9.3 UltraSystems Environmental Inc...................................................................................................9-1

9.4 Other Firms ............................................................................................................................................9-3

10.0 Consultation and Coordination................................................................................................... 10-1

11.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................... 11-1

12.0 Recipients of the Draft PEIR......................................................................................................... 12-1

12.1 Agencies and Organizations ..........................................................................................................12-1

12.2 Individuals (Owners) .......................................................................................................................12-2

12.3 Commenters Who Commented During the Initial Study Public Review Period and Provided Their Contact Information..................................................................12-3 TABLES
Table 1.0-1 - Summary of Impacts Under the Project ........................................................................................ 1-2 Table 1.11-1 – Summary, Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................................................... 1-23 Table 2.4-1 - Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2.4-2 - Parking Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2-15 Table 2.4-3 – Surface and Structured Parking Per Phase................................................................................ 2-15 Table 2.4-4 – Development Area Per Phase, Square Feet............................................................................... 2-16 Table 2.4-5 - Proposed Utilities Connections....................................................................................................... 2-19 Table 2.6-1 - Conceptual Construction Schedule................................................................................................ 2-21 Table 2.7-1 - Permits and Approvals ....................................................................................................................... 2-23 Table 3.3-1 - Summary of Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations...................................................... 3-7  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page v Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 3.4-1 - Cumulative Projects List.................................................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3.4-2 - City of Redlands Demographic Forecast ..................................................................................... 3-14 Table 4.1-1 - Visual Simulation Analysis............................................................................................................4.1-19 Table 4.1-2 - Consistency with the City of Redlands General Plan Applicable Regulations Governing Scenic Quality..................................................................................................................................................................4.1-22 Table 4.2-1 - Construction Equipment by Phase ...............................................................................................4.2-9 Table 4.2-2 - Federal and State Attainment Status ........................................................................................4.2-11 Table 4.2-3 - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ......................................................................................4.2-12 Table 4.2-4 - SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds for Significant Regional Impacts ...............................4.2-16 Table 4.2-5 - Construction Schedule....................................................................................................................4.2-19 Table 4.2-6 - Estimated Construction Emissions for Phase 1....................................................................4.2-20 Table 4.2-7 - Estimated Construction Emissions for Phase 2....................................................................4.2-21 Table 4.2-8 - Estimated Construction Emissions for Phase 3....................................................................4.2-21 Table 4.2-9 - Estimated Construction Emissions for Phase 4....................................................................4.2-22 Table 4.2-10 - Maximum Unmitigated Daily Project Operational Emissions for all Phases.........4.2-23 Table 4.2-11 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions for Phase 1, with Mitigation......4.2-24 Table 4.2-12 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions for Phase 2, with Mitigation......4.2-24 Table 4.2-13 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions for Phase 3, with Mitigation......4.2-25 Table 4.2-14 - Maximum Daily Projet Operational Emissions for Phase 4, with Mitigation........4.2-25 Table 4.2-15 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions for all Phases, with Mitigation..4.2-25 Table 4.2-16 - Results of Unmitigated Localized Significance Analysis................................................4.2-27 Table 4.2-17 - Results of Tier 2 Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment......................................................4.2-29 Table 4.3-1 – Land Cover Types................................................................................................................................4.3-8 Table 4.3-2 – General Plan Chapter 6 Consistency Analysis......................................................................4.3-15 Table 4.4-1 - Known Cultural Resources Within a 0.5 Mile Radius of the Project Boundary ......4.4-22 Table 4.4-2 – Known Cultural Resource Studies Within a 0.5 Mile Radius of the Project Boundary ...............................................................................................................................................................................................4.4-26 Table 4.5-1 - Construction Energy Use ...............................................................................................................4.5-10 Table 4.5-2 - Project Operational Electricity Use ...........................................................................................4.5-11 Table 4.5-3 - Project Operational Vehicle Miles Travelled Per year.......................................................4.5-11 Table 4.7-1 - West Hollywood Baseline and Projected GHG Emissions and Percent Contributions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................4.7-6 Table 4.7-2 - Project Construction GHG Emissions........................................................................................4.7-10 Table 4.7-3 – Project Operational GHG Emissions .........................................................................................4.7-11 Table 4.7-4 – Project Operational GHG Emissions .........................................................................................4.7-11 Table 4.8-1 - Hazardous Materials Sites on and Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site...........................4.8-5 Table 4.9-1 – Estimated Project Water Demand................................................................................................4.9-9 Table 4.9-2 – Infiltration Basin and Bioretention Basins Capacities......................................................4.9-10 Table 4.10-1 - Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources .................................................4.10-3 Table 4.10-2 - Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use......................................4.10-5 Table 4.10-3 - Construction Equipment Noise Characteristics ................................................................4.10-7 Table 4.10-4 - Construction Equipment Noise Characteristics ................................................................4.10-8 Table 4.10-5 - Construction Equipment Noise Characteristics ................................................................4.10-8 Table 4.10-6 - Construction Equipment Noise Characteristics ................................................................4.10-9 Table 4.10-7 - Nearest Noise Sensitive Receptors ......................................................................................4.10-11 Table 4.10-8 - Maximum Construction Noise Exposures at Nearest Sensitive Receivers.......... 4.10-13 Table 4.10-9 - Existing Traffic on-Road Segments Analyzed..................................................................4.10-14 Table 4.10-10 - Estimated Increase in Local Traffic at Full Project Buildout..................................4.10-14 Table 4.10-11 - Vibration Levels of Typical Construction Equipment...............................................4.10-15  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page vi Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 4.12-1 - Estimated Project Trip Generation.........................................................................................4.12-4 Table 4.12-2 - Project Generated VMT Estimates ..........................................................................................4.12-4 Table 4.12-3 - Estimate of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures............................................................4.12-6 Table 4.14-1 - Projected Water Supplies (2025-2045)(afy)......................................................................4.14-6 Table 4.14-2 – Normal Year Water Supplies (2025-2045)(afy)...............................................................4.14-6 Table 4.14-3 – Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (2025-2045)(afy).....................4.14-6 Table 4.14-4 – Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (2025-2045)(afy)................4.14-7 Table 4.14-5 - Landfills Serving Redlands.........................................................................................................4.14-8 Table 4.14-7 - Proposed Project Domestive Water Demands................................................................4.14-10 Table 4.14-8 - Proposed Project Domestic Water Demand by Phase .................................................4.14-10 Table 4.14-9 - Comparison of Proposed Project Demand VS. Available Water Supply............... 4.14-10 Table 4.14-10 - Estimated Project Water Demand.....................................................................................4.14-11 Table 4.14-11 - Estimated Project Wastewater Generation...................................................................4.14-12 Table 5.4-1 - Summary of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 5-4 Table 5.4-2 - Comparison Summary of Project Impacts and Alternatives Impacts ............................... 5-5 Table 5.4-3 - Comparison of Alternatives and Their Ability to Meet Project Objectives ..................... 5-8 Table 11.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................................11-2

FIGURES
Figure 1.0-1 - Regional Location.................................................................................................................................. 1-0 Figure 1.0-2 - Project Location..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Figure 2.4-1 - Existing Site Plan................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2.4-2 - Phase 1 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2.4-3 - Phase 2 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2.4-4 - Phase 3 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2.4-5 - Phase 4 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2.4-6 - ASC/MOB 2 Elevations........................................................................................................................ 2-9 Figure 2.4-7 – Hospital Elevations (1 of 2)............................................................................................................ 2-10 Figure 2.4-8 – Hospital Elevations (2 of 2)............................................................................................................ 2-11 Figure 2.4-9 – Parking Structure Elevations......................................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2.4-10 – MOB 3 Elevations ............................................................................................................................ 2-13 Figure 2.4-11 – Hospital Addition Elevations...................................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2.4-11 – Full Project (4 Phases) Landscape Plan ................................................................................. 2-17 Figure 2.4-12 – Landscape Palette ........................................................................................................................... 2-18 Figure 3.2-1 - Regional Location.................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3.2-2 - Project Location..................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.2-3 - Project Site Photographs.................................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3.3-1 - Topographic Map .................................................................................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3.4-1 - Cumulative Projects Locations ...................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 4.1-1 - Photos of the Project Site................................................................................................................4.1-4 Figure 4.1-2 - Photos of the Surrounding Area...................................................................................................4.1-5 Figure 4.1-3 - KOP-1 – Key Observation Point Locations...............................................................................4.1-8 Figure 4.1-4a - KOP-1 - Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................4.1-9 Figure 4.1-4b - KOP-1 - Simulation ......................................................................................................................4.1-10 Figure 4.1-5a - KOP-1 - Simulation .......................................................................................................................4.1-11 Figure 4.1-5b - KOP-2 - Simulation ......................................................................................................................4.1-12 Figure 4.1-6a - KOP-3 – Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................4.1-13 Figure 4.1-6b - KOP-3 - Simulation ......................................................................................................................4.1-14  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page vii Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-7a - KOP-4 – Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................4.1-15 Figure 4.1-7b - KOP-4 - Simulation ......................................................................................................................4.1-16 Figure 4.1-8a - KOP-5 – Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................4.1-17 Figure 4.1-8b - KOP-5 – Simulation ......................................................................................................................4.1-18 Figure 4.3-1 – Land Cover Types..............................................................................................................................4.3-7 Figure 4.3-2 – Jurisdictional Resources Assessment ....................................................................................4.3-11 Figure 4.4-1 - USGS Topographic Map of the Study Area...............................................................................4.4-8 Figure 4.6-1 – Regionally Active Faults ..............................................................................................................4.6-11 Figure 4.6-2 – Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone....................................................................................4.6-12 Figure 4.6-3 – Liquefaction and Landslides......................................................................................................4.6-15 Figure 4.9-1 – Groundwater Basins, Subbasins, and Recharge Areas.......................................................4.9-6

APPENDICES
• Appendix A – Initial Study, Notices and Distribution
o Appendix A1 – Initial Study
o Appendix A2 – Filing with County Clerk
o Appendix A3 – NOP
o Appendix A4 – Notice of Preparation filed with Office of Planning and Research o Appendix A5 – Distribution List
• Appendix B – Scoping Meeting Information and Public Comments o Appendix B1 – Scoping Meeting Agenda
o Appendix B2 – Scoping Meeting PowerPoint Presentation o Appendix B3 – Scoping Report
o Appendix B4 – NOP and Scoping Comments
• Appendix C – Project Plans
o Appendix C1 – Amendment No. 8 to Concept Plan 1
o Appendix C2 – Masterplan Development Permit Submittal o Appendix C3 – Development Plan
• Appendix D – Technical Reports, Studies, and Assessments o Appendix D1 – Visual Resources Report
o Appendix D2 – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations o Appendix D3 – Health Risk Assessment
o Appendix D4 – Biological Resources Technical Report
o Appendix D5 – Cultural Resources Report
o Appendix D6 – Energy Calculations
o Appendix D7 – Geotechnical Investigative Report
o Appendix D8 – Paleontological Resources Records Search o Appendix D9 – Hazardous Materials Records Search
o Appendix D10 – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan o Appendix D11 – Water Supply Assessment
o Appendix D12 – VMT Assessment
o Appendix D13 – Draft Traffic Study
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Project (project). In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section (§) 15123, this chapter provides a brief project description; identifies significant effects and proposed mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce or avoid those effects; describes areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency and issues to be resolved; summarizes alternatives; and summarizes environmental impacts.

1.1 Purpose of this Draft Program EIR
As described in § 15123(a) and § 15362 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an informational document that will inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize any significant effects, and describe reasonable project alternatives. Therefore, the purpose of this Draft Program EIR (Draft PEIR) is to focus the discussion on the project's potential environmental effects that the City of Redlands, as the Lead Agency, has determined to be, or potentially may be significant. In addition, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, when applicable, that could reduce or avoid the project's significant environmental impacts.

This Draft PEIR serves as an environmental document for all actions associated with the project. This EIR is a "Program EIR" as defined by §15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, this Draft PEIR complies with §15064 of the CEQA Guidelines which discusses determining the significance of the environmental effects caused by a project.

1.2 Draft EIR Focus and Effects Found Not to Be Significant In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines § 15128, the EIR shall contain a brief statement indicating reasons the various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and not discussed in detail in the Draft PEIR. The Initial Study and comment letters are included as Appendix A. The CEQA notices for the project are also included in Appendix A. The Initial Study provides a detailed discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the project and the reasons that each environmental topic is or is not analyzed in this Draft PEIR. The Initial Study found the potential for significant impacts in the following environmental issue areas:
• Aesthetics • Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Air Quality • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Biological Resources • Noise
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Energy • Transportation
• Geology and Soils • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Utilities and Service Systems The threshold questions that were not screened out in the Initial Study prepared for the project are analyzed in this Draft EIR and are from the current iteration of the CEQA Guidelines, as of January 1, 2025. The results of the Initial Study found that the project would not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Wildfire. Therefore, these environmental areas  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-2 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
were not analyzed in this Draft PEIR. The Initial Study which details that no significant impacts would occur for these issue areas is included as Appendix A1 of this Draft PEIR.

Additional environmental studies will be conducted if required consistent with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), specifically 14 CCR § 15152 (Tiering), 14 CCR § 15153(d) {Use of an EIR from an Earlier Project), 14 CCR § 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations), and 14 CCR § 15168 (Program EIR).

1.3 Draft PEIR Organization
This Draft PEIR comprises the following sections:

1.0 Executive Summary. This section describes the purpose of this Draft PEIR, Draft PEIR focus, and effects found not to be significant, Draft PEIR organization, project summary, areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, public review process, summary of alternatives, and summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

2.0 Project Description. This section describes the project location, existing conditions, project objectives, and characteristics of the project.

3.0 Environmental Setting. This section contains a description of the existing physical and built environment, and a list of related projects anticipated to be built in the vicinity of the project site.

4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis. This section contains the project and cumulative impact analyses, mitigation measures (as necessary), and conclusions regarding the level of significance after mitigation for the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils/paleontological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.

5.0 Alternatives. This section analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives, including Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative, Alternative 2: No Project/General Plan Buildout Alternative, Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative, and Alternative 4: Dispersed Facilities Alternative.

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations. This section describes significant unavoidable project impacts, and the reasons why the project is being proposed notwithstanding the significant unavoidable impacts. An analysis of the significant irreversible changes in the environmental and potential secondary effects of the project are also included. Additionally, this section analyzes potential growth-inducing impacts of the project and potential secondary effects caused by the implementation of mitigation measures for the project. This section also contains a discussion of the possible effects of the project that were determined not to be significant within the Initial Study prepared for the project.

7.0 References. Identifies the references cited in the Draft PEIR including the documents (printed references) and individuals (personal communications) consulted in preparing this document.
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-3 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations. Includes a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in different sections of this Draft PEIR document.

9.0 List of Preparers. Identifies the agencies, consultants, and individuals involved in preparing this Draft PEIR.

10.0 Consultation and Coordination. Provides a list of federal, state, and local agencies and organizations contacted during preparation of the Draft PEIR.

11.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Identifies the potentially significant environmental impacts, the mitigation measures, the level of significance after mitigation, the responsible parties and monitoring parties, and the phase in which mitigation is to be implemented.

12.0 Recipients of Draft PEIR. Includes a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals to whom notification of preparation (NOP) of the Draft PEIR was sent.

Appendices. Presents data supporting the analysis and contents of this Draft PEIR.

This Draft PEIR includes the following appendices:
• Appendix A – Initial Study, Notices and Distribution
o Appendix A1 – Initial Study
o Appendix A2 – Filing with County Clerk
o Appendix A3 – NOP
o Appendix A4 – Notice of Preparation filed with Office of Planning and Research o Appendix A5 – Distribution List
• Appendix B – Scoping Meeting Information and Public Comments o Appendix B1 – Scoping Meeting Agenda
o Appendix B2 – Scoping Meeting PowerPoint Presentation o Appendix B3 – Scoping Report
o Appendix B4 – NOP and Scoping Comments
• Appendix C – Project Plans
o Appendix C1 – Amendment No. 8 to Concept Plan 1
o Appendix C2 – Masterplan Development Permit Submittal o Appendix C3 – Development Plan
• Appendix D – Technical Reports, Studies, and Assessments o Appendix D1 – Visual Resources Report
o Appendix D2 – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations o Appendix D3 – Health Risk Assessment
o Appendix D4 – Biological Resources Technical Report
o Appendix D5 – Cultural Resources Report
o Appendix D6 – Energy Calculations
o Appendix D7 – Geotechnical Investigative Report
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-4 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
o Appendix D8 – Paleontological Resources Records Search o Appendix D9 – Hazardous Materials Records Search
o Appendix D10 – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan o Appendix D11 – Water Supply Assessment
o Appendix D12 – VMT Assessment
o Appendix D13 – Draft Traffic Study

1.4 Existing Project Site Conditions
The proposed Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center project is located at 1301 California Street in the city of Redlands, California, on an approximately 37-acre site. Refer to Figure 1.0-1, which shows the project’s location in a regional context. Local surface streets adjacent to the site include Almond Avenue to the north, California Street to the east, and West Lugonia Avenue to the south. Figure 1.0-2 depicts an aerial photo of the project site and the surrounding land.

The project site comprises one parcel, APN 0167-441-07-000, and contains a medical office building, parking lot, and vacant land. The proposed project would develop the vacant portion of the project site with two medical office buildings, a hospital, a central utilities plant, parking lot and improvements to driveways, utilities, and landscaping. Topography within the project site is relatively flat (Google Earth, 2024).

The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial Industrial, and the zoning designation is “Concept Plan 1 (CP-1)”, Medical Facilities District (City of Redlands, 2025a). This was originally created under the provisions of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 40) (City of Redlands, 2017b).

1.5 Brief Description of the Proposed Project

1.5.1 Project Overview
The proposed project consists of two elements:; (1) Amendment No. 8 to Concept Plan 1; and (2) Planned Development No. 6, which would consist of a Development Plan divided into four phases as described below.
• Phase 1: Ambulatory Services Center/Medical Office Building No. 2 (four stories, 165,000 square feet, 864 surface parking spaces).
• Phase 2: Hospital with associated support buildings, including central utility plant (CUP) and parking structure:
o Hospital: Seven stories plus basement; 213 beds; 400,000 square feet. o CUP: .Two stories plus basement; 35,000 square feet.
o Parking garage: 1,288 parking spaces, 464,000 square feet.  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-0 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 1.0-1

REGIONAL LOCATION
Pac: rnc
OC:' a 'l
't' ) ~ - ~7\ ' .... --- - ~ ..

Cresllinf!
a
~ ©ro:rnTlfflr@
~
L*• Ar-n;;rwh,e;icl
~ Hems,
~ J
--
~la:ime:r: Rep.N:!·se - reported iin thie le-.JP- d . Pror-ct paran:e e r injorm.a.tio. suppl~:t by olhe r5 {ser la:}e r a e ns) Inc. T is :IT'.a po rithtstration shou'kl -oot be used fio.r, arid does. not 1-=::plaD=!, -rt.al gr.a; 1ng plarE or olher docu be prof:es:300 - lty cerfifted b sde v.:
. ....... '.'Gil:r«"'l"'J'N1,a,:111•.r.i.·.11 N1td :onl:lo K .. _. M1111tO.ni.. l;HM.ll..l .... t'l•.11 1'.>11-• l O Nlf11u, .. 1 Luaol&HI lD:.cl aJ 23.mm &IM~ Llt'l'llt C:1111IUI.. ~UIQUI,. tw1 H~~ C..n,n. US'C~ Hlolnn14t 11'«:Nt;M~I ••. NNC: 111 t::lln J111:111n. MtlL t::.111C:hn1t ( i-.in11K1.1111J. t:.lln 11.i.r.a t::irt ~l h1tlwnl l NGCC c,:)c,iw,~1111111~11- a.11tnbwun1,.11nd h• ~ U-r C:mnm..,l'f' Lu>1 Mi,tl- Cuuffy.. llU I. Ul .. !IS""' .. m" t.z...irurmMDL lni:.... .112] Scale: 1 633,600 N Legend
• Project Location
0 5 10 Miles
0 5. 5 11 Kilometers
O:.ttar :25., :202'3
Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center
Regional Location
Ul traSy~tcms ., . . ,, .. ., ... . r.,,. .... _.,,,, , ..  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 1.0-2

PROJECT LOCATION
Disclaimer: Representations on this map or illustration are intended only to indicate locations of project parameters reported in the legend. Project parameter information supplied by others (see layer credits) may not have been independently verified for accuracy by UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. This map or illustration should not be used for, and does not replace, final grading plans or other documents that should be professionally certified for development purposes.

Peth. \\Gisw l~IS \Proieets\1214 _Redlflnds_ K111sei _MedCentei _ EIA 1M XOs\72 14 _ Kaiser_ 3 _ o _ Pt-OJttCt_lOCfllK>n_ 2023 _05 _2 5.m ld Service Layur Cred~s- Sources· E!Ji, HERE, Garmin USGS, lnt11rmap , INCREMENT P, NRG.an, Es.ri Japan, IJETI, Esri China {Hong Kong) Esri Koma , Esri (Tha~and), NGCC, {c)OponStrellll.1ap contributor.., and Ille GIS User community, Esn. HERE. Ganmn. (C) OpenStreetMap cootnbutors. and lfle GIS user commumty, source Esn. Maxar. E&rms111rGeogr11ph1CS, and the GIS Use, C-Ommun~y UltraSystems EnvIronmen1&l, lnc., 2022
Legend
N
Scale: 1 :4,200 c:::J Project Boundary A
0 175 350 Feet
0 50 100 Meters
May 25, 2023
Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center
Proje ct Location
U ltraSyste m s ~.-,,1 ~ m ,,. • .,~,~~ ..,,r • ~•nnln~  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-0 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
• Phase 3: Medical Office Building No. 3 (four stories, 83,000 square feet, 333 surface parking spaces).
• Phase 4: Expansion of Hospital (five stories plus basement; 108 beds; 180,000 square feet ).

The project, at completion, would include 580,000 square feet of hospital space containing 321 beds and 248,000 square feet of medical office space. At project completion the project would provide a total of 2,803 parking spaces (including existing) consisting of a parking structure with 1,288 spaces and 1,515 surface spaces, including 226 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces. At completion of Phase 4 the project would include 563,000 square feet of landscaping including 102,000 square feet of parking lot landscaping. The project also includes onsite and offsite utility connections and improvements to Almond Avenue and Lugonia Avenue.

Discretionary Permits
The proposed project will require the City of Redlands Planning Commission and City Council approval of:
(1): Amendment No. 8 to Concept Plan 1, which would amend the permitting procedure in Concept Plan No. 1, Section IV, Part A (Discretionary Actions) under the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan; and
(2): Planned Development No. 6, which would establish a multi-phased development plan for the expansion of the existing onsite medical facility.

Each phase of the development will require a subsequent development permit from the City of Redlands Planning Commission, pursuant to East Valley Corridor Specific Plan section EV1.0405(c), and in accordance with the City’s Commission Review and Approval Process set forth in City of Redlands Municipal Code chapter 18.12 (amlegal.com, 2025).

Project Objectives
The following are the project objectives.

1. Provide health care capacity for Kaiser Permanente members in the San BernardinoRedlands region.

2. Incorporate numerous sustainability features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert bioswales; high-performance building enclosure systems, external shading, energy efficient and carbon neutral building systems and equipment selections, and solar panels. The buildings will meet or exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification.

3. Develop the project site in accordance with the Medical Facilities designation in Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1.

4. Phase development over 25 years to keep pace with projected increase in Kaiser Permanente membership in the facility’s service area over that period.  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Project Construction
The proposed project would be constructed in four phases described above. Each of the four phases would include site preparation, utilities trenching and installation, grading, building construction, architectural coatings, paving, and landscaping. Although construction timing is indeterminate, construction of each of the four major phases would take between two and four years. Phase 1 construction is expected to occur from 2027 to 2029, Phase 2 from 2035 to 2039, Phase 3 from 2043 to 2045, and Phase 4 construction from 2048 to 2050.

1.6 Public Review Process
The Initial Study for the project was distributed for public review from January 22 to February 21, 2025, for 30 days, as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process. Below is a summary of the public notification and scoping process for the project. The NOP includes information regarding the project, notice of availability of the Initial Study, the public comment period, and notice regarding the public scoping meeting. Refer to Appendix A, which includes a copy of the NOP, the agency distribution list and the public mailing list. A copy of the NOP, which included notice for the scoping meeting, was sent to owners adjacent to the project site.

On January 22, 2025, the following documents were submitted to the State Clearinghouse CEQA Submit database: one signed copy of the NOC, a copy of the NOP, and an electronic version of the Initial Study and Initial Study appendices. A public scoping meeting for the project was held at 4:30 p.m. on February 12, 2025. As part of the public distribution process for the Initial Study for the proposed project, Native American tribal contacts were sent a copy of the NOP and a CD with the Initial Study and Initial Study appendices. Refer to Appendix A (Agency Distribution List) for a list of tribes to whom these documents were sent.

1.7 Areas of Controversy
No comments were received from the public. Three comment letters were submitted by public agencies: the Native American Heritage Commission; South Coast AQMD; and San Bernardino County.

Based on the NOP comment letters provided in Appendix B of this Draft PEIR, issues raised include project impacts on: air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. No comments were made by the public or received during the public scoping meeting for the PEIR.

Refer to Appendix B for all comments received during the public review period, including a comment tracking matrix that provides a summary of the comments received during the public review period and where those comments are addressed in the PEIR. It should be noted that CEQA does not require the lead agency to respond individually to all comments received during the public scoping period.

1.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table 1.0-1 below provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the project evaluated in this Draft PEIR. Thresholds screened out in the Initial Study (included in Appendix A) as having no impact or a less than significant impact and thus are not analyzed in this PEIR, are also included in this table.
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-2 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 1.0-1

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS UNDER THE PROJECT
Environmental Threshold Project Impact

1. AESTHETICS
Threshold A (scenic vistas) Less than Significant
Threshold B (scenic resources state highway) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold C (scenic quality) Less than Significant
Threshold D (light & glare) Less than Significant (Initial Study)

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Threshold A (convert mapped farmland) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold B (zoning/Williamson Act) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold C (forestland/timber zoning) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold D (convert forest land) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold E (other changes) No Impact (Initial Study)

3. AIR QUALITY
Threshold A (applicable air quality plan) Less than Significant Threshold B (net increase of any criteria pollutant) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated Threshold C (Expose sensitive receptors) Less than Significant Threshold D (other emissions) Less than Significant (Initial Study)

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold A (special status species) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated Threshold B (sensitive natural community) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated Threshold C (protected wetlands) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated Threshold D (wildlife corridors) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated Threshold E (tree preservation) No Impact
Threshold F (habitat conservation plan) No Impact (Initial Study)

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold A (historical resources) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated Threshold B (archaeological resources) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated Threshold C (human remains) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated

6. ENERGY
Threshold A (energy resources) Less than Significant
Threshold B (renewable & efficiency) Less than Significant

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Threshold A
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault Less than Significant ii. Strong seismic ground shaking Less than Significant iii. Seismic‐related ground failure Less than Significant iv. Landslides Less than Significant
Threshold B (soil erosion) Less than Significant
Threshold C (unstable soil) Less than Significant
Threshold D (expansive soil) Less than Significant
Threshold E (supporting septic tank) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold F (paleontological resource) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Threshold A (GHG emissions) Significant and Unavoidable Threshold B (reducing emissions) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Threshold A (routine transport) Less than Significant
Threshold B (accident conditions) Less than Significant Threshold C (existing or proposed school) No Impact (Initial Study)  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-3 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Environmental Threshold Project Impact
Threshold D (hazardous materials sites) Less than Significant Threshold E (airport: safety hazard/noise) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold F (emergency response) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold G (wildland fires) Less than Significant (Initial Study)

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Threshold A (water quality standard) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold B (groundwater) Less than Significant
Threshold C (i. erosion/siltation) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold C (ii. runoff/flooding) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold C (iii. stormwater drainage systems) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold C (iv. flood flows) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold D (flood, tsunami, seiche zones) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold E (groundwater management plan) Less than Significant

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Threshold A (divide established community) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold B (land use plan, policy, regulation) No Impact (Initial Study)

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Threshold A (loss of known resource) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold B (locally important resource) No Impact (Initial Study)

13. NOISE
Threshold A (ambient noise level) Less than Significant Threshold B (groundborne vibration/noise) Less than Significant Threshold C (airport noise) No Impact (Initial Study)

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Threshold A (population growth) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold B (displace people) No Impact (Initial Study)

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Threshold A (fire protection) Less than Significant
Threshold B (Police protection) Less than Significant
Threshold C (schools) No Impact (Initial Study)
Threshold D (parks) No Impact (Initial Study)
Threshold E (other facilities/libraries) No Impact (Initial Study)

16. RECREATION
Threshold A (increased use of parks) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold B (park add/expansion) No Impact (Initial Study)

17. TRANSPORTATION
Threshold A (program/plan, circulation system) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold B (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b)) Significant and Unavoidable Threshold C (geometric design feature) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold D (emergency access) Less than Significant (Initial Study)

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold A
I. Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated ii. Public Resource Code § 5024.1(c) Less than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Threshold A (relocation or new construction) Less than Significant Threshold B (sufficient water supply) Less than Significant Threshold C (sufficient wastewater treatment) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold D (solid waste disposal) Less than Significant (Initial Study) Threshold E (regulations: solid waste diversion) Less than Significant (Initial Study)  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-4 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Environmental Threshold Project Impact

20. WILDFIRE
Threshold A (emergency response plan) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold B (pollutant concentrations) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold C (associated infrastructure) No Impact (Initial Study) Threshold D (downstream flooding/ landslide) No Impact (Initial Study)

1.8.1 Less Than Significant with Mitigation

1.8.1.1 Air Quality
Threshold 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?
All construction emissions associated with the project would be below the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to air quality during project construction would be less than significant.

Operational emissions at project buildout (that is, completion of Phase 4) would be significant without mitigation for reactive organic gases. Mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and TRANS-1 through TRANS-4 are required; impacts would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation.

1.8.1.2 Biological Resources
Threshold A:Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Plants
Based on literature review of publicly available databases, 32 special-status plant species (nine listed and 23 sensitive) were identified and recorded within a 10-mile radius of the BSA. The special-status plant species were evaluated as to their potential to occur in the BSA based on habitat, geographic and elevated range and site conditions. Due to biological and physical disturbances within the BSA, it was determined that there is a lack of suitable habitat to support the majority of the special-status plant species. Additionally, there is a significant coverage of the project site by impermeable surface (developed areas) that cannot support vegetation that is necessary to create suitable habitat. Impacts to special-status plant species is not anticipated as a result of the project. No mitigation is required.

Wildlife
Based on literature review of publicly available databases, there were 46 sensitive wildlife species reported in and near the BSA. The majority of the special-status wildlife species evaluated in the wildlife inventory are not expected to occur due to the following factors: urbanization of the area, lack of suitable habitat, and/or the site is outside of the known elevation, and/or general distribution of the target species.
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-5 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Based on the habitats documented within the project site, the following 13 species have a low to high likelihood of occurrence:
• Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii)/State Candidate Endangered (SCE) - foraging and nesting, low potential
• Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)/State Species of Special Concern (SSC) - foraging, refugia and nesting, moderate potential.
• Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)/SSC – foraging, moderate potential • White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)/State Fully Protected (SFP) – foraging, moderate potential
• Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)/ California Watch List (CWL), SFP – foraging, low potential • Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii)/SSC – foraging, low potential • Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)/CWL – foraging, high potential • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)/SSC – foraging, low potential • California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)/CWL- foraging and nesting, moderate potential
• Merlin (Falco columbarius)/CWL – foraging, low potential • Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)/CWL – foraging, low potential • Long-eared owl (Asio otus)/SCC – foraging, low potential • Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus)/SSC - foraging and roosting (palm trees), moderate potential
The 0.18-acre patch of California buckwheat scrub documented in the northwest detention basin is suitable foraging habitat for the Crotch’s bumble bee. To ensure that potential adverse effects to Crotch’s bumble bee are reduced to a less than significant level, focused assessments and surveys, as warranted will be required during phases 1 and 2 of the project including impact analysis prior to approval of development within each area, as described in mitigation measure (MM) BIO-1.1 Burrows suitable for burrowing owl potentially utilized for refugia and/or nesting and foraging habitat were documented throughout the vacant areas of the site. To ensure that potential adverse effects to burrowing owl are reduced to a less than significant level, focused assessments and surveys and impact analysis, as warranted, will be required during phases 1 and 2 of the project prior to approval of development within each respective area, as detailed in MM BIO-2.

Suitable foraging habitat for nine sensitive species including loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, golden eagle, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, northern harrier, merlin, prairie falcon, and longeared owl was documented within the project site. However, it was determined that development of the proposed project is not expected to result in a significant impact to regional foraging resources for these species and thus no mitigation is proposed for these species.

Suitable foraging and nesting habitat for one sensitive species, California horned lark, was identified within the project site. To ensure that potential impacts to California horned lark are reduced to a less than significant level, a focused nesting survey and impact analysis will be required during phases 1 and 2 of the project prior to approval of development within each phase area to be developed, as summarized in MM BIO-3.

The project site also contains suitable foraging and roosting habitat (palms) for the yellow bat. To ensure that potential impacts to yellow bat are reduced to a less than significant level, 1 Grading for phases 2, 3, and 4 of the project will be done in Phase 2.  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-6 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
preconstruction surveys and impact analysis, as warranted, will be required during each of the four phases of the project prior to approval of development within reach respective region, as summarized in MM BIO-4.

Threshold B: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The entire project site would be fully developed at completion of Phase 4. A total of 36.60-acres of developed and natural vegetation communities within the project site would be directly and permanently impacted as a result of project development (Phases 1 to 4). No sensitive habitat identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS will be impacted as a result of project implementation. A total of 0.51-acre of mule fat scrub (riparian habitat) was documented within Basin 2. To ensure that potential impacts to jurisdictional resources including riparian habitat are reduced to less than significant, MM BIO-5 will require a formal jurisdictional delineation and impact analysis to be conducted for the entire project site for all project phases prior to approval of Phase 1. If present, and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant may be required to obtain a 1602 LSAA from CDFW for impacts to regulated features including riparian habitat, as warranted in MM BIO-5.

Threshold 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? The project site was assessed for the potential presence or absence of resources under the jurisdiction of USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB. Impacts to potentially jurisdictional areas would be significant. To ensure that potential impacts to jurisdictional resources are reduced to a less than significant level, MM BIO-5 requires a formal jurisdictional delineation and impacts analysis be conducted for the entire project site covering all project phases prior to approval of Phase I development. If present, and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant may be required to obtain a, CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE, a 1602 LSAA from CDFW, and a CWA Section 401 or Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit from the RWQCB pursuant to the California Water Code Section 13260, as described in MM BIO-5.

Threshold 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? The project site has vegetation including trees and shrubs that could provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected under the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. In order to avoid violation of the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, site preparation activities (ground disturbance, construction activities, staging equipment, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) for the project shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season of potentially occurring native and migratory bird species (generally September 15 to February 15 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors, although the nesting season may be extended due to weather and drought conditions) (Cadre Environmental, 2025, p. 47).

Construction outside the raptor nesting season (between September 15 and January 14) does not require preconstruction nesting bird surveys. However, if construction is proposed between January  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-7 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
14 and September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction nesting bird and raptor survey(s) no more than three days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds or raptors within or directly adjacent to the project site. Loss of an active nest would be considered a potentially significant impact. Impacts to raptor foraging and potential nesting bird habitat would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of MM BIO-3.

1.8.1.3 Cultural Resources
Threshold A: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
It was determined that the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Project site had two historic era cultural resources that were previously recorded within the project site boundary. Within the onehalf-mile buffer zone there are an additional five recorded historic-era cultural resources. The two historic sites, both related to the Mayfair Dairy farm, were situated in the northeast area of the project site. These were recorded as the Mayfair Dairy farm complex (CA-BSR-7139H) and an associated barn (P-36-6875). The related report stated that the site recording would be sufficient documentation of the resource, and both structures were subsequently demolished. However, because of the obscured ground surface during the pedestrian survey there is the potential for the presence of historic artifacts and/or features to be present. Also, grading activities associated with project construction would cause subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unique archaeological resources. Therefore, mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are recommended.

Threshold B: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Based on the cultural resources records search conducted by the SCCIC, it was determined there have been no prehistoric resources recorded within the project boundary or the half mile-buffer area. The cultural resources study findings suggest that there is a low potential for the presence of prehistoric cultural resources. The search result of the NAHC SLF was positive. Letters and emails sent to the 38 contacts representing 21 tribes on October 2, 2023; follow up telephone calls made November 6, 2023. There was no response to inquiry concerning the unidentified potential SLF site. However, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians did note the nearby presence of the Mill Creek Zanja, significant to the Serrano due to their association with its construction. This historic site, however, is not in the immediate vicinity of the project parcel and would not be affected by the project. The project site is disturbed by several decades of agricultural use. A prior survey of the property resulted in negative findings for prehistoric resources. Grading and other ground disturbing activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unique archaeological resources. Therefore, mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are recommended.

Threshold C: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No human remains have been previously identified or recorded on the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Project site. Grading and trenching activities associated with installation of infrastructure including water, sewer, and utility lines; and for construction of proposed buildings of the project.

Grading would involve new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The potential for  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-8 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
encountering human remains during ground disturbance is low. However, in the case that human remains are encountered, mitigation measure CUL-3 is recommended.

1.8.1.4 Geology and Soils
Threshold F: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The likelihood of encountering fossil material is minimal; however, if excavation activities disrupt deeper sediment layers that correspond to the early Holocene or Late Pleistocene epochs, such findings could have considerable scientific importance. If excavation activity disturbs deeper sediments dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Implementation of Project Design Feature (PDF) PDF-GEO-1 and MMGEO-1 would reduce the potential impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant.

1.8.1.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold B: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The project would be consistent with 2022 Title 24 standards in terms of energy efficient design features, such as the construction of the CUP. Since the project’s operational GHG emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold, it must incorporate GHG reduction mitigation measures in attempt to avoid conflicting with the city’s CAP and General Plan. These mitigation measures are MM GHG-1 through GHG-5 and TRANS-1 through TRANS-4, and AQ-1 through AQ-2. If the project implements all feasible GHG reducing mitigation measures listed below and in the General Plan, then it will not conflict with the plan. The project will therefore have a less than significant impact with these mitigation measures.

1.8.1.6 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold A: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(i) 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 § 5020.1(k); or
(ii) 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 Resource Code § 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.

Previous cultural resources surveys within the 0.5-mile buffer zone resulted in two historic archaeological sites that have been previously recorded within the project site boundary and an  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-9 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
additional eight archaeological sites within the surrounding 0.5-mile buffer. No prehistoric resources were recorded within the project boundary or the 0.5-mile buffer area. (refer to Sections 4.1 and 4.3 in Appendix D1). The NAHC’s SLF search had a positive response for a traditional resource in the project area. A pedestrian survey conducted resulted in no prehistoric or historic features or isolate artifacts being observed, although given the extremely poor surface visibility it cannot be ruled out that cultural resources may be present.

A prior survey of the property resulted in negative findings for prehistoric resources. However given that the prior agricultural use within the project might have masked archaeological deposits, the close proximity of fresh water source (the Santa Ana River) which would have been attractive to Native American use, that one of the contacted tribes did recommend tribal and archaeological monitoring based on the historic presence of local indigenous people along the nearby Santa Ana River, the presence of an adjacent associated farm complex dating back to approximately 1915, and that the present vegetation coverage did not allow for full observation of the project area ground surface, there is the potential that buried archaeological deposits may be present within the project boundary. Therefore, it is recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during ground-disturbing activities. If prehistoric and/or historic items are observed during subsurface activities, work should be stopped in that area and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be retained to assess the finding(s) and retrieve the material.

Based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory report (Appendix D1) which includes a records search at the SCCIC of survey reports and site records, the results of an SLF search by the NAHC, and outreach to locally affiliated bands suggested by the NAHC, it was determined that the probability for significant impacts to TCRs is high at the project site. Implementation of mitigation measures MMTCR-1 through TCR-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

1.8.2 Significant and Unavoidable

1.8.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold A: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Project operational GHG emissions, without mitigation and with construction GHG emissions amortized over a 30-year period, are estimated at 14,327 metric tons of CO2e annually. That amount is substantially greater than the 3,000 MTCO2e significance threshold used by the SCAQMD. This impact would thus be significant without mitigation. Mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5, TRANS-1 through TRANS-4, and AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required to reduce GHG emissions impacts.

Project GHG emissions after mitigation are estimated at 14,306 MTCO2e annually, still over the significance threshold. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

1.8.2.2 Transportation
Threshold B: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) pertains to the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a method of determining the significance of transportation impacts.  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-10 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Project operation is estimated to generate 16,093 trips per day. VMT in the study area was modeled using the latest version of the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model, SBTAM+. VMT was estimated in two scenarios: future year 2050 no project, and future year 2050 plus project. The City’s threshold for project VMT impacts is per capita VMT greater than 15 percent below the San Bernardino County Baseline VMT. As shown below in Table 4.12-1, estimated project VMT in 2050 is 22.7, that is, 12 percent higher than the City’s threshold. Mitigation measures MM-TRANS-1 through MM-TRANS-4 are required to reduce the VMT impact. The VMT impact would remain significant after implementation of the mitigation measures and would thus be significant and unavoidable.

1.9 Project Design Features
The following project design features (PDFs) would be implemented by the project.

1.9.1 Geology and Soils
PDF-GEO-1: The project would implement all geotechnical recommendations for the development of the site, including earthwork, seismic design, retaining walls, shoring, and foundation design as specified in the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the Medical Office Building 2 (MOB 2) project at the Kaiser Redlands site located at 1301 California Street in Redlands. Prepared by Twining, dated March 31, 2023; provided in Appendix D7 of this PEIR.

1.9.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would comply with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) (Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The following are proposed energy conservation measures that are beyond the minimum requirements of CalGreen. Please note that only GHG-PDF-1 and GHG-PDF-9 were taken into account in the emission calculations.

Energy Conservation and Efficiency
GHG-PDF-1: Project design will provide energy efficiency exceeding Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Code baseline standard requirements by 10 percent, based on the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards requirements
GHG-PDF-2: Use of natural heating and cooling features.

GHG-PDF-3: Use of improved insulation.

GHG-PDF-4: Installation of PV panels.

GHG-PDF-5: Use of efficient and durable roofing materials and exterior finishes.

GHG-PDF-6: Use of efficient interior finishes.

Water Conservation
GHG-PDF-7: Water-efficient plumbing fixtures (17 to 31 percent of GHG emissions associated with non-residential indoor water use).

Solid Waste Conservation
GHG-PDF-8: Use of recycled foundation materials.
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-11 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Other
GHG-PDF-9: No combustion of natural gas (100 percent reduction in emissions from natural gas use).

1.10 Mitigation Measures
Environmental factors that require mitigation along with brief summaries of proposed mitigation measures are provided below. Detailed mitigation measures are provided in Section 4.0 of this Draft PEIR. The environmental factors requiring mitigation are listed below. • Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils/Paleontological Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources

1.10.1 Air Quality
MM AQ-1: For operational emissions to remain below significance thresholds, the project must integrate measures to reduce VMT and VOC emissions. The following measures are based on methodologies outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, and were tailored to the site’s context and land use constraints.

To reduce VOC and ROG emissions, the emissions calculations assumed the measure to replace gaspowered landscape equipment with zero-emission landscape equipment. This measure is listed at A1 in the aforementioned CAPCOA Handbook. To help reduce VMT-related emissions, the project includes several targeted mitigation strategies, evaluated and quantified by Fehr & Peers in the traffic impact study (Fehr & Peers, 2025). A multiplicative dampening factor was applied to account for overlap among measures addressing the same trip types. The following measures and corresponding VMT reductions are proposed:
• Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing – Develop and promote employerbased programs that encourage alternatives to driving, such as carpooling, biking, transit use, and walking.
o Estimated Reduction: 4% of Home-Based Work (HBW) VMT
• Provide Employee Rideshare Program – Establish and fund ridesharing initiatives for employees with similar commutes, utilizing existing platforms like IE Commuter. o Estimated Reduction: 4% of HBW VMT
• Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities – Install and maintain bicycle infrastructure such as secure bike parking, lockers, and showers to support cycling as a commuting option.  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-12 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
o Estimated Reduction: 0.3% of HBW VMT
• Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool – Implement a vanpool service for employees commuting long distances, reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips. o Estimated Reduction: 1.6% of HBW VMT
• Multiplicative Dampening Adjustment – Reduction adjustment applied to account for overlap among strategies targeting the same trip type.
o Adjustment: -0.6%
Total Potential VMT Reduction: 9.9% of HBW VMT
Implementation of these measures will be outlined and monitored through the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). These mitigation measures are the most feasible and applicable options that were considered for the project in the Traffic Study. Although these measures provide a substantial reduction described above, the project’s HBW VMT is projected to remain approximately 12 percent above the City’s VMT threshold, and therefore, the VMT impact (but not the air quality impact) would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation (Fehr & Peers, 2025, p. 39).

1.10.2 Biological Resources
To ensure that potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources are reduced to a less than significant level, focused biological surveys and impacts analyses of the project site will be required prior to approval of Phase I development. In addition to completing CEQA review, focused surveys and required mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to project approval and initiation of construction, as described in MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5. The measures presented below are based on the measures in the BRTR (Cadre Environmental, 2025) in Appendix D3.

MM BIO-1: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys
To ensure the proposed project does not result in direct or indirect impacts to the Crotch’s bumble bee, focused presence/absence surveys shall be conducted based on the CDFW Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species Guidelines (June 6th, 2023), (CDFW, 2023). Focused surveys shall be started during the colony active period and when floral resources are present for the species by a qualified entomologist. Specifically, three surveys shall be conducted with at least two weeks between surveys from April to June. All regions within the project site where suitable floral resources are present shall be surveyed by walking meandering transects at least one hour after sunrise and/or at least two hours before sunset (ideally between 9am and 1pm) on warm sunny days with winds below eight miles per hour.

Focused surveys shall be conducted for a minimum of one person-hour of searching per three acres of suitable habitat. Bumble bees shall be captured with a net from blooms, avoiding destruction of the flower when possible. Each bee shall be carefully transferred into a sterile vial and moved to a cooler with only one bee per vial to avoid disease spread. The bee shall be kept in the vial for no more than 10 minutes in ambient temperature before being placed in a cooler as they have a tendency to over-heat (the amount of time will be decreased on hotter days). The vial shall be placed in a cooler at a temperature above 25 degrees Fahrenheit, as lower temperatures could freeze and kill the bee.  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-13 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
The results of the focused surveys shall be summarized in a letter report including graphics and recommendations.

If the species is detected onsite, the CDFW shall be contacted to determine appropriate conservation measures to prevent direct/indirect impacts to the species, or acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). To initiate the ITP process, the applicant or representative shall contact the appropriate CDFW Regional Office and submit a completed ITP application.

MM BIO-2: Focused and Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys To ensure the proposed project does not result in direct or indirect impacts to the burrowing owl, focused surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the March 7, 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012) which recommends both a breeding and non-breeding season survey.

Specifically, a total of four surveys shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist during the breeding season: 1) at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15, and 2) a minimum of three surveys, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15. Non-breeding season surveys shall include four surveys spread out evenly from July 15 to February 15. A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Redlands prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.

Regardless of the findings of the focused surveys, a burrowing owl preconstruction survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities to ensure protection for this species including a survey conducted with 24 hours of start of work. The preconstruction surveys shall be conducted in compliance with CDFW guidelines (CDFG, 2012). A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Redlands prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are not detected onsite, the proposed project may proceed. However, if project initiation is delayed more than 14 days, updated preconstruction surveys may be required.

If burrowing owls are detected onsite during the focused or preconstruction surveys, a burrowing owl monitoring and/or relocation plan shall be developed and approved by the City of Redlands, CDFW and USFWS prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following:

1. Burrowing owl status, distribution and habitat utilization within and adjacent to the project site.

2. Conservation objectives and goals developed in cooperation with CDFW and USFWS.

3. Results of burrowing owl monitoring activities.
a. 350-foot minimum protective (no work) zone shall be designated around each of the occupied burrow sites and delineated by orange silt fencing. The installation of the fencing shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to ensure owls are not directly or indirectly impacted as a result of fence installation. The monitoring biologist will also be responsible for directing where the fencing shall be installed. b. A qualified monitoring biologist shall monitor the owls weekly during the nonbreeding season to determine if the 350-foot protective zone is adequate for their protection. The weekly monitoring events will also provide critical information regarding the status of the species onsite for purposes of developing a relocation plan.  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-14 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
c. A qualified monitoring biologist shall conduct an initial environmental briefing with any contractors which will be working onsite. The briefing shall include a discussion of burrowing owl natural history, identification of burrowing owl non-breeding season protection zones, and summary of penalties for directly and/or indirectly impacting the species.
d. A qualified monitoring biologist shall be authorized to stop all work activities in the event potential direct and/or indirect impacts to burrowing owl may occur as a result of proposed staging activities.
e. Monthly updates on the monitoring efforts including recommendations, as warranted, shall be submitted to the City of Redlands, CDFW and USFWS.

4. Passive and/or active relocation activities.

5. Burrowing owl management activities for active relocation sites.

Based on the candidacy or listing status of the species at the time of surveys, if detected, acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit may also be required.

MM BIO-3: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
To maintain compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, and to avoid impacts or take of migratory non-game breeding birds and other native birds, their nests, young, and eggs, the following measures shall be implemented.

Site preparation activities (ground disturbance, construction activities, staging equipment, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) for the project shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season of potentially occurring native and migratory bird species (generally September 15 to February 15 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors, although the nesting season may be extended due to weather and drought conditions).

If site preparation activities are proposed during the nesting/breeding season, the project proponent shall retain a qualified avian biologist to conduct a pre-activity field survey prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project to determine if active nests of species protected by the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Codes are present in the construction zone. The nest surveys shall include the project site where project activities have the potential to cause nest failure. The survey results shall be provided to the City of Redlands for review and approval. The project applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than three days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground,  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-15 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the property; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. However, if active nests (including nesting raptors) are located, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of Redlands, CDFW and USFW, as warranted. Measures shall include immediate establishment of an appropriate buffer zone to be established by a qualified biologist based on their best professional judgement and experience.

The buffer around the nest shall be delineated and flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines nesting species have fledged and the nest is no longer active, or the nest has failed. The biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers. All work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite biologist shall review and verify compliance with these nesting avoidance buffers and shall verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found.

Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved. Active nests cannot be removed or disturbed; however, nests can be removed or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist.

If listed bird species are observed within a project site during the preconstruction survey, the biologist will immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional mitigation is necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency.

Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City of Redlands for review and approval prior to initiation of construction activities.

MM BIO-4: Preconstruction Bat Survey
Prior to implementation of project activities, a qualified bat biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for yellow bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees and palms suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance, vegetation or structure removal to determine whether the project site and a 300-foot buffer supports a nursery or roost. This work will occur between late -spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October).

If the results of the bat survey find a total of a single roosting individual of a special status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in the project site, a Bat Management Plan shall be developed by a qualified bat biologist to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the Bat Management Plan must provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devices/and or staged tree/palm  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-16 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the City of Redlands and CDFW prior to disturbance of the roosts.

MM BIO-5: Jurisdictional Delineation and Permitting
Prior to approval of grading permits and initiation of project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a formal jurisdictional delineation on the project site to determine the presence/absence of jurisdictional resources, extent of jurisdictional areas, and impacts to resources regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. The delineation shall be conducted using the current USACE methods and definition of “waters of the U.S.” (most current as of this writing is March 2025 notice and data sheets) and the methods and wetland definitions specified in the California State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures)(SWRCB, 2019) to delineate waters of the state.

Upon completion of the jurisdictional delineation survey, a jurisdictional delineation report shall be prepared according to the Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports for the USACE, Los Angeles Regulatory District (USACE-LA, 2017). This report shall be submitted to City of Redlands for review.

If jurisdictional areas are present on the project site, the project applicant shall obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and a CWA 401 or WDR permit issued by the RWQCB (Santa Ana RWQCBRegion 8) pursuant to the California Water Code § 13260, as warranted. If required, these permits shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. Construction activities (including but not limited to fencing, staging, and clearing) will not commence unless all requirements of the USACE, CDFW, RWQCB have been met and the RWQCB has issued a WDR permit, letter of permission, or other project-specific approval. All conditions of these permits shall be adhered to during project development.

1.10.3 Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1: The project applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology to conduct monitoring of subsurface ground disturbance during construction activities. The archaeologist shall also take the opportunity to re-survey the parcel’s ground surface as the vegetation is cleared for construction work. If unanticipated cultural resource discoveries are made the archaeologist will be afforded the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). The qualified archaeologist will recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-L) form and filed with the Eastern Information Center.

MM CUL-2: If historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction activities, the contractor shall halt construction activities in a 50-foot radius and notify the project proponent and the City of Redlands. A Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist (Principal Archaeologist) shall be notified and afforded the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). The Principal Archaeologist shall recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Construction activities may  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-17 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
continue on other parts of the project site while evaluation and treatment of historical or unique archaeological resources takes place.

The Principal Archaeologist, depending on the type and extent of the finds, may prepare an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan (ARTP) to guide future monitoring, the recovery of cultural resources, analysis and reporting of the finds, and curation of the finds. The ARTP shall be submitted to the City and the project proponent for approval.

MM CUL-3: If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery, and the San Bernardino County Coroner will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLDS (either an individual or sometimes a committee) will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).

1.10.4 Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1: A qualified paleontologist, approved by the City of Redlands and the Western Science Center, must be retained prior to excavation and grading activities at the project site.

2. Prior to the earth-moving activities, the paleontologist shall develop a sitespecific Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) to be implemented in support of the Project in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources. The PRIMP shall follow guidelines developed by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology and include monitoring of ground disturbance activities in sediments that are likely to include paleontological resources, specimen recovery, and screen washing; preparation of any collected specimens to the point of identification; curation of any collected specimens to a museum repository with permanent, retrievable storage; and preparation of a final paleontological survey report that would provide details of monitoring, fossil identification, and repository arrangements. The Project Applicant shall then comply with the recommendations of the Project Paleontologist and requirements of the PRIMP.

3. Before the mitigation program begins, the paleontologist or monitor must coordinate with the appropriate construction contractor personnel to provide information regarding the requirements of the City or Redlands, as applicable, for the protection of paleontological resources. Contractor personnel shall be briefed on the procedures to follow in the event that fossil remains, and a previously unrecorded fossil site are encountered by earth-moving activities, particularly when the monitor is not on site.
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-18 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4. The qualified paleontologist shall perform periodic inspections of excavation and grading activities at the project site to determine the presence of fossiliferous soils. The frequency and location of inspections shall be specified in the PRIMP and will depend on the depth of excavation and grading activities and the materials being excavated. If paleontological materials are encountered, the paleontologist must temporarily divert or redirect the grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed material to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. The authority of the paleontologist to temporarily halt construction in part of the project site must be included in the project grading and construction plans. A copy of the report of the paleontological survey is submitted to the Western Science Center. Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.

1.10.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts associated with significance threshold A would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation measures. Impacts associated with significance threshold B would be less than significant with mitigation measures. In both cases, the following mitigation measures would be required to minimize impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.

As discussed in Section 4.7.5, the project must incorporate mitigation measures during the construction and operational phases. CAPCOA has developed a method of quantifying GHG reducing measures that may be incorporated into potentially significant projects. These quantifiable construction mitigation measures and range of potential GHG reductions in parentheses are listed below (CAPCOA, 2010, P. 410-488):

MM GHG-1 Using alternative fuels for construction equipment (0 to 22 percent).

MM GHG-2 Using electric or hybrid construction equipment (2.5 to 80 percent of GHG emissions from equipment that is electric or hybrid if used 100 percent of the time).

MM GHG-3 Limiting construction equipment idling beyond regulation requirements (varies with the amount of project idling occurring and the amount reduced).

MM GHG-4 Instituting a heavy-duty offroad vehicle plan (range of effectiveness is not applicable because it only ensures compliances with other mitigation measures).

MM GHG-5 Implementing a construction vehicle inventory tracking system (range of effectiveness does not reduce GHG emissions in and of itself; it only ensures compliance with other mitigation measures).

During the project’s operational phase, the majority of GHG emissions will result from mobile sources such as employee and visitor trips. The traffic study provides the most effective GHG reduction measures that can be implemented to reduce VMT. MM TRANS-4, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 below were taken into account in emissions calculations and must be considered by the project. These measures and their estimated potential VMT reductions are detailed in Appendix D13 and are summarized below.
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-19 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
MM TRANS-1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (4 percent of Home-Based Work (HBW) VMT).

MM TRANS-2 Provide Employee Rideshare Program (4 percent of HBW VMT).

MM TRANS-3 Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (0.3 percent of HBW VMT).

MM TRANS-4 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool, (1.6 percent of HBW VMT) (listed as T-11 in CalEEMod).

MM AQ-1 Replace Gas Powered Landscape Equipment with Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment (listed as LL-1 in CalEEMod).

MM AQ-2 Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (listed as T-14 in CalEEMod).

1.10.6 Transportation
Impacts associated with significance threshold B would be potentially significant without mitigation.

Therefore, the following mitigation measures would be required to minimize potential impacts related to traffic and transportation.

MM TRANS-1 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent will implement a commute trip reduction program consisting of information sharing and marketing to promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the project site beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

MM TRANS-2 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each phase of the project, the project proponent will implement a ridesharing program for employees with similar commutes with funding requirements for employers. Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and GHG emissions. Existing programs including IE Commuter can be leveraged for this measure.

MM TRANS-3 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each phase of the project, the project proponent will install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

MM TRANS-4 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each phase of the project, the project proponent will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool service. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a cost-effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. The mode shift from long-distance, single-occupied vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby reducing GHG emissions. It was assumed that up to 2% of employees would participate in the vanpool program.
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-20 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

1.10.7 Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
A. The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor(s) from one or more Consulting Tribe(s). Monitors from more than one tribe may coordinate and utilize a rotating schedule at their discretion.. The monitor(s) shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Grounddisturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement with each monitoring Consulting Tribe(s) shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor(s) will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Consulting Tribe(s) from a designated point of contact for the project applicant that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Consulting Tribe(s)to the project applicant and lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

MM-TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/NonCeremonial) A. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e. not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Consulting Tribe(s)’ monitor(s) and/or archaeologist(s).

MM-TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-21 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

1.11 Summary of Alternatives
This Draft PEIR examines in detail four alternatives to the project: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, Alternative 2: No Project/General Plan Buildout Alternative, Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative, and Alternative 4: Dispersed Facilities Alternative. A general description of these alternatives is provided below. Refer to Section 5.0 of this Draft EIR for a more detailed description of the alternatives, a comparative analysis of the impacts of these alternatives to those of the proposed project, and a description of the alternatives that were considered but rejected as infeasible.

1.11.1 Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstances under which the project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines states in part that, “in certain circumstances, the No project Alternative mean ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Accordingly, for the purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1, the No project Alternative, assumes that the project would not be approved. The existing medical office building onsite would remain and would remain in operation. The balance of the site would remain vacant. Kaiser Permanente members in the service area of the proposed facility would continue traveling to Kaiser Permanente facilities in the cities of Fontana and Ontario.

The No Project Alternative would eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable construction transportation impact. The No Project Alternative would have similar impacts as the project for wildfire hazards. Impacts associated with the remaining environmental issues would be less than those of the project. This alternative would have no impacts considered to be substantially more significant when compared to the proposed project.

Under the No Project Alternative, no new development would occur. Therefore, this alternative would not meet any of the project’s objectives of developing a medical center serving Kaiser Permanente members in the San Bernardino-Redlands region.  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-22 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

1.11.2 Alternative 2 – No Project/General Plan Buildout Alternative In this alternative the proposed project is not developed. The existing medical office building remains present and in operation. This alternative assumes that the balance of the project site (28.15 acres) would be built out in accordance with the existing General Plan land use designation for the site, which is Commercial Industrial. The Commercial/Industrial land use category permits the development of certain types of commercial and light industrial uses. It includes flex commercial space as well as business parks. Uses permitted in this category include auto services, commercial retail and services, and manufacturing (City of Redlands, 2017, p. 4-11). The maximum floor area ratio in the Concept Plan No.1 zoning designation is 0.6 (City of Redlands, 2017, p. 4-11). Thus, this alternative supposes development of the vacant part of the site with about 552,000 square feet of commercial and/or industrial uses.2 The maximum building height would be 150 feet (Urban Environs, 2004). The EVCSP requires that at least 15 percent of industrial development are landscaping (City of Redlands, 2017, p. D4-70). This alternative, if developed with industrial uses, would include at least 183,932 square feet of landscaping (28.15 acres x 43,560 square feet per acre x 15%). The proposed project, at buildout, would include 563,000 square feet of landscaping.

Construction effort would be reduced in this alternative (552,000 square feet) compared to the proposed project (863,000 square feet plus six-level, 456,000-square-foot parking structure, or 1,319,000 square feet total).3
The No Project/General Plan Buildout Alternative would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impacts; impacts of this alternative are conservatively assumed to remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would also reduce the following impacts of the proposed project: aesthetics, air quality, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and utilities. This alternative would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project as the project site is still planned for development.

Impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources.

Impacts on land use and planning of this alternative would be greater than those of the proposed project.

Under Alternative 2, the No Project/General Plan Buildout Alternative, the project site would be developed with 552,000 square feet of commercial and/or industrial uses rather than the proposed hospital and medical office uses. Therefore, this alternative would not meet any of the following project objectives (objectives 1 and 3).
• Provide health care capacity for Kaiser Permanente members in the San BernardinoRedlands region (objective 1). • Develop the project site in accordance with the Medical Facilities designation in Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1 (objective 3).

This alternative would partially meet the following project objectives (objectives 2 and 4):
2 In calculating potential land use intensity, the maximum intensity per the permitted floor area ratio, 735,728 square feet, was multiplied by 0.75; land is rarely built out to the maximum intensity permitted under General Plan and zoning policies. 3 The estimate of 456,000 square feet for the parking structure is based on footprint of 76,000 square feet (380 feet x 200 feet) x 6 levels.
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-23 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
• Incorporate numerous sustainability features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert bioswales; high-performance building enclosure systems, external shading, energy efficient and carbon neutral building systems and equipment selections, and solar panels. The buildings will meet or exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification (objective 2). • Phase development over 25 years to keep pace with projected increase in Kaiser Permanente membership in the facility’s service area over that period (objective 4).

1.11.3 Alternative 3 – Reduced Intensity Alternative
This alternative consists of reducing the intensity of the proposed project by deleting phases 3 and 4 from the project (see Table 5.7-1 below); and reducing the capacity of the proposed parking structure by 572 spaces; the number of spaces allocated to phases 3 and 4. Thus, the parking structure capacity would be reduced by about half, from 1,288 to 716 spaces. This alternative is intended to reduce the significant and unavoidable vehicle miles traveled impact of the proposed project. This analysis assumes that the parking structure would be reduced from seven levels in the proposed project (including one basement level) to four levels in this alternative (one at-grade level and three above-ground levels). Total square footage onsite at completion of this alternative would be 720,000 square feet compared to 983,000 square feet for the proposed project. In this alternative project trip generation would be reduced to 10,694 from 16,093 for the proposed project (see Table

1.11-1 below). In this alternative the footprints of phases 3 and 4 of the proposed project, which total 121,000 square feet, would be landscaped with native drought-tolerant vegetation.

Table 1.11-1

SUMMARY, REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
All areas in square feet
Phase Description
Total
Development
Area
Building
Area
(per phase)
Total
Building
Coverage
Total
Landscaping
Reduced Intensity Alternative
Existing MOB 1 (medical office) 407,000 120,000 42,600 Not available 1 ASC/MOB 2 1,194,000 165,000 76,000 411,000
2 Hospital (213 beds) and Central
Utilities 1,513,000 435,000 213,000 602,000
Total,
medical
office
Not applicable building area, square feet: 285,000
(165,000 SF proposed + 120,000 SF existing)
Total Not applicable building area, square feet: 720,000 (600,000 proposed + 120,000 existing)
The Reduced Intensity Alternative, compared to the project, would reduce impacts on air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to those of the proposed project. No impacts would be increased by this alternative compared to the proposed project.

Under the Alternative 3, Reduced Intensity Alternative, the following project objective (objective 2) would be fully met:
 SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-24 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
• Incorporate numerous sustainability features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert bioswales; high-performance building enclosure systems, external shading, energy efficient and carbon neutral building systems and equipment selections, and solar panels. The buildings will meet or exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification (objective 2).

The following objectives (objectives 1, 3, and 4) would be partially met:
• Provide health care capacity for Kaiser Permanente members in the San BernardinoRedlands region (objective 1). • Develop the project site in accordance with the Medical Facilities designation in Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1 (objective 3).
• Phase development over 25 years to keep pace with projected increase in Kaiser Permanente membership in the facility’s service area over that period (objective 4).

1.11.4 Alternative 4 – Dispersed Facilities Alternative This alternative consists of development of approximately six small medical office facilities in the San Bernardino–Redlands region (the service area for the proposed project). The alternative was devised to reduce the significant and unavoidable transportation (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) impact of the proposed project by distributing outpatient care across multiple locations. For comparison, existing Kaiser Permanente medical office facilities are located in Redlands (at the proposed project site), San Bernardino, and Colton. Additional small facilities under this alternative would be located within the region, including the cities of San Bernardino, Redlands, Highland, Colton, and Yucaipa, as well as surrounding unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. In-patient care, including surgeries, intensive care, and critical care, would continue to be provided at existing Kaiser Permanente hospitals in Ontario and Fontana.

Although use of multiple smaller facilities could result in increased VMT for Kaiser Permanente staff traveling between sites, it is anticipated that overall VMT reductions would result from shorter average patient travel distances. Thus, reductions in patient travel are the principal means by which this alternative could reduce VMT compared to the proposed project.

The total building area of the six small facilities would be somewhat less than the approximately 1.32 million square feet of the proposed project (including a 456,000-square-foot parking structure).

Excluding the parking structure, the proposed project would contain 863,000 square feet of building space. This alternative assumes the six small facilities would collectively total about 75 percent of that building area—approximately 650,000 square feet. Each small facility would therefore be expected to be about 100,000 to 125,000 square feet, not including any required parking.

It is assumed that most of the small facilities would involve redevelopment or reuse of existing buildings, and that no greenfield development (i.e., development on currently vacant land) would occur. Facility sites would likely be located in areas already developed with medical, medical office, and/or commercial uses.

The Dispersed Facilities Alternative, compared to the project, would reduce impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts on geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-25 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning would be similar to those of the proposed project. No impacts would be increased by this alternative compared to impacts of the proposed project.

Under the Alternative 4 - Dispersed Facilities Alternative, the following project objectives (objectives 1 and 2) would be fully met:
• Provide health care capacity for Kaiser Permanente members in the San BernardinoRedlands region (objective 1). • Incorporate numerous sustainability features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert bioswales; high-performance building enclosure systems, external shading, energy efficient and carbon neutral building systems and equipment selections, and solar panels. The buildings will meet or exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification (objective 2).

The following objective (objective 4) would be partially met:
• Phase development over 25 years to keep pace with projected increase in Kaiser Permanente membership in the facility’s service area over that period (objective 4).

The following objective (objective 3) would not be met:
• Develop the project site in accordance with the Medical Facilities designation in Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1 (objective 3).

1.11.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a project shall identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No Project/No Build Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the EIR shall identify another Environmentally Superior Alternative among the remaining alternatives.

With respect to identifying an Environmentally Superior Alternative among those analyzed in this Draft PEIR, the range of feasible alternatives includes the No Project Alternative; the No Project/General Plan Buildout Alternative; the Reduced Intensity Alternative; and the Dispersed Facilities Alternative. Table 5.4-1 provides a summary of the description of alternatives and a comparison of the different project components. Table 5.4-2 provides a summary comparison, by environmental topic, of the project impacts and the impacts of each of the alternatives. Table 5.4-3 provides a summary comparison of each of the alternatives’ ability to meet the objectives of the project. A more detailed description of the potential impacts associated with each alternative is provided above. Pursuant to § 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis below addresses the ability of the alternatives to "avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects" of the project.

Of the alternatives analyzed in this Draft PEIR, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative would avoid all the project's significant environmental impacts, including the project's significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts. Although Alternative 1 would reduce most of the project's  SECTION 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 1-26 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
less-than-significant and less-than-significant-with-mitigation impacts it would not meet any of the project's objectives.

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative other than the No Project/No Build Alternative, a comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that Alternative 3, the Reduced Intensity Alternative, would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce impacts of the project related to construction and operational toxic air contaminants; operational regional air pollutant emissions; construction noise and vibration; and operational noise impacts. All other impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project. Alternative 3 would comparatively reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project (GHG emissions and VMT). Alternative 3’s GHG and VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. None of the impacts of Alternative 3 would be greater than those of the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would fully meet only one of the four objectives (objective 2) for the project:
• Incorporate numerous sustainability features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert bioswales; high-performance building enclosure systems, external shading, energy efficient and carbon neutral building systems and equipment selections, and solar panels. The buildings will meet or exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification (objective 2).

Alternative 3 would only partially meet three of the four objectives (objectives 1, 3, and 4) for the project:
• Provide health care capacity for Kaiser Permanente members in the San BernardinoRedlands region (objective 1). • Develop the project site in accordance with the Medical Facilities designation in Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1 (objective 3).
• Phase development over 25 years to keep pace with projected increase in Kaiser Permanente membership in the facility’s service area over that period (objective 4).

Note that Alternative 4, the Dispersed Facilities Alternative, would reduce more impacts than Alternative 3 including those on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, operational noise, and tribal cultural resources. Alternative 4 was not chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would not meet one of the project’s objectives (Develop the project site in accordance with the Medical Facilities designation in Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1); and would partially meet two other objectives (incorporating sustainability features; and phasing development to keep pace with projected increase in Kaiser Permanente membership in the region).  SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location
The project site is part of an approximately 37-acre campus located at 1301 California Street (APN 0167-441-07-000) within Concept Plan No. 1 of the City of Redlands’ East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. The site, located in the northwest area of Redlands in the East Valley Corridor area of the Redlands General Plan, currently contains a 120,000-square-foot building and parking for Kaiser Permanente Redlands medical offices on a portion of the site. The remaining portion of the site is vacant land. The campus is bounded by Almond Avenue on the north, California Avenue on the east and West Lugonia Avenue on the south; a trailer parking area associated with the Ashley Furniture Distribution Center is on the western boundary near the southwest corner of the campus property.

Interstate 10 is approximately 0.25 mile to the south, and the runways of San Bernardino International Airport are approximately 1.4 miles to the northwest.

2.2 Project Background
The City of Redlands is processing a request to implement a series of discretionary actions that would ultimately allow for the development of the vacant portion of the site under a new Development Plan procedure. The steps involve: ((1) Amendment No. 8 to Concept Plan 1 (see Appendix C for draft text of the amendment), which would add a Development Plan application procedure in Concept Plan No. 1, Section IV, Part A (Discretionary Actions); and (2) Planned Development No. 6, which would establish a development plan for the expansion of the existing Kaiser Permanente Redlands Medical Offices site in multiple phases.

The City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Commercial Industrial, and zoning for the site (under the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan) is Concept Plan 1 (CP-1) Medical Facilities District.

The proposed project is an allowed use in this district.

The City of Redlands is the Lead Agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2.3 Project Overview
The proposed project would consist of the two elements summarized above: (1) Amendment No. 8 to Concept Plan 1; and (2) Planned Development No. 6, which would consist of:
• Ambulatory Services Center/Medical Office Building No. 2 (Phase 1). • Hospital with associated support buildings, including central utility plant and parking structure (Phase 2).
• Medical Office Building No. 3 (Phase 3).
• Possible expansion of Hospital (Phase 4).

2.4 Project Objectives
The following are the project objectives.
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-2 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

1. Provide health care capacity for Kaiser Permanente members in the San BernardinoRedlands region.

2. Incorporate numerous sustainability features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert bioswales; high-performance building enclosure systems, external shading, energy efficient and carbon neutral building systems and equipment selections, and solar panels. The buildings will meet or exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification.

3. Develop the project site in accordance with the Medical Facilities designation in Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1.

4. Phase development over 25 years to keep pace with projected increase in Kaiser Permanente membership in the facility’s service area over that period.

2.5 Proposed Project Features

2.5.1 New Buildings
The proposed project will be implemented in four phases. Table 2.4-1 summarizes the proposed key project features in each phase of development. Estimated completion dates for the four phases are:

Phase 1, 2029; Phase 2, 2039; Phase 3, 2045; and Phase 4, 2050 (Beery, 2024).

Table 2.4-1

PROJECT SUMMARY
Phase Description Purpose Building
Sq. Ft.

Footprint
Sq. Ft.

Building
Height to
Roof
Levels
Rooftop
Equipment
Screen
Existing MOB 1 Medical
Office 120.000 40,000 Existing 3 6’-6”
1 ASC/MOB 2
Ambulatory
Surgery/
Medical
Office
165,000 36,000 62’ 4 8’-1”
2 Hospital
213 Bed
Acute Care
Hospital
400,000 122,000 107’ 7+basement 15’0”
2 Central
Utilities
Mechanical
& Electrical
Utilities
35,000 15,000 18’ 2+basementTBD
3 MOB 3 Medical
Office 83,000 20,000 62’ 4 7’-6”
4 Hospital
Addition
108 Bed
Hospital
Addition
180,000 30,000 77’ 5+basement 15’-0”
Source: Development Plan Submittal, July 24, 2024 (CO Architects, 2024, Appendix C).

Figure 2.4-1 is a site plan depicting the current state of the development, while Figures 2.4-2 through 2.4-5 show the layout of the campus at the end of each of the four planned phases of new development. , while Figures 2.4-6 through 2.4-11 show elevations of buildings in all phases. . The project Development Plan is included in Appendix C. Eight acres of surface parking would be  SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-3 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
demolished during Phase 1 to make space for construction of the hospital building, parking structure, and central utility plant, all of which would be built in Phase 2.  SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-4 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-1

EXISTING SITE PLAN
(
\
I\ \
\ I'
:Jrr ( \
"'- l
7 J\ )
/
/
I
I
I
I
)
.!
C
_.,,---
)
I
\
\
(
~,
Disclaimer: illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

So urce: CO Architect s, July 24, 2024.

Ultra Systems environmental• management• planning
"' : * -;-;
r
0 ,<
' 1.,,.,,
"! -.
\' f-
. l'
,,, tll
0::
frJ)
EXISTING MOB 1 MATERIAL NOTES:
@)
@)
@)
@)
@)
®
@)
@)
@)
@
@
@
PAINTED PLASTER (45'-0")
PAINTED PLASTER (4T-0")
SCREEN WALL WITH METAL SIDING (7'-0")
SLATE TILE WALL SYSTEM (12'-5.5")
STOREFRONT/ CURTAINWALL SYSTEM (44'-4")
METAL PANEL (54'-0")
METAL PANEL (8'-0")
CONCRETE BOLLARDS (24")
FREESTANDING COURT WALL (12'-6")
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE SEATWALL (18")
CMU BLOCK WALL (10'-0")
IRON GATE (8'-0")
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Existing Site Plan
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-5 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-2
PHASE 1 SITE PLAN
1-
[ I
" I
I
7___ =.:aa;__.......== -==-=c...:...1--::.-=•=..,;---------.-J;;;;; •er: ½.

Disclaimer: illustra tion provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: CO Architects, July 24, 2024.

Ultra Systems environmental• management• planning
I ;· ~"
j, l~l l

CIRCULATION LEGEND
- AMBULANCE ROUTE

VEHICLE ACCESS
- SERVICE ROUTE

PEDESTRIAN PATH

PHASING LEGEND

D COMPLETE/PROPOSED

D EXISTING

SITE PLAN LEGEND
r-,
L _J DEVELOPED SITE AREA
r----,
: : LANDSCAPED AREA L ____ J

D SURFACE PARKING
__J PERIM ETER WALL
PHASE 1
BUILDING DESCRIPTION:

Existing MOB 1
ASC/MOB 2
Total Bui lding Area
AREA:
120,000 SF
165,000 SF
285,000 SF
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Phase 1 Site Plan
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-6 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-3
PHASE 2 SITE PLAN
7 i
~ r=·,._._
l I \
~-'
.- !
j
f
I
I\
1 I
;
I
I
_- -'\ ' ) __ J ====--i-'P l I
Disclaimer: illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: CO Architect s, July 24, 2024
Ultra Systems environmental• management• planning
/
I
_____ j

I LANDSCAPE
STREET FRONTAGE ·~
MATERIAL NOTES:
(§}) CMU (6'-0")

CIRCULATION LEGEND
- AMBULANCE ROUTE

VEHICLE ACCESS
- SERVICE ROUTE

PEDESTRIAN PATH

PHASING LEGEND

D COMPLETE/PROPOSED

D EXISTING

SITE PLAN LEGEND
,---,
L _J DEVELOPED SITE AREA
r----,
i i LANDSCAPED AREA L----.i D SURFACE PARKING
__J PERIM ETER WALL
PHASE 2
BUILDING DESCRIPTION:

Existing MOB 1
ASC/MOB 2
Hospital
Central Utility Plant
Total Building Area
AREA
120,000 SF
165,000 SF
400,000 SF
35,000 SF
720,000 SF
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Phase 2 Site Plan
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-7 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-4
PHASE 3 SITE PLAN
r--====----·-------, i . I
\
\
I l
I
j
r - 7
j I,- - -
' I
'
'.h= _iiiiiiiiii _____ --1_ "t -==-___,;-;;;;;-~[ j
Disclaimer: illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

So urce: CO Architects, July 24, 2024.

Ultra Systems environmental• management• planning
MATERIAL NOTES:
(§}) CMU cs·-0·)

CIRCULATION LEGEND
- AMBULANCE ROUTE

VEHICLE ACCESS
- SERVICE ROUTE

PEDESTRIAN PATH

PHASING LEGEND

D COMPLETE/PROPOSED

D EXISTING

SITE PLAN LEGEND
,- -,
L _J DEVELOPED SITE AREA
r----,
i i LANDSCAPED AREA L -----' D SURFACE PARKING
__J PERIMETER WALL
PHASE 3
BUI LDING DESCRIPTION:

Existing MOB 1
ASC/MOB 2
Hospital
Central Utility Plant
MOB3
Total Building Area
AREA:
120,000 SF
165,000 SF
400,000 SF
35,000 SF
83,000 SF
803,000 SF
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Phase 3 Sit e Plan
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-8 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-5
PHASE 4 SITE PLAN
'11·,
L .,-
Lt:IGONIA AVENUE
fl
' '--- ...,.....a=;;;;;..___;_____J=
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

So urce: CO Archit ect s, July 24, 2024.

Ultra Systems environ men 1al• management• planning
MATERIAL NOTES:
(§ CMU (6' -0")

CIRCULATION LEGEND
- AMBULANCE ROUTE

VEHICLE ACCESS
- SERVICE ROUTE

PEDESTRIAN PATH

PHASING LEGEND

D COMPLETE/PROPOSED

D EXISTING

SITE PLAN LEGEND
,--,
L _J DEVELOPED SITE AREA
r----,
i i LANDSCAPED AREA L ----.J D SURFACE PARKING
__J PERIMETER WALL
PHASE 4
BUILDING DESCRIPTION:

Existing MOB 1
ASC/MOB2
Hospital
Central Utility Plant
MOB3
Hospital Addition
Total Building Area
AREA:
120,000 SF
165,000 SF
400,000 SF
35,000 SF
83,000 SF
180,000 SF
983,000 SF
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Phase 4 Site Plan
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-9 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-6
ASC/MOB 2 ELEVATIONS
11111111 11111111
- ~1;~?~; ~ .
□ □ ~ . - - 1,~~~1; ,si •
□ □ " 'e 6 ill . ~ 11':s~~1
3~' ~
□ □ ~
. - - 11~~~1
9~' s ~ . ASCJH~:~~~ .,~
1 NORTH ELEVATION 1" = 20'--0"
200' - 2"
~--
., _ AS1~--:0Y$--
□□□□□□□□□□□ 'e
. l .ivGll4 -.,
--1193'-9'.
□□□□ DD □□ DD □ " ii;
ii ~ ~
il ~ . l ev912 " --1164' · 9" '-
.
. l ' ASC/H~~:1.~~~-·$
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: CO Architects, July 24, 2024.

Ultra Systems env1ronmental• management• plannmg
~ □□
~ □□
~ □□
;
□
□
[II]]

EXTERIOR MATERIAL TYPES

METAL PANEL-PATTERN ED
~~~o?; ~~ .
s
. - -11~;~~: ·~ - .
'e
~
11~;~; $ '
~
. - -11~ ~;. tf~ -
~ . ---:"""l"""~-"SC!l-1?1
s;~r_A~ ~'

METAL PANEL- SMOOTH WITH INTEGRAL GLAZING

CURTAIN WALL

METAL PANEL - VERTICAL
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
ASC/MOB 2 Elevations
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-10 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-7
HOSPITAL ELEVATIONS (1 of 2)
□ METAL PAN EL- SMOOTH WITH INTEGRAL GLAZING

PAINTED METAL FRAME AN D SUNSHADE
□ CURTAIN WALL
_J L
ASC / MOB 2
1 HOSPITAL PHASE 1 EAST ELEVATION
2 HOSPITAL PHASE 1 SOUTH ELEVATION
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: CO Architects, July 24, 2024.

Ultra Systems env1ronmental• management• plannmg
L_________J
ASC/ MOB 2
'" __ HOSPIT~~:3
~
~
~
1~~-L:~-
~
'" _ fiQSPITAl BA~fj~~-
- - ____!Q_Pii2~~--1·
~
~
HOSPIT~:to; ~
. - - -- 1~3~-L;~-.-
S
'" _ ljQSPITAL BA~~~~-N; ~ .,...

Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Hospital Phase 2 Elevations (1 of 2)
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-11 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-8
HOSPITAL ELEVATIONS (2 of 2)
1 HOSPITAL PHASE 1 WEST ELEVATION
□ METAL PANEL- SMOOTH WITH INTEGRAL GLAZING

PAINTED METAL FRAME AND SUNSHADE
□ CURTAIN WALL
2 HOSPITAL PHASE 1 NORTH ELEVATION
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: CO Architect s, July 24, 2024.

H()$PITAL ROOF --- -- - 125:3' - 3'' •
T.O. PARAPET 4 · --- --- 1,ee·-~- .r
HOSPIT~~ ...
--- --- 1233·. g- ~
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Hospital Phase 2 Elevations (2 of 2)
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-12 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-9

PARKING STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS
1 EAST ELEVATION 2 WEST ELEVATION
3 NORTH ELEVATION
4 SOUTH ELEVATION
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: CO Architects, July 24, 2024.

UltraSyst e m s environmental• management• planning
_l O.c.!'ARKING P~~,._
~
__ F'ARKING 1Lfl.~~\~ ~ ~ .,.

PARKJNG ,\~~\~. 1!9 ~"
nm
□
T,_O_,_l:_~ KING P~2~;E&- $--'·
~

EXTERIOR MATERIAL TYPES

METAL PANEL

CHANNEL GLASS

PAINTED CONCRETE

CMU ELEVATOR TOWER

MESH SCREEN FOR FALL PROTECTION
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Parking Structure Elevations
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-13 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-10
MOB 3 ELEVATIONS
' ' 0
196'- 7"
MOB3ROO 1208' -0" F r
"' ;!
L,~~~.L-~~ ~

LEVELJL
1179'-o:· rrn
LEVEL 3 •_'' 1164'-6'' t •
;!
!!!!!!!!! ............................ !!!!!!!!! .... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"""!!!!!!!!! .... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ........................ ,_, .... _ -\~~.L-~~. ·~' 1 NORTH ELEVATION
"
3 SOUTH ELEVATION
196' - 7"

EXTERIOR MATERIAL TYPES
□ METAL PANEL- SMOOTH WITH INTEGRAL GLAZING
LEVEL 03 ··-,
--- 1179'-Q" \
LEVEL 02 , . --- 1164' -6" ",
~ b
[ill METAL PANEL -VERTICAL
□ CURTAIN WALL
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: CO Architects, July 24, 2024.
" ""
2 4
135' - 5"

EAST ELEVATION
135'-5"

WEST ELEVATION
MOB1;~??(i, s
,~~~-a:. S
L~1~~~-°;. ~
\E1~~-~~. s
LEVEL 01 -,
1150' - 0" '-
LEVEL 03 • • ,
1179'- 0" \,,
LEVEL 02 4 ·, 11 64' - 6" , ••
"'
;!
fu
;!
"'
;!
"'
Not to Scale
b
ill
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Mob 3 Elevations
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-14 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-11

HOSPITAL ADDITION ELEVATIONS
1 HOSPITAL PHASE 4 WEST ELEVATION
PHASE 2 HOSPITAL
3 HOSPITAL PHASE 4 EAST ELEVATION
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by CO Architects, who has indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: CO Architect s, July 24, 2024.

Ultra Systems environ mental• management• planning
PHASE 2 HOSPITAL
. - - --f2~~E\~ e',i; -,
" - - -- t~~7::- -, - .
~
ASC,~~;1,~At--~ ---=, -
6 . - !!_OSPITAL ~-fa~e~; ti';. -

11.,,,_ 1
' l
-
ffI
I
-
- '
' 1---,
I'
--,
'
... 1-1'
' I -
. ---~2~~:; ~ -
---~~::~
ASC!HOSPITAL . , --- 1150' - 3" .,
:.,
.
s
2 HOSPlffaLPH~ 4 NORTH ELEVATION

EXTERIOR MATERIAL TYPES
□ METAL PANEL- SMOOTH WITH INTEGRAL GLAZING
- PAINTED METAL FRAME AND SUNSHADE
□ CURTAIN WALL
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Hospital Phase 4 Elevations
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-15 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

2.5.2 Parking
Under the City’s parking requirements, the full development of four phases would require 2,711 parking spaces; the proposed project will provide 2,803 spaces (including 226 ADA spaces) upon completion of Phase 4. Table 2.4-2 shows specific requirements and parking provided for each phase. Table 2.4-3 shows numbers of surface and structured parking spaces per phase.

Table 2.4-2

PARKING SUMMARY
Parking Provision Parking
Requirement
Parking
Demand
Factor
Parking
Required
Parking
Provided
ADA
Spaces
(included
in total)
Existing MOB 1 5 per 1,000 sf 120,000 sf 600 600 60
ASC/MOB 2 5 per 1,000 sf 165,000 sf 825 825 83
Hospital 1 per bed + 1
per peak staff
213 beds /
501 staff
714 714 16
Central Utility Plant NA 0 0 0 NA
MOB 3 5 per 1,000 sf 83,000 sf 415 415 42
Hospital Addition 1 per bed + 1
per peak staff
108 beds/
49 staff
157 157 4
Excess 92 21
TOTALS 2,711 2,803 226
Source: Development Plan Submittal, July 24, 2024 (CO Architects, 2024, Appendix C).

Table 2.4-3

SURFACE AND STRUCTURED PARKING PER PHASE
Phase Surface Parking Structured Parking Total Per phase total Per phase total Existing 600 600 0 0 600
1 864 1,464 0 0 1,464
2 -282 1,182 1,288 1,288 2,470
3 0 1,182 0 1,288 2,470
4 333 1,515 0 1,288 2,803
Source: Development Plan Submittal, July 24, 2024 (CO Architects, 2024, Appendix C).

2.5.3 Landscaping
The site currently is developed with a 120,000 square-foot medical office building, which has a footprint of 40,000 square feet and is surrounded by a surface parking lot. Landscaping in the existing parking lot includes 148 trees, with 24 evergreen trees (16 percent of trees) and 124 deciduous trees (84 percent). When the four planned phases are complete, there will be 1,037 trees, of which 710 (68 percent) will be evergreen and 327 (32 percent) will be deciduous.

Total landscaped areas and parking lot landscaped areas per phase, in square feet, are listed below in Table 2.4-4.
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-16 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 2.4-4

DEVELOPMENT AREA PER PHASE, SQUARE FEET
Phase
Total
Developed
Site Area
Building
Coverage
Total
Landscaped
Area
Total Surface
Parking Area
Total
Parking
Area
Landscape
Existing MOB 1 407,000 42,600 N/A N/A N/A
1: ASC/MOB 2 1,194,000 76,000 411,000 601,000 85,000
2: Hospital and
Central Utility Plant
1,513,000 213,000 602,000 557,000 85,000
3: MOB 3 1,632,000 233,000 593,000 685,000 102,000
4: Hospital Addition 1,632,000 263,000 563,000 685,000 102,000 Source: Masterplan Development Permit Submittal, July 24, 2024 (CO Architects, 2024, Appendix C).

Landscaping will be provided in each phase of the planned four-phase development. Figure 2.4-11 shows the landscaping plan for the fully developed project (four phases). The full project landscaping palette is shown in Figure 2.4-12.

2.5.4 Site Access, Circulation and Parking
Primary site ingress and egress through all phases of the project, including the existing medical office building, is via a single driveway off California Street; the driveway will be expanded to approximately 60 feet wide starting with Phase 1, including a single inbound lane and a single outbound lane, separated by a median. Additional access will be from Lugonia Avenue (approximately 50 feet wide, with a median) and Almond Avenue (approximately 30 feet wide, with no median). Passenger loading and drop-off for Phase 1 (the ASC/MOB 2 building) will be at the southwest edge of an elongated traffic oval entrance via the California Street entrance.

As noted earlier, upon completion of Phase 4 the project proposes 2,803 parking spaces (compared to 2,711 required), including 226 ADA spaces.
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-17 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-11
FULL PROJECT (4 PHASES) CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROPOSED

HOSPITAL

PROPOSED

PARKING

STRUCTURE
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Co Architects and RLA., who have indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Sources: CO Architects and RLA, July 24, 2024.

Ultra Systems environ mental• management• planning
~
I

PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE
TREES
\ SYMBOL
1, 0 r 1i[
1 . •
,i 0
~o
0 0

BOTANICAL NAME COMMOO NAME

CINNAMONUM CAMPHOR CAMPHORA

CUPANIOPSIS CARROTWOOO ANACARDIOOES

ULMUS TRUE GREEN PARVIFOUA

TRUE GREEN' CHINESE ELM
- OR - -ORTlPUANA TIPU TIPUTREE
LAGERSTROEMIA PURPLE TOWER INDICA 'PURPLE CREPE MYRnE TOWER'

LOPHOSTEMON BR ISBANE BOX CONFERTUS
SIZE /
FORM
24"BOX
STD.
24"BOX
STD.
36"BOX
STD.
24" BOX
STD.
24"BOX
STD

PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE
TREES
0 OLEA EUROPEA WILSON 36"BOX
WILSONlr FRUITLESS OLIVE MULTI
@ PLATANUS CALIFORNIA 24" 80X

RACEMOSA SYCAMORE LOW
BRCH
0 OUERCUS COAST LIVE OAK 24"BOX
AGR!FOLIA STD.
0 RHUSLANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC 24"80X
STD
0 WASHINGTONIA GAL!FORNIA FAN 24'BTH ROBUSTA PALM
' REFER TO SHEET L2.01 FOR FULL PLANT SCHEDULE

TREE CALCULATIONS

EXISTING PARKING LOT
- TOTAL TREES - 148 TREES
- EVERGREEN TREES - 24 TREES (16.22%)
- DECIDUOUS TREES - 124 TREES (83.78%)
PROPOSED PARKING LOT (PHASE 4)
- TOTAL TREES - 369 TREES
- EVERGREEN TREES - 343 TREES (92.95%)
- DECIDUOUS TREES - 26 TREES (7.05%)
0 EXISTING PARKING LOT AND PARKING

LOT LANDSCAPE

A EXISTING BUILDING HARDSCAPE /

V LANDSCAPE

A PROPOSED PARKING LOT AND PARKING
v LOT LANDSCAPE
0 EXISTING FALLOW LOT

TEMPORARY DETENTION BASIN

UPDATED ENTRY AND ENTRY

LANDSCAPE

DECORATIVE DRY STREAM BED WITH

BOULDERS AND PLANTING FOR FUTURE

DETENTION BASIN

DROP OFF AREA WITH DECORATIVE
0 VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN PAVING
.,. DEPRESSED PRAIRIE GRASS AREA FOR
v FUTURE DETENTION BASIN
TOTAL PARKING AREA (PHASE 4)
- TOTAL TREES - 517 TREES
- EVERGREEN TREES - 367 TREES (70.99%)
- DECIDUOUS TREES -150 TREES (29.01%)
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA /PHASE 4)
- TOTAL TREES - 1,037 TREES
- EVERGREEN TREES - 710 TREES (68.47%)
- DECIDUOUS TREES - 327 TREES (31.53%)
ct:) PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE WITH

SEATING I DINI NG OPPORTUNITIES

CD FOCAL BRIDGE ELEMENT OVER BASIN
e DECORATIVE SEATING / DINING AREA

DECO MPOSED GRANITE TRAILS WITH
41) SEATING I DINING OPPORTUNITIES AND

PRAIRIE GRASS FIELDS

CD BUILDING ENTRY
49 STREET / PERIMETER LANDSCAPE

CD SERVICE AREA
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Preliminary Landscape Plan Phase 4
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-18 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 2.4-12

PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PALETTE

BACKGROUND SHRUBS

PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WATER DESCRIPTION USE □ FURCRAEA MACDOUGALLII MACDOUGAL LS CENTURY PLANT 5GAL. 60"O.C. SUCCULENT

TREES ACCENT
OLEA X MONTRA "LITTLE OL LIE. LITTLE OLLIE 5GAL. 36"' 0.C HEDGE

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE/ INSTALL WATER DESCRIPTION MATURE SIZE FORM SIZE USE (AT 15 YEARS) LEUCOPHYLLUM F. 'GREEN TEXAS RANGER 5GAL. 48''0.C LARGE

CLOUD' FLOINERING
0 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA WYNYABBIE GEM COAST 5GAL. 42"0.C HEDGE 8'HX4'W 22'HX20'W 'WYNYABBIE GEM' ROSEMARY
24" BOX CALIFORNIA CINNAMONUM CAMPHORA CAMPHOR STD X M STREET TREE X MIDGROUND SHRUBS 1-1/4"CAL. 4"CAL. WATER SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING USE DESCRIPTION 0 AGAVE OVATIFOLIA WHALE'S TONGUE AGAVE 5GAL. -48''0.C SUCCULENT ACCENT
24" BOX 6'H X 3'W LUGONIA STREET 24'H X 20'W MUHLENBERGIA EMERSLEYI ORNAMENTAL CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIODES CARROTWOOD X M X 'EL TORO' BULL GRASS 1GAL 36"0.C GRASS STD 1-1l4"CAL. TREE 4"CAL. RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA DWARF YEDDO HAVITHORN 5GAL. 36"O.C M FLOWERING 'MINOR' ACCENT
0 CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' LITTLE JOHN DWARF BOTTLE S GAL. 36'' O.C. FLOvVERING

ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'TRUE BRUSH ACCENT
GREEN' TRU E GREEN CHIN ESE ELM 36" BOX 10'H X 5'W CANOPY SHADE 25'H X 25'W BACCHARIS PILULARIS 'T\MN CALIFORNIA -OR- X M X PEAKS' T\rVIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5GAL 36"0C NATIVE - OR - TIPU TREE STD 2"CAL TREE 4"CAL TIPUANA TIPU FOREGROUND SHRUBS

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WATER DESCRIPTION 0 USE
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA 24" BOX 6'H X 3'W SMALL 14'HX 12'W DIANELLA 'L ITTLE REV LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1GAL. 24"0.C STRAPPY ACCENT PURPLE TOWER CREPE MYRTLE X L DECIDUOUS X 'PURPLE TOWER' STD 1-1/4"CAL. ACCENT 3"CAL. CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL 30" O.C ORNAMENTAL GRASS
ORNAMENTAL FESTUCA MAIREI ATLAS FESCUE 1 GAL. 30"O.C GRASS 0 B'H X 3'W 25'H X 10'W HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA 1GAL 36" 0C FLO\f'JERING 24" BOX ACCENT
LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX X M PERIMETER EDGE X STD 1-1l4"CAL. 4"CAL. LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA LOM LON MOOR GRASS 1GAL. 36"O.C. M ORNAMENTAL 'LOMLQN' GRASS

GROUNDCOVERS
0 SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WATER DESCRIPTION B'H X 5'W EVERGREEN 20'H X 24'W USE
36" BOX OLEA EUROPEA 'WILSONII' WILSON FRUITLESS OLIVE X VL MULTI TRUNK X ACACIA REDOLENS 'LOW BOY' PROSTRATE ACACIA 1GAL 8' O.C VL EVERGREEN MULTI (3) 1.5"CAL. FOCAL TREE (3) 3"CAL. GROUNDCOVER
BACCHARIS P. 'PIGEON POINT' DWARF COYOTE BRUSH 1 GAL 48"0C EVERGREEN

GROUNDCOVER
LANT ANA 'NEW GOLD' NEW GOLD LANTANA 1GAL 36" 0C FLO\f'JERING 24" BOX S'H X 3'W 25'H X 18'W GROUNDCOVER
CONIFEROUS PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE LOW X M SCREEN X SESLER IA AUTUMNAL.IS GREENLEE MOOR GRASS 1GAL 18" O.C. M FLOWERING BRCH 1-1l4"CAL. 4"CAL. 'GREENLEE' GROUNDCOVER
ROSMARINUS O 'PROSTRATUS' PROSTRATE ROSEMARY FLATS 12·O.c EVERGREEN

GRDUNDCOVER
B!OSWALE GRASSES
24" BOX 6'H X 3'W EVERGREEN 24'H X 20'W WATER

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK X L X SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING USE DESCRIPTION STD 1-1/4"CAL. CANOPY 4"CAL.
□ CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL 24"0.C BIOSWALE GRASS 0 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSH 5GAL. 36" 0.C M BIOSWALE GRASS 24" BOX 6'H X 3'W PARKING AREA 20'H X 24'W
RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC X L X JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH 1 GAL. 18" O.C. BIOSWALE GRASS STD SHADE CANOPY 1-1/4"CAL. 4"CAL. VINES

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WATER DESCRIPTION USE 0 24'H X8'W CALIFORNIA 35'H XS'W DISTICTUS BUCCINATORIA BLOOD-RED TR UMPET VlNE 1 GAU PER PLAN M FLOWERING VINE STAKED WASHINGTON IA ROBUST A CALIFORNIA FAN PALM 24' BTH X L STREET SKYLINE X 18"CAL PALM 30"CAL. WATER USE KEY·
VL =VERY LOW WATER USE, L = LOW WATER USE, M = MODERATE WATER USE, H =HIGHWATER USE WATER USE STATED IS PER 'WATER USE

CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES' (ALSO REFERRED TO AS WUCOLS IV) FOR THE CITY OF REDLANDS Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Co Architects and RLA., who have indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Sources: CO Architects and RLA, July 24, 2024.

Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Ultra Systems Landscape Palette
environ mental• management• planning
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-19 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

2.5.5 Exterior Lighting
The proposed project includes area lighting throughout the project site. Lighting for the project would comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code and East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Specifically, the project will provide for the following lighting requirements:
• Security lighting shall be shielded, and exterior wall-mounted flood lights are prohibited. • All light fixtures shall be concealed source fixtures. • Pedestrian walkway fixtures/poles shall be 12-foot-high maximum. • Parking lot fixtures/poles shall be 30-foot-high maximum. • Pedestrian walkways and plazas, building entries, driveway entries, drop-offs and stairways and grade changes shall be lighted.
• Parking and driveway lighting shall provide 0.5 foot-candle minimum uniform lighting.

2.5.6 Utilities
The proposed project includes a two-story central utility plant (CUP) in Phase 2 because it is needed for the acute care center; it is not needed for Phase 1. The building footprint is approximately 15,300 square feet, with 35,000 square feet of floor area and a height of 18 feet. The CUP will provide heating, hot water and chilled water for space thermal control, domestic hot water, and normal and emergency power. The CUP will use fuel cells on a micro-grid that will allow the facility to operate autonomously of the electrical grid. The proposed project also includes photovoltaic solar arrays that will power the CUP. The proposed function and operation of the CUP will also be considered as part of the City of Redlands’ review and approval of any subsequent land use entitlement and permit for phases 2-4 of the project as described herein. Therefore, additional environmental analyses regarding the CUP will be undertaken if required consistent with applicable law and regulations, including CEQA Guidelines sections 15152 (Tiering), 15153(d) (Use of EIR from Earlier Project), 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations), and 15168 (Program EIR).” Proposed utility connections are listed below in Table 2.4-5 and are shown in the project utilities plans included in the Development Plan submittal dated July 24, 2024, included as Appendix A.

Table 2.4-5

PROPOSED UTILITIES CONNECTIONS
Utility Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Water
Offsite: Connection to
existing water main in
Lugonia Avenue
Offsite: Water
connection to main in
Lugonia Ave.

Connection to
onsite water
main
Connection to
onsite water
main
Fire
Water
Connection to onsite water
main
Offsite: Connections
to existing mains in
California Street and
Lugonia Avenue
Connection to
onsite water
main
Connection to
onsite water
main
Sewer Connection to onsite sewer
main
Offsite: Sewer
connections to mains
Connection to
onsite sewer
main
Connection to
onsite sewer
main
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-20 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Utility Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
in Lugonia Ave. and
Almond Ave.

Storm
Drainage
Offsite: Storm drain
connecting to existing storm
drain in Lugonia Avenue
Proposed storm
drains within project
site
Proposed storm
drains within
project site
Proposed storm
drains within
project site
Source: CO Architects, 2024

2.5.7 General Development Provisions
The proposed project will be developed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Concept Plan No. 1 and the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (EVCSP), which serve as the primary land use and design regulatory frameworks for the site. The City of Redlands will use these documents to guide its review and approval of all project phases, ensuring consistency with established planning objectives and development standards. General development provisions outlined in the project include requirements for underground utility installation, screening of service and refuse areas, dimensional standards for parking and loading areas, and accommodations for alternative transportation such as bicycle racks and designated rideshare parking. These provisions are intended to promote orderly, functional, and visually integrated site development that aligns with both Concept Plan No. 1 and the EVCSP. Compliance with these standards will be verified during the City’s discretionary review process for each phase.

2.5.8 Sustainability
The proposed project includes photovoltaic solar arrays and a fuel cell micro-grid CUP that will enable the project to operate independently of the electric grid; the project is expected to include a connection to the Southern California Edison electrical grid for backup electric power.

Low Impact Development (LID) features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert bioswales are included throughout the project site to protect water quality. The buildings will meet or exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification (at the applicant’s discretion). This is achieved through the combinations of high-performance building enclosure systems, external shading, energy efficient and carbon neutral building systems and equipment selections, and solar panels.

2.6 Offsite Improvements
Almond Avenue will be expanded as part of implementation of Phase 1 of the proposed project. The south (eastbound) side of Almond Avenue currently narrows from two lanes to one lane over a length of about 850 feet extending westward from its intersection with California Street. This segment of Almond Avenue will be widened to include two through-lanes. Signage and striping modifications will be made in Almond Avenue and Lugonia Avenue for new driveways, in accordance with City engineering design requirements.

Offsite utilities improvements are described above in Section 2.4.6.

2.7 Construction Activities
For safety reasons, temporary barricades would be used to limit access to the site during project construction and to maintain safe access for construction workers. Unless an exception permit is  SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-21 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
granted, construction would occur during daylight and during regular business hours. Lighting for the construction site would be limited to the minimum amount of light needed for safety and security.

The construction contractor would use heavy equipment during grading and building construction.

For the full project, which will be developed in four phases, site grading would be conducted in Phase 2 to create building pads for buildings and other improvements in phases 2, 3, and 4. Eight acres of surface parking would be demolished during Phase 1 to make space for construction of buildings to be constructed in Phase 2. Grading would involve raw cut of 79,000 cubic yards (cy); raw fill of 105,000 cy, including net fill (and thus, soil import) of approximately 26,000 cy. In each phase, after site preparation is completed, infrastructure such as sewer laterals and storm drains would be installed and/or connected to existing facilities. The building foundations would be poured and framing of the buildings would begin. The final steps of construction would involve interior furnishings, detail work, and completion of common areas and outside landscaping. All construction staging, including construction worker parking, will be conducted onsite.

The 1,589,940 square foot (36.5-acre) site is currently a combination of developed impervious surfaces, pervious landscaping, and vacant land. Upon completion of all four phases of development, the total building footprint would be 263,000 square feet, surface parking area would be 685,000 square feet, and landscaped area would be 563,000 square feet. The project would result in a total of 948,000 square feet (60 percent) of impervious surface on the project site.

Construction Schedule
An estimated construction schedule for the project by phase is set forth below in Table 2.6-1.

Table 2.6-1

CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Activity
(phase and subphase) Beginning (month) Ending (month) Duration, months Phase 1
Site Preparation October 2027 November 2027 1.0
Utilities Trenching and Installation November 2027 December 2027 1.5 Grading December 2027 January 2028 1.0
Building Construction January 2028 February 2029 13.5
Architectural Coatings February 2029 March 2029 1.0
Paving March 2029 May 2029 2.0
Landscaping May 2029 July 2029 2.0
Phase 2
Site Preparation November 2035 January 2036 2.1
Utilities Trenching and Installation January 2036 April 2036 3.1 Grading April 2036 July 2036 3.1
Building Construction July 2036 February 2039 32.0
Architectural Coatings February 2039 April 2039 2.1
Paving April 2039 August 2039 4.0
Landscaping August 2039 November 2039 3.0
Phase 3
Site Preparation December 2043 January 2044 1.0
Utilities Trenching and Installation January 2044 February 2044 1.6 Grading February 2044 March 2044 1.0
Building Construction March 2044 February 2045 11.4
Architectural Coatings February 2045 March 2045 1.0
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-22 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Construction Activity
(phase and subphase) Beginning (month) Ending (month) Duration, months Paving March 2045 April 2045 1.0
Landscaping April 2045 May 2045 1.0
Phase 4
Site Preparation November 2047 January 2048 2.0
Utilities Trenching and Installation January 2048 February 2048 1.5 Grading February 2048 March 2048 1.0
Building Construction March 2048 November 2049 20.7
Architectural Coatings November 2049 January 2050 2.1
Paving January 2050 February 2050 1.0
Landscaping February 2050 March 2050 1.0
Source: Beery, 2024

2.8 Discretionary Actions
The proposed project will require the City of Redlands Planning Commission and City Council approval of:
(1) Amendment No. 8 to Concept Plan 1, which would amend the permitting procedure in Concept Plan No. 1, Section IV, Part A (Discretionary Actions) under the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan; and
(2) Planned Development No. 6.

All mitigation measures identified for earlier phases of the project must be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Redlands Planning Division prior to Planning Commission consideration or approval of any subsequent phases.

Each phase of the project will require a development permit from the City of Redlands Planning Commission, pursuant to East Valley Corridor Specific Plan § EV1.0405(c), and in accordance with the City’s Commission Review and Approval Process set forth in City of Redlands Municipal Code chapter 18.12 (amlegal.com, 2025). In addition, any work within the public right-of-way, including required off-site improvements, will require issuance of an encroachment permit by the City of Redlands Municipal Utilities & Engineering Department. Further, prior to approval of subsequent project phases, the City will evaluate whether additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA to address project changes, updated conditions, or new information; such review would occur in compliance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162–15164.

Other Permits and Approvals
Following the City’s approval of the PEIR, the following permits/approvals, as shown in Table 2.7-1, would be required prior to the start of construction.
 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 2-23 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 2.7-1

PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Redlands Grading Permit, Building Permits, and Encroachment Permits
City of Redlands and/or Caltrans Street closure(s)/traffic controls California Department of Health Care Access and
Information (HCAI) Hospital permitting
SCAQMD Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate central utility plant under Rule 203 and other SCAQMD rules
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Will be determined through a jurisdictional
delineation conducted in accordance with applicable
mitigation measures.

United States Army Corps of Engineers
Will be determined through a jurisdictional
delineation conducted in accordance with applicable
mitigation measures.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Will be determined through a jurisdictional
delineation conducted in accordance with applicable
mitigation measures.

Southern California Edison Co. Approval of application for interconnection and operation of microgrid
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 Overview of Environmental Setting
This section describes the existing conditions within the study area for applicable environmental resources, as required under CEQA. For purposes of analysis, the study area includes the proposed project site and the immediate surroundings and may vary depending on the environmental issue being analyzed.

Details regarding existing conditions and resources in the study area are described briefly below for each environmental topic in Sections 4.1 through 4.14. Refer to each of the respective topical sections for additional information. General existing conditions are described first, followed by specific descriptions for existing environmental resources within and near the project site.

Some environmental resources (such as air quality) cannot be described specifically for the project site alone. To analyze existing conditions for these types of resources, a general description is provided for the environmental topic being discussed. For example, the baseline setting description for air quality includes a general description of existing air quality within the air basin where the project is located.

The following methodology and resources were used for collecting the baseline setting information:
• Review of existing literature and data available on various public agency websites, including but not limited to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and City of Redlands Planning and Development Services.
• Data collected during site visits conducted by UltraSystems staff members. • Technical reports that have been prepared to analyze potential project impacts.

3.2 Project Location and Surrounding Uses
The project site is located in the city of Redlands within the Upper Santa Ana River Valley in San Bernardino County. Figure 3.2-1 shows the regional location of the project site. The project site spans approximately 37 acres and is located at 1301 California Street, (APNs 0167-441-07-000), as shown on Figure 3.2-2. Regional access to the site is from the Interstate 10 (I-10) freeway via California Avenue, as shown on Figure 3.2-2 below. It is surrounded primarily by industrial land uses; the San Bernardino County Museum is southeast of the site diagonally across the intersection of California Street and Lugonia Avenue (Google Earth Pro, 2023). Figure 3.2-3 shows photographs of the project site.
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-2 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 3.2-1

REGIONAL LOCATION
i-7 --........... ___ ......J~ ! .!'•-----+---1't
I
.\ 'W.ti11 htw ~ ©ro:nrn:flJDi)
~
~ H•mec1
~
- j
Cs-cJa:im~ : Re._pre Se atio11s 011 E rs.1eporte!l ,i11 thle l~ e nd. P roject parame e:r t iorma.tion supplie-d by olh-e rs {seie la-yer ~ rts) may M.~b ta1, loo T ts:rr.a po dllu:t:ra:tion sllo kt ootbi:USed ior. a nd dos oot r-=:plae>=, pro =-g - cerll _ nr ~-.e - .
~'MIIL •.•Ga--'Q1,iJ'n.ot111:111'1..t ~" NMdllralll KIi-• Mr111C..n1..- la.ffM"1.l:ll'.n·.11 11.Mt•r 2 0 N11111Unol LucolllKI .10:l:I Ill .13.m:al &...,uo L>l'l"'r C:P111tl.L "!aiun:11L t;_. Ht.rte C..mtL U~:!:.. rnhonn ... . IFCN-~I ~•- NNC,n bn J"'IUHL Mt:tL t:::1nc'.::h11" ( Hun1,1Ktnll~ bin..._,._ t:::irl 'lh10h• 11l \. NC:.CC.. (cl Cp ... ~,..,.!Abp 121nlnbu.un1.. 11nll 1111 (lei u .. rCmnmLnly Lu• ....,1-f,Ol-Cuurty. :JIU~ u11rl£:iplllm•tn-..n.,nn11ri1'L In.,__ :.!12l Scale: 1 :633, 600 N
A
Legend
• Project Location
0 5 10 Mile s
0 5.5 11 Kil omet ers
Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center
Re gional Location
Ul traSv,tcms .,- ., ...... , .. . r.:..,. .... .. ,,_ ... "  SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-3 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 3.2-2

PROJECT LOCATION
Disclaimer: Representations on this map or illustration are intended only lo indicate locations of project parameters reported in the legend. Project parameter information supplied by others (see layer credits) may not have been independently verified for accuracy by UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. This map or illustration should not be used for, and does not replace, final grading plans or other documents that should be professlonalty certified for development purposes.

Poth. I\Grssvr'tfjlisU'l"o,ects\1214 _Redliwlds_K81:Sef_MedCenltlf_EIR'MXthl n 14_Kltlser_3_0_Pro,ect_Location_2023_0~_25m--.d May 25, 2023 s,uvlc• L•:,or Crodlls Sourcos Esri HERE. Garmin USGS. ll'ltonnap INCREMENl P NRC.n EMi Jap•n MET! Esl'i Chin• (Hc,no Kong) Esri Koro• Esn (Thli•nd), NGCC (C)OpcinSlroe0.11() conlltHIIO~ •nd the GtS US9f Commufllly. Esr1. HERE. Ge1mm. (c) OpenStreelMep cortnbulOl'S. em:t fie GIS user community. SOl.lfc.. Esn. M1uar. Eerlllst&r Geogreph.c:s. Bnd the 015 US9f COmmuntty unr8Systems Env1ronme,,te1. tnc 2022
Kaiser Permanente
Legend Medical Center
Scale: 1 :4,200 c::J Project Boundary Project Location
0 175 350 Feet
0 50 100 Meters
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-4 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 3.2-3

PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTO 1: View looking at the northern portion of the project site along Almond Avenue.

PHOTO 3: View looking at the southern porti on of the project site along West Lugonia Avenue.

Source: Google Earth, 2023
PHOTO 2: View looking at the eastern portion of the project site along California Street.

PHOTO 4: View looking at the western portion of the project site along West Lugonia Avenue.
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-5 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

3.3 Existing Project Site Conditions
The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Redlands, at the northwest corner of the intersection of California Street and Lugonia Avenue. The project site consists of an existing medical office building, a surface parking lot and vacant land, and is in a built-out portion of the city developed mostly with industrial uses. Topography within the project site is relatively flat, as shown above on Figure 3.2-3.

3.3.1 Aesthetics
The project site consists mostly of vacant land vegetated with shrubs. The existing medical office building and surface parking occupy about 8.5 acres at the southeast corner of the site. The site is surrounded by industrial land uses. The San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the San Timoteo Badlands to the south are both visible from parts of the project site.

3.3.2 Air Quality
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600-square-mile area that includes the non-desert portion of San Bernardino County. A persistent high‐pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Ozone (O3) and pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for O3 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and is classified as a “nonattainment area” for those pollutants (SCAB, 2023).

3.3.3 Biological Resources
The project site is located in an urbanized area, which provides low habitat value for special-status plant and wildlife species; however, there are some areas of undeveloped habitat within the biological survey area (BSA) that could contain vegetation and soil conditions that could support special-status species.

3.3.4 Cultural and Historic Resources
UltraSystems completed a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the project site on December 11, 2024; it is included as Appendix D1 to this PEIR. Buildings on the Marigold Farms complex, which included the project site, are listed as two recorded cultural resources. Both resources, the farm complex and a barn, were demolished after it was determined that site recording would be sufficient documentation of the resource.
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-6 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 3.3-1

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Sealo: 1 :24,000
0 1,000 2,000 F•ol
0 250 500 Mo! ts
Legend
D Pl'Ofl!'Cl 8cundary
HIii ,M_ Rldtin
__,. a dranigla 8oun
, rown11>1p Bo~ry
Secllon lloondal}'
NfJOC,
Kaiser Perman,ent ,
1Medlca1 Center
Topogn;,phle Mi>p
iJSGS 01.u1C1r.u1oi.: Ro ands
TO't'ffl5hlp: 1S Rall'lge: :JW
SOciion: 19
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-7 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Energy
Electricity is provided to the project site by Southern California Edison (SCE) (CEC, 2021a). Natural Gas is provided to the project site by the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) (CEC, 2021b). In addition, Phase 2 of the project includes construction of an onsite utility plant that will allow the facility to operate autonomously of the public utility.

3.3.5 Geology and Soils
The project site is located in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. The site is nearly level; elevations onsite range from 1,146 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 1,155 feet amsl (Twining, 2024, p. 2).

The nearest mapped active fault to the project site is the San Jacinto Fault, about 2.9 miles to the southwest (Twining, 2024, Figure 6).

3.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Part of the project site is developed with a medical office building; the remainder of the site is vacant.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are currently generated by the use of on-road motor vehicles, energy (electricity and natural gas), water, and generation of solid waste and wastewater.

3.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Part of the project site is developed with a medical office building. The Kaiser Redlands Medical Center is listed as a large quantity generator of hazardous wastes (LGQ) on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s RCRA Info database.

3.3.8 Land Use and Zoning
The land use, zoning, and specific plan designations of the project site and its immediate vicinity are listed in Table 3.3-1 below. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial Industrial and a zoning designation of Concept Plan 1 (CP-1) under the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (City of Redlands, 2022a; City of Redlands, 2022b).

Table 3.3-1

SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE, ZONING AND SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS Location General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Existing Development
Project
Site
Commercial
Industrial
Concept Plan 1 (CP-1) under the East
Valley Corridor Specific Plan
Medical office building, parking
lot and vacant land
North Commercial
Industrial
Concept Plan 1 (CP-1) under the East
Valley Corridor Specific Plan Distribution building
South Commercial
Industrial
Planned Development 3(PD3) and
Planned Development 7 (PD7) Distribution buildings
East Commercial
Industrial
Planned Development 1(PD1 and Special
Development (EV/SD) under the East
Valley Corridor Specific Plan
Distribution building
West Commercial
Industrial
Concept Plan 1 (CP-1) under the East
Valley Corridor Specific Plan
Distribution building, parking
lot, and vacant land
Source: City of Redlands, 2022a; City of Redlands, 2022b; Google Earth Pro, 2023  SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-8 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

3.3.9 Noise
The major noise sources on and near the project site are traffic noise on Lugonia Avenue and California Street, motor vehicle noise in driveways onsite, and noise from mechanical systems on the building.

3.3.10 Public Services, Parks and Recreation
Fire protection services are provided to the project site by the Redlands Fire Department. Police protection services are provided to the project site by Redlands Police Department. School services are provided by the Redlands Unified School District (RUSD) (City of Redlands, 2017b, p. 3.13-9 to

3.13-14).

3.3.11 Transportation
Lugonia Avenue, which abuts the southern project site boundary, is a four-lane roadway with a striped (“double-double”) median; sidewalks are present along the northern side of the roadway abutting the eastern part of the project site, and next to the south side of the roadway the along entire length of the site. California Street, next to the eastern site boundary, is a four-lane roadway with a raised median and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway. Almond Avenue, which passes along the northern site boundary, is a three-lane roadway (two westbound lanes and one eastbound lane) with a sidewalk adjacent to the north side of the roadway, across from the project site.

Omnitrans provides transit bus service in the project region. The nearest Omnitrans route to the proposed project site is Route 8, which extends east-west from the city of San Bernardino to the city of Yucaipa (Omnitrans, 2023a). Route 8 operates on Redlands Boulevard south of the project site, seven days per week, at an hourly frequency (Omnitrans, 2023b).

3.3.12 Tribal Cultural Resources
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a search of their Sacred Lands File and provided a list of Native American contacts for the project area in the City of Redlands, San Bernardino County. The search of Sacred Lands File at the NAHC determined that sites of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American community are present within the 0.5-mile-radius Area of Potential Effect (APE) surrounding the project site (Vela, 2024) (refer to Attachment C in Appendix F).

In October 2023, letters and emails were sent by UltraSystems to 38 Native American contacts representing 16 tribes and bands on the list as part of its cultural resources study outreach. This is separate from the lead agency’s SB 18 and AB 52 consultation mailings to tribes, which occurred on February 23, 2023 and March 8, 2023. The outreach letter described the project and requested information about any traditional cultural properties, sites, or resources about which they may be concerned. Subsequent to the letters, telephone calls were made to 20 tribal contacts who had not already responded to UEI’s mailings and emails. There were eight email responses and nine responses to phone calls by the Native American contacts during the course of the Phase I Cultural Inventory Investigation. Refer to the Tribal Cultural Resources section of this PEIR for a more detailed description of existing conditions and onsite conditions related to tribal cultural resources in the project area.
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-9 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

3.3.13 Utilities
The City of Redlands provides water to the project site. Sewer service in the city is provided by the City of Redlands. Waste collection services are provided by the City of Redlands. (City of Redlands, 2017b, p. 3.14-1 to 3.14-11).

Wildfire
The project site and project area are characterized as urban developed with ornamental vegetation on portions of the developed part of the site. The project site is not located within or adjacent to a wildland urban interface (WUI), or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSV) in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The nearest VHFHSZ in a LRA to the project site is about 2.3 miles to the south, within the City of Redlands.

3.4 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis
CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a) requires that an EIR discuss the cumulative impacts of a proposed project, when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Per § 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable “means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” As detailed in CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a)(3), a project’s contribution is less than cumulatively considerable “if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.” CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b) states “The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impacts to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.”
CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b) further states that the following elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts:
(1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such documents shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.  SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-10 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Cumulative impacts are analyzed in terms of cumulative study areas, which can vary depending on the separate environmental impact of each environmental issue area. For example, air quality or greenhouse gas impacts would be viewed on a larger scale (such as the Southern California Air Basin), as opposed to site-specific impacts for localized mineral resources and aesthetics.

3.4.1 Cumulative Projects
Based on a review of data regarding planned projects obtained from the cities of Redlands, Loma Linda, and San Bernardino, and the County of San Bernardino, planned and probable future projects within a two-mile radius area around the project site were included in the cumulative analysis. The locations of the area projects are depicted in Figure 3.4-1, and Table 3.4-1 provides the related projects that were identified within the cities of Redlands, San Bernardino and Loma Linda. As shown on Figure 3.4-1, an island of unincorporated San Bernardino County (the East Valley Area Plan area) is present in the northwest part of the City of Redlands near the project site. The San Bernardino County Planning Division was contacted via phone April 14, 2025, then again via phone, email, and County Land Use Services Department contact form October 29, 2025. No information was provided or readily available for the unincorporated San Bernardino County area shown on the map and thus is not included on the map and table. An updated cumulative projects analysis will be undertaken with each phase of development.
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-11 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 3.4-1

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LOCATIONS
Vlc:ton'II•
01sclalmer Representations on this map 01 Illustration are 1n1ended only to indicate loc:a1ions of project parameters reported In the legend Project parameter Information supplied by « hers (see layer credits) may not have been independentty verified tor accuracy by UltraSysaems Environmental, Inc. This map or illustration should not be used for, and does not replace, final gradng plans or other documents that shoukf be professionalty certified for development purposes.

P1fl \'G-r'-QISIPNl~cu 72U_R,dllnds_Ka_,_MldC•111•_BRIMXO1V21A_Ka ... ,_cui,,ulM!VI_Pr.c11_20u_10_21 ffllld Odober 28, 2025 S.f'/1:1 Lav-r Credo Sciu1cff Elft HERE c,rm.n uses lnllnnap INCREMENT p HRC,11. E•1Japan MEll , Ell\ CM• (HDflt Kong) EM KltrH E•I (Th11lalld) HCCC let Op111Sl,1«Map CClftl•~lllrl Ind ... CIS Utll Co,-11y. Eso. HERE Ga,- (ct Op,nS11111Map coatnbuloll S6 .. ,u Ean. Maxa, Ea111tatar Gtograpt11c1 and"'' GlS Uw, CDIIHIIUftly_ co .. nltof SIA B,m.aftdlr!O, 2024 . Ulr.Systlffll Ermta11manullnc 2D2S
Scale: 1 :42,000
0 1,750 3,500 Feel
0 300 600 Meters
Kaiser Permanente
Legend Medical Center
C::J Project Boundary
2-mile Radius
Q) Cumulative Project Location
C:::=] City Boundary
City Of Highland
City Of Loma Linda
City Of Redlands
City Of San Bernardino
Unincorporated San
Bernardino County
Cum.dative Projects
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-12 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 3.4-1

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST
Map
ID Address Land Use Type Square Feet Residential
Industrial Commercial Units
City of Redlands
1 1101 California St warehouse/distribution 357,610
2 1700 Orange Tree Ln Woodspring Suites Hotel: 123 rooms 3 1301 Lugonia Avenue Fast-food restaurant with drive through: 3,860 4 1234-1528 Tennessee St Commercial and Multifamily residential 18,000 460 5 1110-1130 W Lugonia Ave Tennessee Shopping Center:

Retail/Restaurant 60,385
6 1005 W Lugonia Ave retail and restaurant 22,047
7 1305-1499 Karon St Multifamily residential 511
8 Pioneer Av east of SR-210 Motorcourt residential 75
9 Mountain View Av at I-10 Planned Development No. 4: two warehouse/ distribution buildings 420,937
10 10796 New Jersey St. manufacturing 28,000
11 1980 Park Av Industrial 48,079
12 1941 Park Av Industrial 38,740
13 10843 New Jersey Street Industrial 179,400
14 10756 Nevada St. Industrial 87,771
15 Redlands Blvd east of Nevada St 2 medical office buildings 16,714 16 1702 W Park Av Industrial 7,198
17 Iowa St at Park Av Manufacturing 25,000
18 350 Iowa St Warehouse/distribution 185,000
19 Alabama St at Citrus Dr Medical and medical office 8,853 20 10616 Kansas St. and 27314 W. Park Ave. Warehouse 83,875 21 Alabama St at Orange Ave apartments 328
22 Orange Av west of Alabama St apartments 164
23 27240 Alabama St Commercial 8,015
 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-13 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Map
ID Address Land Use Type Square Feet Residential
Industrial Commercial Units
24 301 Tennessee St. Warehouse/distribution 197,397
25 New York St at Brockton Av Auto sales/service 53,800 26 Tennessee St at Lugonia Av retail 4,100
City of San Bernardino
27 Central Av west of Tippecanoe Compressed natural gas fueling facility City of Loma Linda
28 Redlands Blvd at Richardson St Medical office and retail 30,382 29 Heirloom Way at Park Av apartments 213
30 Southeast of Park Av at Bryn Mawr Community Park: 15 acres 31 Southeast of Park Av at Bryn Mawr Community Center: 6,000 sf 32 Southeast of Park Av at Bryn Mawr Fire Station, 3,690 sf 33 24850 Redlands Blvd Motel, 25 rooms
34 Barton Rd and Nevada St Single-family residential 126 35 North of Citrus Ave, west of Bryn Mawr Ave Condominiums 103 36 California St and Orange Ave Single-family residential 126 37 25450 Park Ave Single-family residential 18
38 East of Bryn Mawr Ave, north of Park Ave,
south of Redlands Mixed use (multifamily residential and retail) 100,000 219 39 913 California Street, The Commons at CA
Project Business Hotel 60,224
40 E of Hwy 210 between Pioneer & San
Bernardino Ave Single-family residential and apartments 263 Total 1,659,007 386,380 2,606
Note: An island of unincorporated San Bernardino County (the East Valley Area Plan area) is present in the northwest part of the City of Redlands near the project site.

The San Bernardino County Planning Division was contacted via phone April 14, 2025, then again via phone, email, and County Land Use Services Department contact form October 29, 2025. No information was provided or readily available for the unincorporated San Bernardino County area shown on the map and thus not included on the map and table.

Source: City of Redlands 2024; City of Loma Linda 2024; City of San Bernardino 2024  SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 3-14 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

3.4.2 Forecasts of Population and Employment for City of Redlands The population of the City of Redlands is forecast to increase between 2023 and 2045 by 11,410, or approximately 25.4 percent of its 2023 population. The number of households in the city is forecast to increase by 4,541, or about 38.5 percent of the number of households in 2023. Employment in the city is forecast to increase by approximately 18,812, or about 40.1 percent of the 2023 figure (California Department of Finance E-5, 2023; US Census Longitudinal Employer- Household Dynamics, 2023; SCAG 2023.). Table 3.4-2 provides a demographic forecast for the city.

Table 3.4-2

CITY OF REDLANDS DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST
2023 2045 Difference,
2023 - 2045
Percent
Difference,
2023 - 2045
Population 44,890 56,300 11,410 25.4%
Households 26,259 38,800 4,541 38.5%
Employment 37,488 56,300 18,812 40.1%
Sources: California Department of Finance E-5, 2023; US Census Longitudinal Employer- Household Dynamics, 2023; SCAG 2023.
 SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§15126–15126.4, this section analyzes potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts that could occur from planning, constructing, and operating the proposed project.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines § 15128, the EIR shall contain a brief statement indicating reasons the various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. The Initial Study and comment letters are included as Appendix A. The CEQA notices for the project are also included in Appendix A. The Initial Study provides a detailed discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the project and the reasons that each environmental topic is or is not analyzed in this Draft PEIR. The Initial Study found the potential for significant impacts in the following environmental issue areas:
• Aesthetics • Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Air Quality • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Biological Resources • Noise
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Energy • Transportation
• Geology and Soils • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Utilities and Service Systems The threshold questions that were not screened out in the Initial Study prepared for the project are analyzed in this Draft PEIR and are from the 2025 CEQA Guidelines,. The results of the Initial Study found that the project would not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to:

Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Wildfire. Therefore, these environmental areas were not analyzed in this Draft PEIR. The Initial Study which details that no significant impacts would occur for these issue areas is included as Appendix A1 of this Draft PEIR.

To assist the reader with comparing information between environmental issues, each section is organized generally under these major headings:
• Introduction
• Regulatory Framework
• Methodology
• Existing Conditions
• Environmental Impact Analysis
• Cumulative Impact Analysis
• Mitigation Measures
• Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition, Section 1.0, Executive Summary, summarizes all impacts by environmental issue. That section also includes Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures (MMs) as appropriate.

If a project includes within its project scope features or construction techniques that minimize environmental impacts, those features can be incorporated into the project description as project design features (PDFs). PDFs incorporated into the project do not constitute mitigation measures.  SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4-2 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15370 defines “mitigation” as:
• Avoiding the impact altogether,
• Minimizing the impact by limiting its degree or magnitude, • Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environmental resource,
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time, through actions that preserve or maintain the resource, and
• Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environmental conditions, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions required by the City to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the City after the project has undergone environmental review and are above and beyond PDFs, to further reduce environmental impacts.

The level of significance is identified for each impact in this PEIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:
• No impact. The project would not change the environment. • Less than significant. The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment.
• Significant impact. A substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment would occur and would exceed the threshold(s) of significance presented in this PEIR, requiring the consideration of mitigation measures.

Each subsection also includes a discussion or listing of the applicable laws and regulations that the project is required to comply with (if any). If impacts are identified as significant after mandatory compliance with laws and regulations, feasible mitigation measures are presented that would either avoid the impact or reduce the magnitude of the impact. The following terms are used to describe the level of significance following the application of recommended mitigation measures:
• Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment would occur that would exceed the threshold(s) of significance presented in this PEIR; however, the impact can be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the application of feasible mitigation measure(s).
• Significant and unavoidable. A substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment would occur that would exceed the threshold(s) of significance presented in this PEIR. Feasible and enforceable mitigation measure(s) that have a proportional nexus to the project’s impacts are either not available or would not be fully effective in avoiding or reducing the impact to below a level of significance.  SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.1 Aesthetics

4.1.1 Introduction
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A to this PEIR, determined that impacts under Threshold B4 discussing designated state scenic highways, and Threshold D5 discussing light and glare would be less than significant. Therefore, those impacts are not addressed in this section.

4.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no federal regulations that pertain to this issue area.

State
There are no state regulations that pertain to this issue area.

Local
City of Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission Chapter 2.24 of the Redlands Municipal Code establishes the City’s Historic and Resource Preservation Commission. The Commission is responsible for making a recommendation to the City Council on the formation of a Historic District, defined as a geographical area that has a significant architectural enclave of historic buildings or scenic vistas. Properties of scenic significance, as defined by the Municipal Code, may include landscaping, light standards, trees, curbing, and signs that contribute aesthetically to the scenic heritage of the city.

City of Redlands Architectural Guidelines
Pursuant to § 18.12.170 of the City of Redlands Municipal Code, the City established architectural guidelines for non-residential development located outside of the city’s Downtown area. These guidelines are intended to provide design professionals, property owners, residents, staff, and decision makers with a clear and common understanding of the City’s expectations for the planning, design, and review of development proposals. The guide contains examples of architectural design that is sensitive to the cultural and historic character of Redlands. Topics covered in the guide include building articulation, windows, the pedestrian realm, entryways, building materials, contextual design, signage, energy efficient design, adaptive reuse of structures, public art, site design, and landscaping, among others.

Scenic Routes
The City contains the Emerald Necklace Trail and Scenic Route, which serves to connect to open space, travels along the eastern and northern portion of the City (City of Redlands, 2017b, p. 3.13- 4 Threshold B was found to have no impact because the nearest official state scenic highway, State Route-243, is approximately 23 miles from the project site. 5 Threshold D was found to have less than significant impacts because the project would adhere to Section EV4.2015, Site Lighting, of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, which would ensure that light and glare from project construction and operation would not cause significant spillover to adjacent rights-of-way or adjacent properties.  SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-2 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
11). The City has goals to complete the Emerald Necklace system of scenic routes and trails, including the Orange Blossom Trail, Zanja Trail, Santa Ana River Trail, San Timoteo Trail, and other trails linking parks, regional trails, and open space areas. A portion of this route is along the southern border of the project site along Lugonia Avenue.

Specific Plans
The City uses specific plans to coordinate development and infrastructure improvements on large sites or series of parcels. Specific plans must be consistent with the General Plan and are typically used to establish development plans and standards to achieve the design and development objectives for a particular area. The proposed project is located within the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, which is described below.

East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, 1989 (Revised 2010) The East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (EVCSP) aims to strengthen the local economy, attract major businesses, and result in the orderly and aesthetic development of industrial, commercial, and residential areas. The EVCSP area comprises 4,350 acres (6.8 square miles) adjacent to I-10 freeway and Highway-210. At the time that the plan was adopted, over half of the plan area in agricultural production and part of the balance of the plan area was vacant. The EVCSP provides a plan for future growth and development within the EVCSP; includes components such as planning, financing, infrastructure construction and maintenance, marketing, and coordination; and sets development standards. The EVCSP was envisioned to feature the county’s largest regional shopping center east of Ontario and to create approximately 90,000 jobs at build-out by 2028, while reducing the potential demand for retail, office, and industrial space elsewhere in the Planning Area. Today, the EVCSP area is mostly developed, mainly with large-scale warehousing and distribution uses, as well as the Citrus Plaza and Mountain Grove shopping centers. The construction of Citrus Valley High School on a key site within an area planned in the EVCSP as a scientific research park, in the east part of the EVCSP area, has dramatically changed the character of the neighborhood. The City has acknowledged a need to update the EVCSP to reflect this change.

Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1
The Project is located within Concept Plan No. 1, also known as the Redlands Business Center. The plan mentions that the site is a unique location and provides a western entrance into the City of Redlands along the I-10 Corridor. Through attractive site planning, architectural design, and the incorporation of abundant open space and landscaping, the plan aims to establish an aesthetically appealing business park. The Project site is within the Medical Facilities District, as established by Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1 (City of Redlands 2004). The Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1 aims to develop the property into a cohesive business park that aligns with the EVCSP. The plan focuses on creating an aesthetically pleasing, job and revenue-generating environment that addresses physical, environmental, and economic factors. Key goals include integrating a mix of retail, office, medical, and industrial uses, enhancing the site's appeal as the western entrance to Redlands, ensuring compatibility with surrounding areas through thoughtful design, providing adequate public services, and incorporating abundant open space and landscaping.  SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-3 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.1.3 Existing Conditions
Overview
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rock outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils) features. Visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity, duration, and visual resources characterize views.
• Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity.
• Viewer groups identify who is most likely to experience the view. • High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. • Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group.
• Visual resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of specific unique structures or landscape features.

Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance, and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest.

Characteristics
The project site currently contains a medical office building, a surface parking lot and vacant land.

The project site is surrounded by industrial developments on all sides. See Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2, which depict photos of the project site and surrounding area.  SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-4 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-1

PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT SITE
PH OTO 1: View looking at the northern portion of the project site along Al mond Avenue .

PH OTO 3: View looking at the southern portion of the proj ect site along W est Lugonia Av enue.

PHOTO 2: View looking at the eastern portion of the proj ect site along California Street
PH OTO 4: View looking at the we stern portion of the project site along W est Lu gon ia Av enue.
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-5 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-2

PHOTOS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
PHOTO 1: View looking north of the pro ject site at an industrial building along Almond Avenue_
PHOTO 3: View looking south of the pro ject site at an industrial building along West Lugonia Avenue_
PHOTO 2: View looking east of the project site at an industrial building a long California Street_
PHOTO 4: View looking w est of the pro ject site at an industrial building along West Lugonia Avenue_
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-6 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.1.4 Environmental Impact Analysis

4.1.4.1 Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, sets forth the following significance thresholds criteria for aesthetics impacts (would the project):

A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and 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.

The Initial Study, included as Appendix A to this DEIR, determined that impacts associated with Thresholds B would have no impact and D would be less than significant and are not further discussed in the PEIR. Threshold B was found to have no impact because the nearest official state scenic highway, State Route 243, is approximately 23 miles from the project site. Threshold D was found to have less than significant impacts because the project would adhere to Section EV4.2015, Site Lighting, of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, which would ensure that light and glare from project construction and operation would not cause significant spillover to adjacent rights-of-way or adjacent properties.

4.1.4.2 Analysis of Project Impacts
Threshold A: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact
As detailed in the city’s General Plan EIR, scenic vistas in the city consist of the scenic corridors and views to and from the open spaces, canyonlands, hillsides, groves, and the San Bernardino Mountains. Scenic views are also found in the urbanized part of the city, including along scenic and historic drives (City of Redlands, 2017b, p. 3.1-9). There are no specific scenic vistas in the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (City of Redlands, 2017c). As depicted earlier in Figures 4.1-1 and

4.1-2, the project site is located in a highly urbanized portion of the city with industrial buildings developed on all sides. The project site itself does not contain a scenic view, open spaces, canyonlands, hillsides, or groves. However, there are distant views of the San Bernardino Mountains from the project site, and the Emerald Necklace Trail and Scenic Route abuts the southern portion of the project site along West Lugonia Avenue (City of Redlands, 2017b, p. 3.13- 3).

The proposed project would have a maximum height of approximately 107 feet. The project site is surrounded with industrial buildings that partially block views of the distant San Bernardino Mountains. The buildings surrounding the project site are approximately 40 feet tall. The height of  SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-7 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
the proposed medical building is taller than the surrounding urban development, which could pose potentially significant impacts regarding scenic quality. A Visual Report was conducted by Dudek for the proposed project to analyze the visual impact of the project (Appendix D1). A photographic inventory was conducted to document the visual setting and to help illustrate the existing visual character of the project area. Existing views from selected public vantage points (i.e., Key Observation Points or KOPs) were documented and photographed. Five public views towards the project site were selected as representative views towards the project site available to viewers in the surrounding area. KOPs represent the various distance zones, viewing angles, and landscape context of locations in the surrounding area from which views towards the project site are available.

The location of selected KOPs is shown in Figure 4.1-3 below. Visual simulations are included and used in this analysis to represent the relative scale and extent of change to the existing visual environment anticipated to result from Project implementation. Visual simulations were prepared from representative KOPs in the surrounding area and depict the Project at full build-out. Photo simulations include existing site photographs as background images and true-scale 3D models of the Project provided by the Project design team rendered onto the existing photographs. Existing conditions, photographs, and visual simulations are presented in Figures 4.1-4a to 4.1-8b.  SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-8 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-3

KEY OBSERVATION POINT LOCATIONS
Disclaimer: ll/u5tration provided by Dudek, who ho5 indicated that the information is true ond correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

UltraSyst c rn s ,-~.,m m,nt· . ,,. ~•"'•~•• nl•n~ ~g
Not to Scale
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Viewpoint Locations
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-9 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-4a
KOP 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
KOP 1: Existing conditions view to the southwest from California Street, 34.077189, -117.225957 Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

UltraSyst c rn s ,-~.,m m,nt· . ,,. ~•"'•~•• nl•n~ ~g
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 1 (Existing Conditions)
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-10 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-4b
KOP 1 SIMULATION
Source: Dudek, May 2025.

U ltra_"yst_ms
KOP 1: Simulation 30 Redline view to the southwest from California Stree~ 34.077189, -117.225957 Redline indicates Project Building Envelope/Profile (Project development would IlQ1.Qft visible from KOP 1) Kai ser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 1 (Simulation 3D Redl ine]
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-11 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-5a
KOP 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
KOP 2: Existing conditions view to the southeast from Almond Avenue, 34.073924, -117.23156 Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

UltraSyst c rn s ,-~.,m m,nt· . ,,. ~•"'•~•• nl•n~ ~g
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 2 (Existing Conditions)
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-12 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-5b
KOP 2 SIMULATION
KOP 2: Simulation 3D view to the southeast from Almond Avenue, 34.073924, -117.23156 Simulation depicts fu ll buildout of the Project
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

UltraSyst c rn s ,-~.,m m,nt· . ,,. ~•"'•~•• nl•n~ ~g
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 2 (Simulation 3D)
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-13 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-6a
KOP 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
KOP 3: Existing conditions view to the northeast from Lugonia Avenue, 34.070241 , -117 .230639 Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

UltraSyst c rn s ,-~.,m m,nt· . ,,. ~•"'•~•• nl•n~ ~g
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 3 (Existing Conditions)
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-14 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-6b
KOP 3 SIMULATION
KOP 3: Simulation 3D view to the northeast from Lugonia Avenue, 34.070241 , -1 17.230639 Simulation depicts full buildout of the Project
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

UltraSyst c rn s ,-~.,m m,nt· . ,,. ~•"'•~•• nl•n~ ~g
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 3 (Simulation 3D)
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-15 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-7a
KOP 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
KOP 4: Existing conditions view to the northwest from California Street, 34.070211, -117.226094 Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

UltraSyst c rn s ,-~.,m m,nt· . ,,. ~•"'•~•• nl•n~ ~g
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 4 (Existing Conditions)
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-16 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-7b
KOP 4 SIMULATION
KOP 4: Simulation 3D view to the northwest from California Street, 34.070211 , -117.226094 Simulation depicts full buildout of the Project
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that the information is true and correct. No other warranties ore expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

UltraSyst e m s '" nonrn,01. , ,,. •~•rn•ot• plnM "~
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 4 (Simulation 3D)
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-17 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-8a
KOP 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS
KOP 5: Existing conditions view to the northwest from Interstate 10, 34.066724, -117.226832 Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that t~ information is true and correct. No other warranties ore expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, M ay 2025.

U ltraSyst e m s P~"'"""'"' . "'•· J')•"'l•M• rloM"q
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 5 (Existing Conditions)
 SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-18 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.1-8b
KOP 5 SIMULATION
KOP 5: Simulation 3D Redline view to the northwest from Interstate 10, 34.066724, -117.226832 Redline indicates Project Building Envelope/Profile (Project development would not be visible from KOP 5) Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Dudek, who hos indicated that t~ information is true and correct. No other warranties ore expressed or implied.

Source: Dudek, May 2025.

U ltraSyst e m s P~"'"""'"' . "'•· J')•"'l•M• rloM"q
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
KOP 5 (Simulati on 3D Redl ine)
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-19 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Project structures would not be visible from KOPs 1 and 5,but would be visible from adjacent roadways including at KOPs 2, 3, and 4 and from more distant, elevated vantage points outside of the immediate surrounding area. While none of the selected KOPs have been designated by the City as scenic viewpoints (or vistas) and are not located on a City-designated scenic roadway (see Figure 16), consideration of view effects from KOPs are provided below in Table 4.1-1 to inform overall potential for visual impacts and more specifically, impacts to views of scenic vistas.

Table 4.1-1

VISUAL SIMULATION ANALYSIS
View Viewers View Obstruction Visual Impact
KOP 1 –
California
Street
 Represents
views of local
pedestrians and
motorists located
outside of the
immediate area
(i.e., nearly one
block north of the
project site)
 Rating: No Impact
 Project site and phased
development completely blocked
from view by intervening
industrial development and
street trees in the foreground.
 Rating: No Impact
 Project site and project are not
visible from this particular vantage
point.

KOP 2 –
Almond
Avenue
 Represents
views of passing
eastbound
motorists as they
travel adjacent to
the project site
 Rating: Less than Significant
 Partial views to distant
hillsides to the south of the
project site and Interstate 10 are
visible under existing conditions;
mountainous terrain is visible to
the east
 The six- and seven-story
scale and broad form of the
medical center (Phase 4 and
Phase 2) would be evident;
however, due to the partial and
mostly blocked view to hillsides
to the south under existing
conditions, Almond Avenue is not
a City-designated scenic road.

Further, phased development on
the project site would
incorporate similar setbacks
from Almond Avenue and
landscaping concepts along
Almond Avenue as existing
industrial and commercial uses
lining the roadway.
 Neither the proposed
medical center nor the 6-story
parking structure (Phase 2; the
structure is visible but partially
blocked in the KOP 2 simulation;
block views to distant
mountainous terrain to the east
at KOP 2
 Rating: Less than Significant
 Given the relatively brief
duration the proposed ASC/MOB 2
(Phase 1), medical center and
parking structure (Phase 2) would
be present within the views of
transient motorists and pedestrians
on Almond Avenue (the road
parallels the site for approximately
1,300 feet), lack of scenic roadway
designation for Almond Avenue, and
the near continuous presence of
large and broad, multistory
industrial and commercial
development along the corridor, the
phased introduction of multi-story
structures on the project site would
not result in a substantially adverse
effect on a scenic vista.
 Building scale and development
footprint would be softened by the
phased introduction of landscaping
(interior and perimeter) across the
site.
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-20 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
View Viewers View Obstruction Visual Impact
KOP 3 –
Lugonia
Avenue
 Represents
views of passing
motorists as they
travel adjacent to
the project site
 Rating: Less than Significant
 Gradual buildout of the
project site as a medical center
would result in blocked views to
mountainous terrain to the
northeast; visually prominent,
pyramidal form of San Gorgonio
Mountain and other prominent
peaks to the northeast/east
would remain visible.
 Noticeable view blockage of
distant terrain to the north would
begin with Phase 1 development
of the 4-story ASC/MOB 2 that
would be located near the center
of the site (see Figure 3).

Additional view blockage would
occur with Phase 2 development
(primarily, the introduction of
the 7-story medical center that
would initially stretch west to
east across the western portion
of the site (see Figure 5). Lastly,
the introduction of the 4-story
MOB 3 in Phase 3 (MOB 3 would
be constructed south of the
proposed ASC/MOB 2) would
further result in noticeable
blockage of views to distant
terrain to the north and
northeast beyond the site.
 Rating: Less than Significant
 Due to the relatively brief
duration the proposed ASC/MOB 2
(Phase 1), medical center (Phase 2),
and MOB 3 (Phase 3) would be
present within the views of
transient motorists and pedestrians
on Lugonia Avenue (the road
parallels the site for approximately
1,300 feet), lack of scenic roadway
designation for Lugonia Avenue, and
the near continuous presence of
large and broad, multistory
industrial and commercial
development (and associated dense
landscaping) along the corridor, the
phased introduction of multi-story
structures on the project site would
not result in a substantially adverse
effect on a scenic vista.
 Similar to proposed
development on the project site, the
development of adjacent parcels
along Lugonia Avenue has resulted
in impaired views from the corridor
to the north (views to the mountain
terrain north across sites are rarely
available)
 Proposed development on the
project site would implement
similar setbacks and landscaping
concepts as other developed parcels
along Lugonia Avenue
 The site is designated for
Medical Facilities and a medical
center with medical center was
envisioned for the site in the
Redlands Business Plan Concept
Plan No. 1
KOP 4 –
California
Street/Lug
onia
Avenue
 Represents
views of passing
motorists as they
travel near the
project site (near
existing MOB 1)
 Rating: Less than Significant
 Under existing conditions,
Screened views to distant
mountainous terrain to the
northwest are available through
project site landscaping at KOP 4;
views to broad and dark
mountain terrain also available to
the north along the California
Street corridor
 Rating: Less than Significant
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-21 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
View Viewers View Obstruction Visual Impact
 Implementation of the
project and specifically, the
phased introduction of multistory buildings near the center and western portions of the
project site in Phases 2 through 4
would gradually block the distant
mountain terrain to the
northwest from view
 Views of mountain terrain to
the north would largely remain
unchanged during development
of the project site.
 Due to the relatively brief
duration that proposed
development would be present
within the views of transient
motorists and pedestrians at the
California Street/Lugonia
intersection, lack of scenic roadway
designation for California Street and
Lugonia Avenue, and the near
continuous presence of large and
broad, multistory industrial and
commercial development (and
associated dense landscaping) along
the corridor, the phased
introduction of multi-story
structures on the project site would
not result in a substantially adverse
effect on a scenic vista.
 The baseline/existing
conditions image was taken in early
spring when deciduous trees on the
project site still have not regrown
their foliage. Therefore, during late
spring and summer months when
trees are full and leaves have
returned, views to distant mountain
terrain to the northwest at KOP 4
would be partially blocked (and this
blockage would be continued by
phased future development on the
project site).
 Proposed development on the
project site would implement
similar setbacks and landscaping
concepts as other developed parcels
along California Street and Lugonia
Avenue
KOP 5 –
Interstate
10  Represents
views of
interstate
motorists near
the project site
 Rating: No Impact
 Project site and phased
development completely blocked
from view by intervening
industrial development in the
immediate foreground.
 Rating: No Impact
 Project site and proposed
buildings are not visible from this
particular vantage point.

Source: Dudek, 2025
As described above, the proposed project would not significantly impact scenic vistas. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts regarding scenic vistas.

Threshold C: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?  SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-22 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an urbanized area. Therefore, the project should be evaluated to determine if it would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Table 4.1-2 lists the applicable policies governing scenic quality under the City’s General Plan, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, and Redlands Business Plan Concept Plan No. 1, and how the proposed project would adhere to them.

Table 4.1-2

CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF REDLANDS

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS GOVERNING SCENIC QUALITY
Regulations Compliance
City of Redlands General Plan
2-P.1 Embrace the unique identities of individual
neighborhoods in Redlands and encourage the
celebration and enhancement of characteristics that
make each neighborhood distinct.

Consistent. The proposed project would develop a
medical center that would be built with high-quality
materials that would adhere to the City’s design
guidelines to strengthen the distinctive
characteristics of the project area compared to the
existing undeveloped/underutilized lot. Therefore,
the project would be compliant with this regulation.
2-P.13 Encourage preservation of and public access
to defined and established significant scenic vistas,
viewpoints, and view corridors.

Consistent. Implementation and development of
the project as proposed would not conflict with City
plans to preserve defined and established
significant scenic vistas, viewpoints, and view
corridors. There are no established or designated
significant scenic vistas, viewpoints, or view
corridors in the immediate project area. Therefore,
the project would be compliant with this regulation.
4-P.5 Maintain a land use pattern of various uses
designed and arranged to protect and enhance
Redlands’ unique character
Consistent. The proposed project would develop a
medical center in an area with other commercial
and industrial land uses that would provide a
variety of land uses and enhance the City’s unique
character compared to existing conditions where
the project site is disturbed and undeveloped land.

Therefore, the project would be compliant with this
regulation.
4-A.47 Promote high quality development in the
East Valley Corridor by protecting and enhancing
existing amenities in the area, creating an
identifiable community character, and adopting
development standards and guidelines to ensure
aesthetically pleasing design and maximum land
use compatibility.

Consistent. The proposed project would develop a
medical center that would be built with high-quality
materials that would adhere to the City’s design
guidelines to strengthen the distinctive
characteristics of the project area compared to the
existing undeveloped/underutilized lot. Therefore,
the project would be compliant with this regulation.
4-A.55 Enhance the beauty of the East Valley
Corridor and the overall quality of life for users and
residents of the area.

Consistent. The project would develop the
undeveloped/underutilized lot with a new medical
center that would enhance the beauty of the East
Valley Corridor compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, the project would be compliant with this
regulation.
4-P.28 Preserve, maintain, and, where possible,
enhance the perception of the signature features of
canyon areas and hillsides.

Consistent.As detailed in threshold a) in this section, the proposed project would have less than significant
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-23 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Regulations Compliance
impacts to distant views of mountains. Therefore, the
project would be compliant with this regulation.

East Valley Corridor Specific Plan
Section EV2.0225 Community Design
(2) Policy: Establish design themes to unify the
corridor area and provide a recognizable
community character within the area
Consistent. Please refer to consistency analysis for
Redlands General Plan Policy 2.1.3, above.
(3) Policy: Create a visually aesthetic appearance
for the EVC from the freeways as well as from within
the planning area
Consistent. While KOP 5 shows that the Project
would not be visible from the freeway, visual
simulations depict implementation of a robust
landscape and phased development of an
aesthetically, pleasing, modern medical center.
(4) Policy: Encourage effective use of landscaping
within the East Valley Corridor.

Consistent. The Project includes a landscape plan
that would be implemented alongside phased
development. At maturity, landscaping would
partially block the Project from view at select
nearby locations to the north of the Project site but
would not be effective at fully screening the Project
and other components from view along adjacent
roadways. Native and drought tolerant plantings
are included in the phased preliminary landscape
plans for the project.
(5) Policy: Ensure compatibility between adjacent
land use types within the Corridor area.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.11 Land Use and
Planning of the Initial Study (Appendix A), the
proposed project would be consistent with the
project site’s General Plan land use and zoning
designations, resulting in consistent height, materials and character with the designations. While
development would entail the construction and
operation of mostly 4-story buildings that would
generally be consistent with the scale of existing
industrial development (warehouses) in the
immediate surrounding area, the Project includes the
development of a seven-story medical center (Phase
2 and 4) and six-story parking structure (Phase 2).

The scale and visibility of these taller buildings would be dissimilar from the scale and visibility of nearby
development along the Lugonia Avenue and Almond
Avenue corridors. Further, the specified uses on the
project site (including MOBs and medical center)
would incorporate building materials and more
generally, an architectural character, that would be
different than that of nearby industrial warehouses
that include concrete tilt-up walled structures with
long exterior expanses featuring limited windows.

However, the scale and character of the proposed
development on the project site would be consistent
with that of a modern medical center featuring a
medical center with over 200 beds. In addition, the
underlying land use designation for the project site
(Medical Facility) differs from that of adjacent lands
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-24 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Regulations Compliance
and difference in specified use (and future occupancy
of the medical center campus) requires a more
thoughtful approach to exterior and interior design,
for both health care workers and patients alike.
(2) Policy: Establish design themes to unify the
corridor area and provide a recognizable
community character within the area
Consistent. Please refer to consistency analysis for
Redlands General Plan Policy 2.1.3, above.

Section EV4.0215 Site Lighting
(a) Lighting shall be required on all new
development for the purpose of providing
illumination to ensure public safety and security.

Lighting fixtures shall be functional, coordinated
and visually attractive. Lighting shall be required at
the following locations:
o (1) Pedestrian walkways and
plazas.
o (2) Building entries, driveway
entries and parking
o (3) Hazardous locations, such as
changes of grade and stairways,
shall be well-lit with lower-level
supplemental lighting or
additional overhead units.

Consistent. Appropriate lighting would be installed
at the project site and would be provided to ensure
adequate illumination of development phases for
safety and security.
(b) Lights shall be placed so as not to cause glare or
excessive light spillage on neighboring sites.

Consistent. All installed exterior light fixtures would be concealed source fixtures. Security lighting would
be shielded, and exterior wall-mounted flood lights
would not be used. Parking lots would include
fixtures and poles that are to be up to 30-feet high
and would be designed to project downward.
(c) All parking lot and driveway lighting shall
provide uniform illumination at a minimum level of

0.5 foot candle.

Consistent. Adequate lighting would be provided in
parking lots and along driveways on the project site
to ensure compliance with the minimum foot-candle
requirement and provide appropriate illumination
for healthcare workers, patients, and visitors.
(d) All light fixtures are to be concealed source
fixtures except for pedestrian oriented accent lights.

Consistent. All installed exterior light fixtures
would be concealed source fixtures.
(e) Security lighting fixtures are not to project above the fences or roof line of the building and are to be
shielded. The shields shall be painted to match the
surface to which they are attached. Security lighting
fixtures are not to be substituted for parking lot or
walkway lighting fixtures and are restricted to
lighting only loading and storage locations, or other
similar service areas.

Consistent. Security lighting fixtures would not
project above the fences or roof line of the building
and would be shielded.
(f) Exterior wall-mounted floodlights are expressly
prohibited except for security lighting in areas as
noted above.

Consistent. Security lighting would be shielded,
and exterior wall-mounted flood lights would not be
used.
(g) All illuminated signs are to be internally
illuminated.

Consistent. Where installed on the project site,
illuminated signs would be internally illuminated.
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-25 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Regulations Compliance
(i) The design of all lighting fixtures and their
structural support shall be architecturally
compatible with the surrounding buildings.

Consistent. While specific details have not been
developed at this time, proposed site lighting would
be architecturally compatible with and be
thoughtfully integrated into new building design.
(j) Walkway lighting fixtures shall have an overall
height not to exceed twelve (12) feet.

Consistent. Walkway lighting would comply with
the overall height requirement of twelve feet or less.
(k) Parking lot fixtures shall have an overall height
not to exceed thirty (30) feet with the exception of
property north of Palmetto Avenue and west of
California Street, which parking lot fixtures located
within these boundaries may have an overall height
not to exceed forty (40) feet and shall meet the
following: (1) the photometric level shall not exceed
"zero" at the property line and, (2) no lighting shall
be directed northerly toward the Santa Ana Wash.
(I) When walkway lighting is provided primarily by
low fixtures, there shall be sufficient peripheral
lighting to illuminate the immediate surroundings
to ensure public safety. Shatter-proof coverings are
recommended on low-level fixtures.

Consistent. Parking lots would include fixtures and
poles that are to be up to 30-feet high and would be
designed to project downward. As is typical with
development projects, development-specific
photometrics would be prepared during the
construction documents to be submitted to the City
for review and approval. The future photometrics
prepared for the Project would be required to
ensure adherence to City standards concerning site
lighting.

Section EV4.0240 Architectural Guidelines
(c) The following guidelines shall apply to site
design:
o (1) Developments should be
designed to maximize any existing
views of mountain ranges, open
space, palm rows, or other view
amenities.
o (2) Building placement should
vary to include both parallel and
skewed angles to the street plane
in order to provide diversity and
discourage continuous building
facades along street frontage.

Consistent. Taller development on the project site
(primarily, the seven-story medical center) would
be provided with views of mountains located to the
north. As proposed, building placement and layout
would vary to avoid a monotonous appearance and
reduce potential for continuous building facades
along street frontages.
(d) The following guidelines shall apply to building
design:
o (1) Building construction and
design shall be used to create a
structure with equally attractive
sides of high quality, rather than
placing all emphasis on the front
elevation of the structure.

Architectural facade treatments
will be required on all portions of
the building( s) exposed to public
views. Extra treatment may be
given to the street frontages as
long as the basic facade treatments
are carried around the structure.
o (2) Any accessory buildings and
enclosures, whether attached to or
detached from the main building,
Consistent. Elevations of phased development
proposed on the project site, and simulations of the
phased development proposed on the project site,
have been prepared and are presented in this
report. As shown on Figures 4 and 9, the design of
proposed ASC/MOB 2 and MOB 3 buildings
incorporates exteriors of somewhat varied metallic
finishes and varying planes. Also, the north
elevation of the proposed medical center presents a
broad exterior that is occasionally interrupted by
large projections and greyish metal paneling is
accented by painted metal frames and sunshades
around windows. Further, the medical center’s
mostly flat roofline is broken by a noticeable
vertical projection (parapet) and by the step-down
in scale between initial (Phase 2) and final (Phase 4)
stages of medical center development.
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-26 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Regulations Compliance
shall be of similar compatible
design and materials as the main
building.
o (3) Large, continuous surface
treatments of a single material
shall be minimized. Changes in
texture, relief or materials, and use
of decorative features such as
planters, varied roof lines,
decorative windows and accent
panel treatment should be
encouraged.
o (4) Pre-engineered metal
buildings with corrugated
exteriors are prohibited and other
predominantly painted metal
facade treatments are strongly
discouraged.
(f) Rooftop Treatment
o (1) Buildings shall be designed so
that the architecture of the
building adequately screens
rooftop equipment from taller
surrounding structures as well as
residential uses by use of rooftop
wells, parapet walls, or other
means. Where possible, groundmounted equipment shall be used in lieu of roof-mounted equipment.
o (2) All roof mounted equipment,
including but not limited to ducts,
fans, and vents, must be painted to
match the roof color.
o (3) Rooftop solar collectors,
skylights and other potentially
reflective elements shall be
designed and installed so as to
prevent glare and obstruction of
views from surrounding uses and
structures. If equipment projects
above building mass, it shall be
screened with an enclosure which
is compatible with the building
design.
o (4) Rooftop radio, TV and
microwave antennae and towers
are prohibited unless approved by
the Planning Commission.
o (5) Where large, flat rooftops are
located near taller surrounding
structures, they shall be designed
and landscaped to be visually
Consistent. Where possible, new buildings
constructed on the project site would incorporate
wells, walls, or other methods to screen rooftop
equipment from view. As proposed, the six-story
parking structure would feature solar panels on the
roof. The proposed system would be installed so as
to prevent glare and obstruction of views from
surrounding uses and structures to the extent
feasible. The project site is generally surrounded by
2-3 story industrial and commercial developments;
larger structures are not located adjacent to the
project site.
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-27 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Regulations Compliance
attractive. The use of colored
gravel (earthtones, arranged in
patterns) and/or planter boxes is
encouraged for this purpose.

Section EV4.02500 General Guidelines (Landscaping)
The Landscape Plan required for submission by the
applicant should exhibit a design concept. Plant
materials should be used in a logical, orderly
manner, helping to define spaces and complement
adjacent architecture. A landscape plan showing the
proposed landscaped areas, placement of landscape
materials by type, number, and size to include a
depiction of the anticipated drip line of mature
trees, irrigation system and use of the property shall
be prepared by a landscape architect or a licensed
nurseryman and shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department. The same
plot plan submitted for the project which shows the
parking layout or other requirements for the
issuance of a building permit or planning approval
may be used, provided all proposed landscaping is
adequately detailed on the plot plan. Plans shall be
submitted for approval to the Community
Development Director or the Planning Commission,
for approval whenever required under the
provisions of this specific plan.

Consistent. Phased, preliminary landscape plans
have been prepared for the project.

Landscape designs should be coordinated between
the areas of a development. However, all areas
within a project need not be identical. Different
landscape themes may be utilized in larger
developments to distinguish spaces from one
another, yet these themes should be consistent with
a unifying concept which establishes a cohesive
design throughout the project.

Consistent. As outlined in the Landscape Plans, a
native and climate-appropriate plant palette is
proposed to be incorporated throughout the project
site. In addition, landscaping would be implemented
with development at each phase of the Project, to
ensure cohesive landscaping while Project
development is underway. Furthermore, the
landscape plan includes perimeter plantings would
provide for partial screening of development from
adjacent roadways.

In addition to the selection and distribution of plant
materials, landscape plans should incorporate
various site furnishings and features. Lighting,
seating, paving, fountains, etc., should be considered
integral components of the landscape plan and
therefore included in the overall landscape concept.

Consistent. Furnishings, including temporary
detention basins, decorative dry stream beds,
pedestrian promenades, seating, bridges, and
decomposed granite trails are provided in the
Landscape Plan.

The scale and character of the landscape materials to
be selected should be appropriate to the site and/or
architecture. Large-scale buildings or projects
require large-scale landscaping treatments.

Consistent. Proposed landscaping would be
incorporated throughout the project site. In
addition, landscaping will be done at each phase of
the Project, to accommodate for the changing
landscaping needs of the site.

Existing landscaping elements, such as mature
trees, should be incorporated into landscape plans.

Specimen trees or groupings of existing trees can
provide a new development with immediate
Consistent. Existing mature trees and landscaping
elements associated with the existing MOB 1 would
remain in place and be incorporated into the overall
landscape plan for the project site.
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-28 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Regulations Compliance
character. They should be viewed as design
determinants.

Landscaping incorporated into the building design
through trellises, arbors, planters, atriums, etc., is
encouraged and can often enhance the quality of a
building.

Consistent. Landscaping features, such as decorative
dry stream beds, promenades, decorative seating,
granite trails, prairie grass fields, and focal bridges are included in the Landscape Plan.

The plant palette should be relatively limited and
applied in groupings of similar species rather than a
few plants of many different species planted
together. The use of water conserving plantings,
such as California natives and drought tolerant
trees, shrubs and turfs is encouraged.

Consistent. A plant palette is included in the
Landscape Plan and includes drought tolerant
plants and native plants, such as agave and oak
trees.

Live plant materials should be used in all
landscaped areas. The use of gravel, colored rock,
bark, and other similar materials are not acceptable
as a sole ground cover material. {These materials
may be used, however, in place of paving materials
in functional activity areas such as patios or rear
entry walks, or as groundcover for up to twenty
percent (20%) of the total landscaped area).

Consistent. Live plants are proposed and included
in the Landscape Plan and would cover the majority
of landscape areas, as opposed to gravel, rock, and
bark.

New plant materials should be supplied in a variety
of container sizes: for shrubs - five gallon sizes, and for trees - fifteen gallon containers, are preferred.

The variety of tree sizes for the overall site
landscaping shall adhere to the criteria established
in EV4.0255(A)(9).

Consistent. Consistent with landscape plans for the
project, new plant materials would be supplied in
various container sizes.

Irrigation is required for all landscaped areas.

Automatic systems are required. Plants should be
watered and maintained on a regular basis. Irrigation
systems should be designed so as not to overspray
walks, buildings, fences, etc. The use of water
conserving systems such as drip irrigation or moisture
sensors for shrubs and tree planting is encouraged.

Consistent. Irrigation systems would be
determined at a later date, closer to the project
Phase 1 buildout. However, irrigation systems
would be automatic to avoid overspray.

Landscape installation, in accordance with the
approved plan, must occur prior to building
occupancy. Where a development occurs in phases,
all landscaping for each phase must be installed
prior to occupancy of that phase.

Consistent. Landscaping is to be constructed
throughout the phases of the project, in congruency
with each phases beginning and end date.

Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1
Minimum lot area shall be twenty thousand square
feet.

Consistent. The existing lot area is considerably
larger than the minimum lot area as established in
the Redlands Business Center Concept Plan No. 1.

Minimum lot width shall be one hundred feet;
minimum lot depth shall be one hundred-fifty feet.

Consistent. The proposed lot width is greater than
one hundred feet, and the depth is greater than one
hundred-fifty feet.

Maximum structure height is one hundred-fifty feet. In
addition, height limits shall be determined in
accordance with Part 77 of the FAA regulations and
Section EV4.0240 (a) of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan pertaining to the Floor Area Ratio. For purposes of this District, the maximum FAR shall be 0.60.

Consistent. The tallest building on the project site,
the proposed medical center, would feature a
seven-story tower that would measure
approximately 118 from ground level to top of
parapet. The proposed maximum height of
development on the project site is less than the
maximum permitted structure height of 150 feet.
 SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.1-29 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Regulations Compliance
Furthermore, building heights shall be limited so
that there are clear northerly views showing the full
height of the mountains from the freeway through
fifty percent of the entire project site. Sightline
studies are needed at time of submission to the
Planning Commission to assure project compliance.

Minimum building/parking setbacks shall be as
follows:
• Front yard - The District shall have a
minimum front yard landscape setback
extending around the entire street
perimeter of twenty-five feet.
• For buildings over two stories in height,
special consideration shall be given to
increased street side setbacks, increased
landscaped setbacks and architectural
enhancement to protect the streetscape
from visually over-powering buildings.

For requirements on landscaping, walls, access,
parking, loading, trash enclosures, lighting and
storage, the provisions of Division 4 of the EVCSP
shall apply. For the purposes of landscaping
requirements, a minimum of twenty percent of the
site shall be provided.

Consistent. As shown in the Preliminary Landscape
Plans, a perimeter landscape setback of twenty-five
feet or greater is proposed for the Project. Further,
the project would comply with site landscaping
requirements established in the Redlands Business
Center Concept Plan No. 1.

Source: City of Redlands, 2017a; City of Redlands, 2017b; City of Redlands, 2004 As detailed in the table above, the proposed project would adhere to regulations governing scenic quality. The project would adhere to all development and design guidelines of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts.

4.1.5 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would not significantly impact aesthetic resources. Therefore, there would be no cumulative aesthetics impacts associated with the development of the proposed project.

4.1.6 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.1.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.2 Air Quality

4.2.1 Introduction
This section addresses the proposed project’s impacts on regional and local air quality. After discussing the factors that influence air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin), it identifies air pollutants of concern and summarizes their health effects. The section identifies and describes relevant federal, state, regional, and municipal air quality regulations, standards, policies, and plans; characterizes ambient air quality near the project site and defines criteria for the significance of impacts. Emissions are estimated for both construction and project operations and compared with significance thresholds. Inputs to and outputs from CalEEMod, the emissions model used for this analysis, are provided in Appendix D2.

4.2.2 Air Quality Background
Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions and by meteorological conditions that influence the movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the link between air pollutant emissions and air quality.

The project site is in the City of Redlands, which is in the SCAB. The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles County, most of Riverside County, and the western portion of San Bernardino County, including some portions of what was previously known as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. The distinctive climate of the Basin is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around its remaining perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.

The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the Basin is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. An upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends characterizes highpressure systems, such as the semi-permanent high-pressure zone in which the Basin is located. This upper layer restricts the mobility of cooler marine-influenced air near the ground surface and results in the formation of subsidence inversions. Such inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst-case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog.

The atmospheric pollution potential of an area is largely dependent on winds, atmospheric stability, solar radiation, and terrain. The combination of low wind speeds and low inversions produces the greatest concentration of air pollutants. On days without inversions, or on days of winds averaging over 15 miles per hour (mph), smog potential is greatly reduced (SCAQMD, 1993).

The nearest National Weather Service station to the project site is in Redlands, approximately three miles southeast of the project site, at 34.05°N, -117.183°W. At the Redlands, California (047306) station (WRCC, 2016), the National Climatic Data Center period of record is 1898 through 2016.

During the period of record, the average annual rainfall measured 13.56 inches, which occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer. Monthly precipitation averages approximately 2.40 inches during the winter (December, January, and February), approximately 1.31  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-2 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
inches during the spring (March, April, and May), approximately 0.70 inch during the fall (September, October, and November), and approximately 0.11 inch during the summer (June, July, and August).

The average maximum and minimum monthly temperatures during the period of record were 78.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 49.2°F, respectively. Average winter (December, January, and February) high and low temperatures are approximately 65.6°F and 40.1°F, respectively and average summer (June, July, and August) high and low temperatures are approximately 91.9°F and 58.7°F, respectively (WRCC, 2016).

Winds in the Basin are generally light, tempered by afternoon sea breezes. Severe weather is uncommon in the Basin, but strong easterly winds known as the Santa Ana winds can reach 25 to 35 miles per hour below the passes and canyons. During the spring and summer months, air pollution is carried out of the region through mountain passes in wind currents or is lifted by the warm vertical currents produced by the heating of the mountain slopes. From the late summer through the winter months, because of the average lower wind speeds and temperatures in the proposed project area and its vicinity, air contaminants do not readily disperse, thus trapping air pollution in the area.

4.2.2.1 Air Pollution and Potential Health Effects
Short- and/or long-term exposure to air pollution has been associated with a wide range of human health effects, including increased respiratory symptoms, hospitalization for heart or lung diseases, and even premature death (USEPA, 2018a). Hazardous (or toxic) air pollutants may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects. Specific groups within the general population may have a greater risk of pollution effects due to a variety of factors. For example, children are often more vulnerable to pollutants. The following are summaries of the health effects of the air pollutants typically emitted during the construction and operation of commercial developments.

Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and an ambient air quality standard (AAQS) has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The national and California AAQS have both been set at levels determined by the USEPA and CARB to protect public health. The criteria air pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and ozone (O3), and their precursors. Since the proposed project would not generate appreciable SO2 or lead emissions,6 it is not necessary for the analysis to include those two pollutants. Federal and state AAQS are listed in Table 4.2-1. Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects. 6 Sulfur dioxide emissions will be about 0.02 pound per day during construction and about 0.59 pound per day during operations.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-3 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 4.2-1

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Concentration3 Method4 Primary3.5 Secondary3.6 Method7
Ozone (03)8 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/ m3) Ultraviolet Photometry --- Same as Primary Standard Ultraviolet Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/ m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/ m3) Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10)
9 24 Hour 50 µg/ m3
Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 150 µg/ m3
Same as Primary Standard
Inertial Separation and
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/ m3 --- Gravimetric Analysis Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
9 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 µg/ m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/ m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 12 µg/ m3 15 µg/ m3 Gravimetric Analysis Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/ m3) Non-Dispersive Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
35 ppm (40 mg/ m3)
---
Non-Dispersive Infrared
8 Hour 9.0 ppm Photometry (NDIR) (10 mg/ m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/ m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
10 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/ m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppm (188 µg/ m3) --- Gas Phase Chemiluminescence Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/ m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/ m3) Same as Primary Standard Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
11 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/ m3)
Ultraviolet Fluorescence
75 ppm (196 µg/m3) --- Ultraviolet Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline Method)
3 Hour --- --- 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/ m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/ m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain areas)11 --- Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 0.030 ppm (for certain areas)11 --- Lead12,13
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/ m3
Atomic Absorption
--- --- ---
Calendar Quarter --- 1.5 µg/ m3 (for certain areas)12
Same as Primary Standard
High Volume Sampler and
Rolling 3-Month Average --- 0.15 µg/ m3 Atomic Absorption Visibility Reducing
Visibility Reducing Particles14 8 Hour See footnote 14 Beta Attenuation & Transmittance through Filter Tape No
National
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/ m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/ m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence Vinyl Chloride12 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/ m3) Gas Chromatography

1. California Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter–PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reduction particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in § 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National Standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/ m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health.

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by EPA.

8. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.

9. As of December 14, 2012, the annual primary PM2.5 standard changed from 15 µg/ m3 to 12 µg/ m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/ m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/ m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/ m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

11. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. * Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

12. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

13. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/ m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

14. In 1989, the ARB converted the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer”  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-4 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.2.2.2 Criteria Pollutants Ozone (O3)
Ozone is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. Ozone creation requires ROG and NOx to be available for approximately three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone concentrations frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted. Thus, ozone is considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant.

Individuals working outdoors, children (including teenagers), older adults, people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma, and individuals with certain nutritional deficiencies are considered to be the subgroups most susceptible to ozone effects. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated ozone levels are associated with increased school absences and daily hospital admission rates, as well as increased mortality. An increased risk for asthma has been found in children who participate in multiple sports and live in high-ozone communities. Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of respiratory symptoms. Although lung volume and airway resistance changes observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes (SCAQMD, 2017, p. 2-17).

4.2.2.3 Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM 2.5)
PM is a general term used to describe a complex group of airborne solid, liquid, or semi-volatile materials of various sizes and composition. Primary PM is emitted directly into the atmosphere from activities such as agricultural operations, industrial processes, construction and demolition activities, and entrainment of road dust into the air. Secondary PM is formed in the atmosphere from predominantly gaseous combustion by-product precursors, such as sulfur oxides, NOX, and ROG.

Particle size is a critical characteristic of PM that primarily determines the location of PM deposition along the respiratory system (and associated health effects) as well as the degradation of visibility through light scattering. In the United States, federal and state agencies have established two types of PM air quality standards, as shown in Table 4.2-1. PM10 corresponds to the fraction of PM no greater than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter and is commonly called respirable PM, while PM2.5 refers to the subset of PM10 of aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers, and is commonly called fine PM.

PM10 and PM2.5 deposition in the lungs results in irritation that triggers a range of inflammation responses, such as mucus secretion and bronchoconstriction, and exacerbates pulmonary dysfunctions, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. Sufficiently small particles may penetrate the bloodstream and impact functions such as blood coagulation, cardiac autonomic control, and mobilization of inflammatory cells from the bone marrow. Individuals susceptible to higher health risks from exposure to PM10 airborne pollution include children, the elderly, smokers, and people of all ages with low pulmonary/cardiovascular function. For these individuals, adverse health effects of PM10 pollution include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, phlegm, bronchitis, and aggravation of lung or heart disease, leading for example to increased risks of hospitalization and mortality from asthma attacks and heart attacks.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-5 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CO is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. It is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as the project location, automobile exhaust accounts for most CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Local meteorological conditions, primarilywind speed,topography, and atmospheric stability, influence CO concentrations. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent.

Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. (SCAQMD, 2017, p. 2-38) The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain with exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of worsening oxygen supply delivery to the heart. Inhaled CO has no known direct toxic effect on the lungs but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with oxygen transport, by competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, people with conditions requiring an increased oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency), such as is seen at high altitudes.

Reductions in birth weight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals chronically exposed to CO resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers.

Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes with exposure to elevated CO levels, including preterm births and heart abnormalities.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Nitrogen oxides(NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production.

The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen.

NOX is an ozone precursor. A precursor is a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the atmosphere, forms, causes to be formed, or contributes to the formation of a secondary air contaminant for which an AAQS has been adopted or whose presence in the atmosphere will contribute to the violation of one or more AAQS. When NOX and reactive organic gases (ROG) are released in the atmosphere, they can chemically react with one another in the presence of sunlight to form ozone.

Experimental studies have found that NO2 exposures increase responsiveness of airways, pulmonary inflammation, and oxidative stress, and can lead to the development of allergic responses. (SCAQMD, 2017, p. 2-43). These biological responses provide evidence of a plausible mechanism for NO2 to cause asthma. Additionally, results from controlled exposure studies of asthmatics demonstrate an increase in the tendency of airways to contract in response to a chemical stimulus (airway responsiveness) or after inhaled allergens. Animal studies also provide evidence that NO2 exposure has negative effects on the immune system, thereby increasing the host’s susceptibility to respiratory infections. Epidemiological studies showing associations between NO2 levels and hospital admissions for respiratory infections support such a link, although the studies examining respiratory infections in children are less consistent.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-6 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.2.2.4 VolatileOrganic Compounds (VOCs)
The term reactive organic gases (ROG) is used by the California ARB for this air quality analysis and is defined the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound” (VOC). ROGs are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. It should be noted that there are no state or national AAQS for ROG because ROGs are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because a reduction in ROG emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formation of ozone. ROGs are also transformed in the atmosphere into organic aerosols, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility.

4.2.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal CleanAir Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), passed in 1970, established the national air pollution control program. The basic elements of the FCAA are the NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutants standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.

The NAAQS are the maximum allowable concentrations of criteria pollutants, over specified averaging periods, to protect human health. The FCAA requires that the USEPA establish NAAQS and reassess, at least every five years, whether they are adequate to protect public health, based on current scientific evidence. The NAAQS are divided into primary and secondary standards; the former standards are set to protect human health within an adequate margin of safety, and the latter to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life.

Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the USEPA to classify regions as “attainment” or “nonattainment,” depending on whether the regions have met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Nonattainment areas are subject to additional restrictions, as required by the USEPA.

The FCAA Amendments in 1990 substantially revised the planning provisions for those areas not currently meeting NAAQS. The Amendments identify specific emission reduction goals that both require a demonstration of reasonable further progress and attainment and incorporate more stringent sanctions for failure to attain the NAAQS or to meet interim attainment milestones.

State
California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
The State of California began to set CAAQS in 1969 under the mandate of the Mulford-Carrell Act.

There were no attainment deadlines for the CAAQS originally. However, the State Legislature passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988 to establish air quality goals, planning mechanisms, regulatory strategies, and standards of progress to promote their attainment. The ARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the CCAA, responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-7 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
The CCAA requires attainment of CAAQS by the earliest practicable date. The state standards are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards. Attainment plans are required for air basins in violation of the State ozone, PM10, CO, SO2, or NO2 standards. Responsibility for achieving state standards is placed on the ARB and local air pollution control districts. District plans for nonattainment areas must be designed to achieve a 5% annual reduction in emissions.

Preparation of and adherence to attainment plans are the responsibility of the local air pollution districts or air quality management districts.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) is the official compilation and publication of regulations adopted, amended or repealed by the state agencies pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The CCR includes regulations that pertain to air quality emissions. Specifically, § 2485 in Title 13 of the CCR states that the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to five minutes at any location. In addition, § 93115 in Title 17 of the CCR states that operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards.

Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for maintaining and improving air quality in all of Orange County and the urbanized portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Through its regulations and rules, it implements state and federal laws and regulations within its geographic distribution.

The SCAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality will be improved in the region.

The CCAA requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate the most recent available technical information. A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies, at the federal, state, regional, and local levels, implements the programs contained in these plans. Agencies involved include the USEPA, the ARB, local governments, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. The SCAQMD updates its AQMP every three years. Previously adopted plans include the 2016 AQMP and 2022 AQMP.

The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 2017, and was submitted to the ARB on March 10, 2017 to become part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) (SCAQMD, 2017). The 2016 AQMP focused largely on reducing NOX emissions as a means of attaining the 1979 1-hour ozone standard by 2022, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by 2023, and the 2008 8-hour standard by 2031 (SCAQMD, 2017).

The 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2022b) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on December 2, 2022. It focuses on reducing ozone by limiting the emissions of NOx, a key reactant in ozone formation. The NOx reductions are through extensive use of zero emission technologies across all stationary and mobile sources categories. The majority of NOx emissions are from heavy-duty trucks, ships and other state and federally regulated mobile sources that are mostly beyond the SCAQMD’s control. The SCAQMD’s primary authority is over stationary sources, which account for approximately 20 percent of the SCAB’s NOx emissions.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-8 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
All projects that release contaminants into the air are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction and afterwards. Specific rules applicable to the construction of the project may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Rule 402 – Nuisance
This Rule prohibits discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of PM entrained in the ambient air from anthropogenic (man-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or man-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. Some specific requirements of Rule 403 that apply to all construction projects, regardless of the size of their disturbed areas, are addressed below:7
• No person shall cause or allow emissions of fugitive dust to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source or to exceed 20% opacity if the dust emission is a result of a moving motorized vehicle. • Apply applicable Best Available Control Measures in Table 1 of Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust emissions during active operation. This project requires watering of exposed surfaces at frequencies of three times per 8-hour workday. • No person shall cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high-volume PM samplers or other USEPA approved equivalent method for PM10 monitoring at the project limits for a five-hour period during the time of Active Operations. Samplingwill only occur if a complaint is reported to the SCAQMD, in which case the decision to conduct sampling will be made by SCAQMD, and SCAQMD will conduct sampling.
• No person shall allow track-out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative length from the point of origin from an active operation, and all track-out from an active operation shall be removed at the end of each workday or evening shift. • No person shall conduct an active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres, or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of bulk material without at least one of the measures listed under subparagraph (d)(5) ofRule 403 at each vehicle egress.

Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings
The purpose of this rule is to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings used in the District and applies to any person who supplies, sells, markets, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural 7 SCAQMD Rule 403(d), as Amended June 3, 2005.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-9 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
coating that is intended to be field applied within the District and any person who applies, stores at a worksite, or solicits the application of any architectural coating within the District.8

4.2.3.1 Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)is the federally-designated metropolitan planning agency for Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties. It works together with the SCAQMD to prepare the above-described AQMP. One of SCAG’s major responsibilities is to prepare and periodically update the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which is required for the region to receive federal and state transportation funding for public transit, streets and roads, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The SCS, which is required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375), has as its primary goal the reduction of per capita passenger vehicle-generated GHG emissions.

The most recent update, Connect SoCal 2024 Amendment #1 (2024-2050 RTP/SCS), was adopted by SCAG on September 5, 2024 (SCAG, 2025). Connect SoCal 2024 is described in general terms in Section 4.7.2.

4.2.4 Methodology
The California Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.29 (CAPCOA, 2022), which incorporates onroad emission factors from EMFAC2021 (v1.01) for applicable calendar years in the San Bernardino portion of the SCAB, was used to estimate construction emissions for offroad equipment exhaust; onroad exhaust emissions from construction employee commute and vendor activity; and onroad exhaust emissions from hauling activity. CalEEMod outputs are presented in Appendix D2. It should be noted that an initial emissions calculation using CalEEMod defaults resulted in emissions that would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for the construction and operational phase. The addition of energy and VOC reducing mitigation measures, and trip data provided by the traffic study resulted in conditions without air pollutant exceedances. Modifications to default CalEEMod data are further detailed under Threshold B of the impact analysis.

It was assumed that construction activities will be divided into four phases, each of which is divided into six or seven subphases. Table 4.2-1 shows the offroad equipment uses in each phase. The “load factor” in the rightmost column is the fraction of total rated horsepower that is actually used by the equipment type.

Table 4.2-1

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT BY PHASE
Subphase Equipment Type No. of
Pieces
Hours/
Day
HorsepowerLoad
Factor
Phase 1
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 0.5 33 0.73
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.5 84 0.37
Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.5 376 0.38
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37
Grading Excavators 1 8 36 0.38
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
8 SCAQMD Rule 1113, as Amended February 5, 2016.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-10 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Subphase Equipment Type No. of
Pieces
Hours/
Day
HorsepowerLoad
Factor
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes 1 7 367 0.29
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37
Welders 1 8 46 0.45
Paving + Landscaping
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
Utilities Trenching &
Installation Trenchers 1 8 40 0.5
Phase 2
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37
Pad Grading
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Excavators 2 8 36 0.38
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4
Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48
Building Construction
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Cranes 1 7 367 0.29
Welders 1 8 46 0.45
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37
Paving + Landscaping
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
Utilities Trenching &
Installation Trenchers 1 8 40 0.5
Phase 3
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37
Fine Grading
Excavators 1 8 36 0.38
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes 1 7 367 0.29
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37
Welders 1 8 46 0.45
Paving + Landscaping
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6 10 0.56
Pavers 1 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 6 89 0.36
Rollers 2 6 36 0.38
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-11 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Subphase Equipment Type No. of
Pieces
Hours/
Day
HorsepowerLoad
Factor
Utilities Trenching &
Installation Trenchers 1 8 40 0.5
Phase 4
Site Preparation
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Scrapers 1 8 423 0.48
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 84 0.37
Pad Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 0.37
Fine Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8 367 0.29
Forklifts 2 7 82 0.2
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 84 0.37
Welders 3 8 46 0.45
Paving + Landscaping
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37
Pavers 1 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 1 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 10 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
Utilities Trenching and
Installation Trenchers 1 8 40 0.5

4.2.5 Existing Conditions

4.2.5.1 Regional Air Quality
Table 4.2-2 shows the attainment status of the SCAB for each criteria pollutant for both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The entire SCAB is currently nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 federal standards, and ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 for state standards.

Table 4.2-2

FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) – 1-hour standard Nonattainment (Extreme) Nonattainment Ozone (O3) – 8-hour standard Nonattainment (Extreme)
Particulate Matter (PM10) Maintenance (Serious) Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (Serious) Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance (Serious) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maintenance (Primary) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standards Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Unclassified Visibility Reducing Particles Sources: ARB, 2020, USEPA, 2022a.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-12 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.2.5.2 Local Air Quality
Existing Pollutant Levels at Nearby Monitoring Stations The SCAQMD has divided the Basin into source-receptor areas (SRAs) based on distinctive meteorological and topographical features. The proposed project site is located in the East San Bernardino Valley (SRA 35). The station most representative of the site is the San Bernardino station, which is 3.40 miles southwest of the project site. This station monitors O3, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2. The ambient air quality data recorded at these stations for the proposed project vicinity from 2021 to 2023, along with the applicable federal and state standards, are shown in Table 4.2-3.

Table 4.2-3

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air
Pollutant Standard/Exceedance Year
2021 2022 2023
Ozone
(O3)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.142 0.128 0.143
Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.113 0.105 0.118
# Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.075 ppm 74 70 66
# Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm 98 96 84
# Days > State 1-hour Std. of 0.09 ppm 66 60 58
# Days > State 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm 101 103 87
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
State Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3) 71.2 ND ND
# Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150 µg/ m3 1.0 1.0 ND
# Estimated Days > State 24-hour Std. of 50 µg/ m3 25.8 ND ND State Annual Average (µg/ m3) 31.7 ND ND
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Federal Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/ m3) 57.9 40.1 52.9 State Annual Average (µg/ m3) 11.8 11.2 10.5
# Measured Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/ m3 3.0 6.4 3.1 Federal Annual Average (µg/ m3) 11.8 11.2 10.5
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Federal Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.048 0.046 0.046 Annual Average (ppm) 0.015 0.015 0.013
# Days > Federal 1-hour Std. of 100 ppm 0 0 0
# Days > State 1-hour Std. of 0.18 ppm 0 0 0
Source: ARB, 2024. Accessed March 3, 2025. ND – There were insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to certain pollutants. A sensitive receptor means any residence, including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; schools and preschools; daycare centers; and health facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes, long term care hospitals, hospices; prisons; and dormitories or similar live-in housing (SCAQMD, 1993). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor, because employees typically are present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours. Therefore, applying a 24-hour standard for PM10 is appropriate not only because the averaging period for the state standard is 24 hours, but because the sensitive receptor would be present at the location for the full 24 hours.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-13 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is the existing, onsite Kaiser Medical Center building, less than 25 feet from proposed construction activity. This health care facility is considered a sensitive receptor because it is a location where those who are susceptible to health impacts due to air pollutants may receive care. As each phase is completed, it becomes a new onsite sensitive receptor.

4.2.6 Localized Significance Analysis for Criteria Pollutants The purpose of this analysis is to estimate whether ambient air quality standards for NO2, CO, PM10 or PM2.5 would be violated near the project. To facilitate impact analysis, the SCAQMD developed a methodology for modeling for many combinations of project footprint area, source-receptor distance, and local meteorology in the SCAB (Chico and Koizumi, 2008). From the results of the analysis, SCAQMD developed mass rate look-up tables that can be used to determine whether a project’s emissions may generate significant localized air quality impacts on offsite and onsite receptors (including sensitive receptors). Based on the SRA number, the distance to the receptor and the site area, the output of the modeling is a set of pollutant-specific emission thresholds.

4.2.6.1 Operation
For the operational emissions calculations, CalEEMod’s default assumptions were used, with the following exceptions:
• No natural gas or electricity-related emissions were included for Phases 2, 3, and 4, as the new onsite utility plant, which will not burn fossil fuels, will be constructed during Phase 2. The utility plant may use backup grid power from SCE as needed, but impacts from this will be minimal given the infrequency such backup power is anticipated to be engaged.
• Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates are based on the traffic study analysis.

4.2.6.2 Health Risk Assessment
After reviewing the Notice of Preparation for this project, a SCAQMD representative notified UltraSystems that “if implementation of the Proposed Project would require the use of new stationary or portable sources—such as emergency generators, fire water pumps, or boilers—air permits from South Coast AQMD will be required, and an evaluation of the associated air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts should be included in your CEQA document” (Wang, 2025).

The only permitted sources likely to emit toxic air contaminants will be diesel-powered emergency generators that are typically required for health care facilities. The generators would emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known carcinogen, during operations. The SCAQMD has established CEQA significance levels for cancer and noncancer risk. These are (SCAQMD, 2023b):
• Maximum incremental cancer risk (MICR) ≥ 10 in 1 million. • Cancer burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million). • Chronic and acute hazard index ≥ 1.0 (project increment).

A screening analysis was performed to determine whether a full, formal health risk assessment (HRA) under SCAQMD guidelines would be necessary. Emergency generators at the proposed Kaiser facility would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), as  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-14 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
last amended on September 1, 2017. Pursuant to Rule 1401(e), the SCAQMD has published guidelines for reviewing permit applications for equipment subject to this rule. The latest guidelines are Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212. The procedures cover four “tiers” of analysis (SCAQMD, 2024, p. 4).
• Tier 1 HRA: Screening Emission Levels.
• Tier 2 HRA: Screening Risk Assessment.
• Tier 3 HRA: Screening Dispersion Modeling.
• Tier 4 HRA: Detailed Health Risk Assessment.

The tiers are designed to be used in order of increasing complexity with each higher tier providing a more refined estimate of risk than the lower tier. If compliance cannot be demonstrated using one tier, the permit applicant may proceed to the next tier or limit the emissions so that compliance can be demonstrated. A permit applicant who can show compliance by using a lower tier does not need to perform an analysis for the higher tiers (SCAQMD, 2024, p. 4).

The SCAQMD has recently made available an online “HRA Tool,”9 which does the calculations required for Tiers 1 through 3. As the project “screened out” at Level 2, only Tiers 1 and 2 will be discussed. Tier 1 requires estimates the project’s annual generator DPM emissions. Emission rates were obtained from SCAQMD permit data for an existing Kaiser facility. It was assumed that the proposed project would have five diesel 2,206-horsepower generators with Tier 4 Final engines and that all would operate for a maximum of 50 hours per year, which is a typical permit condition for this type of emission source. The HRA Tool uses the worst-case air pollutant dispersion from a nonbuoyant source anywhere in the South Coast Basin and calculates toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations at 25, 50 and 100 meters. The concentrations are then divided by a pollutant-specific Annual Pollutant Screening Level (PSLTAC, Annual) to obtain the Pollutant Screening Index (PSITAC).

If the PSI is less than or equal to one, then no further risk assessment is needed. If the PSI exceeds one, then the analysis moves to Tier 2.

For the Tier 2 screening analysis, the HRA Tool does simplified, but more project-specific, dispersion modeling and then calculates carcinogenic risk and chronic and acute noncancer risk. Since no acute risk criteria have been developed for DPM, the tool only calculates chronic noncancer risk for that TAC. HRA Tool inputs include:
• Maximum annual emissions of the TAC.
• The distance from the source to the nearest offsite or onsite residential and worker receptor(s). For a point source, such as a diesel generator, the distance is from the center of the generator stack to the property line of the nearest receptor location. • Certain source characteristics such as stack height and building dimensions. For certain types of emissions sources, including diesel-fueled emergency generators, the HRA Tool has default values for several of these source characteristics. • Operating schedule of the source.
9 Health Risk Assessment Tool and AERMOD-Ready Meteorological Data Files for Use in South Coast Air Quality AQMD permit Applications and CEQA Purposes. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA.

Available online at https://www.aqmd.gov/assets/aermet/AERMET_files_And_HRA_Tool.html. Last accessed May 2, 2025.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-15 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
• Geographic location of the source; this determines the local meteorology.

Three types of risk calculation results are reported:
• Maximum individual cancer risk: number in one million. • Cancer burden: number of cases per million population. • Noncancer hazard index: average annual exposure divided by pollutant-specific reference exposure level (REL); both values are in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).

4.2.7 Environmental Impact Analysis

4.2.7.1 Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, implementation of the project would result in a potentially significant impact related to air quality if it were to:

A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; or 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; or
C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or D. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The Initial Study determined that the impact of Threshold D would be less than significant because the project involves no industrial elements, so no long-term operational objectionable odors are anticipated. This analysis, therefore, evaluates impacts only for Appendix G Thresholds A through C.

4.2.7.2 SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. As will be discussed in the next section, the SCAQMD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook to provide a protocol for air quality analyses that are prepared under the requirements of CEQA.

To assist in implementing the air quality plans, the SCAQMD developed criteria for determining whether emissions from a project are regionally significant. They are useful for estimating whether a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project is in conformity with plans to achieve attainment. The SCAQMD no longer has “indirect source” rules, e.g., rules that place restrictions on housing or commercial development, or require reductions in trip generation and/or VMT to developed commercial or industrial sites. Instead, the District has published guidance on conducting air quality analyses under CEQA (SCAQMD, 1993).

4.2.7.3 Emission Thresholds for Regional Air Quality Impacts SCAQMD’s significance thresholds are summarized in Table 4.2-5 for criteria pollutant emissions during construction activities and project operation. A project is considered to have a regional air  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-16 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding SCAQMD significance thresholds.

Table 4.2-4

SCAQMD EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACTS Pollutant Mass Daily Thresholds (Pounds/Day)
Construction Operation
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD, 2023. Accessed December 21, 2024.

Impacts of Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Increased local vehicle traffic may contribute to offsite air quality impacts. The traffic increases in nearby intersections may contribute to traffic congestion, which may create “pockets” of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm, thus affecting sensitive receptors that are close to these roadways or intersections. CO hotspots historically were found at busy intersections but could also occur along congested major arterials and freeways. They occurred mostly in the early morning hours when winds are stagnant and ambient CO concentrations are elevated.

It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections (USEPA, 2000; SCAQMD, 1993, Section 4.5; SCAQMD, 2003).

Accordingly, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent. Before the first vehicle emission regulations, cars in the 1950s were typically emitting about 87 grams of CO per mile (USEPA, 2000). Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (with provisions for certain cars to emit even less)(ARB, 2021).With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin have steadily declined.

An analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SCAB by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances due to development projects. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan)(SCAQMD, 2005). In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for the four worst-case scenario intersections in Los Angeles County at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The peak modeled CO concentrations due to vehicle emissions occurred at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was

4.6 ppm, which indicates that the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm) would likely not be  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-17 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
exceeded until the daily traffic at the intersection exceeded more than 400,000 vehicles per day.10 The AQMP CO hotspots modeling also considered worst-case meteorological conditions and background CO concentrations. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) evaluated the level of service (LOS) in the vicinity of the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection and found it to be Level E for peak morning traffic and Level F for peak afternoon traffic (MTA, 2004).11 If a project intersection does not exceed 400,000 vehicles per day, then the project does not need to prepare a detailed CO hotspots analysis using California LINE Source Dispersion Model, version 4 (CALINE4), which is a model used to assess air quality impacts near transportation facilities (i.e., roadways, intersections, street canyons, and parking facilities).

Asbestos
The threshold of significance for asbestos is the presence of the material in friable form. The concrete structures to be demolished will not likely contain asbestos contaminated materials. It is possible that paving materials may contain them. If they do, the owner or operator of any demolition activity must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Compliance must include a facility survey for the presence of asbestos prior to any demolition activity; notification of the SCAQMD of the intent to conduct any demolition activity; and, if asbestos is discovered, removal of the asbestos according to an asbestos removal schedule

4.2.7.4 Analysis of Project Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant
The 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2022) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on December 2, 2022. It focuses on reducing ozone by limiting the emissions of NOx, which is a key reactant in ozone formation. The NOx reductions are achieved through the extensive use of zero-emission technologies across all stationary and mobile source categories. The majority of NOx emissions are from heavyduty trucks, ships and other state and federally regulated mobile sources that are mostly beyond the SCAQMD’s control. The SCAQMD’s primary authority is over stationary sources, which account for approximately 20 percent of the SCAB’s NOx emissions.

The AQMP incorporates land use assumptions from local general plans and regional growth projections developed by SCAG to estimate stationary and mobile air emissions associated with projected population and planned land uses. If the proposed land use is consistent with the local general plan, then the impact of the project is presumed to have been accounted for in the AQMP.

This is because the land use and transportation control sections of the AQMP are based on the SCAG regional growth forecasts, which incorporate projections from local general plans.

The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning designations. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Park/Open Space (P-OS) and has a zoning designation of Commercial Industrial, while the zoning (under the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan) is Concept Plan 1 (CP-1). The proposed project is an allowed use within these designations. Therefore, no 10 The ratio of the CO standard (20.0 ppm) and the modeled value (4.6 ppm). 11 The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority measured traffic volumes and calculated the level of service (LOS) for the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard, which is east of Interstate 405.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-18 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
General Plan amendment or Zone Change is required for project implementation. The land use would continue to be consistent with the local plans, and the impacts of the project are still accounted for in the AQMP.

Another measurement tool in evaluating consistency with the AQMP is to determine whether a project would generate population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would exceed the growth rates forecasted in the AQMP and how the project would accommodate the expected increase in population or employment. The project would create a minimal increase in population and overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which would be included in the growth rates forecasted in the AQMP.

The AQMP incorporates updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories and incorporates the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Amendment #1 prepared by SCAG (2024). The 2024-2050 RTP/SCS was determined to conform to the federally mandated State Implementation Plan for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

Additionally, to assist the implementation of the AQMP, projects must not create regionally significant emissions of regulated pollutants from either short-term construction or long-term operations. The SCAQMD has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for determining whether emissions from a project are regionally significant (SCAQMD, 2023). They are useful for estimating whether a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project is in conformity with plans to achieve attainment. SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions during construction activities and project operation are summarized in Table 4.2-5. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding SCAQMD significance thresholds. As demonstrated under Threshold (b) below, neither short-term (construction) nor longterm (operational) emissions would exceed the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD.

Based on the discussion above, project impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant.

Threshold 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 with Mitigation Incorporated The SCAB portion of San Bernardino County is currently in nonattainment for federal ozone and PM2.5 AAQS, and the state ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 AAQS, but it is in attainment for the remaining federal and state AAQS (USEPA, 2023). The proposed project may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. The project would result in an increase in air pollutants during short-term construction and long-term operation. Constructionrelated air pollution would be from worker vehicle trips and construction equipment. During project operations, air pollutants would be primarily generated from motor vehicle travel and area sources such as architectural coatings.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-19 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Short-Term Construction
The project will be built in four phases. Construction activities are proposed to begin in September 2027 and end in March 2050. A tentative construction schedule is shown in Table 4.2-5.

Table 4.2-5

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Activity
(phase and subphase) Beginning (month) Ending (month) Duration, months Phase 1
Demolition September 1, 2027 September 30, 2027 1
Site Preparation October 1, 2027 November 1, 2027 1
Utilities Trenching and Installation November 2, 2027 December 15, 2027 1.5 Pad Grading December 16, 2027 January 15, 2028 1
Building Construction January 16, 2028 February 15, 2029 13.5 Architectural Coatings February 16, 2029 March 28, 2029 1.5 Paving+ Landscaping March 29, 2029 July 15, 2029 2.5
Phase 2
Site Preparation November 1, 2035 January 8, 2036 2.1
Utilities Trenching and Installation January 9, 2036 April 16, 2036 3.1 Pad Grading April 17, 2036 July 24, 2036 3.1
Building Construction July 25, 2036 February 25, 2039 32 Architectural Coatings February 26, 2039 April 29, 2039 2 Paving + landscaping April 30, 2039 November 28, 2039 4 Phase 3
Site Preparation December 1, 2043 January 3, 2044 1
Utilities Trenching and Installation January 4, 2044 February 13, 2044 1.6 Fine Grading February 14, 2044 March 28, 2044 1.5
Building Construction March 29, 2044 February 15, 2045 11.4 Architectural Coatings February 16, 2045 March 16, 2045 1 Paving + Landscaping March 17, 2045 May 17, 2045 2
Phase 4
Site Preparation November 1, 2047 January 1, 2048 2
Utilities Trenching and Installation January 2, 2048 February 14, 2048 1.5 Fine Grading February 15, 2048 March 30, 2048 1.5
Building Construction March 31, 2048 November 15, 2049 20.7 Architectural Coatings November 16, 2049 January 3, 2050 1 Paving + Landscaping January 4, 2050 March 4, 2050 2
CalEEMod defaults were used throughout, with the following major exceptions:
• Because the project will not require natural gas service, natural gas-based emissions were excluded from the model.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-20 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
• Because the project will be constructing a fuel cell micro-grid central utility plant (CUP) in Phase 2 that will enable the project to operate independently of the electric grid, onsite electricity usage was removed from CalEEMod following Phase 1 operations. No energy usage from Phases 2 through 4 is generated from direct or indirect fossil fuel combustion. • Daily trip rates were modified based on the project’s traffic study (Fehr & Peers, 2025). • Modified dust control strategies, specifically increasing daily watering to a minimum of three times per day to be consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403.
• Modified architectural coating limits and area source limits to be consistent with SCAQMD Rules 1113. Since these limitations are mandatory for all projects in the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction, they are not mitigation measures.
• One quantitative measure was considered for area sources, LL-1 to replace gas powered landscape equipment with zero-emission landscape equipment (CAPCOA, 2025). • Two qualitative CalEEMod transportation mitigation measures were considered: T-11 providing an employer-sponsored vanpool, and T-14 providing electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

As shown in Tables 4.2-6 through 4.2-9, all construction emissions associated with the project would be below the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to air quality during project construction would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-6
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 1
Construction Phase Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 0.71 4.88 6.7 3.25 0.49
Site Preparation 3.05 27.97 28.28 5.11 2.63
Utilities Trenching and Installation 0.16 1.22 1.41 0.04 0.04 Pad Grading - 2027 1.59 14.23 17.27 1.84 0.89
Pad Grading - 2028 1.56 13.79 17.32 1.84 0.89
Building Construction - 2028 0.99 8.92 12.94 0.30 0.28
Building Construction - 2029 0.97 8.58 12.90 0.28 0.25
Architectural Coatings 29.48 0.79 1.11 0.01 0.01
Paving + Landscaping 0.67 6.46 9.92 0.24 0.22
SCAQMD Daily Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 55
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.30) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-21 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 4.2-7
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 2
Construction Phase
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation - 2035 2.46 19.19 22.89 8.40 4.62
Site Preparation - 2036 2.35 18.00 21.71 8.34 4.56
Utilities Trenching and Installation 0.11 1.12 1.34 0.02 0.02 Pad Grading 2.28 15.86 24.10 4.17 1.96
Building Construction - 2036 0.83 7.12 12.60 0.169 0.15 Building Construction - 2037 0.89 6.99 12.50 0.16 0.14
Building Construction - 2038 0.81 6.90 12.47 0.15 0.14
Building Construction - 2039 0.80 6.78 12.40 0.15 0.13
Architectural Coatings 49.33 0.74 1.09 0.004 0.003
Paving + landscaping 0.69 5.31 9.75 0.11 0.10
SCAQMD Daily Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 55
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.

Table 4.2-8
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 3
Construction Phase
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation - 2043 2.01 14.47 18.62 5.11 2.63
Site Preparation - 2044 1.91 13.36 17.91 5.11 2.62
Utilities Trenching and Installation 0.09 1.07 1.32 0.011 0.010 Fine Grading 1.03 7.54 13.75 1.84 0.89
Building Construction - 2044 0.77 6.48 12.23 0.12 0.11
Building Construction - 2045 0.77 6.42 12.15 0.12 0.11
Architectural Coatings 20.57 0.74 1.09 0.003 0.003
Paving + Landscaping 0.45 4.75 8.66 0.08 0.07
SCAQMD Daily Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 55
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-22 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 4.2-9
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 4
Construction Phase
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation - 2047 0.71 3.55 9.22 0.75 0.19
Site Preparation - 2048 0.69 3.39 9.07 0.75 0.18
Utilities Trenching and Installation 0.09 1.06 1.31 0.01 0.01 Fine Grading 0.81 4.99 9.93 2.92 1.48
Building Construction - 2048 0.83 6.65 10.51 0.11 0.10
Building Construction - 2049 0.82 6.62 10.50 0.10 0.10
Architectural Coatings - 2049 24.71 0.74 1.09 <0.005 <0.005 Architectural Coatings - 2050 24.71 0.74 1.09 <0.05 <0.005 Paving + Landscaping 0.54 4.37 7.98 0.06 0.06
SCAQMD Daily Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 55
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.

Long-Term Operational Emissions
Long-term operational emissions are primarily attributed to vehicle exhaust from project-generated trips, referred to as “mobile source emissions.” Additional operational emissions include “energy source emissions,” resulting from the use of energy for water heating, space heating, and cooking, and “area source emissions,” which stem from activities such as building maintenance, landscaping, and the use of consumer products.

For Phases 2, 3, and 4, natural gas and electricity consumption are assumed to be zero, as a utility plant with renewable energy sources will be constructed onsite during Phase 2 to support energy needs. Area source emissions are modeled in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which governs the use of architectural coatings. Mobile source emissions are based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as determined by the project’s traffic study analysis (see Appendix D-14) .

An initial emissions calculation without CalEEMod mitigation measures resulted in ROG emissions that would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for the operational phase. Results of these initial calculations are shown in Table 4.2-10.
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-23 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 4.2-10

MAXIMUM UNMITIGATED DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS FOR ALL PHASES Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1
Mobile Sources 11.99 11.57 102.2 25.2 6.51
Area Sources 4.97 0.06 7.17 0.01 0.01
Energy Sources 0.07 1.22 1.02 0.09 0.09
Total Emissions 17.03 12.85 110.39 25.3 6.61
Phase 2
Mobile Sources 10.89 9.6 102.5 32.4 8.3
Area Sources 15.7 0.35 41.3 0.07 0.05
Total Emissions 26.59 9.95 143.8 32.47 8.35
Phase 3
Mobile Sources 6.04 5.59 60.8 20.37 5.22
Area Sources 2.5 0.03 3.61 0.01 0.00
Total Emissions 8.54 5.62 64.41 20.38 5.22
Phase 4
Mobile Sources 4.79 6.44 48.9 16.69 4.31
Area Sources 5.09 0.06 7.83 0.01 0.01
Total Emissions 9.88 6.5 56.73 16.7 4.32
Total Project Emissions 62.04 34.92 375.33 94.85 24.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant (Yes or No) Yes No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022)(SCAQMD, 2023).

The addition of the following transportation and area source mitigation measures resulted in emissions of all pollutants below their respective significance levels:
• MM TRANS-4: Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool.
• MM AQ-2: Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-24 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
• MM AQ-1: Replace Gas Powered Landscape Equipment with Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment.

The CalEEMod-predicted area source, energy source, and mobile source emissions from the operation of the proposed project with mitigation are presented in Tables 4.2-11 through 4.2-14. Total mitigated operational emissions at full buildout are shown in Table 4.2-15. Detailed output sheets are provided in Appendix D2.

As seen in the following tables, for each criteria pollutant, net emissions would be below the pollutant’s SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.

Table 4.2-11
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 1, WITH MITIGATION Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 3.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Sources 0.07 1.22 1.02 0.09 0.09
Mobile Sources 11.99 11.04 102.20 25.20 6.51
Project Total Emissions 15.59 12.26 103.22 25.29 6.60
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.

Table 4.2-12
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 2, WITH MITIGATION Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 8.96 0 0 0 0
Mobile Sources 10.89 9.63 102.49 32.42 8.33
Project Total Emissions 19.85 9.63 102.49 32.42 8.33
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-25 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 4.2-13
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 3, WITH MITIGATION Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 1.77 0 0 0 0
Mobile Sources 6.04 5.59 60.77 20.37 5.22
Project Total Emissions 7.81 5.59 60.77 20.37 5.22
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.

Table 4.2-14
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 4, WITH MITIGATION Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 3.81 0 0 0 0
Mobile Sources 4.79 6.45 48.93 16.69 4.32
Project Total Emissions 8.6 6.45 48.93 16.69 4.32
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.

Table 4.2-15

MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS FOR ALL PHASES, WITH MITIGATION Emission Source Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 18.07 0 0 0 0
Energy Source (only Phase 1) 0.07 1.22 1.02 0.09 0.09
Mobile Sources 33.71 32.71 314.39 94.68 24.38
Project Total Emissions 51.85 33.93 315.41 94.77 24.47
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2023.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-26 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements of a previously approved air quality attainment or maintenance plan.

As described above, each individual phase of the proposed project (Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4) would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily criteria pollutant thresholds on its own, nor would their combined emissions exceed the thresholds when considered collectively. Once all phases are built the cumulative operational emissions will remain below significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO and PM10.

Generally, cumulative regional air quality impacts from construction and operation of multiple projects within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are addressed in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Since the proposed project is consistent with the AQMP, its incremental contribution to cumulative regional impacts would generally not be considered cumulatively considerable.

Threshold C: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant
Localized Significance Analysis of Onsite Construction Emissions The project would have the potential to create localized short-term air quality impacts from construction, which may potentially exceed the localized significance thresholds for criteria pollutants established by the SCAQMD for construction sites. A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors. Land uses such as primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality‐related health problems than the general public.

Construction of the project would generate short-term and intermittent emissions. Following the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Chico and Koizumi, 2008), only onsite construction emissions were considered in the localized significance analysis. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site during each of the four phases of construction includes the existing Kaiser Medical Center on the project site and each previously completed phase.12 Even as each phase is built and becomes a new onsite receptor for the following phases, the minimum distance to be analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology is 25 meters, or approximately 82 feet. Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for projects in Source Receptor Area 35 (East San Bernardino Valley) were obtained from tables in Appendix C of the aforementioned methodology.

Table 4.2-16 shows the results of the localized significance analysis for the project. It takes into account that the nearest sensitive receptors during each construction phase, (Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and Phase 4), of the project are the existing onsite Kaiser Medical Center and components of each 12 According to SCAQMD guidance, if the project site is less than one acre, it may be assumed to be one acre as a worstcase scenario and if a receptor closer than 25 meters to the source may be assumed to be 25 meters away (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-3). The project fits these criteria.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-27 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
previously completed phase. Localized short-term air quality impacts from the project's construction would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants.

Table 4.2-16

RESULTS OF UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
Construction Phase
Maximum Onsite Construction Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum daily unmitigated emissions Phase 1 28.00 28.30 5.11 2.63 SCAQMD LST for 1.5 acres @25 meters 144 974.5 5.5 4.5
Maximum daily unmitigated emissions Phase 2 19.2 24.2 7.67 3.94 SCAQMD LST for 3 acres @ 25 meters 203.3 1,474.3 9.3 6.3 Maximum daily unmitigated emissions Phase 3 14.50 18.60 5.11 2.63 SCAQMD LST for 2 acres @ 25 meters 170 1,174 7 5
Maximum daily unmitigated emissions Phase 4 6.65 10.50 2.76 1.34 SCAQMD LST for 1.5 acres @ 25 meters 144 974.5 5.5 4.5
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2022). Chico and Koizumi, 2008.

Asbestos
Many structures built before the late 1990s contain asbestos. Asbestos was widely used in the construction industry in thousands of materials. Some asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are judged to be more dangerous than others due to the species of asbestos, the amount of ACM, and the material's friable nature. Sprayed coatings, pipe insulation, and asbestos insulating board are thought to be the most dangerous due to their high content of amphibole asbestos and friable nature. If asbestos is subsequently found, it would have to be abated to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403. To comply with this Rule, the contractor is required to have an asbestos survey performed by a Cal/OSHA Certified Asbestos Consultant (CA Department of Industrial Relations, 2018) and to submit an asbestos notification form with a fee to the SCAQMD at least 10 working days before any demolition activity.13 Compliance will result in a minimal effect from asbestos exposure.

CO Hotspots
As discussed in Section 4.2.6, a project does not require detailed carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis if no intersection affected by the project exceeds 400,000 vehicles per day. This threshold was established based on modeling conducted in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and documented in the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which found no violations of CO standards at 13 Additional compliance information was published in a SCAQMD Advisory Notice dated March 27, 2019 and titled “Important Notice to all Facility Owners and Contractors Performing Renovations or Demolitions Re: Asbestos.” http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/compliance/Asbestos-Demolition-/rule-1403-complianceadvisory.pdf?sfvrsn=8.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-28 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
intersections with traffic volumes well below that level, even under worst-case meteorological conditions.

The intersections studied for the Project include:
• California Street and San Bernardino Avenue.
• California Street and Almond Avenue.
• California Street and Lugonia Avenue.
• California Street and Orange Tree Lane.
• California Street and I-10 Westbound Ramps.
• California Street and I-10 Eastbound Ramps.
• California Street and Redlands Boulevard.
• Mountain View Avenue and Almond Avenue.
• Mountain View Avenue and I-10 Westbound Ramps.
• Mountain View Avenue and I-10 Eastbound Ramps.

The project traffic study reported that the highest average daily traffic (ADT) occurs along Interstate 10 near California Street, with a maximum of approximately 191,000 vehicles per day (Segment L) (see Table 4.10-9). This is less than half the 400,000-vehicle threshold that would require a detailed CO hotspots analysis using models such as CALINE4. Other segments and intersections in the Project area experience significantly lower traffic volumes, with most local streets carrying fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day even after full project buildout.

Since no project-affected intersection is projected to exceed the 400,000 ADT threshold, and regional modeling demonstrates no CO exceedances at much higher volumes, the Project would not cause or contribute to CO hotspots. Therefore, impacts related to localized mobile-source CO emissions would be less than significant.

Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment
Inputs and results for the Tier 1 screening are provided in Appendix D3. The nearest residential receptor is located 740 meters (2,428 feet) away. The screening index for cancer or chronic noncancer risk is 2.43 for one engine, and 12.15 for five engines. Thus, the project “fails” the Tier 1 screening, and it is necessary to go to Tier 2. Note that no result was calculated for acute (maximum hourly) exposure, because no acute pollutant screening level for DPM has been established.

Table 4.2-17 shows the results of the Tier 2 air toxics health risk assessment. Both cancer and noncancer risk values would be less than their respective significance thresholds.  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-29 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 4.2-17
RESULTS OF TIER 2 AIR TOXICS HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Receptor
Maximum Incremental
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic Hazard Index
Target Organ:

Respiratory System
Per Engine Facility Per Engine Facility
Residential 0.231 1.2 0.000062 0.00031
School 0.217 1.1 0.000058 0.00029
Worker 0.402 2.0 0.00041 0.0021
Source: UltraSystems Environmental, 2025 (Appendix D3).

4.2.8 Cumulative Impacts
The project site is located within San Bernardino County, California, in the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Criteria air pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5, as concentrations of these pollutants are above state and/or national ambient air quality standards.

When establishing significance thresholds for air pollutants, air districts consider the emissions levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Construction and operation of the Redlands Kaiser Permanente Medical Center would introduce new structures and development in the city, potentially generating emissions of criteria pollutants that are currently in nonattainment or other emissions that create odors resulting in significant adverse impacts on the region’s existing air quality. These impacts could occur in both the short term (during construction) and long term (through operation and maintenance of new facilities), potentially resulting in cumulatively significant effects.

Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, trenching, grading, building construction, paving and application of architectural coatings that would result in temporary emissions that are regulated by applicable air quality plans. However, given the temporary nature of these activities, the relatively low emission levels, and the limited exposure risk to nearby sensitive receptors, health risks from diesel particulate matter during construction are expected to be minimal.

Additionally, construction would not produce odorous emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, construction-related emissions would not conflict with or hinder implementation of SCAQMD air quality plans.

As discussed in the Initial Study, a significant impact may potentially occur if a project were to generate obnoxious odors. The project involves the construction and operation of commercial uses, such as medical offices and facilities, that are not typically associated with odor complaints. The largest potential source of odors during construction is equipment exhaust. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate project area. The project would use typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites, would be temporary in nature, and would not be sufficient to impact a substantial number of people or result in a nuisance per SCAQMD Rule 402. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993), land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies and fiberglass molding. The project involves no industrial elements, so no long-term operational objectionable odors are anticipated (UltraSystems, 2025, p. 4.3-2).  SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-30 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Operational emissions from the new medical facility are expected to be similar to those of the existing nearby Kaiser facility, primarily resulting from employee vehicle trips. Although there will be an increase in mobile and area source emissions, implementation of mitigation strategies would ensure that the project does not conflict with applicable air quality plans, significantly increase criteria pollutants beyond SCAQMD thresholds, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

To mitigate potential impacts, dust control measures will be implemented in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to limit fugitive dust during construction, particularly watering the project site at least three times a day. Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1, MM AQ-2, and MM TRANS-4 will ensure that reactive organic gas (ROG) and mobile source emissions during operations remain below SCAQMD thresholds. Further reductions in mobile-source emissions during operations would be achieved through MM TRANS-1, MM TRANS-2 and MM TRANS-3. With these mitigation strategies in place, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

4.2.9 Mitigation Measures
The impact analysis under Threshold B was determined to be less than significant with mitigation, and the mitigation measures that the project must consider under this threshold are summarized below. For operational emissions to remain below significance thresholds, the project must integrate measures to reduce VMT and VOC emissions. The following measures are based on methodologies outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, and were tailored to the site’s context and land use constraints. Kaiser will first determine if implementing these measures are feasible before they can commit to enforcing them. If deemed feasible, the measures may be enforced by incorporating them into the implementation of a sustainability plan or corporate social responsibility policy regarding energy efficiency or carbon footprint reduction.

Impacts associated with significance threshold B would be potentially significant without mitigation.

Therefore, the following mitigation measures would be required, if feasible, to minimize potential impacts related to air quality emissions:

MM AQ-1: Include in a Plan or Policy that Gas Powered Landscape Equipment must be replaced with Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment (listed at A-1 in the aforementioned CAPCOA Handbook, and LL-1 in CalEEMod). If feasible, landscape and maintenance contracts shall require only Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment be used.

MM AQ-2: Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (listed as T-14 in CalEEMod).

MM TRANS-4: Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool, see section 4.12.5 for more details (listed as T-11 in CalEEMod).

Additional measures that were not incorporated in the emissions calculations but further reduce VMT-related emissions are listed below. The project includes several targeted mitigation strategies, evaluated and quantified by Fehr & Peers in the traffic impact study (Fehr & Peers, 2025). A multiplicative dampening factor was applied to account for overlap among measures addressing the same trip types. The following measures and corresponding VMT reductions are proposed and further discussed in Section 4.12.5:
 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.2-31 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
MM TRANS-1: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing.

MM TRANS-2: Provide Employee Rideshare Program.

MM TRANS-3: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities.

Implementation of these measures will be outlined and monitored through the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). These mitigation measures are the most feasible and applicable options that were considered for the project in the Traffic Study. Although these measures provide a substantial (9.9 percent) reduction, the project’s HBW VMT is projected to remain approximately 12 percent above the City’s VMT threshold, and therefore, the VMT impact (but not the air quality impact) would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation (Fehr & Peers, 2025, p. 39). See Section 4.12.5.

4.2.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.  SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.3-1 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025

4.3 Biological Resources

4.3.1 Introduction
This section of the PEIR provides an analysis of the project’s potential impacts with regard to biological resources. The analysis is based on a habitat assessment prepared by Cadre Environmental (2025) for the proposed project (see Appendix D2).

4.3.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (Title 16, United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 1531-1543), as amended, designates and provides for protection of listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species, and their critical habitat. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in the Department of the Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in the Department of Commerce, share responsibility for administration of the ESA. These responsibilities include listing and delisting species, designating critical habitat, and formulating recovery plans. The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (Title 16, U.S.C. §§703-712), as amended, includes provisions for protection of migratory birds, including basic prohibitions against any take not authorized by federal regulation. The administering agency for the above authority is the USFWS.

The law contains no requirement to prove intent to violate any of its provisions. Wording in the MBTA makes it clear that most actions that result in “take” or possession (permanent or temporary) of a protected species can be a violation of the act. The word “take” is defined as “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (including nests, eggs, and feathers).” The provisions of the MBTA are nearly absolute; “except as permitted by regulations” is the only exception.

Clean Water Act: Section 401
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires project owners or proponents to obtain a Water Quality Certification which requires their project to prevent the discharge or dredge and fill material in quantities that would violate federal water quality standards. In the State of California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have been given the authority to issue Section 401 Water Quality Certifications (WQCs).

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 8) would provide review and water quality certification services for this project if required. The CWA Section 401 is required if a CWA Section 404 permit is required.
 SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.3-2 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Clean Water Act; Section 404
Waters of the U.S. including wetlands, are subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. A Section 404 permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The Los Angeles District of the USACE would provide review and permitting services for this project if it’s required.

Wetlands and other waters that do not meet the definition of waters of the U.S. (as amended on September 8, 2023; 88 FR 61964) are not covered by the CWA; however, they are regulated by the State of California through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) and SWRCB Resolution No. 2019-0015.

State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Porter-Cologne defines water quality objectives as the allowable “limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisances within a specific area.” Thus, water quality objectives are intended to protect the public health and welfare, and to maintain or enhance water quality in relation to the existing and/or potential beneficial uses of the water. Water quality objectives apply to both waters of the U.S. and waters of the State. In the State of California, Porter-Cologne is administered in concurrence with Section 401 CWA Water Quality Certification.

SWRCB Resolution No. 2019-0015
This resolution amended the state's Water Quality Control Plans and adopted the "State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State" to establish a statewide wetland definition, a framework for determining jurisdiction over wetlands and waters of the state, wetland delineation procedures, and processes for reviewing and approving Water Quality Certifications and Waste Discharge Requirements permits for dredge or fill activities.

It also adopted and formalized these procedures and their application to all waters within the state (SWRCB, 2019a, 2019b, and 2019c).

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984, California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050-2098
This act includes provisions for the protection and management of wildlife species listed by the State of California as endangered or threatened or designated as candidates for such listings. This act includes a requirement for consultation “to ensure that any action authorized by a state lead agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species…or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of the species” (Section 2090). Plants of California declared to be endangered, threatened, or rare are listed under 14 CCR § 670.2. Animals of California declared to be endangered, threatened, or rare (also referred to as “sensitive” wildlife species) are listed under 14 CCR § 670.5. The administering agency for the above authority is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).  SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.3-3 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Native Plant Protection Act of 1977; California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et. seq.

The Native Plant Protection Act prohibits import of rare and endangered plants into California, take of rare or endangered plants, and sale of rare and endangered plants. CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA), which ensures that plant species listed by the State as endangered, threatened, or rare (“sensitive” plant species) are protected when state agencies are involved in projects or activities subject to CEQA. In this instance, plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA, but rather under CEQA.

California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and Section 3503.5 This act provides for the protection and enhancement of birds by declaring ”It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto (Section 3503), and that “It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto (Section 3503.5).

Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA)
Sections 1600-1617 of the California Fish and Game Code protect the natural flow and the bed, channel, and bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the CDFW which is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource, or a waterbody from which these resources derive benefit. General project plans must be submitted to CDFW in sufficient detail to indicate the nature of the project proposed for construction. A project would require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) if the project would: divert, obstruct, or change a streambed; use material from the streambeds; or result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a stream.

The Inland Deserts Region (Region 6) of the CDFW serves San Bernardino County and would provide LSAA Notification Review and Agreement services for this project if required.

Regional
Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan (Stakeholder Review Draft) The Upper Santa Ana River (SAR) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (Stakeholder Review Draft) was prepared by ICF in October 2020 (ICF, 2020b) for the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD). The Upper SAR HCP is a regional, comprehensive program that was developed to address the potential effects of water agency activities on the sensitive species and habitats in the upper SAR watershed, provide a framework to protect, enhance, and restore the habitat for covered species, while streamlining permitting for covered activities under Section 10 of the ESA. The Planning Area encompasses approximately 862,966 acres in southern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County.
 SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.3-4 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Local
Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan) The Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan) was prepared by ICF in April 2020 (ICF, 2020a) for the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (SBVWCD). The primary goal of the Wash Plan is to balance ground-disturbing activities of water conservation, aggregate mining, recreational activities, and other public services in the HCP plan area with the conservation of natural communities and populations of special-status plant and animal species. It provides for the coordination and accommodation of existing and anticipated future activities in the wash area. The Wash Plan proposes land use designations for the entire wash area in Redlands, including land for habitat conservation, aggregate mining, flood control, and water conservation. It will also have detailed mapping of habitats and a specific plan for the management of sensitive species and habitats in the Santa Ana River Wash. Activities within the Planning Area that are adjacent to the Santa Ana River would need to be consistent with any adopted Wash Plan and HCP policies at the time activities are proposed.

Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Resource Management Plan The Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) (SBVWCD, 2023) was prepared for the implementation of the Wash Plan. Consistent with the Wash Plan, the NRMP will support and document the development and implementation of an effective approach to monitoring and managing the protected natural resources within the Wash Plan Preserve.

City of Redlands General Plan
The City of Redlands General Plan 2035 (City of Redlands, 2017a) includes Chapter 6, Vital Environment. The purpose of this chapter is to promote an open space plan that conserves the natural areas such as hillsides and canyons, Santa Ana River, and agricultural lands. It also serves to allow agriculture and citrus production, and conservation of open space and trails to continue around the city, especially at the city’s edges where a linked greenbelt called the “Emerald Necklace” is integrated with the regional open space system (City of Redlands, 2017a, p. 1). This chapter includes policies and actions for the protection and preservation of biological resources and open space conservation.

City of Redlands Ordinance for Trees and Tree Protection along Streets and in Public Places Chapter 12.52 of the City of Redlands Municipal Code addresses the use and maintenance of trees along streets and in public places. The ordinance is intended to preserve and grow the tree canopy by protecting landmark, native and specimen, and public trees, as well as street trees and trees on public property; and providing for the regulation of the protection, planting, maintenance, and removal of public trees. The ordinance provides for the designation of landmark and specimen trees, which are, respectively, public trees designated as a historic resource as a tree of historic or cultural significance, or public trees that meet species and size criteria established by the City Council to be outstanding specimens of a desirable species. Abuse or mutilation of public trees is prohibited, and procedures are established regarding tree maintenance and protection of trees during improvements.
 SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.3-5 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
City of Redlands Street Tree Policy
The Street Tree Policy and Protection Guidelines Manual (City of Redlands, 2013) was established in accordance with Chapter 12.52 of the Municipal Code in 2013. The guidelines are intended to define and illustrate the policies and procedures that shall be utilized by City staff in the management and care of all public trees. They also provide guidance to residents for the planting and care of street trees.

4.3.3 Methodology
The analysis is based on the Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR) prepared by Cadre Environmental, dated March 7, 2025, which is included in Appendix D2 of this Draft PEIR.

Relevant literature, maps, databases, agency web sites, Geographic Information System (GIS) data, and aerial imagery were obtained to: (1) assess habitats, special-status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, critical habitats, and wildlife corridors that potentially may occur on and near the project site; and (2) identify local or regional plans, policies, and regulations that may apply to the project.

A reconnaissance-level habitat assessment of the project site was conducted by Cadre Environmental on February 6, 2025 (see Appendix D2). The purposes of the assessment were to evaluate the results of the literature review, to characterize and identify potential sensitive plant and wildlife habitats, and to establish the accuracy of the data identified in the literature search. Geologic and soil maps were examined to identify local soil types that may support sensitive taxa. Aerial photographs, topographic maps, vegetation and rare plant maps prepared for previous studies in the region were used to determine community types and other physical features that may support sensitive plants/wildlife, uncommon taxa, or rare communities that occur within or adjacent to the project site (Cadre Environmental, 2025, p. 4). Prior to the habitat assessment, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted to determine which special-status wildlife and specialstatus plants have the potential to occur in the vicinity of and within the project site based on distribution and elevation range.

The project site was also assessed for the potential presence/absence of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdictional resources through review of pertinent scientific literature and industry standard databases (Cadre Environmental, 2025, p. 5).

4.3.4 Existing Conditions
The project site is in the city of Redlands in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley in San Bernardino County. It is located in an urbanized area developed mostly with industrial uses. The site is surrounded by high-traffic roads and warehouse/industrial buildings on all sides, including one currently under construction to the south.

The project site is characterized primarily as agricultural, developed, disturbed, and ruderal vegetation. It contains an existing 120,000-square-foot medical office building (Kaiser Permanente Redlands Medical Offices) and associated parking lot in the southeast portion of the site, and vacant land. The vacant land is currently used as agriculture (dry croplands) and water retention in the two existing water detention basins (Cadre Environmental, 2025, p. 1).  SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.3-6 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
The site’s elevation ranges from 1,146 feet amsl to 1,155 feet amsl (Twining, 2024, p. 2). The Soil Survey of the San Bernardino County Area has the project site mapped as Hanford sandy loam as (HbA), 0 to 2 percent slopes (USDA, 2025). It has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial Industrial and a zoning designation of Concept Plan 1 (CP-1) under the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (City of Redlands, 2022a; City of Redlands, 2022b).

4.3.4.1 Land Cover Types
This section describes the land cover types present within the project site as determined by the literature review and habitat assessment. Land cover types are shown on Figure 4.3-1 and listed in Table 4.3-1 below.
 SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.3-7 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Figure 4.3-1

LAND COVER TYPES
Land Cover Types
I AGF I Agriculture
Disturbed/Rud era I
California Buckwheat Scrub
Disclaimer: Illustration provided by Cadre Environmental, wbo bas indicat Source: Cadre Environmental, 2025.

Ul traSyst em s n 1l!'nt • l,Hl.J 1em n h pl~nr 11
Almond Avenue
,- n' , ·-,
Kaiser Permanente
Redlands Medical Center
Land Cover Types
 SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 
7214/Redlands – Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Page 4.3-8 Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025
Table 4.3-1

LAND COVER TYPES
Land Cover Type Acres
Agriculture 17.54
Developed (Kaiser Permanente Redlands Medical Offices) 9.69 Disturbed/Ruderal 7.15
Disturbed 1.43
Mule Fat Scrub 0.51
California Buckwheat Scrub 0.18
Ornamental 0.10
TOTAL 36.60
Source: Cadre Environmental 2025
Agriculture
The project site includes a total of 17.54 acres of agricultural land cover type. These upland undeveloped areas of the project site were historically cultivated and currently appear to be annually disked and dominated by ruderal and non-native species including but not limited to wild oat (Avena fatua), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), Mediterranean schismus (Schismus barbatus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), prostate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), and black mustard (Brassica nigra) (Cadre Environmental, 2025, p. 6).

Developed
A total of 9.69 acres of the project site is currently developed. The developed regions are localized in the southeast corner of the project site including facilities and ornamental landscaping associated with the Kaiser Permanente Redlands Medical Offices (Cadre Environmental, 2025, p. 6).

← All documents from this meeting