Ontario City Council
November 21, 2023

Mr. Grenfell has worked for nationwide and local clients that include commercial developers, mortgage bankers, real estate brokers, individual investors, equity/institutional investment groups, and financial lending institutions, including CMBS lenders, SBA lenders, and GSA (Fannie and Freddie) lenders.

Project Experience
Multi-Site Portfolio, Nationwide. Managed performance and delivery of summary matrix and complete reports for a 300-site portfolio of Class A high-rise office buildings, at the time valued as the largest real estate transaction in history. Lead scheduled conference calls summarizing and evaluating environmental liabilities for a large stakeholder group.

Phase II Subsurface Investigations, Kansas City, Missouri. Conducted eight Phase II Site Assessments at gasoline stations over a four-day period, coordinating and supervising the advancement of soil borings and collected soil and groundwater samples. Documented results in concise, well-written reports.

Industrial Compliance Evaluation, San Francisco, CA. Managed a compliance evaluation team at an 8,000 employee, 24-hour aircraft maintenance center, evaluating environmental regulatory compliance. Provided solutions and established protocols for ensuring compliance. 3304
Jay Grenfell
2 | P a g e
Third-Party Report Reviews, Chicago, IL. Conducted 3rd-party reviews of over 150 gasoline stations, documenting previous report findings and providing a matrix listing issues and updated risk-based recommendations.

High Rise Office Buildings, San Francisco. Worked with technical team to manage pre-acquisition due diligence for equity investor of high rise office buildings in downtown San Francisco. Included equity PCA with specialty evaluations of façade, MEP, Fire and Life Safety, Roof, and ADA. Provided red flag analysis and summary costs tables within 48 hours of initial site visits with final reports provided within 10 business days.

Multi-Site Portfolio, California. Managed performance and delivery of summary matrix and complete reports for a 150-site portfolio of fast food restaurants providing environmental and property condition assessments with specialty evaluations of roofs and MEP systems.

Affiliations
Bay Area Mortgage Association (BAMA)
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)
The Risk Management Association (RMA)
The Commercial Real Estate Development Corporation (NAIOP) Speaking
Due Diligence Panelist, Income Property Lending Group, San Francisco, Reoccurring. Provide industry insight into topical due diligence issues to an audience of investors and lenders.

Bisnow Moderator, Equity Investment and Construction Panels, San Francisco, Reoccurring. Moderator for specific topics regarding commercial real estate lending and development to a mixed audience of investors, attorneys, developers, and lenders.

Publications
Improving the Seismic Resilience of California Buildings, California Mortgage Finance, 2014, Co-Authored Industrial Properties and Environmental Risk, GlobeSt.com, 2013 Change is in the Air, Scotsman Guide, 2012
Contact
[email protected]
3305

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1350 AND 1375 SOUTH WOODRUFF WAY

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
Ramboll Environment & Health

APPENDIX E

ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN SEARCH

NOTES ON ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN SEARCH
The ASTM Standard stipulates that the User of this report is responsible for providing searches of environmental liens. At the client’s request, Ramboll commissioned a third party to perform this search; Ramboll does not guarantee the completeness of this third party search.
3306
S Woodruff Way
1350 and 1375 S Woodruff Way
Ontario, CA 91761
Inquiry Number: 6683289.10
October 01, 2021
EDR Environmental Lien and AUL Search
6 Armstrong Road
Shelton, CT 06484
800.352.0050
Environmental Data Resources Inc www.edrnet.com
3307
EDR Environmental Lien and AUL Search
The EDR Environmental Lien and AUL Search Report provides results from a search of available current land title records for environmental cleanup liens and other activity and use limitations, such as engineering controls and institutional controls.

A network of professional, trained researchers, following established procedures, uses client supplied address information to:
• search for parcel information and/or legal description; • search for ownership information;
• research official land title documents recorded at jurisdictional agencies such as recorders' offices, registries of deeds, county clerks' offices, etc.;
• access a copy of the deed;
• search for environmental encumbering instrument(s) associated with the deed; • provide a copy of any environmental encumbrance(s) based upon a review of key words in the instrument(s) (title, parties involved, and description); and • provide a copy of the deed or cite documents reviewed.

Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING

OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC.

BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER

CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction orforecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates.

All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 3308
EDR Environmental Lien and AUL Search
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION _______________________________

ADDRESS
1350 and 1375 S Woodruff Way
S Woodruff Way
Ontario, CA 91761

ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN
Environmental Lien: Found ¨ Not Found ý
OTHER ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS (AULs)
AULs: Found ¨ Not Found ý
6683289.10 Page 1
3309

RESEARCH SOURCE
Source 1:

San Bernardino Recorder
San Bernardino, CA
3310

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Deed 1:

Type of Deed: deed
Title is vested in: Dennis A & Janet C Shannon Trustees Janet C Shanno Title received from: Bombay Partners LP
Deed Dated 9/5/1996
Deed Recorded: 12/9/1996
Book: NA
Page: na
Volume: na
Instrument: na
Docket: NA
Land Record Comments:

Miscellaneous Comments:

Legal Description: See Exhibit
Legal Current Owner: Dennis A & Janet C Shannon Trustees Janet C Shannon Trustee Parcel # / Property Identifier: 0238-201-41-0000
Comments: See Exhibit
Deed 2:

Type of Deed: deed
Title is vested in: Dennis A & Janet C Shannon Trustees Janet C Shanno Title received from: Janet C Shannon
Deed Dated 12/2/1994
Deed Recorded: 3/15/1995
Book: NA
Page: na
Volume: na
Instrument: na
Docket: NA
Land Record Comments:

Miscellaneous Comments:

Legal Description: See Exhibit
Legal Current Owner: Dennis A & Janet C Shannon Trustees Janet C Shannon Trustee Parcel # / Property Identifier: 0238-221-22-0000
Comments: See Exhibit
3311
Deed Exhibit 1
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
Deed Exhibit 2
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1350 AND 1375 SOUTH WOODRUFF WAY

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
Ramboll Environment & Health

APPENDIX F

QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
3323
1/5 CV, FARSHAD RAZMDJOO, LAST UPDATED 2017/9

FARSHAD RAZMDJOO
Managing Principal
Farshad Razmdjoo is the Managing Principal of Ramboll's Southwest operations. He has over 30 years of experience in environmental consulting and engineering. Farshad currently manages a vast variety of consulting projects, including real estate and merger and acquisition due diligence, tenant environmental audits, environmental, health and safety audits, property decommissioning and redevelopment, remedial investigations, remedial action design and implementation, regulatory agency interaction, asbestos management programs, radon surveys, mold investigation and remediation programs and evaluations of lead in drinking water. In addition, he has developed and managed an environmental riskmanagement program for a major real estate investment trust.

Farshad is highly experienced in working with federal and California environmental regulations and has a working knowledge of many other state and local regulatory requirements and agencies throughout the United States. Much of Farshad’s past and current projects involve assessing environmental issues at commercial and industrial facilities throughout the North America, Europe, China, and India. For the past 24 years at Ramboll, Farshad has managed projects for
representatives in real estate development companies, insurance companies, financial institutions, pension funds, institutional investors, private equities, real estate investment trusts, aerospace companies, industrial and manufacturing companies, and law firms.

CAREER
2013-Current
Managing Principal, Ramboll US Corporation
2009-2013
Principal and Director of Operations, ENVIRON International Corporation
2000-2009
Principal, ENVIRON International Corporation
1993-2000
Senior Manager, ENVIRON International Corporation
1985-1993
Regional Manager & Senior Project Manager, Applied Geosciences Inc.

CONTACT

INFORMATION
Farshad Razmdjoo
[email protected]
+1 (949) 7983609
Ramboll
5 Park Plaza
Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92614
United States of America
3324
2/5 CV, FARSHAD RAZMDJOO, LAST UPDATED 2017/9

EDUCATION
1976-1981
BS, Civil Engineering
Thames Polytechnic, London

COURSES/CERTIFICATIONS
California General Engineering License
Nevada State Contractors Licenses
Certificate in Hazardous Materials Management, University of Irvine, California National Registry of Environmental Professionals

PROJECTS
Site Investigation and Remediation
 Negotiated with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) a reasonable path forward for a former manufacturing facility located in Irvine, California where soil and groundwater is impacted with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Historically, considerable remediation had been performed on site by other consultants, which included excavation, and above ground soil treatment, soil vapor extraction, and groundwater pump and treat technologies. The site has been in a post remediation monitoring phase under the oversight of the SARWQCB. Post remediation monitoring indicated that overall, natural attenuation processes were reducing VOC concentrations over time. However, in 2013, the SARWQCB requested the responsible parties to consider evaluating additional remedial options to reduce concentrations of VOCs in one area of the site. Also a Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) investigation was performed in that area of the site.  Using the data collected during the MIP investigation, Farshad directed the development of a limited and focused remedial program utilizing state of the art technology appropriate for the restrictive conditions which are present in the area of the site investigated (challenging geologic materials, limited access due to occupied buildings, roadways, neighboring properties, etc.). The SARWQCB approved the remedial plan that included injection of zerovalent iron into the shallow saturated zone to reduce VOCs in the area of concern. The remediation was completed during October and November 2014. A post monitoring program started in December 2014 is on-going.  Directed the evaluation of potential off-site sources, and development of a site conceptual model for a facility in Vernon, California where chlorinated VOCs (CVOCs) were discovered in groundwater. Designed and managed investigation of soil, soil gas, and groundwater to evaluate potential sources, including use of compound-specific isotope analysis to help demonstrate that the CVOCs detected in soil gas are distinct from those detected in groundwater, and unrelated. Managed additional soil, soil gas, and groundwater investigation to delineate the CVOC impacts onsite. Based on the onsite investigation, a pilot study was designed to assess the efficacy of soil vapor extraction (SVE) to reduce CVOCs in the vadose zone (ground surface to approximately 180 feet below ground surface). The pilot study showed that SVE operations effectively reduced CVOC soil gas concentrations at all depths. The SVE pilot system was expanded and operated under a final Remedial Action Plan. The SVE system appeared to have reached asymptotic conditions and the SVE operation has been stopped and post remedial rebound testing is ongoing. The rebound testing results will be used to assess and negotiate site closure. All work is being implemented under the oversight of Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB).  Assisted an owner of a former industrial facility in southern California that was significantly impacted by CVOCs in soil, soil gas, and groundwater. The scope of work included oversight of the remediation of the vadose zone with in situ thermal treatment and evaluation of human health risk assessments to assess various future redevelopment scenarios. The work was conducted under the oversight of the LARWQCB.  Designed and managed the implementation of site characterizations, remediation, and human health risk assessments for an existing 75-acre commercial and light industrial center in Irvine, California under the oversight of the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and the SARWQCB. The work was conducted for the property owner and involved performing appropriate site characterization to define the extent of CVOC releases in soil, soil gas, and groundwater from prior and existing tenants; one of which included a dry cleaning facility. The human health risk assessment considered site specific conditions and data to define risk based threshold concentrations deemed as acceptable concentrations in soil, soil gas, and groundwater for indoor worker receptors. 3325
3/5 CV, FARSHAD RAZMDJOO, LAST UPDATED 2017/9
 Remediation involved injection of approximately 100,000 pounds of zero-valent iron in sixty direct push borings to create three separate permeable reactive barriers or treatment zones. The purpose of work was that each zone would chemically reduce chlorinated solvents in the “shallow zone” groundwater as it migrates through the permeable reactive barrier(s). Due to the low groundwater concentrations, Farshad was able to negotiate the elimination of post remediation groundwater monitoring. The project also involved collection of sub-slab and indoor air samples followed by installation and operation of a sub-slab vapor depressurization system and epoxy coating the interior floors to mitigate vapor intrusion. Post mitigation indoor air samples reported a reduction of indoor air concentrations by 100 times. Farshad successfully negotiated and obtained a “No Further Action” for the site with the concurrence from the SARWQCB.
 Managed a remedial investigation at a California Superfund site in Los Angeles County. The site was under a consent order from Cal-EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control at the time. The project involved performing RI/FS, conducting human health and ecological risk assessments, and preparing a remedial action plan.  Managed, reviewed, and evaluated numerous Phase I and II reports associated with the acquisition of a 500-acre industrial park in Spokane, Washington. Prepared a report of findings including conclusions and recommendations for review by the client.
 Managed Phase I and II site assessments and estimation of remediation costs of six manufacturing plants in Costa Mesa (Orange County), Perris (Riverside County), Ontario (San Bernardino County), Somerton (Arizona), Alliance (Ohio), and Winter Heaven (Florida).
 Designed and managed a site investigation program to evaluate the nature and the extent of soil contaminated with PCE at a dry cleaning facility in Aliso Viejo, California. Based on the results, several remedial alternatives were evaluated and a risk assessment was performed. Based on the results of the risk assessment, site closure was obtained from OCHCA.
 Managed a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) using CPT/HydroPunch and Geoprobe techniques, with installation of multi-level groundwater monitoring wells, evaluation and selection of a remedial alternative, and design and preparation of an interim remedial action plan for remediation of soil and groundwater contaminated with dense non-aquas phase liquid (DNAPL) at a former manufacturing facility in Oxnard, California. The first phase of remediation included the excavation and placement of approximately 11,000 cubic yards of impacted soil into vapor extraction cells for on-site treatment. Soil vapor and vertical and horizontal groundwater extraction wells were installed. The vapor and groundwater treatment systems included air stripping, ultra violet oxidation, and vapor and liquid granulated activated carbon. All work was conducted under oversight of LARWQCB and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
 Managed a groundwater investigation program at a former electronics manufacturing plant in Santa Ana, California. This included installation, development, and sampling of shallow groundwater monitoring wells and evaluation and interpretation of hydrogeological and analytical data. The investigation was performed under the regulatory oversight of the SARWQCB.
 For a multinational corporation at an orphan site in the San Francisco Bay Area, provided investigative and consulting services in support of regulatory case closure under the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Low-Threat Chlorinated Solvent Site guidance. The site was in long-term post-remedial monitoring status when the client took active responsibility for the site. Following development and implementation of soil gas and indoor air quality investigations and an evaluation of potential human health risks, the RWQCB rescinded the cleanup order for the site and issued case closure.  Provided consulting services to evaluate soil, soil vapor, and groundwater impacts at the Site located at14657 Industry Circle, La Mirada, California. Ramboll was successful in demonstrating that the majority of groundwater impacts on the Site originated from an upgradient source. Through monitoring (4 years of groundwater monitoring and reporting) and evaluation of the remaining chemical of concern, Tetrahydrofuran, Ramboll was successful in attaining site closure using a detailed Conceptual Site Model and Health Risk Assessment to show that the groundwater at the site related to tetrahydrofuran posed no significant risk. The Regional Water Quality Control Board concurred with our assessment and issued a closure letter for the Site in September 2014. 3326
4/5 CV, FARSHAD RAZMDJOO, LAST UPDATED 2017/9
Environmental Risk Management
 Farshad has developed and managed an environmental risk management program for a major real estate investment trust (REIT). This REIT contained over 200 properties with 400 tenants with pharmaceutical and life science operations throughout the western and eastern United States, China, and India. As part of the environmental risk management program, an acquisition due diligence, an asbestos management program, a moisture intrusion and mold prevention response (MIMPR) program, and a tenant environmental audit (TEA) program were developed and implemented. A mold prevention and response plan, as outlined in the MIMPR, was prepared and implemented. More than 500 tenant exit audits for tenants vacating the properties were conducted in accordance with the TEA. An overall tenant environmental audit program has been developed.

Decontamination/Decommissioning
 Managed the decontamination and decommissioning of a former biopharmaceutical research facility. A detailed survey of over 250 rooms was conducted, and radiological materials, hazardous chemicals, and potentially biologically hazardous substances were identified. Upon completion of the decontamination/decommissioning, the entire facility was cleaned and prepared for re-occupancy. Throughout the decommissioning process, Ramboll worked closely with State regulatory officials to demonstrate that all cleanup activities were in compliance with applicable regulations.
 Managed the acquisition due diligence and subsequent redevelopment of a former metal stamping facility in Santa Fe Springs, California. Under Farshad’s direction, a Phase I ESA was completed and, based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, a targeted Phase II subsurface investigation was performed to evaluate areas of potential environmental concern that included soil gas, soil, and groundwater sampling. Farshad also assisted the client with closure activities for the site that included performing an assessment of building materials for polychlorinated biphenyls contamination, coordination and oversight of asbestos and lead-based paint surveys, groundwater monitoring well abandonment, post excavation soil sampling on removal of various subsurface features, and preparation of a soil management plan (SMP), to be implemented during redevelopment activities. Subsequently, a no further action letter was obtained from the Santa Fe Springs Fire Department.

Site Closure
 Managed the preparation of a sampling and analysis plan evaluating the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contaminated with tetrachloroethene (PCE) at a dry cleaning facility in Santa Ana, California. Ramboll obtained closure for the site from the SARWQCB.

Litigation Support
 Managed litigation support services related to the fate and transport of organic compounds in soil and groundwater, appropriate remedial alternatives, and cost associated for two facilities in southern California. The results of the evaluations were successfully used as part of the settlement negotiations with the opposing parties.

Due Diligence
 Directed the due diligence process and estimating environmental liabilities for acquisition of a former aerospace manufacturing facility in Los Angeles, California under extremely tight deadline. The site has been impacted with various VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, emerging chemicals, and radioactive wastes. The assignment also included evaluation of methane, asbestos, lead-based paint, and indoor air quality. The work was conducted on behalf of the site’s buyer, which planned to develop it into a commercial business park.  Acted as point of contact and responsible Principal for several national real estate and development clients with properties throughout the United States. Farshad has completed over 1000 assignments supporting the clients in acquiring, managing, and disposing properties. Many of these assignments were undertaken and successfully completed under extreme time constraints.
 Farshad has managed over 30 international multi-site environmental assessments at over 200 industrial, manufacturing, and commercial facilities as a part of merger and acquisition environmental due diligence. These included evaluation of aerospace component manufacturing facilities, automotive manufacturing and distribution facilities, medical device manufacturing facilities, telecommunication facilities, and hardware store facilities. Work plans and subsequent Phase II soil and groundwater investigations were also completed for many of those assignments.
3327
5/5 CV, FARSHAD RAZMDJOO, LAST UPDATED 2017/9

PUBLICATIONS
2015
Evolution of a Conceptual Site Model Using Multimedia CSIA Platform Presentation, AquaConSoil Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark. June 9-11, 2015 Authors: Rowe Devon, Serlin Carol, Razmdjoo Farshad, and Turner Seema 2015
An Evolving Conceptual Site Model Using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis.

Platform Presentation on Biennial Conference and 24th GRA Annual Meeting in Sacramento, California, October 6, 2015.

Authors: Rowe Devon, Serlin Carol, Razmdjoo Farshad, and Turner Seema 2014
Use of Stable Isotope Ratios of Soil Vapor and Groundwater Samples to Identify Additional Lines of Evidence for Source Evaluations.

Platform Presentation at Battelle Ninth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, May 2014.

Authors: Rowe Devon, Serlin Carol, Chandler Tom, Razmdjoo Farshad, and Turner Seema 2007
From Non-Linear Geostatistics to Scraper Grading: How to Minimize Excavation Costs for Site Re-Development
Platform presentation at The 17th Annual AEHS Meeting and West Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments and Water, March 10-13, 2007.

Authors: Achour Farid and Razmdjoo Farshad.

MEMBERSHIPS
Auditing Roundtable
International Council of Shopping Centers
Environmental Assessment Association
National Registry of Environmental Professionals
Los Angeles County Bar Association
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties 3328
1/5 CV, ALEXIS HILLMAN, LAST UPDATED 2019/8

ALEXIS HILLMAN
Senior Managing Consultant
Alexis Hillman is a Senior Managing Consultant at Ramboll’s Los Angeles office. She has 19 years of experience in environmental investigations and due diligence projects and is a California Professional Geologist and Certified Hydrogeologist. Ms. Hillman has conducted and managed soil, groundwater, soil vapor, and indoor air quality sampling projects as well as aquifer testing for Phase II site investigations and groundwater monitoring programs, and has contributed to the development of feasibility studies, treatability studies, remedial investigation reports, and remedial action plans.

She manages due diligence projects and has contributed to litigation support projects. Ms. Hillman works extensively on redevelopment projects from the due diligence phase, to site investigation, data evaluation, risk assessment, and remediation, as well as construction oversight and soil management.

CAREER
1996-2000
Assistant Geoscientist to Senior Associate Geoscientist, McLaren/Hart, Inc.

Staff Geoscientist responsible for site investigations, due diligence, preparation of work plans, groundwater monitoring reports, Phase I and Phase II reports.

EDUCATION
1990-1994
BS Geology
University of California, Los Angeles

COURSES/CERTIFICATIONS
OSHA 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response Standard - HAZWOPER, 2019
Certified Hydrogeologist - California, 2003-2019
Professional Geologist - California, 2001-2019

CONTACT INFORMATION
Alexis Hillman
[email protected]
+1 (213) 9436352
Ramboll
350 S Grand Avenue
Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
United States of America
3329
2/5 CV, ALEXIS HILLMAN, LAST UPDATED 2019/8

PROJECTS
2016-present
Former Metals Facility Soil Vapor Extraction
Project manager for Phase I and site characterization activities at former metal preparation facility being considered for multi-use redevelopment. Identified a vapor intrusion concern from chlorinated volatile organic compounds for future tenants and a potential off-site building. Ramboll installed and operates a soil vapor extraction system to proactively reduce concentrations in shallow subsurface soil and soil vapor while waiting for County oversight to begin the closure process. 2014-present
Redevelopment of Former Manufacturing Facility
Conducted and managed due diligence for prospective buyer and developer on property with lengthy site investigation and remediation history. Worked with agency on a separate redevelopment track to conduct earthwork activities under a soil management plan. Conducted pre-construction soil characterization to minimize disposal fees. Oversaw earthwork activities, which included export of 47,900 cubic yards of soil, monitoring soil for impacts and separation of soil for different disposal facilities. In addition, the project includes the design, installation, and ongoing performance monitoring of a sub-slab depressurization system (SSDS) to mitigate residual shallow soil impacts, which Ramboll continues to operate and maintain.
2016-2018
Source Area Excavation & Site Closure Activities
Managed a Phase I environmental site assessment and based on the significant former manufacturing activities, a Phase II investigation was recommended. An area of elevated tetrachloroethene and petroleum hydrocarbons was identified in soil and soil gas. After engaging local agency oversight, Ramboll implemented a source area removal work plan involving the excavation of approximately 207.83 tons of TPH- and VOC-impacted soil from the area with the highest concentrations of those constituents, the “source area”, by large diameter auger drilling. Based on its site investigation and removal action activities, Ramboll requested no further action on behalf of its client, which was granted in December 2018 in concert with a land use restriction for commercial uses only. 2014-2016
Aerospace Manufacturing Facility
Managed a Phase I environmental site assessment to evaluate environmental liabilities for an aerospace manufacturing facility in southern California with a 25-year history of extensive site investigations and ongoing remedial actions. The site soil, soil gas and groundwater has been impacted primarily with chlorinated solvents and cleanup is being performed under the oversight of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Further, conducted a Phase II subsurface investigation to document the current conditions of soil and soil gas to assist the client in marketing the property to potential buyers.

The work was conducted on behalf of the parent company, which was considering sale of the property. 2013-2016
Commercial/Residential Redevelopment
Managed site investigation activities and risk assessment following identification of a recognized environmental condition during due diligence of a site being redeveloped into a high rise commercial and residential building in Los Angeles. Implemented soil management plan during grading to address previously unknown areas of impacted soil. Worked with Los Angeles County Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials Division (LAFD) to satisfy requirements for no further action for soil while meeting aggressive project redevelopment schedules. LAFD provided a letter requiring no further action acknowledging that the contamination had been satisfactorily mitigated with a vapor barrier and passive venting system. Following one year of groundwater monitoring, LAFD also agreed to no further action for groundwater.
3330
3/5 CV, ALEXIS HILLMAN, LAST UPDATED 2019/8
2012-2015
Due Diligence
Manager for property transaction environmental assessments, including industrial, commercial and residential property. Responsibilities include agency research, file, aerial photo, and historical map review; site visits and interviews; asbestos, lead-based paint, and drinking water sampling; detailed site plan preparation; and reporting.
2010-2014
Former Dry Cleaning Facility
Confidential Real Estate Investor
Evaluated historical releases from a former dry cleaning facility located in a shopping center. Conducted subsurface evaluations in an existing grocery store to evaluate VOCs in soil, soil gas, and groundwater.

Conducted a screening human health risk assessment followed by indoor air sampling. Evaluated VOCs in groundwater over several monitoring events. Negotiated with the local agency to demonstrate groundwater plume stability and acceptable vapor intrusion risk to achieve regulatory closure. 2010-2013
Redevelopment of Industrial Property
Managed environmental issues during redevelopment of a former manufacturing facility in South Gate, California. A soil management plan was prepared to guide earthwork. The site had received a no further action letter for soil with unrestricted use from the DTSC; however, several areas of soil impacted with TPH, VOCs, and SVOCs were encountered during grading operations. To maintain the project schedule and avoid costly penalties for missed deadlines, aggressive excavations were conducted in five areas and in total 24,749 tons of impacted soil were removed and disposed off-site. In areas where building pads were proposed, soil gas surveys were completed to demonstrate to future tenants that the risk to site workers was well below commonly accepted standards. In addition, three previously unknown USTs were found during the grading process and removed and closed under the oversight of the local agency.

A supplemental no further action letter was subsequently granted by the DTSC. 2013
Facility Decommissioning and Closure
Obtained closure of an ink manufacturing facility in Santa Fe Springs, California. Prepared the facility decommissioning and closure plan for submittal to the Santa Fe Springs Fire Department following site inspection. Following decommissioning, implemented a post-decommissioning sampling and analysis program to satisfy requirements of the Fire Department. Assistance was provided to the client in closing out stormwater and air permits for the facility. Prepared a closure report following sampling and decommissioning activities.
2002
Due Diligence
Conducted environmental due diligence of aerospace, chemical, manufacturing, multi-tenant and light industrial business parks as part of corporate mergers and acquisitions and commercial real estate transactions in California, Wyoming, and Montana. As part of the due diligence process, prepared cost scenarios for compliance issues regarding air, wastewater, and OSHA issues. 2001-2003
Former Manufacturing Facility
Task manager implementing remedial action plan (RAP) involving the installation of a dual-phase and soil vapor extraction system to clean up chlorinated-solvent impacted soil and groundwater.

Implementation of the RAP required management of permitting process through numerous agencies in Southern California.
3331
4/5 CV, ALEXIS HILLMAN, LAST UPDATED 2019/8
2001-2002
MTBE Field Investigation
Field geologist for agency driven, regional methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) study. Conducted discrete-depth groundwater sampling using a combination of air rotary casing hammer and mud rotary drilling techniques and using the Simulprobe sampling tool. The project included continuous core sampling, geophysical logging, and monitoring well installation in the shallow and regional aquifers. The project was completed under the supervision of RWQCB and USEPA representatives. Results of the investigations were used to determine cost allocations for regional remedial efforts. 2001
Due Diligence
Geologist for Phase I Environmental Assessment at former crude oil impoundment site. The Site is currently developed with a shopping center, however due to former operations at the site methane monitoring is conducted on a continuing basis. Other issues identified during the assessment included potential migration of impacted groundwater from an offsite source, and dry cleaning operations at the Site that have impacted a shallow perched groundwater zone. Responsible for reviewing all environmental documents related to the various identified issues and summarizing the work completed to the satisfaction of the Site owner.
1999-2000
Development of Feasibility Studies
Geologist for development of Feasibility Study and Treatability Studies for chlorinated solvent-impacted manufacturing facility in Southern California. The project included document review, compilation and presentation of soil and groundwater data, and comparison to potentially applicable agency clean-up criteria, for the purpose of selecting remedial action alternatives and appropriate treatability studies.

Also responsible for implementing certain tasks for treatability studies, installing multiple offsite monitoring wells including several in public right-of-ways and in residential areas and implementing the community relations program in place to address the potential concerns of community members. 1999
Site Investigation
Field geologist for subsurface soil and groundwater investigation at a proposed 2-mile railroad construction site with underground petroleum pipelines in the Port of Los Angeles. This expedited site characterization included sampling at nearly 200 points, management of field database and mobile laboratory, plume definition and GPS surveying.
1999
Site Investigation
Geologist for extensive Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) study. Implemented CPT logging and multipledepth groundwater sampling investigation along downgradient property boundary and prepared detailed cross-section of stratigraphy and distribution of contaminants for presentation to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
1998
Former Landfill
Geologist for development of Brownfields Redevelopment Workplan. The site was a former landfill that was underdeveloped. Responsibilities include preliminary historical research regarding the extent and nature of the landfill, and development of a work plan to investigate the potential impact to soil and/or groundwater by the former landfill as well as current site operators. 3332
5/5 CV, ALEXIS HILLMAN, LAST UPDATED 2019/8
1998
Site Investigation
Field geologist conducting slug tests at former underground storage tank site involved in litigation. The project included slug tests on multiple monitoring wells at the site and data analysis using AQTESOLV.

The results were used along with physical soil analysis results to determine if a release date could be estimated.
1996-1997
Site Investigation
Field geologist for the installation of groundwater monitoring wells for a medical equipment manufacturing facility in Irvine, California. Groundwater at the facility is impacted with chlorinated solvents. Responsible for obtaining permits, including right-of-way; setting up subcontractors for well installation and lab analyses; and supervising installation of the monitoring wells. These wells were installed to aid in characterizing the extent of impact to groundwater. Also responsible for preparing groundwater monitoring reports, including groundwater contour maps, chemical impact figures, and hydrographs, under supervision of the RWQCB - Santa Ana Region. 1996
Pesticide Manufacturing Plant
Field geologist for several phases of site characterization for a pesticide manufacturing plant in the Los Angeles area where soil is impacted by chlorinated pesticides, and dioxins and furans. Responsible for implementing sampling plan, which involved precise measurement of sampling depths with the Geoprobe®. Also responsible for performing modified decontamination procedures to ensure representative integrity of samples. All work was performed under supervision of the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
3333
Thienes Engineering, Inc.

CIVIL ENGINEERING  LAND SURVEYING

PRELIMINARY

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
(WQMP)
FOR:

WOODRUFF WAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
1350 AND 1375 WOODRUFF WAY
ONTARIO, CA 91761
APNS: 0238-201-41 AND 0238-221-22
ONTARIO LAND DEVELOPMENT FILE NO. PDEV22-XXX
PREPARED FOR:

LINK LOGISTICS REAL ESTATE
3333 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 725
IRVINE, CA 92612
PHONE: (949) 344-2209
CONTACT: JOE WILLIAMS
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
JUNE 22, 2022
JOB NO. 4035
PREPARED BY:

THIENES ENGINEERING
14349 FIRESTONE BLVD.

LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA 90638
PHONE: (714) 521-4811
FAX: (714) 521-4173
CONTACT: FELIPE VAZQUEZ ([email protected])
3334

PRELIMINARY

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
(WQMP)

FOR

“WOODRUFF WAY INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT”

PREPARED BY FELIPE VAZQUEZ
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
6/22/2022

REINHARD STENZEL DATE
R.C.E. 56155
EXP. 12/31/2022
3335
1 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(PWQMP)
For compliance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2010-0036 (NPDES Permit No. CAS618036)
Project Name: Woodruff Way Industrial Development
Ontario Project #: PDEV22-XXX
Applicant Name: Link Logistics Real Estate
Applicant Address: 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 725, Irvine, CA 92612 Project Address: 1350 and 1375 Woodruff Way, Ontario, CA 91761 Project Size (acres): 16.75 Acres
Project Description: Light Industrial
1st Submittal Date: 2/15/2022
2nd Submittal Date: 6/22/2022
3336
2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP)

1. Introduction
The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) is a planning tool to improve integration of required water quality elements, stormwater management, water conservation, rainwater harvesting and re-use, and flood management in land use planning and the City’s development process. The Preliminary WQMP will assist project applicants and planners in properly designing and laying out project sites so that water quality may be incorporated in the most effective manner and at the lowest cost for the developer.

The San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4 Permit) requires project-specific Water Quality Management plans (WQMP) to be prepared for all priority new development and significant redevelopment projects listed in Section 2 of this document. The MS4 Permit stipulates that the City of Ontario require priority project applicants to submit a Preliminary project-specific WQMP, as early as possible, during the environmental review or planning phase of a development project and that the Preliminary WQMP be approved prior to the issuance of land use entitlement.

2. Priority Projects (requiring a Preliminary WQMP)
Land Use entitlement shall not be issued for any of the listed projects, below, until a Preliminary WQMP has been approved by the City’s Engineering Department. For construction projects not going through entitlement, a Preliminary and Final project specific WQMP shall be approved, prior to the issuance of construction permits:

Check the appropriate project category below, for this project:

Check
below Project Categories

1. All significant re-development projects. Significant re-development is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site subject to discretionary approval of the Permittee. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of the facility, or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and safety. Where redevelopment results in an increase of less than fifty percent of the impervious surfaces of a previously existing developed site, and the existing development was not subject to WQMP requirements, the numeric sizing criteria discussed below applies only to the addition or replacement, and not to the entire developed site. Where redevelopment results in an increase of fifty percent or more of the impervious surfaces of a previously existing developed site, the numeric sizing criteria applies to the entire development (new and existing).

X

2. New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions (i.e., detached single family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions or townhomes, condominiums, apartments, etc.), mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development projects on public and private land, which fall under the planning and building authority of the permitting agency. 3337
3 Check
below Project Categories

3. Automotive repair shops (with SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532- 7534, 7536-7539).

4. Restaurants and Food Service Establishments where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more.

5. Developments of 2,500 square feet of impervious surface or more adjacent to (within 200 feet) or discharging directly into environmentally sensitive areas (ESA’s) such as areas designated in the Ocean Plan as areas of special biological significance or waterbodies listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.

X

6. Parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more exposed to storm water. Parking lot is defined as land area or facility for the temporary storage of motor vehicles.

7. Retail Gasoline Outlets (RGOs) that are either 5,000 sq ft or more or have a projected average daily traffic of 100 or more vehicles per day.

8. *This project is not covered under any of the categories listed above. * If the development is not covered under any of the project categories listed in Section 2, the project is not required to design and install Site Design/LID BMPs or Treatment Control BMPs to treat the design storm event (Design Capture Volume) described in Section 4.

3. Preliminary WQMP Objectives
Through a combination of Site Design/LID BMPs (where feasible), Source Control, and/or Treatment Control BMPs, project-specific WQMPs shall address all identified pollutants and hydrologic conditions of concern from new development and significant re-development projects for the categories of projects (priority projects) listed in Section 2. Under each type of BMP, listed below, please indicate which BMPs are planned to be implemented and included in the Final WQMP for the project:

A. Site Design/LID (Low Impact Design) for Reducing Stormwater Runoff:

The MS4 Permit requires each priority development project to infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or bio-treat the runoff from a 2-yr, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). If site conditions do not permit infiltration, harvest and use, evapotranspiration, and/or bio-treatment of the entire Design Capture Volume, at the project site, Site Design/LID techniques are required to be implemented to the Maximum Extent Practicable, at the project site, and the remainder of the DCV shall be infiltrated, harvested, bio-treated or treated by alternative measures. Project applicants shall submit a Preliminary WQMP that documents the LID/Site Design BMPs, proposed for the project. Please indicate, in the table below, which Site Design/LID BMPs will be utilized on this project to accomplish this requirement:
3338
4 Site Design/LID Practice Planned Not
Planned
Provide at least the minimum effective area required for LID BMPs, to comply with the WQMP (see Table 3-1 below). X1 Grade parking lot areas/drive aisles/roof drains to sheet flow runoff into landscaped swales, via curb cuts or zero-face curbs or otherwise disconnect direct drainage from MS4.

X1
Design landscaped areas as swales and grade to accept
runoff from building roofs, parking lots and project roadways. X1 Install surface retention basins or infiltration trenches to receive impervious area runoff. X2
Install pervious pavement in parking stalls, alleys, driveways, gutters, walkways, trails or patios. X2
Install underground stormwater retention chambers where downstream landscaped areas are limited. X
Install approved Stormwater Drywells in detention areas. X2 Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lot stalls to the minimum widths necessary.

X
Install on-site Biotreatment basins/trenches with underdrains, where soil type is poorly draining. X2
Install “Engineered Soil” to increase uptake/soil storage capacity and/or evapotranspiration. X2
Install Rainwater Harvesting/Use Equipment. X3
Regional LID BMP facilities are installed, off-site, with the capacity and conveyances to accept post-development storm water runoff from this project and reserved capacity allocation credits have been assigned to the project, in a Certificate or other legally binding document, attached herein
X2
1 Project capable of treating the full DCV onsite and not required to demonstrate this site design. 2 The site will be captured and treated by the proposed underground infiltration facilities. 3 Concept not utilized because the impervious area is much greater than landscape. 3339
5 Table 3-1 Minimum Effective Area1 Required for LID BMPs (surface + subsurface facilities) for Project WQMP to Demonstrate Infeasibility2(% of site) Project Type New
Development
ReDevelopment
SF/MF Residential < 7 du/ac 10% 5%
SF/MF Residential < 7 - 18 du/ac 7% 3.5%
SF/MF Residential > 18 du/ac 5% 2.5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR< 1.0 10% 5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR 1.0-2.0 7% 3.5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR> 2.0 5% 2.5%
Podium (parking under > 75% of project) 3% 1.5%
Zoning allowing development to property lines 2% 1%
Transit Oriented Development3 5% 2.5%
Parking 5% 2.5%
1 “Effective area” is defined as land area which 1) is suitable for a retention/infiltration BMP (based on infeasibility criteria) and 2) is located down-gradient from building roof or paved areas, so that it may receive gravity flow runoff.
2 Criteria only required if the project WQMP seeks to demonstrate that the full DCV cannot be feasibly managed on-site.
3 Transit oriented development is defined as a project with development center within one half mile of a mass transit center.

Key: du/ac = dwelling units/acre, FAR = Floor Area Ratio = ratio of gross floor area of building to gross lot area, MF = Multi Family, SF = Single Family B. Source Control BMPs – The following BMPs are designed to control stormwater pollutants and runoff water at the location where it is generated. Please indicate which of the listed BMPs are planned to be implemented for the project:

Source Control BMPs Planned Not
Planned
Minimize non-stormwater site runoff through efficient
irrigation system design and controllers. X
Minimize trash and debris in storm runoff through a regular parking lot, storage yard and roadway sweeping program.

X
Provide proper covers/roofs and secondary containment for outside material storage & work areas.

X1
Provide solid roofs over all trash enclosures. X
Site Owner(s)/Property Manager/HOA or POA will be
familiar with the project WQMP and stormwater BMPs. X
Owner or HOA or POA to provide Education/Training of site occupants and employees on stormwater BMPs. X
Install stormwater placards/stenciled messages with a “No Dumping” message on all on-site/off-site storm drain inlets. X Provide contained equipment/vehicle wash rack areas that discharge to sanitary sewer.

X2
1 Not applicable. No outside material storage or work areas. Secondary containment not needed. 2 Not applicable, no vehicle wash areas.
3340
6 C. Treatment Control BMPs – The following BMPs are designed to control stormwater pollutants where it is not feasible to install on-site or off-site Site Design/LID BMPs, with the requisite capacity to treat the Design Capture Volume for identified Pollutants of Concern or where pretreatment of stormwater runoff is required, ahead of infiltration BMPs. Please indicate which of the listed BMPs are planned to be implemented for the project:

Treatment Control BMP Planned Not
Planned
Gravity Separator devices for pretreatment of sediment, trash/litter or Oil & Grease X
Proprietary Biofiltration vaults/devices X
Media Cartridge Filtration Vaults X
Proprietary Filter Inserts for on-site storm drain inlets or retention basin/trench overflow drains X

4. Volume-based calculation (approximate) for sizing on-site or off-site Stormwater Retention/Infiltration, Harvest & Re-Use or Biotreatment facilities 1) After calculating the “Watershed Imperviousness Ratio”, i, which is equal to the percent of impervious area in each Drainage Management Area, divided by 100, calculate the composite runoff coefficient CBMP for the Drainage Area above using the following equation:

CBMP = 0.858i
3 – 0.78i
2 + 0.774i + 0.04
where: CBMP = composite runoff coefficient; and,
i = watershed imperviousness ratio.
3) Determine the area-averaged “6-hour Mean Storm Rainfall”, P6, for the Drainage Area.

This is calculated by multiplying the area averaged 2-year 1-hour value (0.5”-0.6”) by the appropriate regression coefficient (1.4807). The 2-yr, 1-hr value for southern Ontario is approximately to 0.5” (P6 = 0.5*1.4807 = 0.74 and northern Ontario is approximately 0.6” in/hr (P6 = 0.6*1.4807 = 0.89).
4) Determine the appropriate drawdown time. Use the regression constant a = 1.582 for 24 hours and a = 1.963 for 48 hours. Note: Regression constants are provided for both 24 hour and 48-hour drawdown times; however, 48-hour drawdown times should be used in most areas of California. Drawdown times in excess of 48 hours should be used with caution as vector breeding can be a problem after water has stood in excess of 72 hours. (Use of the 24-hour drawdown time should be limited to drainage areas with coarse soils (Class ‘A’ soils that readily drain.) 5) Calculate the “Maximized Detention Volume”, P0, using the following equation:

P0 = a · CBMP · P6
where: P0 = Maximized Detention Volume, in inches
3341
7 a = 1.582 for 24 hour and a = 1.963 for 48-hour drawdown, CBMP = composite runoff coefficient; and,
P6 = 6-hour Mean Storm Rainfall, in inches
6) Calculate the “Target Capture Volume”, V0, using the following equation:

V0 = (P0 · A) / 12
where: V0 = Target Capture Volume, in acre-feet
P0 = Maximized Detention Volume, in inches; and,
A = BMP Drainage Area, in acres
Project Volume-based calculation (approximate) for planned on-site or off-site Stormwater Retention/Infiltration, Harvest & Re-Use or Biotreatment facilities:

Variable Factor/Formula DA 1-A n/a n/a n/a
Impervious
surface/total
surface, ratio
(i)

0.95 n/a n/a n/a
CBMP= runoff
coefficient 0.858i
3 –0.78i
2 +0.774i+

0.04 0.807 n/a n/a n/a
P6 **P6 = 2-yr,1-hr
depth*1.4807 =

0.803 n/a n/a n/a
Detention Volume
(acre inches)
P0 = a * CBMP * P6 =

1.27 n/a n/a n/a
Drawdown rate of
basin/trench (a)

1.963 for 48-hr
drawdown =

1.963 n/a n/a n/a
Project Total Area
(acre)
(A) 15.15 n/a n/a n/a
Design Capture
Volume in cu. ft.

V0 = [(P0 * A)/12]
*43560 =
69,915 n/a n/a n/a
Runoff Volume
infiltrated in first
3 hours of storm
(not applicable for
underground systems)
Vol= in/hr/12 x ft2 of
infiltration area x 3 hrs
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Retention Volume
provided in cubic
feet.
*Retention capacity of
basins, trenches,
underground storage
or biotreatment basin
69,922 n/a n/a n/a
*Volume retained utilizing an underground infiltration facility. Refer to the DCV Calculations section for calculations.
**For P6 value, use site coordinates and NOAA website to determine project’s average 2-yr, 1-hr rainfall depth, at: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html . 3342
8 5. Flow-Based calculation (approximate) for sizing on-site or off-site Biotreatment facilities and proprietary treatment technology BMPs:
1) After calculating the “Watershed Imperviousness Ratio”, i, which is equal to the percent of impervious area in each Drainage Management Area divided by 100, calculate the composite runoff coefficient CBMP for the Drainage Area above using the following equation:

CBMP = 0.858i
3 – 0.78i
2 + 0.774i + 0.04
where: CBMP = composite runoff coefficient; and,
i = watershed imperviousness ratio.
2) Determine BMP design rainfall intensity, IBMP, using the project site geo-coordinates and the NOAA website to determine project’s average 2-yr, 1-hr rainfall intensity, at:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html .Multiply this value by 0.2787 (regression coefficient for Ontario) and a minimum safety factor of 2. 4) Calculate the target BMP flowrate, Q, using the following formula (for each DMA <50 acres*):

Q = CBMP · IBMP · A
Where: Q = flow in cfs (Cubic feet per second)
IBMP = BMP design rainfall intensity, in/hr
A = Drainage Area in acres
*For DMAs >50 acres, with CBMP <0.5, the project applicant shall use the unit hydrograph method specified in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, using the design storm pattern with rainfall return frequency such that the peak 1-hr rainfall intensity equals the 85th percentile 1-hr rainfall, multiplied by 2.

Project Flow-based calculation (approximate) for planned on-site or off-site flow-based Biotreatment facilities or Stormwater Treatment BMPs:

Variable Factor/Formula DA 1-A n/a n/a n/a
Impervious surface/
total surface, ratio
(i) 0.95 n/a n/a n/a
CBMP= composite
runoff coefficient 0.858i
3 +0.78i
2 +0.774i
+0.04

0.81 n/a n/a n/a
IBMP IBMP = 2-yr,1-hr storm
intensity*0.2787*safety
factor

0.302 n/a n/a n/a
Drainage area (ac) A = DMA sq ft/43,560 15.15 n/a n/a n/a Target BMP
flowrate
Q = CBPM* IBMP * A

3.69 n/a n/a n/a
3343
9 6. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) and use of the on-line San Bernardino County HCOC Map for determining necessary mitigation steps necessary if there are HCOCs downstream of a project:

Project applicants may access the on-line HCOC Map at:
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/WAP/. The map will indicate any hydrology concerns with downstream waterways that are hydraulically connected to the project and will indicate if there are any approved regional projects downstream that could be utilized for off-site mitigation of HCOCs. Please indicate here if the project will or will not be able to retain/infilter, harvest and use or biotreat and detain the DCV, on-site, as calculated in Section 4 and if there are HCOCs identified downstream of the project:

Retain or Harvest/Use the DCV on site? Yes X No
Biotreat the DCV but not infilter the runoff? Yes No X
HCOCs identified downstream of site? Yes No X
If the entire DCV will not be retained on site, the DCV is biotreated but not infiltered or additional detention capacity is needed to address identified HCOCs, downstream of the site, please list here, what additional mitigation measures will be utilized (on-site or off-site) to address HCOCs (see Section 4.2.1-4.2.3 of the SB County WQMP Technical Guidance):

HCOCs not applicable.

7. Site Plan and Conceptual Grading/Drainage Plan requirements for submission with the Preliminary WQMP:

Provide a Site Plan and Conceptual Grading/Drainage Plan along with this Preliminary WQMP, which conceptually shows the proposed locations of buildings, homes, parking lots, parks, new paved roadways, landscaped areas, drainage patterns and drainage sub-areas, methods of conveyance, proposed retention/infiltration, harvest & use or biotreatment facilities that are planned for installation. Where it is determined to be infeasible to capture and detain design storm runoff volumes, on-site, please include other design features, as described in Section 3, above. Include numbered or lettered notes on the Site Plan with a legend detailing other BMPs, as described in Section 3.

8. BMP Maintenance and Funding Mechanism & Description:

Ownership of the project will be held with Link Logistics Real Estate. Long term maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner. This includes BMP maintenance, catch basin inspection, storm drain maintenance (on-site), efficient irrigation and landscape maintenance, and etcetera until the property is sold or transferred. 3344
10 9. Acknowledgment:

As the property owner or developer, I understand that this project is required to install and implement permanent LID Storm Water Best Management Practices pursuant to the requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit and to document those BMPs in the submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan, which is binding on any current or successive owners of this property.

10.Exemption Signature:

As the property owner or developer, I understand that this project is not required by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit to install and implement permanent LID Storm Water Best Management Practices and will not be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan.

Signature of Owner or Developer

Date
Yes X No
3345
H04
I
H02
A
U
H12
H09
III
V
H11
IV
H08
H07
X
H05
H03
H06
J
VII
F
H01
VI
VIII
B
E
W
H10
IX
XIII
II
G
C
H02B
H02A
II
H12
II
I 15
I 10
STATE HWY 60
I 215
STATE 91
STATE HWY 210
STATE
HWY
71 I 10 - I 15
STATE HWY 259
STATE 91
I 15
STATE HWY 210
STATE HWY 60
STATE HWY 71
STATE HWY 71
Seven Oaks Dam, COE
San Antonio Basin #9
Seven Oaks Dam, COE
San Antonio Dam
Seven Oaks Dam, COE [DSOD]
Seven Oaks Dam, COE
Waterman Spreading Grounds
Seven Oaks Dam, COE
Wineville Basin
San Sevaine Basin #5 [DSOD]
Prado Dam
Twin Creek Spreading Grounds
Riverside Basin
Jurupa Basin [DSOD]
Waterman Basin #1
San Antonio Basin #5
San Antonio Basin #2
Cucamonga Basin #6
Plunge Creek Spreading Grounds
Victoria Basin
City Creek Spreading Grounds San Antonio Basin #8
Devil Basin #7
Rich Basin
Potato Creek Spreading Grounds
Patton Basin
Lytle Creek Gatehouse, COE
Cactus Basin #3b
Cactus Basin #5
Brooks Basin
8th Street Basin #1
Mojave River Forks Dam; COE [DSOD]
Linden Basin
Wiggins Basin #1
Ely Basin #2
Cactus Basin #2
Declez Basin [DSOD]
Turner Basin #1
Banana Basin
Day Creek Dam [DSOD]
Grove Avenue Basin
Etiwanda Conservation Basin
Bledsoe Basin
Montclair Basin #2
Sycamore Basin
Devil Basin #4
Church Street Basin
Lower Cucamonga Sprdg Grnds
Warm Creek Conservation Basin #4
Ranchero Basin
Montclair Basin #1
College Heights Basin #4
College Heights Basin #1
Bailey Basin
Montclair Basin #4
Mountain View Basin
Wilson Creek Basin #3
San Timoteo Sediment Basin #3
Hillside Basin, COE
Wildwood Basin #2
Demens Basin #2
Dynamite Basin
San Timoteo Sediment Basin #18
Sand Canyon Basin
San Timoteo Sediment Basin #13
Perris Hill Basin
13th Street Basin
Cook Canyon Basin
Deep Creek
Mill Creek
Cajon Creek Wash
Zanja Creek
Lytle Creek Wash
Santa Ana
River
Sheep
Creek
Oak Glen Creek
Mojave River
Cypress Channel
Sawpit Canyon
H
orse
Canyon
Live Oak Creek
Grout Creek
Yucaipa Creek
Horsethief Canyon
Seeley
Creek
Cleghorn Canyon
Morrey Arroyo
Arrowbear Creek
Sand Canyon Creek
Sawpit Canyon
Legend
Regional Board Boundary
County Boundary
DrainageCourse
<all other values>
Hydromodification
EHM
Low
Medium
High
High (Default)
Government Land
State of California Land
United States of America Land
City Boundary
Freeways
Basins and Dams
HCOC Exempt Areas
None Exempt
HCOC Exempt
A
B
C
E
F
G
H01
H02
H02A
H02B
H03
H04
H05
H06
H07
H08
H09
H10
H11
H12
I
II
III
IV
IX
J
U
V
VI
VII
VIII
W
X
XIII
Figure F-1
3346
3347
3348
3349
11 DCV CALCULATIONS
3350
www.nws.noaa.gov
Home Site Map Organization Search NWS All NOAA Go
General Information
Homepage
Progress Reports
FAQ
Glossary
Precipitation
Frequency
Data Server
GIS Grids
Maps
Time Series
Temporals
Documents
Probable Maximum
Precipitation
Documents
Miscellaneous
Publications
Storm Analysis
Record Precipitation
Contact Us
Inquiries
Data description
Data type: Precipitation depth  Units: English  Time series type: Partial duration  Select location
1) Manually:
a) By location (decimal degrees, use "-" for S and W): Latitude: 34.049349 Longitude: -117.55238 Submit b) By station (list of CA stations): Select station 
c) By address
2) Use map (if ESRI interactive map is not loading, try adding the host: https://js.arcgis.com/ to the firewall, or contact us at [email protected]):
a) Select location
Move crosshair or double click
b) Click on station icon
Show stations on map
Location information:

Name: Ontario, California, USA*
Latitude: 34.0493°
Longitude: -117.5524°
Elevation: 913.38 ft **
* Source: ESRI Maps
** Source: USGS
PF tabular PF graphical Supplementary information
PDS-based precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.105
(0.087-0.127)

0.138
(0.115-0.168)

0.181
(0.150-0.220)

0.215
(0.177-0.264)

0.259
(0.206-0.329)

0.293
(0.228-0.380)

0.326
(0.247-0.434)

0.359
(0.265-0.492)

0.403
(0.285-0.577)

0.437
(0.297-0.648)
10-min 0.150
(0.125-0.181)

0.198
(0.165-0.240)

0.260
(0.216-0.316)

0.308
(0.254-0.378)

0.372
(0.296-0.472)

0.420
(0.327-0.545)

0.467
(0.354-0.622)

0.515
(0.379-0.706)

0.578
(0.408-0.827)

0.626
(0.426-0.928)
15-min 0.181
(0.151-0.219)

0.240
(0.200-0.291)

0.314
(0.261-0.382)

0.372
(0.307-0.457)

0.450
(0.358-0.571)

0.507
(0.395-0.659)

0.565
(0.428-0.752)

0.622
(0.459-0.853)

0.699
(0.493-1.00)

0.757
(0.515-1.12)
30-min 0.276
(0.230-0.334)

0.365
(0.304-0.443)

0.478
(0.397-0.581)

0.567
(0.467-0.696)

0.685
(0.545-0.870)

0.773
(0.601-1.00)

0.860
(0.653-1.15)

0.948
(0.699-1.30)

1.07 (0.751-1.52)

1.15 (0.785-1.71)
60-min 0.410
(0.342-0.496)

0.542
(0.452-0.658)

0.710
(0.590-0.863)

0.843
(0.694-1.03)

1.02 (0.809-1.29)

1.15 (0.893-1.49)

1.28 (0.969-1.70)

1.41 (1.04-1.93)

1.58 (1.12-2.26)

1.71 (1.17-2.54)
2-hr 0.606
(0.506-0.734)

0.796
(0.663-0.965)

1.03 (0.858-1.26)

1.22 (1.00-1.49)

1.46 (1.16-1.85)

1.64 (1.27-2.12)

1.81 (1.37-2.41)

1.98 (1.46-2.72)

2.21 (1.56-3.16)

2.37 (1.62-3.52)
3-hr 0.761
(0.635-0.922)

0.997
(0.830-1.21)

1.29 (1.07-1.57)

1.52 (1.25-1.86)

1.81 (1.44-2.30)

2.02 (1.57-2.62)

2.23 (1.69-2.97)

2.44 (1.80-3.34)

2.71 (1.91-3.87)

2.90 (1.98-4.31)
6-hr 1.08
(0.897-1.30)

1.41 (1.17-1.70)

1.81 (1.51-2.20)

2.13 (1.75-2.61)

2.53 (2.01-3.21)

2.82 (2.20-3.66)

3.11 (2.36-4.14)

3.39 (2.49-4.64)

3.74 (2.64-5.36)

4.01 (2.73-5.94)
12-hr 1.40 1.84 2.38 2.80 3.33 3.72 4.09 4.45 4.92 5.26 NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES: CA 

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY (PF) ESTIMATES
WITH 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Print page
Search
+
–

0.4km

0.3mi
Map 
 Terrain
PF Map: Contiguous US Page 1 of 2
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca 9/22/2021 3351
(1.17-1.70) (1.54-2.24) (1.98-2.90) (2.31-3.44) (2.65-4.23) (2.90-4.83) (3.10-5.45) (3.28-6.11) (3.47-7.04) (3.58-7.80) 24-hr 1.87
(1.65-2.15)

2.47 (2.19-2.86)

3.23 (2.85-3.73)

3.81 (3.33-4.44)

4.56 (3.86-5.49)

5.10 (4.23-6.27)

5.63 (4.56-7.09)

6.14 (4.84-7.95)

6.80 (5.15-9.17)

7.29 (5.33-10.2)
2-day 2.25
(1.99-2.59)

3.04 (2.69-3.51)

4.04 (3.56-4.67)

4.82 (4.22-5.62)

5.84 (4.94-7.04)

6.59 (5.47-8.11)

7.33 (5.94-9.24)

8.07 (6.36-10.4)

9.03 (6.83-12.2)

9.74 (7.12-13.6)
3-day 2.43
(2.15-2.81)

3.34 (2.96-3.86)

4.50 (3.97-5.21)

5.42 (4.74-6.32)

6.63 (5.61-7.99)

7.54 (6.25-9.27)

8.43 (6.83-10.6)

9.34 (7.36-12.1)

10.5 (7.97-14.2)

11.4 (8.36-15.9)
4-day 2.65
(2.35-3.06)

3.68 (3.25-4.25)

5.00 (4.40-5.78)

6.05 (5.29-7.05)

7.45 (6.31-8.98)

8.50 (7.05-10.5)

9.56 (7.74-12.0)

10.6 (8.37-13.8)

12.0 (9.11-16.2)

13.1 (9.60-18.3)
7-day 3.11
(2.75-3.58)

4.35 (3.85-5.02)

5.96 (5.26-6.90)

7.27 (6.36-8.49)

9.05 (7.66-10.9)

10.4 (8.63-12.8)

11.8 (9.53-14.8)

13.2 (10.4-17.1)

15.1 (11.4-20.3)

16.5 (12.1-23.1)
10-day 3.35
(2.97-3.86)

4.71 (4.17-5.44)

6.51 (5.74-7.53)

7.97 (6.97-9.30)

9.98 (8.45-12.0)

11.5 (9.56-14.2)

13.1 (10.6-16.5)

14.7 (11.6-19.1)

17.0 (12.8-22.9)

18.7 (13.7-26.1)
20-day 3.94
(3.49-4.55)

5.61 (4.96-6.48)

7.85 (6.93-9.09)

9.73 (8.51-11.3)

12.3 (10.4-14.9)

14.4 (11.9-17.7)

16.5 (13.4-20.8)

18.8 (14.8-24.3)

21.9 (16.6-29.6)

24.4 (17.9-34.1)
30-day 4.65
(4.12-5.36)

6.63 (5.87-7.66)

9.34 (8.23-10.8)

11.6 (10.2-13.6)

14.8 (12.6-17.9)

17.4 (14.4-21.4)

20.1 (16.3-25.3)

23.0 (18.1-29.7)

27.0 (20.4-36.4)

30.3 (22.1-42.2)
45-day 5.56
(4.92-6.41)

7.90 (6.99-9.12)

11.1 (9.81-12.9)

13.9 (12.1-16.2)

17.8 (15.1-21.5)

21.0 (17.4-25.8)

24.3 (19.7-30.6)

27.9 (22.0-36.2)

33.0 (25.0-44.6)

37.2 (27.2-51.9)
60-day 6.47
(5.73-7.46)

9.12 (8.06-10.5)

12.8 (11.3-14.8)

15.9 (13.9-18.6)

20.5 (17.3-24.7)

24.2 (20.0-29.7)

28.1 (22.7-35.4)

32.3 (25.5-41.9)

38.4 (29.0-51.8)

43.3 (31.7-60.5)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Estimates from the table in CSV format: Precipitation frequency estimates  Submit Main Link Categories:

Home | OWP
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
Office of Water Prediction (OWP)
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Page Author: HDSC webmaster
Page last modified: April 21, 2017
Map Disclaimer
Disclaimer
Credits
Glossary
Privacy Policy
About Us
Career Opportunities
PF Map: Contiguous US Page 2 of 2
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca 9/22/2021 3352
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Factor Category Factor Description
Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
Soil assessment methods 0.25 1 0.25
Predominant soil texture 0.25 1 0.25
Site soil variability 0.25 1 0.25
Depth to groundwater / impervious
layer 0.25 1 0.25
A
Suitability
Assessment
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p 1.0
Tributary area size 0.25 3 0.75
Level of pretreatment/ expected
sediment loads 0.25 1 0.25
Redundancy 0.25 3 0.75
Compaction during construction 0.25 1 0.25
B Design
Design Safety Factor, SB = p 2.0
Combined Safety Factor, STOT= SA x SB 2.0
Measured Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, KM
(corrected for test-specific bias)

2.60 Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN = KM / STOT 1.30 Supporting Data
Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms:

A site-specific infiltration test was conducted at the project site to support a minimum measured infiltration result of 2.60 in/hr. The design infiltration rate is 1.30 in/hr after applying the appropriate safety factor. This design rate is suitable for infiltration facilities.

Note: The minimum combined adjustment factor shall not be less than 2.0 and the maximum combined adjustment factor shall not exceed 9.0.
3353

FLOW-BASED BMP DESIGN (PRETREATMENT)
CBMP = 0.858(imp)3 – 0.78(imp)2 + 0.774(imp) + 0.04
IBMP = (0.542)(0.2787)(2) = 0.302 in/hr
Q = CBMP * 0.302 * Area
DA 1 – BAR “A” – BARRACUDA UNIT
Region Valley
Drainage Area (acres) 15.15 acres
Drainage Area (sq-ft) 659,934 sq-ft
Impervious Coeff i = 0.95 < 1.0
Runoff Coeff C = 0.81
1-hr 2-yr from NOAA 0.542
Intensity Coeff 0.2787
Intensity BMP (in/hr) 0.302
Flow (cfs) Q = 3.69
ADS Barracuda Unit S8
Q-required = 3.69 cfs
Q-provided = 5.00 cfs
3354

VOLUME-BASED BMP DESIGN
CBMP = 0.858(imp)3 – 0.78(imp)2 + 0.774(imp) + 0.04
P6 = (0.542)(1.4807) = 0.803 inches
P0 = (1.963)(CBMP)(0.803)
DCV = (P0 * Area) / 12
DA 1 – STC “A” – DC-780 STORMTECH CHAMBERS
Region Valley
Drainage Area (acres) 15.15 acres
Drainage Area (sq-ft) 659,934 sq-ft
Impervious Coeff i = 0.95 < 1.0
Runoff Coeff C = 0.807
1-hr 2-yr from NOAA 0.542
P6 Coeff 1.4807
Mean 6-hr (P6) 0.803
Drawdown Rate (a) 1.963
DCV 69,915 cu-ft
DCV 1.605 acre-ft
3355
Design infiltration rate = 1.30 in/hr
dmax = 62.4 inches = Design infiltration rate x 48 hours = 1.30 in/hr x 48 hrs dBMP = 36.0 inches = [ (9 inches + 6 inches) x 0.40 ] + 30 inches dmax > dBMP
3356
12 INFILTRATION

FEASIBILITY
3357
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway  Suite E  Yorba Linda  California  92887 voice: (714) 685-1115  fax: (714) 685-1118  www.socalgeo.com Novmeber 1, 2021
Link Logistics Real Estate
333 Michelson Drive
Suite 725
Irvine, CA 92162
Attention: Ms. Rachel Hickenbottom
Vice President – Development
Project No.: 21G228-2
Subject: Results of Infiltration Testing
Proposed Industrial Development
1350 and 1375 South Woodruff Way
Ontario, California
Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed C/I Development, 1350 and 1375 South Woodruff Way, Ontario, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG) for Duke Realty, SCG Project No. 21G228-1, dated November 1, 2021.

Dear Ms. Hickenbottom:

In accordance with your request, we have conducted infiltration testing at the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the results of the infiltration testing and our design recommendations.

Scope of Services
The scope of services performed for this project was in general accordance with our Proposal No. 21P427, dated September 21, 2021. The scope of services included site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field testing, and engineering analysis to determine the infiltration rates of the on-site soils. The infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook – Section 2.3 of Appendix A, prepared for the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH), dated December, 2013. The San Bernardino County standards defer to the guidelines published by the RCDEH.

Site and Project Description
The subject site is located at the address of 1350 and 1375 South Woodruff Way in Ontario, California. The site is bounded to the north by existing commercial buildings, to the west by South Rockefeller Avenue, to the south by East Jurupa Street, and to the east by Highway I-15. Woodruff Way transverses the site in a roughly north to south direction. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, enclosed as Plate 1 in Appendix A of this report.

The site consists of two irregularly-shaped parcels which total 16.06± acres in size. As previously noted, Woodruff Way extends north to south, dividing the site into two (2) parcels, east and west.

The site is presently developed as the Citrus Motors automobile dealership. The eastern parcel is 3358
Proposed Industrial Development – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G228-2

developed with one building, 158,000± ft2in size, that includes a Ford dealership, service facility and body shop. The western parcel is developed with a 14,000± ft2 building that is a Kia dealership. Both buildings are surrounded by asphaltic concrete pavements, with some areas of concrete flatwork and landscape planters.

Detailed topographic information was not available at the time of this report. Based on elevations obtained from Google Earth and visual observations made at the time of the subsurface investigation, the western parcel slopes downward to the southeast at a gradient of 1± percent.

The western parcel possesses 2 to 4± feet maximum topographic relief. The eastern parcel slopes downward to the southwest at a gradient of less than 1± percent. The eastern parcel possesses 5± feet maximum topographic relief.

Proposed Development
Two potential site plans depicting the scope of the proposed development were provided by the client. Site Plan 1 depicts a development comprised of a single building, 352,240 ft2in size, located in the north-central region of the overall site. This structure would include dock high doors on most of the south side of the building. Site Plan 2 depicts two (2) buildings, one on each side of Woodruff Way. Building 1 will be located on the eastern parcel and will be 236,400± ft2in size. This building will include dock doors on the eastern side of the structure. Building 2 will be located on the western parcel and will be 135,870+ ft2in size, with dock doors on the eastern side of the structure. We expect that the buildings will be surrounded by asphaltic concrete pavements in the parking and drive areas, Portland cement concrete pavements in the truck court areas, with isolated areas of concrete flatwork and landscape planters. The proposed development will require the abandonment of the portion of Woodruff Way which extends across the project site.

We understand that the proposed development will include on-site stormwater infiltration. The infiltration system is expected to consist of a below-grade chamber system located in the southern region of the site. The bottom of the chamber system is expected to be 14± feet below existing site grades.

Concurrent Study
SCG concurrently conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject site, referenced above.

As a part of this study, seven (7) borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-1 through B-7) were advanced to depths of 20 to 25± feet below the existing site grades, asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements were encountered at the ground surface at all of the boring locations. At these locations, the pavement sections consisted of 2 to 4± inches of asphaltic concrete, underlain by 4 to 6± inches of aggregate base. Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements at all of the boring locations, extending to depths of 2½ to 4½± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consisted of very loose to medium dense silty fine sands, fine sandy silts and fine to medium sands with varying coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel content. The fill soils possessed a disturbed appearance, resulting in their classification as artificial fill. Native alluvium was encountered beneath the artificial fill at all of the boring locations, extending to at least the maximum explored depth of 25± feet below existing site grades. The alluvium consisted of loose to medium dense silty fine sands, fine sands, fine to medium sands, and fine sandy silts, with varying gravel content.
3359
Proposed Industrial Development – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G228-2

Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration.

As part of our research, we reviewed readily available groundwater data in order to determine regional groundwater depths. Recent water level data was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources website, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. The nearest monitoring well on record is located approximately ½± mile southwest of the site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate a groundwater level of 277± feet below the ground surface in March 2021.

Subsurface Exploration
Scope of Exploration
The subsurface exploration conducted for the infiltration testing consisted of two (2) infiltration test borings, advanced to a depth of 14± feet below the existing site grades. The infiltration borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drilling rig, equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollowstem augers and were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. The approximate locations of the infiltration test borings (identified as I-1 and I-2) are indicated on the Infiltration Test Location Plans, enclosed as Plates 2A and 2B of this report.

Upon the completion of the infiltration borings, the bottom of each test boring was covered with 2± inches of clean ¾-inch gravel. A sufficient length of 3-inch-diameter perforated PVC casing was then placed into each test hole so that the PVC casing extended from the bottom of the test hole to the ground surface. Clean ¾-inch gravel was then installed in the annulus surrounding the PVC casing.

Geotechnical Conditions
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at both of the infiltration boring locations, extending to a depth of 3± below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of loose fine sands and silty fine sands with varying gravel content. The fill soils possess a disturbed mottled appearance resulting in their classification as artificial fill.

Native alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill soils at both of the infiltration boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 14± feet below the existing site grades. The alluvial soils generally consist of very loose to medium dense fine sands and fine to coarse sands and occasional silty fine to medium sands. Infiltration Test No. I-1 encountered some fine gravel at depths ranging from 12½± to 14± feet. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, are included with this report. 3360
Proposed Industrial Development – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G228-2

Infiltration Testing
As previously mentioned, the infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook – Section 2.3 of Appendix A, which apply to San Bernardino County.

Pre-soaking
In accordance with the county infiltration standards for sandy soils, all infiltration test borings were pre-soaked 2 hours prior to the infiltration testing or until all of the water had percolated through the test holes. The pre-soaking process consisted of filling test borings by inverting a full 5-gallon bottle of clear water supported over each hole so that the water flow into the hole holds constant at a level at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of each hole.

Pre-soaking was completed after all of the water had percolated through the test holes.

Infiltration Testing
Following the pre-soaking process of the infiltration test borings, SCG performed the infiltration testing. Each test hole was filled with water to a depth of at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of the test holes. In accordance with the San Bernardino County guidelines, since “sandy soils” were encountered at the bottom of both of the infiltration test borings (where 6 inches of water infiltrated into the surrounding soils for two consecutive 25- minute readings), readings were taken at 10-minute intervals for a total of 1 hour at each test location. After each reading, water was added to the borings so that the depth of the water was at least 5 times the radius of the hole. The water level readings are presented on the spreadsheets enclosed with this report. The infiltration rates for each of the timed intervals are also tabulated on the spreadsheets.

The infiltration rates from the test are tabulated in inches per hour. In accordance with the typically accepted practice, it is recommended that the most conservative reading from the latter part of the infiltration tests be used as the design infiltration rate. The rates are summarized below:

Infiltration
Test No.

Depth
(feet) Soil Description Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) I-1 14
Brown fine to coarse Sand, some fine Gravel,
trace to little Silt 4.2
I-2 14 Brown Silty fine to medium Sand 2.6
Laboratory Testing
Moisture Content
The moisture contents for the recovered soil samples within the borings were determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216 and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs.
3361
Proposed Industrial Development – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G228-2

Grain Size Analysis
The grain size distribution of selected soils collected from the base of each infiltration test boring have been determined using a range of wire mesh screens. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D-422 and/or ASTM D-1140. The weight of the portion of the sample retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on Plates C-1 and C-2 of this report.

Design Recommendations
Two (2) infiltration tests were performed at the subject site. As noted above, the infiltration rates at these locations vary from 2.6 to 4.1 inches per hour. Based on the infiltration test results, we recommend an infiltration rate of 2.6 inches per hour to be used for the proposed below-grade chamber system in the southern region of the site, if the system extends to a depth of 14 feet below the existing grades.

We recommend that a representative from the geotechnical engineer be on-site during the construction of the proposed infiltration system to identify the soil classification at the base of the system. It should be confirmed that the soils at the base of the proposed infiltration system correspond with those presented in this report to ensure that the performance of the system will be consistent with the rate reported herein.

The design of the storm water infiltration system should be performed by the project civil engineer, in accordance with the City of Ontario and/or County of San Bernardino guidelines. It is recommended that the system be constructed so as to facilitate removal of silt and clay, or other deleterious materials from any water that may enter the system. The presence of such materials would decrease the effective infiltration rate. It is recommended that the project civil engineer apply an appropriate factor of safety. The infiltration rate recommended above is based on the assumption that only clean water will be introduced to the subsurface profile. Any fines, debris, or organic materials could significantly impact the infiltration rate. It should be noted that the recommended infiltration rates are based on infiltration testing at two (2) discrete locations and that the overall infiltration rate of the proposed infiltration system could vary considerably.

Infiltration Rate Considerations
The infiltration rates presented herein was determined in accordance with the San Bernardino County guidelines and are considered valid only for the time and place of the actual test. Varying subsurface conditions will exist in other areas of the site, which could alter the recommended infiltration rates presented above. The infiltration rates will decline over time between maintenance cycles as silt or clay particles accumulate on the BMP surface. The infiltration rate is highly dependent upon a number of factors, including density, silt and clay content, grainsize distribution throughout the range of particle sizes, and particle shape. Small changes in these factors can cause large changes in the infiltration rates.

Infiltration rates are based on unsaturated flow. As water is introduced into soils by infiltration, the soils become saturated and the wetting front advances from the unsaturated zone to the saturated zone. Once the soils become saturated, infiltration rates become zero, and water can only move through soils by hydraulic conductivity at a rate determined by pressure head and soil 3362
Proposed Industrial Development – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G228-2

permeability. Changes in soil moisture content will affect the infiltration rate. Infiltration rates should be expected to decrease until the soils become saturated. Soil permeability values will then govern groundwater movement. Permeability values may be on the order of 10 to 20 times less than infiltration rates. The system designer should incorporate adequate factors of safety and allow for overflow design into appropriate traditional storm drain systems, which would transport storm water off-site.

Construction Considerations
The infiltration rates presented in this report are specific to the tested locations and tested depths.

Infiltration rates can be significantly reduced if the soils are exposed to excessive disturbance or compaction during construction. Compaction of the soils at the bottom of the infiltration system can significantly reduce the infiltration ability of the basins. Therefore, the subgrade soils within proposed infiltration system areas should not be over-excavated, undercut or compacted in any significant manner. It is recommended that a note to this effect be added to the project plans and/or specifications.

We recommend that a representative from the geotechnical engineer be on-site during the construction of the proposed infiltration systems to identify the soil classification at the base of each system. It should be confirmed that the soils at the base of the proposed infiltration systems correspond with those presented in this report to ensure that the performance of the systems will be consistent with the rates reported herein.

We recommend that scrapers and other rubber-tired heavy equipment not be operated on the basin bottom, or at levels lower than 2 feet above the bottom of the system, particularly within basins. As such, the bottom 24 inches of the infiltration systems should be excavated with nonrubber-tired equipment, such as excavators.

Chamber Maintenance
The proposed project may include infiltration basins. Water flowing into these basins will carry some level of sediment. Wind-blown sediments and erosion of the basin side walls will also contribute to sediment deposition at the bottom of the basin. This layer has the potential to significantly reduce the infiltration rate of the basin subgrade soils. Therefore, a formal basin maintenance program should be established to ensure that these silt and clay deposits are removed from the basin on a regular basis. Appropriate vegetation on the basin sidewalls and bottom may reduce erosion and sediment deposition.

Basin maintenance should also include measures to prevent animal burrows, and to repair any burrows or damage caused by such. Animal burrows in the basin sidewalls can significantly increase the risk of erosion and piping failures.

Location of Infiltration Systems
The use of on-site storm water infiltration systems carries a risk of creating adverse geotechnical conditions. Increasing the moisture content of the soil can cause the soil to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the designed engineering properties. Overlying structures and pavements in the infiltration area could potentially be damaged due to saturation of the subgrade soils. The proposed infiltration systems for this 3363
Proposed Industrial Development – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G228-2

site should be located at least 25 feet away from any structures, including retaining walls. Even with this provision of locating the infiltration system at least 25 feet from the building(s), it is possible that infiltrating water into the subsurface soils could have an adverse effect on the proposed or existing structures. It should also be noted that utility trenches which happen to collect storm water can also serve as conduits to transmit storm water toward the structure, depending on the slope of the utility trench. Therefore, consideration should also be given to the proposed locations of underground utilities which may pass near the proposed infiltration system.

The infiltration system designer should also give special consideration to the effect that the proposed infiltration systems may have on nearby subterranean structures, open excavations, or descending slopes. In particular, infiltration systems should not be located near the crest of descending slopes, particularly where the slopes are comprised of granular soils. Such systems will require specialized design and analysis to evaluate the potential for slope instability, piping failures and other phenomena that typically apply to earthen dam design. This type of analysis is beyond the scope of this infiltration test report, but these factors should be considered by the infiltration system designer when locating the infiltration systems.

Closure
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office.

Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Jose A. Zuniga
Staff Engineer
Gregory K. Mitchell, GE 2364
Principal Engineer

Distribution: (1) Addressee
Enclosures: Plate 1 - Site Location Map
Plates 2A and 2B - Infiltration Test Location Plans
Boring Log Legend and Logs (4 pages)
Infiltration Test Results Spreadsheets (2 pages)
Grain Size Distribution Graphs (2 pages)
3364
SITE

PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
SCALE: 1" = 2000' DRAWN: JAZ CHKD: GKM

SCG PROJECT
21G228-2 PLATE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE GUASTI QUADRANGLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 2018. 3365
EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-6 B-5 B-7 I-1 I-2 SCALE: 1" = 120' DRAWN: JAZ CHKD: GKM PLATE 2A SCG PROJECT 21G228-2 ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION PLAN - SITE PLAN 1 SoCalGeo NORTH APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND EXISTING BUILDINGS NOTE: BASE SITE PLAN PREPARED BY HPA. TO BE DEMOLISHED APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION (SCG PROJECT NO. 21G228-1) 3366
EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-6 B-5 B-7 I-1 I-2 SCALE: 1" = 120' DRAWN: JAZ CHKD: GKM PLATE 2B SCG PROJECT 21G228-2 ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION PLAN - SITE PLAN 2 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE DEMOLISHED APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION (SCG PROJECT NO. 21G228-1) 3367

BORING LOG LEGEND

SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL

SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

AUGER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD
MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED)
CORE
ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A
DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICALLY USED
ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK.

GRAB 1 SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED

EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE
GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED)
CS
CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL
SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS.

DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY

UNDISTURBED)
NSR
NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT

RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR
ROCK MATERIAL.

SPT
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4
INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18
INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED)
SH
SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE
TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED.
(UNDISTURBED)
VANE
VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING
A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT
CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED.

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface.

SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.

BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3” indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more.

POCKET PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer.

GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page.

DRY DENSITY: Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample in lbs/ft3 .

MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.

LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid.

PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic.

PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve.

UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. 3368
SM
SP
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS
SW

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

GRAPH LETTER

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES
GC
GM
GP
GW

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES
FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML

CLEAN SANDS
SC

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY

SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH
FINES

LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS GRAVEL
AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CLEAN

GRAVELS
3369
3± inches Asphaltic concrete; 5± inches Aggregate base
FILL: Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, trace coarse Gravel, loose-moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown fine Sand, trace coarse Gravel,
loose-moist
Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense-dry to damp
Brown fine Sand, trace medium Sand, loose-damp
Brown fine to coarse Sand, some fine Gravel, trace to little Silt, medium dense-moist
Boring Terminated at 14'
6 7
20 8
14 8
7 8
2 5
5 5
10 LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-1
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 10/6/21
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jose Zuniga
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 21G228-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Development
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-1
TBL 21G228-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 11/1/21
3370
3± inches Asphaltic concrete; 4± inches Aggregate base
FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, loose-very moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, trace coarse Sand, very loose-damp to moist
@ 8½ to 10 feet, trace fine to coarse Gravel
Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, loose-moist
Boring Terminated at 14'
7 3
2 3
6 40
10 8
8 6
10 5
10 LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-2
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 10/6/21
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jose Zuniga
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 21G228-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Development
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-2
TBL 21G228-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 11/1/21
3371

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 14.00 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-1
Interval
Number Time Time Interval(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 8:00 AM 10.00
Final 8:25 AM 12.35
Initial 8:27 AM 10.00
Final 8:52 AM 12.25
Interval
Number Time Time Interval(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 9:00 AM 10.00
Final 9:10 AM 11.35
Initial 9:12 AM 10.00
Final 9:22 AM 11.33
Initial 9:24 AM 10.00
Final 9:34 AM 11.30
Initial 9:36 AM 10.00
Final 9:46 AM 11.25
Initial 9:48 AM 10.00
Final 9:58 AM 11.23
Initial 10:00 AM 10.00
Final 10:10 AM 11.23
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:

Where: Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
Proposed C/I Development
Ontario. CA
21G228-2
Jose Zuniga
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 28.20 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 27.00 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 1.35 3.33 4.64
2 10.00 1.33 3.34 4.56
3 10.00 1.30 3.35 4.44
4 10.00 1.25 3.38 4.24
5 10.00 1.23 3.39 4.16
6 10.00 1.23 3.39 4.16
t(r 2H )
H(60r) Q
  avg


3372

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 14.00 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-2
Interval
Number Time Time Interval(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 10:30 AM 9.60
Final 10:55 AM 11.40
Initial 10:57 AM 9.60
Final 11:22 AM 11.40
Interval
Number Time Time Interval(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 11:25 AM 9.60
Final 11:35 AM 10.53
Initial 11:37 AM 9.60
Final 11:47 AM 10.52
Initial 11:50 AM 9.60
Final 12:00 PM 10.51
Initial 12:05 PM 9.60
Final 12:15 PM 10.50
Initial 12:17 PM 9.60
Final 12:27 PM 10.50
Initial 12:30 PM 9.60
Final 12:40 PM 10.50
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:

Where: Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 0.90 3.95 2.62
6 10.00 0.90 3.95 2.62
3 10.00 0.91 3.95 2.66
4 10.00 0.90 3.95 2.62
1 10.00 0.93 3.94 2.72
2 10.00 0.92 3.94 2.69
2 25.00 21.60 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed C/I Development
Ontario. CA
21G228-2
Jose Zuniga
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 21.60 YES SANDY SOILS
t(r 2H )
H(60r) Q
  avg


3373
Sample Description I-1 @ 12½'
Soil Classification Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Silt, some fine Gravel Proposed C/I Development
Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G228-2
PLATE C- 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
P
erc
e
nt P
a
s
sin
g
b
y
W
eig
ht
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 3374
Sample Description I-2 @ 12½'
Soil Classification Brown Silty fine to medium Sand
Proposed C/I Development
Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G228-2
PLATE C- 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
P
erc
e
nt P
a
s
sin
g
b
y
W
eig
ht
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 3375
Thienes Engineering, Inc.

CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY
STUDY
FOR

WOODRUFF WAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
1350 AND 1375 WOODRUFF WAY

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

LINK LOGISTIC REAL ESTATE
3333 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 725
IRVINE, CA 92612
PHONE: (949) 344-2209
www.linklogistic.com
NOVEMBER 2, 2021
REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 2022
REVISED JUNE 23, 2022
JOB NO. 4035

PREPARED BY

THIENES ENGINEERING
14349 FIRESTONE BLVD.

LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA 90638
(714) 521-4811
3376

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY
STUDY
FOR

WOODRUFF WAY IDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

PREPARED UNDER

THE SUPERVISION OF
_________________________________________

REINHARD STENZEL , PE DATE
R.C.E. 56155
EXP. 12/31/22

3377

INTRODUCTION
A: PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located on the northerly side of Jurupa Street and south of Wanamaker Avenue between Rockefeller Avenue and Ontario Freeway in the City of Ontario. See following page for vicinity map.

B: STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to determine the existing and proposed condition 100-year peak flow rate from the site that drains to an existing 27” reinforced concrete pipe that connects to an existing 96” R.C.P. at Jurupa Avenue south of the project site.

C: PROJECT STAFF:

Thienes Engineering staff involved in this study include:

Reinhard Stenzel, PE
Eduardo Toledanes
3378
3379

DISCUSSION
The proposed project site encompasses approximately 16.75 acres. There is one proposed warehouse type building of approximately 344,678 square feet. A truck yard and truck parking area will be located at the south side of the building while vehicle parking is on the north, east and westerly side of the building. A paved drive aisle will be located on the easterly, westerly and southerly side of the site. There will be landscaped areas adjacent to Wanamaker Avenue, Rockefeller Avenue and Jurupa Street and other smaller areas throughout the site.

Master Plan of Drainage
The site is tabled to an existing 96” R.C.P. storm drain system in Jurupa Street as commercial development. The site is a portion of the “D18” subareas on the City Master Plan. The total 100 year peak flow for this block is approximately 85.0 cfs.

Please see Appendix "A" (Reference materials) for portions of the City’s Master Plan of Drainage and downstream existing storm drain plans.

Existing Condition
The future project site is composed of two separate developed lot at existing condition.

Parcel 1 LL 96-19 for the westerly lot and Parcel 2 per Parcel Map 9752 for the easterly lot. Woodruff Way, a public street is utilized as a common access road for both easterly and westerly lot. Each lot has single story type building structure with paved parking and landscaped areas throughout the site.

The Westerly Lot:

The northerly half portion of the west lot (node 100-101) drains northwesterly to an existing catch basin northwest of the site. The 100-year storm event at this location (node 101) is approximately 7.7 cfs. Runoff from the southerly half portion of the site (node 110-111) drains southeasterly to an existing catch basin at the southeast corner of the site and connects to the existing 27” RCP storm drain system at Woodruff Way. The 100-year peak flow rate at this point (node 111) is approximately 6.9 cfs. The remaining easterly portion of the west lot including the westerly half of Woodruff Way (node 200-201) will drain south to an existing catch basin southwest of Woodruff Way. The 100-year runoff discharge from this area (201) is approximately 4.0 cfs. The easterly half of Woodruff Way (node 210-211) will drain south and conveyed into an existing catch basin southeast of Woodruff Way. The 100-year storm event at this location (node 211) is approximately

2.3 cfs. Runoff from the westerly lot including Woodruff Way will be conveyed south to an existing 27” RCP south of Woodruff Way that connects to an existing 96” RCP public 3380
storm drain system in Jurupa Street. The total 100-year peak flow rate from the westerly lot including Woodruff Way is approximately 20.9 cfs (7.7 cfs + 6.9 cfs + 4.0 cfs + 2.3 cfs).

The Easterly Lot:

The westerly half of the easterly lot (node 300-301) will drain from north to south and into an existing catch basin at the southwest corner of the site. The 100-year runoff discharge at this location (node 301) is approximately 16.2 cfs. The northeasterly portion of the site (node 310-311) will sheet flow northwesterly to an existing catch basin northeast of the site. The 100-year peak flow rate from this area (node 311) is approximately 7.6 cfs. The remaining southeasterly area (node 320-321) will drain southwesterly to an existing catch basin south of the site. The 100-year storm event at this point (node 321) is approximately 8.3 cfs. Runoff from the easterly lot will drain to a series of existing catch basins and conveyed south to an existing 27” RCP storm drain system that connects to the existing 96” RCP at Jurupa Street. The total 100-year peak flow rate tributary to the easterly lot is approximately 32.1 cfs (16.2 cfs + 8.3 cfs + 7.6 cfs). Runoff from the northerly landscaped area (node 400-401) will drain westerly to an existing street catch basin at Wanamaker Avenue northwest of the site. The 100-year peak flow rate tributary from this area (node 401) is approximately 0.9 cfs. The remaining westerly landscape area (node 410-411) adjacent to Rockefeller Avenue will drain south and ultimately discharged to an existing street catch basin northeast of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue intersection. The 100-year storm event at this point (node 411) is approximately 0.2 cfs. The total 100-year peak flow rate tributary to the project site is approximately 54.1 cfs (20.9 cfs + 32.1 cfs + 0.9 cfs + 0.2 cfs).

Offsite runoff from the sloped landscaped area south of the project site sheet flows to an existing ditch that runs southwesterly and easterly and drains to a low point where storm water is conveyed into an existing corrugated metal pipe inlet and discharged south. The storm drain inlet is located southeast of the site adjacent to Ontario freeway and east of the existing electrical pad. There is no available information from the city as to where the existing corrugated metal pipe inlet connected to downstream.

See Appendix "B" for the existing condition hydrology calculations and Appendix “C” for the Existing Condition Hydrology Map.

Proposed Condition
The easterly and westerly lot including Woodruff Way at proposed condition will be integrated into a single lot that will consist of one large warehouse type building. The truck yard including the truck parking area will be located at the south side of the building. There will be vehicle parking areas along the east, west and northeast portion of the site. Catch basins will be situated throughout the project site. A storm drain system will be installed in both east and west side of the proposed building conveying the runoff southerly that ultimately drains to the existing 96” RCP at Jurupa Street. 3381
The westerly half of the site (node 100-103) will drain from north to south via a proposed storm drain system that connects to an existing 27” RCP downstream at Woodruff Way that ultimately discharge to an existing 96” RCP in Jurupa Street. The 100-year peak flow rate tributary to this area (node 103) is approximately 15.7 cfs.

Runoff from the northeasterly area including the easterly half of the site (node 200-223) will drain southwesterly to a series of catch basins and conveyed south via proposed storm drain line that connects to an existing 27” RCP downstream south of the project site. The 100-year runoff discharge from this area (node 223) is approximately 35.1 cfs.

The northerly landscaped area adjacent to Wanamaker Avenue (node 400-401) will sheet flow west to an existing street catch basin northwest of the site. The 100-year storm event at this location (node 401) is approximately 0.8 cfs. The remaining westerly landscaped area adjacent to Rockefeller Avenue (node 410-411) will drain east to an existing street catch basin at the intersection northeast of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue. The 100-year peak discharge at this location (node 411) is approximately 1.2 cfs.

The total 100-year peak flow rate tributary to the project site at proposed condition is approximately 52.8 cfs (15.7 cfs + 35.1 cfs + 0.8 cfs + 1.2 cfs). which is slightly less than the existing condition (54.1 cfs.). The slight reduction of runoff discharge at proposed condition is due to more landscaped areas were provided onsite and the higher time of concentration or longer runoff travel time. Overall, runoff discharge tributary to the site at proposed condition will not adversely affect the existing 96” RCP storm drain system in Jurupa Street. Detention onsite will not be required.

See Appendix "B" for the proposed condition hydrology calculations and Appendix “C” for the Proposed Condition Hydrology Map.

Methodology
Hydrology calculations were computed based on NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Data rainfall intensities. (See Appendix “A” for reference materials). San Bernardino County’s Rational Method Program was used for Hydrology calculations. The soil type is “B” per San Bernardino County Hydrology manual.
3382

APPENDIX DESCRIPTION

A REFERENCE MATERIALS

B HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS

EXISTING CONDITION

PROPOSED CONDITION

C HYDROLOGY MAP
3383

APPENDIX A

REFERENCE MATERIALS
3384
3385
3386
3387
I
II
III
X I
102"
96"
60"
36"
48"
60"
66"
72"
48"
54"
72" 60"
72"
BASINS

TURNER CUCAMONGA-GUASTI

REGIONAL PARK

WINEVILLE
BASIN

RIVERSIDE
BASIN
84" 48"
60" 78"
66"
54" 48"
72"
48"
36"
60" 84" 96" 84"
36"
36"
84"
42"
48"
66"
84"
48"
96"
84"
54"
66"
48"
48"
48"
72"
60"
108" 108"
54"
84"
60"
84"
72"
72"
48" 36"
54"
36" 36"
48" 48"
54"
60" 54" 48"
54"

LOWER ETIWANDA CREEK CHANNEL

LOWER DEER CREEK CHANNEL
BASIN
CHRIS

STORM DRAINCOMMERCE CENTER

STORM DRAINCOMMERCE CENTER

STORM DRAINCOMMERCE CENTER
2 GROUNDS

SPREADING

CUCAMONGA
LOWER
X
X"
3388
!(
!(
!.
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
D10716
D10929
D10727
D
D10718
D10718
D10718
D10718
D10718
D10002
D10001
D10933
D10929
D10929
D10001
D10718
D10726
D10726
D10726
D10726
D10727
D10934
D10934
D10934 D10934
D10934
D10934
D10934
D10933
D10001
D10001
D10001
D10005
D10718 D10005
D10718
D10718
D10716 D10716
D10726
D10726
D10726
D10726
D10726 D10726
D10726
D10726
D10726
D10005
D10718
D10001
D10718 D10718
D11586
D11586
D11586
D11586
66" RCP
96" RCP
96" RCP
78" RCP
66" RCP
66" RCP
57" RCP
72" RCP
24" RCP
39" RCP
42" RCP
24" RCP
42" RCP
96" RCP
27" RCP
96" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
18" RCP
96" RCP
96" RCP
24" RCP 24" RCP
24" RCP
18" RCP
90" RCP
90" RCP 90" RCP
78" RCP
18" RCP
78" RCP
42" RCP
78" RCP
78" RCP
78" RCP
24" RCP
24" RCP
24" RCP
24" RCP
18" RCP
27" RCP
27" RCP
24" RCP
24" RCP
78" RCP
24" RCP
24" RCP
2" RCP
24" RCP
90" RCP
24" RCP
30" RCP
18" RCP
30" RCP
36" RCP
30" RCP
24" RCP
78" RCP
78" RCP
90" RCP
24" RCP
256'
274.25'
251.66'
19'
304'
503.66'
229'

13.36'

4.84'
256'
23'

42.7'
153.04'
311.15'
60'
213'
30'
150'
166'
20'
323'
148 '
125'
250'
20' 26'
20'
450'
447.34'
29'

12.33'
180'

59.32'
303.72'
102.47'
205.33'
88'

74.45'
209.28'
247.61'

11.2'
269.89'
274.23'
60'
311.15'
231.5'
103.5'
103.5'

58.99'

36.56'
52'
266'
455'
104'

72.23'

KETTERING DR
KETT
E
RIN
G
D
R
MOTOR
LN

AUTOCENTER
D
R

TOYOTA WY

TOYOTA WY

MOTOR LN

WANAMAKER AV

ROCKEFELLER
AV
R
O
C

KEFELLER
AV

JURUPA ST
T
O
Y
O
TA
W
Y

WOODRUFF
WY

JURUPA ST

JURUPA ST JURUPA ST
I-15
N/B
ONRAMP
I-15
S/B
O
N
RAM
P
I-15
N/B

OFFRAMP
I-15 S/B OFF
RAMP
1425
4450
1305
1307
1311
1309
1375
1377
1201
1200
1155
4525
1350
4305
1356
4890
4880
1500
4880
4880
4850
0 M23 M23 N23
L23
M
2 2
M
2 4
L22 L24
N22 N24 1 inch = 200 feet 0 100 200
Feet This map represents a visual aid to assist City personnel with the management of the Storm Drain System.

Data provided heron is not a guarantee of actual field conditions nor a substitute for record drawings and field verification. STORM DRAIN ATLAS PRINTED: March 13, 2014 ± 3389
3390
3391

APPENDIX B

HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
3392

EXISTING CONDITION
3393
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 100-101) X100.DAT
*
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:35 10/30/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 424.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 914.56 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 911.02 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.902
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.022
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.15 0.45 0.10 76 8.90
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
3394
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.69
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.69
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 TC(MIN.) = 8.90
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.69
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3395
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 110-111) X110.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X110.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:39 10/30/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 768.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 914.83 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 909.88 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.890
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.381
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.30 0.45 0.10 76 11.89
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.90
3396
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.90
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 TC(MIN.) = 11.89
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.90
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3397
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 200-201) X200.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X200.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:25 11/02/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 487.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 914.24 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 907.31 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.458
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.147
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.10 0.45 0.10 76 8.46
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.06
3398
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.06
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 TC(MIN.) = 8.46
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.06
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3399
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 210-211) X210.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X210.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 19:06 02/15/2022
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 211.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 528.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 914.28 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 907.26 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.855
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.034
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 0.65 0.45 0.10 76 8.85
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.33
3400
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.65 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.33
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.65 TC(MIN.) = 8.85
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.65 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.33
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3401
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 300-301) X300.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X300.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 19:08 02/15/2022
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 747.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 914.47 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 907.11 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 10.802
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.581
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 4.80 0.45 0.10 76 10.80
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.27
3402
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.27
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 10.80
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.581
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.20 0.31 1.00 84

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.10 0.31 1.00 84
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.00
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.88
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.10 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.40 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.16
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.10 TC(MIN.) = 10.80
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.10 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.40 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.16
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3403
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 310-311) X310.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X310.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:52 10/30/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 310.00 TO NODE 311.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 412.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 913.71 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 912.02 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 10.145
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.718
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.30 0.45 0.10 76 10.14
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.60
3404
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.60
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 TC(MIN.) = 10.14
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.60
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3405
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 320-321) X320.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X320.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:42 11/02/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 320.00 TO NODE 321.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 772.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 913.45 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 907.18 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.376
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.471
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.60 0.45 0.10 76 11.38
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.02
3406
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.02
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 320.00 TO NODE 321.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 11.38
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.471
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.10 0.31 1.00 84
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.00
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.70 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.41 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.70 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.30
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.70 TC(MIN.) = 11.38
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.70 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.41 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.30
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3407
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 400-401) X400.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X400.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:04 10/30/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 818.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 915.61 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 911.28 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 12.683
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.252
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 0.05 0.45 0.10 76 12.68

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.30 0.31 1.00 84 29.46
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31
3408
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.87
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.94
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.94
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 TC(MIN.) = 12.68
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.27 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.87 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.94
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3409
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET *
* EXISTING CONDITION (ASSUMES NO DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 410-411) X410.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\X410.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:09 10/30/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 410.00 TO NODE 411.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 333.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 912.01 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 910.44 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 21.042
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.400
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.10 0.31 1.00 84 21.04
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.00
3410
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.19
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TC(MIN.) = 21.04
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.31 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.19
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3411

PROPOSED CONDITION
3412
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET JN 4035 *
* PROPOSED CONDITION (WITH DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 100-103) P100.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\P100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:16 06/17/2022
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 476.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 912.41 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 908.24 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.234
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.934
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.14 0.45 0.10 76 9.23
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.99
3413
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.14 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.99
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 9.23
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.934
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
COMMERCIAL B 0.13 0.45 0.10 76
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.46
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.27 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.27 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.45
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 908.24 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 903.77 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 609.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.24
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.45
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.94 Tc(MIN.) = 11.17
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 1085.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 11.17
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.509
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
COMMERCIAL B 3.54 0.45 0.10 76
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.54 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.04
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.81 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.81 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.00
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
3414
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 11.17
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.509
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.20 0.31 1.00 84
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.00
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.58
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.41 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.57
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 903.77 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 903.13 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 86.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.21
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 15.57
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.20 Tc(MIN.) = 11.37
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 1171.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.01 TC(MIN.) = 11.37
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.41 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.57
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3415
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET JN 4035 *
* PROPOSED CONDITION (WITH DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 200-223) P200.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\P200.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:12 06/17/2022
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 343.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 914.92 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 912.57 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.508
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.132
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.73 0.45 0.10 76 8.51
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.04
3416
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.73 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.04
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 8.51
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.132
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.14 0.31 1.00 84
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.00
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.48
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.87 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.40 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.87 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.52
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 908.49 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 906.74 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 328.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.71
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.52
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.96 Tc(MIN.) = 9.46
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 671.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 9.46
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.876
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
COMMERCIAL B 0.14 0.45 0.10 76
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.48
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.40 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.52
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE = 31 3417
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 906.74 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 904.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 504.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.48
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.52
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.53 Tc(MIN.) = 11.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 212.00 = 1175.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.00
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.54
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.40
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.01
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.01
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.52
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 211.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 530.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 914.92 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 912.83 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.309
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.484
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.08 0.45 0.10 76 11.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.44
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.44
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 908.83 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 904.30 3418
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 17.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 12.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 22.21
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.44
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 11.32
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 212.00 = 547.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.32
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.48
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.05
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.45
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.08
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.08
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.44
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 10.52 11.00 3.543 0.40( 0.06) 0.14 3.0 200.00
2 6.44 11.32 3.481 0.45( 0.05) 0.10 2.1 210.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 16.89 11.00 3.543 0.42( 0.05) 0.13 5.0 200.00
2 16.78 11.32 3.481 0.42( 0.05) 0.12 5.1 210.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.89 Tc(MIN.) = 11.00
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.42 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.09
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 212.00 = 1175.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 904.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 904.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 188.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 24.0 INCHES
3419
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.02
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 16.89
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.78 Tc(MIN.) = 11.78
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 213.00 = 1363.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 11.78
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.400
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
COMMERCIAL B 2.34 0.45 0.10 76

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.18 0.31 1.00 84
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.39
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.16
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.52 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.57
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 7.55 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.41 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 22.72
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 222.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 904.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 902.93 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 269.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.22
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 22.72
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.72 Tc(MIN.) = 12.50
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 222.00 = 1632.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 222.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.50
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.28
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.41
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.55
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.61
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 22.72
3420
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 221.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 265.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 911.36 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 907.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.599
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.813
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.85 0.45 0.10 76 6.60

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.49 0.31 1.00 84 15.33
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.36
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.23
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 14.22
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.34 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.22
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 221.00 TO NODE 222.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 903.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 902.93 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 68.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.23
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 14.22
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 6.76
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 222.00 = 333.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 222.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.76
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.75
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.08
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.36
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.23
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.34
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.34
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 14.22
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
3421
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 22.72 12.50 3.281 0.41( 0.06) 0.14 7.6 200.00
1 22.52 12.82 3.231 0.41( 0.06) 0.14 7.6 210.00
2 14.22 6.76 4.746 0.36( 0.08) 0.23 3.3 220.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 32.47 12.50 3.281 0.39( 0.06) 0.17 10.9 200.00
2 32.12 12.82 3.231 0.39( 0.06) 0.17 10.9 210.00
3 32.08 6.76 4.746 0.38( 0.07) 0.18 7.4 220.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 32.47 Tc(MIN.) = 12.50
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 10.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.39 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.95
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 222.00 = 1632.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 223.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 902.93 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 902.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.17
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 32.47
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.20 Tc(MIN.) = 12.70
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 223.00 = 1707.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.95 TC(MIN.) = 12.70
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 10.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.39 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 32.47
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 32.08 6.96 4.662 0.38( 0.07) 0.18 7.4 220.00
2 32.47 12.70 3.249 0.39( 0.06) 0.17 10.9 200.00
3 32.12 13.03 3.201 0.39( 0.06) 0.17 10.9 210.00
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3422
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET JN 4035 *
* PROPOSED CONDITION (WITH DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 400-401) P400.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\P400.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:21 06/17/2022
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 404.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 913.63 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 911.28 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 21.798
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.350
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.43 0.31 1.00 84 21.80
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.00
3423
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.79
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 TC(MIN.) = 21.80
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.31 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.79
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3424
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1435
Analysis prepared by:

THIENES ENGINEERING
16800 VALLEY VIEW AVENUE
LA MIRADA CA 90638
PH: (714) 521-4811 FAX: (714) 521-4173
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * JURUPA STREET JN 4035 *
* PROPOSED CONDITION (WITH DEVELOPENT) *
* 100-YEAR (NODE 410-411) P410.DAT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: C:\XDRIVE\4035\P410.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:23 06/17/2022
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) = 0.6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.2800
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 410.00 TO NODE 411.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 333.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 912.01 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 910.44 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.061
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.979
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)

NATURAL FAIR COVER
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.26 0.31 1.00 84 21.04
COMMERCIAL B 0.07 0.45 0.10 76 9.06

NATURAL FAIR COVER
3425
"OPEN BRUSH" B 0.03 0.31 1.00 84 21.04
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.82
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.21
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.21
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 TC(MIN.) = 9.06
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.26 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.31 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.82 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.21
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1 3426

APPENDIX C

HYDROLOGY MAP
3427
3428
3429
June 5, 2023
Mr. Tom Cruikshank
Link Logistics Real Estate
915 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
SUBJECT: WOODRUFF LOGISTICS NOISE ASSESSMENT
Dear Mr. Tom Cruikshank:

Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Noise Assessment for the Woodruff Logistics development (referred to as “Project”) located northeast of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue, south of Wanamaker Avenue, and straddling the existing Woodruff Way in the City of Ontario. The proposed Project includes the development of a 344,110 square foot industrial warehouse building as shown on Exhibit 1. The purpose of this Noise Assessment is to describe the potential Project-related operational and construction noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive receiver locations.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
The Project site is located approximately 1.2 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

This places the Project site within the ONT Airport Influence Area according to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). The ONT ALUCP was amended July 2018 to promote compatibility between airport and the land uses that surround it (1). Since the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the Project is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. As shown on Exhibit 2, the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area and the 65-70 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone consistent with Policy Map 2-3.

According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, the Project’s industrial warehouse is considered normally compatible land use with exterior noise levels ranging from 65-70 dBA CNEL. For normally compatible land use, activities associated with the land use may be carried out with minimal interference from aircraft noise.
3430
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA
EXHIBIT A: SITE PLAN

RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following five receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 3, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noisesensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noise-sensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, out-patient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include: industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.
3431
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA
EXHIBIT 2: ONT FUTURE AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS
3432
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA
Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures.

Distance is measured in a straight line from the project site boundary to each receiver location.

EXHIBIT 3: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
3433
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA

NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels. Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. The noise level calculations provided in this noise assessment account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces.

OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations resulting from the operation of the proposed Woodruff Logistics Project. This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top, air-conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, and trash enclosure activity.

OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Woodruff Logistics Project, stationary-source (operational) noise such as the proposed loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top, air-conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, and trash enclosure activity. are typically evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would result in noise levels that are acceptable to the city and would result in less than significant noise impacts from stationary sources.

The City of Ontario Municipal Code, Title 5, Chapter 29 Section 5-29.04(a) identifies the allowable daytime and nighttime ambient exterior noise standards for each land use type. For Manufacturing and Industrial land uses (Noise Zone V), such as the Project, ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 70 dBA Leq. For residential land uses (Noise Zone I), ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and may not exceed 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) (2). 3434
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA

OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
To estimate the Project service commercial land use operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment. The reference project operational noise levels are based on the Project related noise sources shown on Exhibit 4.

The reference project operational sound power levels are summarized below:
• Loading Dock Activity: 111.5 dBA Lw based on reference noise level measurements collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This includes truck idling, deliveries, backup alarms, trailer docking including a combination of tractor trailer semi-trucks, two-axle delivery trucks, and background operation activities.
• Truck Movements: 93.2 dBA Lw based on reference noise level measurements describing truck movements collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This includes trucks entering and existing the Project driveways and maneuvering in and out of the outdoor loading dock activity area.
• A/C Condenser Units: Represents a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit with a reference sound power level of 88.9 dBA Lw. • Parking Lot Vehicle Movements: 84.3 dBA Lw based on reference noise level measurements describing warehouse parking lot vehicle activity collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. • Trash Enclosure Activity: 89.0 dBA Lw based on reference noise level measurements describing trash enclosure event activity collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3435
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA
EXHIBIT 4: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS

OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top, air-conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, and trash enclosure activity., Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table 1 shows that the Project operational noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 20.1 to 25.5 dBA Leq. Appendix A includes the detailed CadnaA operational noise model inputs and calculations. 3436
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA
TABLE 1: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 21.9 21.8 65.0 45.0 No No
R2 24.4 24.3 65.0 45.0 No No
R3 20.1 20.1 65.0 45.0 No No
R4 25.4 25.4 65.0 45.0 No No
R5 25.5 25.5 65.0 45.0 No No
1 See Exhibit 3 for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise level calculations are included in Appendix A. 3 Section 5-29.04 of the City of Ontario Municipal Code. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table 1 shows that the unmitigated operational noise levels associated with Woodruff Logistics Project will not exceed the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Ontario has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with construction.

Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (2) While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locations for CEQA analysis purposes. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.

According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use. (3 p. 179) 3437
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA

CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (4) The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Consistent with FTA guidance for general construction noise assessment, Table the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate at the same time is estimated 115 dBA Lw. As shown on Table 2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 30.3 to 42.1 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Appendix B includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 2: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 38.1 80 No
R2 42.1 80 No
R3 30.3 80 No
R4 35.5 80 No
R5 35.7 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 3.
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations.
3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. Table 3 shows that the unmitigated construction noise levels associated with Woodruff Logistics Project will not exceed will not exceed the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations.
3438
Woodruff Logistics
June 5, 2023

15364-03 NA

CONCLUSIONS
This Noise Assessment demonstrates that the operational noise levels associated with Woodruff Logistics Project will not exceed the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the project related noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 584-3148.

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal

REFERENCES

1. City of Ontario. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. July 2018.

2. —. Municipal Code, Chapter 29, Section 5- Noise.

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

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006. 3439
15364-02 NA

APPENDIX A

CADNA OPERATIONAL NOISE CALCULATIONS
3440
15364-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
3441
15364 - Woodruff Logistics
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 15364-02.cna
Date: 21.04.23
Analyst: B. Lawson
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 4572.00
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R01 21.9 21.8 28.4 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6161175.20 2333833.22 5.00 RECEIVERS R02 24.4 24.3 31.0 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6164211.12 2333392.82 5.00 RECEIVERS R03 20.1 20.1 26.8 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6181011.58 2327247.72 5.00 RECEIVERS R04 25.4 25.4 32.1 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6160947.77 2320087.56 5.00 RECEIVERS R05 25.5 25.5 32.2 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6159762.88 2321302.84 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) POINTSOURCE AC01 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6166604.81 2328232.40 45.00 POINTSOURCE AC02 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6167393.65 2328231.34 45.00 POINTSOURCE CAR01 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167552.38 2327945.65 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR02 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167552.38 2327986.13 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR03 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167553.73 2328038.08 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR04 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167615.13 2328051.58 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR05 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167636.04 2328023.24 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR06 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167648.86 2327988.15 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR07 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167629.29 2327959.14 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR08 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167612.43 2327930.13 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR09 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167495.02 2327760.10 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR10 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167476.13 2327728.39 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR11 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167453.87 2327696.00 5.00 Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3442
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) POINTSOURCE CAR12 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167419.46 2327668.33 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR13 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167391.79 2327690.60 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR14 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167392.47 2327729.06 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR15 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167430.25 2327752.00 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR16 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166556.11 2328009.20 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR17 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166516.18 2328026.71 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR18 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166557.51 2328052.28 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR19 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166517.23 2328079.95 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR20 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166558.21 2328095.02 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR21 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166515.83 2328114.63 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR22 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166557.51 2328134.60 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR23 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166561.01 2328188.19 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR24 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166517.93 2328205.35 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR25 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166517.93 2328242.48 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR26 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167328.11 2328274.96 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR27 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167286.34 2328274.53 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR28 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167258.21 2328274.96 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR29 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167228.37 2328275.81 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR30 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167181.06 2328275.81 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR31 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167152.08 2328276.66 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR32 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167128.64 2328277.52 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR33 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167086.02 2328277.52 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR34 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167059.59 2328278.37 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR35 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167022.08 2328278.80 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR36 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6166995.23 2328280.07 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR37 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167249.68 2328318.43 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR38 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167237.32 2328338.47 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR39 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167292.31 2328318.43 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR40 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167280.37 2328338.47 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR41 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167361.35 2328318.01 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR42 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167351.13 2328337.19 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR43 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167311.91 2328380.24 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR44 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167264.18 2328411.35 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR45 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167224.96 2328390.04 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR46 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167181.92 2328369.58 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR47 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167147.39 2328354.66 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR48 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167103.06 2328336.76 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR49 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6167068.54 2328324.40 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH01 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 900.00 0.00 270.00 5.00 a 6167004.35 2327664.10 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH02 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 900.00 0.00 270.00 5.00 a 6167366.14 2327659.15 5.00 Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) LINESOURCE TRUCK01 93.2 93.2 93.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 Lw 93.2 8 a LINESOURCE TRUCK02 93.2 93.2 93.2 69.5 69.5 69.5 Lw 93.2 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
LINESOURCE TRUCK01 8.00 a 6166452.54 2327994.48 8.00 0.00 6166506.47 2327971.21 8.00 0.00
6166539.25 2327933.15 8.00 0.00
6166580.49 2327889.79 8.00 0.00
6166625.96 2327854.89 8.00 0.00
6166656.62 2327836.92 8.00 0.00
LINESOURCE TRUCK02 8.00 a 6167505.74 2327809.43 8.00 0.00 6167537.47 2327832.69 8.00 0.00
6167568.13 2327881.33 8.00 0.00
6167581.88 2327958.52 8.00 0.00
6167577.65 2328068.50 8.00 0.00
6167546.98 2328129.83 8.00 0.00
6167467.67 2328230.28 8.00 0.00
6167338.67 2328423.80 8.00 0.00
6167293.20 2328457.63 8.00 0.00
Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) AREASOURCE DOCK01 111.5 111.5 111.5 70.0 70.0 70.0 Lw 111.5 8 a Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3443
Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
AREASOURCE DOCK01 8.00 a 6166661.93 2327900.91 8.00 0.00 6167507.88 2327891.12 8.00 0.00
6167506.80 2327795.68 8.00 0.00
6167375.68 2327792.51 8.00 0.00
6167376.74 2327649.75 8.00 0.00
6166992.89 2327653.98 8.00 0.00
6166993.94 2327760.78 8.00 0.00
6166685.17 2327761.84 8.00 0.00
6166655.56 2327790.39 8.00 0.00
Building(s)
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BUILDING BUILDING00001 x 0 40.00 a 6166581.54 2328265.18 40.00 0.00 6167408.46 2328255.66 40.00 0.00
6167533.24 2328101.28 40.00 0.00
6167531.12 2327890.85 40.00 0.00
6166617.50 2327901.42 40.00 0.00
6166572.03 2327940.55 40.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3444
15364-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
3445
15364-02 NA

APPENDIX B

CADNA CONSTRUCTION NOISE CALCULATIONS
3446
15364-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
3447
15364 - Woodruff Logistics
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 15364-02_Construction.cna Date: 21.04.23
Analyst: B. Lawson
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 4572.00
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R01 38.1 -68.5 35.1 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6161175.20 2333833.22 5.00 RECEIVERS R02 42.1 -64.8 39.1 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6164211.12 2333392.82 5.00 RECEIVERS R03 30.3 -75.1 27.3 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6181011.58 2327247.72 5.00 RECEIVERS R04 35.5 -70.9 32.5 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6160947.77 2320087.56 5.00 RECEIVERS R05 35.7 -70.8 32.6 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6159762.88 2321302.84 5.00 Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) SITEBOUNDARY CONSTRUCTION 122.0 15.0 15.0 73.7 -33.3 -33.3 PWL-Pt 115 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
SITEBOUNDARY CONSTRUCTION 8.00 a 6166524.02 2328305.82 8.00 0.00 6166679.78 2328303.29 8.00 0.00
6166780.02 2328302.75 8.00 0.00
6166851.96 2328307.63 8.00 0.00
6166911.56 2328313.20 8.00 0.00
6167004.50 2328334.23 8.00 0.00
6167063.04 2328352.00 8.00 0.00
6167147.52 2328383.36 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3448
Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin Endxyz Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6167212.95 2328413.67 8.00 0.00
6167291.49 2328457.86 8.00 0.00
6167332.67 2328484.84 8.00 0.00
6167670.79 2327994.59 8.00 0.00
6167412.24 2327609.28 8.00 0.00
6166893.63 2327548.53 8.00 0.00
6166869.93 2327580.56 8.00 0.00
6166871.71 2327591.30 8.00 0.00
6166874.95 2327601.70 8.00 0.00
6166879.60 2327611.55 8.00 0.00
6166885.56 2327620.66 8.00 0.00
6166905.35 2327648.01 8.00 0.00
6166919.93 2327667.54 8.00 0.00
6166923.56 2327674.91 8.00 0.00
6166925.93 2327682.79 8.00 0.00
6166926.97 2327690.95 8.00 0.00
6166926.66 2327699.16 8.00 0.00
6166925.00 2327707.22 8.00 0.00
6166922.03 2327714.89 8.00 0.00
6166917.85 2327721.96 8.00 0.00
6166912.34 2327728.60 8.00 0.00
6166905.79 2327734.20 8.00 0.00
6166898.38 2327738.60 8.00 0.00
6166890.33 2327741.68 8.00 0.00
6166881.87 2327743.34 8.00 0.00
6166873.25 2327743.54 8.00 0.00
6166864.72 2327742.28 8.00 0.00
6166856.51 2327738.97 8.00 0.00
6166848.74 2327734.69 8.00 0.00
6166841.55 2327729.52 8.00 0.00
6166839.79 2327729.18 8.00 0.00
6166838.00 2327729.15 8.00 0.00
6166836.23 2327729.42 8.00 0.00
6166834.53 2327729.98 8.00 0.00
6166832.95 2327730.82 8.00 0.00
6166798.32 2327744.10 8.00 0.00
6166793.63 2327745.66 8.00 0.00
6166674.36 2327747.22 8.00 0.00
6166666.27 2327747.74 8.00 0.00
6166658.36 2327749.49 8.00 0.00
6166650.81 2327752.45 8.00 0.00
6166643.81 2327756.54 8.00 0.00
6166637.53 2327761.65 8.00 0.00
6166632.11 2327767.68 8.00 0.00
6166627.68 2327774.47 8.00 0.00
6166624.36 2327781.86 8.00 0.00
6166620.07 2327795.62 8.00 0.00
6166614.05 2327808.71 8.00 0.00
6166606.39 2327820.92 8.00 0.00
6166594.38 2327835.99 8.00 0.00
6166581.06 2327849.92 8.00 0.00
6166566.55 2327862.59 8.00 0.00
6166546.84 2327878.45 8.00 0.00
6166525.84 2327892.55 8.00 0.00
6166503.69 2327904.77 8.00 0.00
6166480.57 2327915.04 8.00 0.00
6166456.65 2327923.27 8.00 0.00
6166441.61 2327928.75 8.00 0.00
6166439.37 2327932.38 8.00 0.00
6166437.76 2327936.34 8.00 0.00
6166436.83 2327940.50 8.00 0.00
6166436.60 2327944.77 8.00 0.00
6166452.18 2327990.41 8.00 0.00
6166465.31 2328036.81 8.00 0.00
6166475.94 2328083.85 8.00 0.00
6166484.05 2328131.39 8.00 0.00
6166489.60 2328179.30 8.00 0.00
6166492.59 2328227.43 8.00 0.00
6166494.41 2328274.57 8.00 0.00
6166495.23 2328280.11 8.00 0.00
6166497.00 2328285.43 8.00 0.00
6166499.67 2328290.36 8.00 0.00
6166503.15 2328294.75 8.00 0.00
6166507.34 2328298.47 8.00 0.00
6166512.12 2328301.41 8.00 0.00
6166517.33 2328303.47 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3449
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
FROM: Charlene So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 15364-01 TG Memo

WOODRUFF LOGISTICS CENTER TRIP GENERATION ASSESSMENT
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed Woodruff Logistics Center development (Project), which is located northeast of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue, south of Wanamaker Avenue, and straddling the existing Woodruff Way in the City of Ontario. The purpose of the following trip generation is to determine whether additional analysis is necessary based on the City’s Guidelines (County’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, dated July 9, 2019).

PROPOSED PROJECT
It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of a 344,678 square foot industrial warehouse building (see Exhibit 1). Access is proposed to Rockefeller Avenue via two driveways (one to serve trucks with both serving passenger cars), Wanamaker Avenue via two driveways (one to serve trucks with both serving passenger cars), and one driveway on Woodruff Way to serve trucks. 3450
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo
EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

TRIP GENERATION

EXISTING TRAFFIC
The site is occupied by existing uses that are currently active, specifically the Citrus Motors Ford and Citrus Motors Kia auto dealerships. The Citrus Motors Kia auto dealership lies on a 5.56-acre parcel (APN 238-201-41) located at 1350 Woodruff Way. The Citrus Motors Ford auto dealership lies on a 10.59-acre parcel (APN 238-221-22) located at 1375 Woodruff Way. In an effort to understand the existing traffic associated with the current use, traffic counts were collected at the driveways on May 31, June 1, and June 2, 2022 (Tuesday through Thursday). A summary of the count data collected is shown on Table A-1 of Attachment A. See Attachment A for driveway count data worksheets.

Table 1 below summarizes the average existing trip generation based on the count data collected over three days. The existing site currently generates an average of 1,563 two-way trips per day, with 138 trips during the AM peak hour and 125 trips during the PM peak hour. Trip generation for the existing use has been reflected in both actual vehicles and passenger car equivalent (PCE) on Table 1. PCE factors were applied to the trip generation rates for heavy trucks (large 2-axles, 3-axles, 4+-axles). PCEs allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a 3451
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo
single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, to be used for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses. The PCE factors are consistent with the recommended PCE factors in the County Guidelines and with those used for other projects within the County.

TABLE 1: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION
THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (August 2022) designates the Project site with industrial development. Per the adopted TOP 2050, the Project site could be developed with up to 398,901 square feet of industrial use (assuming a 16.65-acre site and a floor-to-area-ratio of 0.55). The trip generation rates used for this analysis is based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as provided in their Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). For purposes of the trip generation assessment, the following ITE land use code and vehicle mix has been utilized for the currently adopted land use per the TOP 2050 (see Table 2):
• ITE land use code 110 (General Light Industrial) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 398,901 square feet. A light industrial facility is a freestanding facility devoted to a single use that has an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing. Typically, there is minimum office space. The vehicle mix has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following South Coase Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%.

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 78 54 132 42 79 121 1,468
2-axle Trucks: 4 2 6 3 1 4 75
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Trucks: 4 2 6 3 1 4 75
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)1 82 56 138 45 80 125 1,543 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 78 54 132 42 79 121 1,468
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 6 3 9 5 2 6 114
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Trucks (PCE): 6 3 9 5 2 6 114
Total Trips (PCE)1 84 57 141 47 81 127 1,582
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3452
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo
TABLE 2: TOP 2050 TRIP GENERATION RATES
The trip generation summary illustrating daily, and peak hour trip generation estimates for the current TOP 2050 in actual and passenger car equivalent (PCE) vehicles are shown on Table 3. As shown on Table 3, the Project site is anticipated to generate a total of 1,946 two-way trips per day with 294 AM peak hour trips and 257 PM peak hour trips based on the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation (in actual vehicles). In comparison, the Project site is anticipated to generate a total of 2,100 two-way PCE trips per day with 301 PCE AM peak hour trips and 265 PCE PM peak hour trips based on the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation (see Table 3).

TABLE 3: TOP 2050 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
General Light Industrial3 TSF 110 0.651 0.089 0.740 0.091 0.559 0.650 4.870 Passenger Cars (AM=98.6%, PM=98.5%, Daily=94.9%) 0.645 0.085 0.730 0.086 0.554 0.640 4.620 2-Axle Trucks (AM=0.23%, PM=0.25%, Daily=0.85%) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.042 3-Axle Trucks (AM=0.29%, PM=0.31%, Daily=1.05%) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.052 4+-Axle Trucks (AM=0.88%, PM=0.94%, Daily=3.20%) 0.004 0.002 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.157 1 Trip Generation & Vehicle Mix Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.

Normalized % - Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2-Axle trucks, 20.7% 3-Axle trucks, 62.6% 4-Axle trucks.

Daily
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

General Light Industrial 398.901 TSF
Passenger Cars: 257 34 291 34 221 255 1,844
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
4+-axle Trucks: 2 1 3 1 1 2 62
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 2 1 3 1 1 2 102
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 259 35 294 35 222 257 1,946 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

General Light Industrial 398.901 TSF
Passenger Cars: 257 34 291 34 221 255 1,844
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 1 0 1 1 0 1 26
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 1 1 2 1 1 2 42
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 5 3 7 4 4 7 188
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 7 4 10 6 5 10 256
Total Trips (PCE)2 264 38 301 40 226 265 2,100
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3453
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo

PROPOSED PROJECT
Trip generation rates for the proposed Project is shown on Table 4. The trip generation rates used for this analysis is based upon information collected by the ITE as provided in their Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). For purposes of the trip generation assessment, the following ITE land use codes and vehicle mixes have been utilized for the proposed Project (see Table 2):
• High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 155) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 292,976 square feet of the proposed Project (or 85% of the overall building square footage). The ITE Trip Generation Manual has trip generation rates for high-cube fulfillment center use for both non-sort and sort facilities (ITE land use code 155). As defined by ITE, a high-cube warehouse is a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical high-cube warehouse has a high level of on-site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly efficient processing of goods through the high-cube warehouse. The ITE Trip Generation Manual has two subcategories for the High-Cube Fulfillment Center use: sort and non-sort. ITE describes a sort facility as a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. In comparison, a non-sort facility is a fulfillment center that ships large box items that are processed primarily with automation rather than through manual means. Some limited assembly and repackaging may occur within the facility. In light of the on-site parking provided, a non-sort facility has been assumed for the purposes of calculating trip generation for the proposed Project. The off-street parking for the currently proposed Project would not support the anticipated daily passenger car (employee) traffic generated by a sort facility (the passenger car sort rate is nearly 4 times that of the non-sort passenger car rate). The vehicle mix (passenger cars versus trucks) has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%.
• ITE land use code 157 (High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 51,702 square feet (15% of the light industrial area). High-cube cold storage warehouses include warehouses characterized by the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. High-cube cold storage warehouses are facilities typified by temperature-controlled environments for frozen food or other perishable products. The High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse vehicle mix (passenger cars versus trucks) has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 34.7%; 3-Axle = 11.0%; 4+-Axle = 54.3%.
3454
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo
TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES
The trip generation summary illustrating daily, and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project in actual and passenger car equivalent (PCE) vehicles are shown on Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. As shown on Table 5, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 644 two-way trips per day with 50 AM peak hour trips and 51 PM peak hour trips (in actual vehicles). In comparison, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 812 two-way PCE trips per day with 62 PCE AM peak hour trips and 59 PCE PM peak hour trips (see Table 6).

ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Non-Sort)3 TSF 155 0.122 0.028 0.150 0.062 0.098 0.160 1.810 Passenger Cars 0.112 0.018 0.130 0.057 0.093 0.150 1.580 2-Axle Trucks 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.038 3-Axle Trucks 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.048 4+-Axle Trucks 0.006 0.007 0.013 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.144 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.034 0.086 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.076 0.004 0.080 0.019 0.071 0.090 1.370 2-Axle Trucks 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.260 3-Axle Trucks 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.083 4+-Axle Trucks 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.016 0.407 1 Trip Generation & Vehicle Mix Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.

Normalized % - Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2-Axle trucks, 20.7% 3-Axle trucks, 62.6% 4-Axle trucks.

Normalized % - With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2-Axle trucks, 11.0% 3-Axle trucks, 54.3% 4-Axle trucks.

Daily
3455
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo
TABLE 5: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (ACTUAL VEHICLES) Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

High-Cube Fulfillment (Non-Sort) 292.976 TSF
Passenger Cars: 33 5 38 17 27 44 464
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 0 0 12
3-axle Trucks: 1 1 1 0 0 1 14
4+-axle Trucks: 2 2 4 1 1 2 42
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 4 3 7 1 1 2 68
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 37 8 45 18 28 46 532
High-Cube Cold Storage 51.702 TSF
Passenger Cars: 4 0 4 1 4 5 72
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4+-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 0 0 0 22
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 1 1 0 0 0 40
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 4 1 5 1 4 5 112
Passenger Cars 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Trucks 4 4 8 1 1 2 108
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 41 9 50 19 32 51 644
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3456
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo
TABLE 6: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (PCE)

TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Table 7 shows the trip generation comparison between the existing and proposed use. The resulting net new trips are identified on Table 7. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 770 fewer two-way trips per day with 79 fewer AM peak hour trips and 68 fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing uses (in PCE). Per the City’s Guidelines, the trip generation comparison is based on PCE as the existing and proposed uses are truck-intensive uses and any operations analysis performed (if necessary) would utilize PCE values.

Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

High-Cube Fulfillment (Non-Sort) 292.976 TSF
Passenger Cars: 33 5 38 17 27 44 464
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 1 1 1 0 0 1 18
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 1 2 3 1 1 2 36
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 5 6 11 3 3 6 128
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 7 9 16 4 4 8 182
Total Trips (PCE)2 40 14 54 21 31 52 646
High-Cube Cold Storage 51.702 TSF
Passenger Cars: 4 0 4 1 4 5 72
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 0 1 1 0 0 0 20
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 1 2 3 1 1 2 64
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 3 4 1 1 2 94
Total Trips (PCE)2 5 3 8 2 5 7 166
Passenger Cars 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Trucks 8 12 20 5 5 10 276
Total Trips (PCE)2 45 17 62 23 36 59 812
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3457
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo
TABLE 7: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON – EXISTING VS. PROPOSED PROJECT Table 8 shows the trip generation comparison between the adopted TOP 2050 land use (Industrial) and proposed use. The resulting net new trips are identified on Table 8. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,288 fewer two-way trips per day with 239 fewer AM peak hour trips and 206 fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the approved TOP 2050 land use (in PCE).

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 8 12 20 5 5 10 276
Total Trips 45 17 62 23 36 59 812
Existing
Passenger Cars: 78 54 132 42 79 121 1,468
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 6 3 9 5 2 6 114
Total Trips 84 57 141 47 81 127 1,582
Net Change
Passenger Cars: -41 -49 -90 -24 -48 -72 -932
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 2 9 11 1 4 4 162
Total Trips -39 -40 -79 -24 -45 -68 -770
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3458
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
February 21, 2023

15364-01 TG Memo
TABLE 8: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON – TOP 2050 VS. PROPOSED PROJECT

FINDINGS
The City of Ontario adheres to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Recommended Traffic Impact Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (dated February 2020, by Fehr & Peers) which has been used to determine whether additional traffic analysis is necessary for the proposed Project. The County’s Guidelines indicates that development projects that generate a net increase of 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips (without pass-by reductions) would require the preparation and submittal of a Transportation Impact Analysis.

The Project is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips during the morning and evening peak hours. The Project on its own, without taking any credit for existing uses, also generates fewer than 100 new peak hour trips (both in actual vehicles and PCE).

Lastly, the proposed Project uses are anticipated to generate fewer trips than the adopted TOP 2050 land use (Industrial). As such, additional peak hour traffic operations analysis is not necessary based on the County’s Guidelines.

If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at [email protected].

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 8 12 20 5 5 10 276
Total Trips 45 17 62 23 36 59 812
TOP 2050 (Industrial)
Passenger Cars: 257 34 291 34 221 255 1,844
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 7 4 10 6 5 10 256
Total Trips 264 38 302 40 226 266 2,100
Net Change
Passenger Cars: -220 -29 -249 -16 -190 -206 -1,308
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 8 10 -1 0 0 20
Total Trips -219 -21 -239 -17 -190 -206 -1,288
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3459
15364-01 TG Memo

ATTACHMENT A

EXISTING DRIVEWAY COUNTS
3460
15364-01 TG Memo
TABLE A-1: SUMMARY OF EXISTING COUNT DATA
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Woodruff, Northly Dwy
Passenger Cars: 16 9 25 2 17 19 222
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 17
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 1 2 0 0 0 17
Total Trips1 17 10 27 2 17 19 239
Woodruff, Northeast Dwy
Passenger Cars: 6 4 10 4 4 8 104
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 0 0 13
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 0 1 0 0 0 13
Total Trips1 7 4 11 4 4 8 117
Woodruff, Southeast Dwy
Passenger Cars: 4 1 5 13 15 28 209
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total Trips1 4 1 5 13 15 28 212
Woodruff, Southwest Dwy
Passenger Cars: 41 27 68 23 43 66 769
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 3 1 4 27
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 0 1 3 1 4 27
Total Trips1 42 27 69 26 44 70 796
Wanamaker Dwy
Passenger Cars: 11 13 24 0 0 0 163
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 15
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 1 2 0 0 0 15
Total Trips1 12 14 26 0 0 0 178
* Note: data is an average of counts collected on May 31, June 1, and June 2, 2022. 1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Total Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3461
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 0 0 1:45 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 0 2:15 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 2:45 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 1 0 0 0 1 6:00 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 1 0 0 0 1 6:15 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 3 0 0 0 3 6:30 1 0 0 0 1
6:45 8 0 0 0 8 6:45 1 0 0 0 1
7:00 4 1 0 0 5 7:00 1 0 0 0 1
7:15 2 0 0 0 2 7:15 1 1 0 0 2
7:30 4 0 0 0 4 7:30 2 0 0 0 2
7:45 5 1 0 0 6 7:45 1 0 0 0 1
8:00 2 0 0 0 2 8:00 1 0 0 0 2
8:15 4 0 0 0 4 8:15 2 1 0 0 3
8:30 3 1 0 0 4 8:30 2 0 0 0 3
8:45 7 0 0 0 7 8:45 4 0 0 0 4
9:00 2 0 0 0 2 9:00 1 0 0 0 1
9:15 2 0 0 0 2 9:15 1 0 0 0 1
9:30 5 0 0 0 5 9:30 2 0 0 0 2
9:45 3 0 0 0 4 9:45 1 0 0 0 1
10:00 2 0 0 0 3 10:00 1 1 0 0 2
10:15 5 0 0 0 5 10:15 3 0 0 0 3
10:30 5 0 0 0 5 10:30 1 0 0 0 1
10:45 3 0 0 0 3 10:45 1 0 0 0 2
11:00 2 0 0 0 3 11:00 2 0 0 0 2
11:15 2 0 0 0 2 11:15 2 0 0 0 2
11:30 1 1 0 0 1 11:30 4 0 0 0 5
11:45 1 0 0 0 1 11:45 3 0 0 0 3
Ontario
Woodruff Way North Driveway
5/31/22 ‐ 6/2/22 Average
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
3462
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Entering Exiting
12:00 1 0 0 0 1 12:00 3 0 0 0 3
12:15 3 0 0 0 3 12:15 1 0 0 0 1
12:30 3 0 0 0 3 12:30 2 0 0 0 3
12:45 2 0 0 0 2 12:45 3 0 0 0 3
13:00 3 0 0 0 3 13:00 3 0 0 0 3
13:15 3 0 0 0 3 13:15 2 0 0 0 2
13:30 5 0 0 0 5 13:30 2 0 0 0 2
13:45 4 0 0 0 4 13:45 3 1 0 0 4
14:00 3 0 0 0 3 14:00 4 0 0 0 4
14:15 2 0 0 0 2 14:15 1 0 0 0 1
14:30 1 0 0 0 1 14:30 2 0 0 0 2
14:45 1 0 0 0 1 14:45 3 0 0 0 3
15:00 0 1 0 0 1 15:00 1 0 0 0 1
15:15 3 0 0 0 3 15:15 1 0 0 0 1
15:30 1 0 0 0 1 15:30 1 0 0 0 1
15:45 1 0 0 0 1 15:45 2 0 0 0 2
16:00 2 0 0 0 2 16:00 9 0 0 0 9
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 16:15 3 0 0 0 3
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 16:30 3 0 0 0 3
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 16:45 2 0 0 0 2
17:00 1 0 0 0 1 17:00 2 0 0 0 2
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 17:15 3 0 0 0 3
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 17:30 2 0 0 0 2
17:45 0 0 0 0 1 17:45 4 0 0 0 4
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 2 0 0 0 2
18:15 1 0 0 0 1 18:15 1 0 0 0 1
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 18:30 1 0 0 0 1
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 18:45 0 0 0 0 0
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 0 0 0 0 0
19:15 0 0 0 0 0 19:15 0 0 0 0 0
19:30 0 0 0 0 0 19:30 0 0 0 0 0
19:45 0 0 0 0 0 19:45 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 0 0 0 0 0
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 0 0 0 0 0
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 20:30 0 0 0 0 0
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:15 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0
22:30 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0
22:45 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:15 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0
23:30 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 118 9 0 0 127 104 8 0 0 113
3463
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 0 0 1:45 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 0 2:15 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 2:45 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 1 0 0 0 1
5:15 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 2 0 0 0 2 5:45 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 1 0 0 0 1 6:00 1 0 0 0 1
6:15 1 0 0 0 1 6:15 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 1 0 0 0 1
7:15 0 0 0 0 1 7:15 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 2 0 0 0 2 7:30 1 0 0 0 1
7:45 2 0 0 0 2 7:45 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 2 0 0 0 2 8:00 1 0 0 0 1
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 1 0 0 0 1
8:30 2 0 0 0 2 8:30 1 0 0 0 1
8:45 2 1 0 0 3 8:45 1 0 0 0 1
9:00 2 0 0 0 2 9:00 1 0 0 0 1
9:15 1 0 0 0 1 9:15 1 0 0 0 1
9:30 1 0 0 0 1 9:30 1 0 0 0 1
9:45 1 1 0 0 1 9:45 1 0 0 0 1
10:00 1 1 0 0 2 10:00 1 1 0 0 2
10:15 1 0 0 0 2 10:15 0 0 0 0 0
10:30 1 0 0 0 1 10:30 1 0 0 0 2
10:45 2 1 0 0 3 10:45 1 0 0 0 1
11:00 0 0 0 0 1 11:00 2 0 0 0 2
11:15 2 0 0 0 2 11:15 1 0 0 0 1
11:30 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 1 1 0 0 2
11:45 1 0 0 0 1 11:45 1 0 0 0 1
Ontario
Woodruff Way Northeast Driveway
5/31/22 ‐ 6/2/22 Average
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 3464
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Ontario
Woodruff Way Northeast Driveway
5/31/22 ‐ 6/2/22 Average
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
12:00 1 0 0 0 1 12:00 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 1 0 0 0 1 12:30 2 0 0 0 2
12:45 1 1 0 0 2 12:45 1 0 0 0 1
13:00 1 0 0 0 1 13:00 2 0 0 0 2
13:15 1 0 0 0 1 13:15 1 0 0 0 1
13:30 1 0 0 0 1 13:30 1 1 0 0 2
13:45 2 0 0 0 2 13:45 1 0 0 0 1
14:00 2 0 0 0 2 14:00 1 0 0 0 1
14:15 1 0 0 0 1 14:15 1 0 0 0 2
14:30 2 0 0 0 2 14:30 1 0 0 0 1
14:45 1 0 0 0 2 14:45 1 0 0 0 1
15:00 2 0 0 0 3 15:00 1 0 0 0 1
15:15 2 0 0 0 2 15:15 0 0 0 0 0
15:30 2 0 0 0 2 15:30 1 0 0 0 1
15:45 3 0 0 0 3 15:45 1 0 0 0 1
16:00 3 0 0 0 3 16:00 1 0 0 0 1
16:15 1 0 0 0 1 16:15 1 0 0 0 1
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 16:30 1 0 0 0 1
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 16:45 1 0 0 0 1
17:00 1 0 0 0 1 17:00 1 0 0 0 1
17:15 1 0 0 0 1 17:15 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 1 0 0 0 1 17:30 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 1 0 0 0 1 17:45 1 0 0 0 1
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 0 0 0 0 0
18:15 0 0 0 0 0 18:15 1 0 0 0 1
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 18:30 0 0 0 0 0
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 18:45 0 0 0 0 0
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 0 0 0 0 0
19:15 0 0 0 0 0 19:15 0 0 0 0 0
19:30 0 0 0 0 0 19:30 0 0 0 0 0
19:45 0 0 0 0 0 19:45 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 0 0 0 0 0
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 0 0 0 0 0
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 20:30 0 0 0 0 0
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:15 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0
22:30 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0
22:45 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:15 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0
23:30 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 61 6 0 0 66 43 7 0 0 50
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 3465
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 0 0 1:45 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 0 2:15 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 2:45 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 1 0 0 0 1 8:30 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 3 0 0 0 3 8:45 1 0 0 0 1
9:00 2 0 0 0 2 9:00 5 0 0 0 5
9:15 1 0 0 0 1 9:15 3 0 0 0 3
9:30 1 0 0 0 1 9:30 1 0 0 0 1
9:45 1 0 0 0 1 9:45 2 0 0 0 2
10:00 2 0 0 0 2 10:00 2 0 0 0 2
10:15 3 0 0 0 3 10:15 1 0 0 0 1
10:30 1 0 0 0 1 10:30 1 0 0 0 1
10:45 2 0 0 0 2 10:45 2 0 0 0 2
11:00 3 0 0 0 3 11:00 2 0 0 0 2
11:15 2 0 0 0 2 11:15 2 0 0 0 2
11:30 1 0 0 0 1 11:30 1 0 0 0 1
11:45 2 1 0 0 3 11:45 2 1 0 0 3
Ontario
Woodruff Way Southwest Driveway
5/31/22‐6/2/22 ‐ AVERAGE
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 3466
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Ontario
Woodruff Way Southwest Driveway
5/31/22‐6/2/22 ‐ AVERAGE
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
12:00 2 0 0 0 2 12:00 2 0 0 0 2
12:15 2 0 0 0 2 12:15 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 2 0 0 0 2 12:30 3 0 0 0 3
12:45 2 0 0 0 2 12:45 2 0 0 0 2
13:00 2 0 0 0 2 13:00 2 0 0 0 2
13:15 3 0 0 0 3 13:15 3 0 0 0 3
13:30 3 0 0 0 3 13:30 2 0 0 0 2
13:45 3 0 0 0 3 13:45 5 0 0 0 5
14:00 2 0 0 0 2 14:00 1 0 0 0 1
14:15 3 0 0 0 3 14:15 3 0 0 0 3
14:30 2 0 0 0 2 14:30 3 0 0 0 3
14:45 2 0 0 0 2 14:45 3 0 0 0 3
15:00 3 0 0 0 3 15:00 3 0 0 0 3
15:15 2 0 0 0 2 15:15 3 0 0 0 3
15:30 1 0 0 0 1 15:30 3 0 0 0 3
15:45 3 0 0 0 3 15:45 2 0 0 0 2
16:00 3 0 0 0 3 16:00 3 1 0 0 4
16:15 3 0 0 0 3 16:15 2 0 0 0 2
16:30 2 0 0 0 2 16:30 3 0 0 0 3
16:45 4 0 0 0 4 16:45 4 0 0 0 4
17:00 4 0 0 0 4 17:00 6 0 0 0 6
17:15 2 0 0 0 2 17:15 2 0 0 0 2
17:30 2 0 0 0 2 17:30 3 0 0 0 3
17:45 2 0 0 0 2 17:45 1 0 0 0 1
18:00 2 0 0 0 2 18:00 2 0 0 0 2
18:15 2 0 0 0 2 18:15 2 0 0 0 2
18:30 2 0 0 0 2 18:30 2 0 0 0 2
18:45 2 0 0 0 2 18:45 2 0 0 0 2
19:00 1 0 0 0 1 19:00 3 0 0 0 3
19:15 1 0 0 0 1 19:15 3 0 0 0 3
19:30 1 0 0 0 1 19:30 2 0 0 0 2
19:45 1 0 0 0 1 19:45 3 0 0 0 3
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 3 0 0 0 3
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 1 0 0 0 1
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 20:30 1 0 0 0 1
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:15 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0
22:30 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0
22:45 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:15 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0
23:30 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 96 1 0 0 97 113 2 0 0 115
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 3467
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 0 0 1:45 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 0 2:15 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 2:45 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 2 0 0 0 2 6:15 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 4 0 0 0 4 6:30 1 0 0 0 1
6:45 12 0 0 0 12 6:45 1 0 0 0 1
7:00 9 0 0 0 9 7:00 2 1 0 0 3
7:15 7 0 0 0 7 7:15 4 0 0 0 4
7:30 6 0 0 0 6 7:30 6 0 0 0 6
7:45 7 1 0 0 8 7:45 3 1 0 0 4
8:00 9 0 0 0 9 8:00 4 0 0 0 4
8:15 10 1 0 0 11 8:15 9 0 0 0 9
8:30 10 0 0 0 10 8:30 10 0 0 0 10
8:45 12 0 0 0 12 8:45 4 0 0 0 4
9:00 14 0 0 0 14 9:00 9 0 0 0 9
9:15 14 0 0 0 14 9:15 6 0 0 0 6
9:30 9 1 0 0 10 9:30 9 1 0 0 10
9:45 10 1 0 0 11 9:45 6 0 0 0 6
10:00 9 1 0 0 10 10:00 6 1 0 0 7
10:15 10 0 0 0 10 10:15 8 0 0 0 8
10:30 10 0 0 0 10 10:30 8 1 0 0 9
10:45 11 0 0 0 11 10:45 8 1 0 0 9
11:00 9 1 0 0 10 11:00 10 1 0 0 11
11:15 9 0 0 0 9 11:15 8 0 0 0 8
11:30 7 0 0 0 7 11:30 6 0 0 0 6
11:45 6 1 0 0 7 11:45 6 1 0 0 7
Ontario
Woodruff Way Southeast Driveway
5/31/22‐6/2/22 ‐ AVERAGE
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 3468
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Ontario
Woodruff Way Southeast Driveway
5/31/22‐6/2/22 ‐ AVERAGE
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
12:00 8 0 0 0 8 12:00 5 0 0 0 5
12:15 5 0 0 0 5 12:15 5 0 0 0 5
12:30 7 0 0 0 7 12:30 4 0 0 0 4
12:45 11 0 0 0 11 12:45 6 0 0 0 6
13:00 10 1 0 0 11 13:00 7 0 0 0 7
13:15 9 1 0 0 10 13:15 10 0 0 0 10
13:30 6 0 0 0 6 13:30 8 0 0 0 8
13:45 6 1 0 0 7 13:45 11 0 0 0 11
14:00 8 0 0 0 8 14:00 9 0 0 0 9
14:15 8 1 0 0 9 14:15 8 0 0 0 8
14:30 5 0 0 0 5 14:30 8 0 0 0 8
14:45 6 0 0 0 6 14:45 8 0 0 0 8
15:00 9 0 0 0 9 15:00 8 0 0 0 8
15:15 6 1 0 0 7 15:15 12 0 0 0 12
15:30 7 1 0 0 8 15:30 11 2 0 0 13
15:45 7 0 0 0 7 15:45 11 0 0 0 11
16:00 6 1 0 0 7 16:00 16 0 0 0 16
16:15 6 1 0 0 7 16:15 9 0 0 0 9
16:30 4 1 0 0 5 16:30 9 1 0 0 10
16:45 7 0 0 0 7 16:45 9 0 0 0 9
17:00 6 0 0 0 6 17:00 8 0 0 0 8
17:15 5 0 0 0 5 17:15 9 0 0 0 9
17:30 7 0 0 0 7 17:30 10 0 0 0 10
17:45 5 0 0 0 5 17:45 6 0 0 0 6
18:00 2 0 0 0 2 18:00 7 0 0 0 7
18:15 1 0 0 0 1 18:15 7 0 0 0 7
18:30 2 0 0 0 2 18:30 5 0 0 0 5
18:45 1 0 0 0 1 18:45 2 0 0 0 2
19:00 2 0 0 0 2 19:00 3 0 0 0 3
19:15 2 0 0 0 2 19:15 3 0 0 0 3
19:30 1 0 0 0 1 19:30 4 0 0 0 4
19:45 3 0 0 0 3 19:45 4 0 0 0 4
20:00 1 0 0 0 1 20:00 5 0 0 0 5
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 2 0 0 0 2
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 20:30 1 0 0 0 1
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:15 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0
22:30 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0
22:45 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:15 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0
23:30 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 385 16 0 0 401 384 11 0 0 395
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 3469
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 1 0 0 0 1
0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 0 0 1:45 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 0 2:15 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 2:45 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 1 0 0 0 1
7:30 1 0 0 0 1 7:30 1 0 0 0 1
7:45 1 1 0 0 2 7:45 2 0 0 0 2
8:00 1 0 0 0 1 8:00 2 0 0 0 2
8:15 3 0 0 0 3 8:15 3 0 0 0 3
8:30 4 1 0 0 5 8:30 4 0 0 0 4
8:45 3 0 0 0 3 8:45 4 1 0 0 5
9:00 3 0 0 0 3 9:00 2 1 0 0 3
9:15 2 0 0 0 2 9:15 4 0 0 0 4
9:30 1 0 0 0 1 9:30 4 0 0 0 4
9:45 2 0 0 0 2 9:45 3 0 0 0 3
10:00 0 1 0 0 1 10:00 3 1 0 0 4
10:15 2 0 0 0 2 10:15 4 1 0 0 5
10:30 3 1 0 0 4 10:30 5 0 0 0 5
10:45 3 0 0 0 3 10:45 4 0 0 0 4
11:00 1 1 0 0 2 11:00 3 0 0 0 3
11:15 2 1 0 0 3 11:15 3 2 0 0 5
11:30 2 1 0 0 3 11:30 3 0 0 0 3
11:45 2 0 0 0 2 11:45 1 0 0 0 1
Ontario
Wanamaker Avenue Driveway
5/31/22 ‐ 6/2/22 ‐ AVERAGE
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 3470
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Ontario
Wanamaker Avenue Driveway
5/31/22 ‐ 6/2/22 ‐ AVERAGE
Driveway Class
Entering Exiting
12:00 2 0 0 0 2 12:00 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 1 0 0 0 1 12:15 2 0 0 0 2
12:30 2 0 0 0 2 12:30 2 0 0 0 2
12:45 2 0 0 0 2 12:45 4 0 0 0 4
13:00 1 1 0 0 2 13:00 4 0 0 0 4
13:15 1 0 0 0 1 13:15 2 0 0 0 2
13:30 3 0 0 0 3 13:30 3 0 0 0 3
13:45 5 0 0 0 5 13:45 2 0 0 0 2
14:00 4 0 0 0 4 14:00 4 0 0 0 4
14:15 3 0 0 0 3 14:15 4 0 0 0 4
14:30 1 0 0 0 1 14:30 2 0 0 0 2
14:45 2 0 0 0 2 14:45 1 0 0 0 1
15:00 0 0 0 0 0 15:00 1 1 0 0 2
15:15 2 0 0 0 2 15:15 2 0 0 0 2
15:30 1 0 0 0 1 15:30 2 0 0 0 2
15:45 3 0 0 0 3 15:45 2 0 0 0 2
16:00 0 0 0 0 0 16:00 0 0 0 0 0
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 16:15 0 0 0 0 0
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 16:30 0 0 0 0 0
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 16:45 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 0 0 0 0 0
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 17:15 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 17:30 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 0 0 0 0 0
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 0 0 0 0 0
18:15 0 0 0 0 0 18:15 0 0 0 0 0
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 18:30 0 0 0 0 0
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 18:45 0 0 0 0 0
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 0 0 0 0 0
19:15 0 0 0 0 0 19:15 0 0 0 0 0
19:30 0 0 0 0 0 19:30 0 0 0 0 0
19:45 0 0 0 0 0 19:45 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 0 0 0 0 0
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 0 0 0 0 0
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 20:30 0 0 0 0 0
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:15 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0
22:30 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0
22:45 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:15 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0
23:30 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 69 8 0 0 77 94 7 0 0 101
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 3471
DATE: February 22, 2023
TO: Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

FROM: Alex So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 15364-01 VMT

WOODRUFF WAY LOGISTICS CENTER VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
(VMT) SCREENING EVALUATION
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation for the Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Project), which is located northeast of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue, south of Wanamaker Avenue, and straddling the existing Woodruff Way in the City of Ontario.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the Proposed Project is to consist of a 344,260 square foot industrial warehouse building. A preliminary site plan for the Proposed Project is shown on Attachment A.

BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. To comply with CEQA, in June of 2020 the City of Ontario developed and adopted their own VMT methodologies and thresholds (Resolution No. 2020-071), (City Guidelines) (1). This VMT screening evaluation has been developed based on the adopted City Guidelines.

VMT SCREENING
The City Guidelines lists standardized screening methods for project level VMT analysis that can be used to identify when a proposed land use development project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact, thereby eliminating the need to conduct a full VMT analysis. The City of Ontario VMT screening criteria, as described within the City Guidelines, are listed below:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
3472
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

February 22, 2023

15364-01 VMT
A land use project need only to meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact.

TPA SCREENING
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”1 or an existing stop along a “highquality transit corridor”2 ) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking);
• Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or
• Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or highincome residential units.

Based on the secondary criteria outlined in the City Guidelines, the Project does not meet the secondary criteria of having an FAR at or above 0.75, regardless of the Project being physically located in a TPA.

TPA Screening criteria is not met.

LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
City Guidelines state that projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if located in an already low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ). City Guidelines recognize low VMT areas as those that generate a VMT per service population (i.e., population and employment) that is 15% below County of San Bernardino Baseline VMT per service population.

The San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) is used to measure VMT performance in individual TAZs within the region. The Project’s physical location was identified in the SBTAM model to determine the TAZ where the Project is located. The Project TAZ 53687401 is then calculated using Origin-Destination (OD) trip matrices to obtain total OD VMT. The resulting total OD VMT is divided by the Project TAZ’s service population. The Project TAZ 53687401 has a VMT per service population of 55.8, which was compared to 15% below County 1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”).
2 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 3473
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

February 22, 2023

15364-01 VMT
of San Bernardino baseline or 28.41 VMT per service population (33.42 x 0.85= 28.41). As a result, the Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone.

Low VMT Area Screening criteria is not met.

PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail with buildings less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The proposed Project does not intend to develop any local serving retail land uses.

Additionally, the City Guidelines indicates for small projects that generate low traffic volumes (i.e., fewer than 110 daily trips) and by association low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are also assumed to cause a less than significant impact.

Existing Traffic
The site is occupied by existing uses that are currently active, specifically the Citrus Motors Ford and Citrus Motors Kia auto dealerships. The Citrus Motors Kia auto dealership lies on a 5.56-acre parcel (APN 238-201-41) located at 1350 Woodruff Way. The Citrus Motors Ford auto dealership lies on a 10.59-acre parcel (APN 238-221-22) located at 1375 Woodruff Way. In an effort to understand the existing traffic associated with the current use, traffic counts were collected at the driveways on May 31, June 1, and June 2, 2022 (Tuesday through Thursday). A summary of the count data collected is shown on Table B-1 of Attachment B.

Table 1 below summarizes the average existing trip generation based on the count data collected over those three days. The existing site currently generates an average of 1,543 daily vehicle trips.

TABLE 1: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION
THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (August 2022) designates the Project site with industrial development. Per the adopted TOP 2050, the Project site could be Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 78 54 132 42 79 121 1,468
2-axle Trucks: 4 2 6 3 1 4 75
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Trucks: 4 2 6 3 1 4 75
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)1 82 56 138 45 80 125 1,543 1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3474
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

February 22, 2023

15364-01 VMT
developed with up to 398,901 square feet of industrial use (assuming a 16.65-acre site and a floor-to-area-ratio of 0.55). The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as provided in their Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). For purposes of the VMT screening evaluation, the following ITE land use code and vehicle mix has been utilized for the currently adopted land use per the TOP 2050 (see Table 2):
• ITE land use code 110 (General Light Industrial) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 398,901 square feet. A light industrial facility is a freestanding facility devoted to a single use that has an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing. Typically, there is minimum office space. The vehicle mix has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following South Coase Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%.

TABLE 2: TOP 2050 TRIP GENERATION RATES
The trip generation summary for the current TOP 2050 is shown on Table 3. The Project site is anticipated to generate a total of 1,946 two-way trips per day.

TABLE 3: TOP 2050 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
General Light Industrial3 TSF 110 0.651 0.089 0.740 0.091 0.559 0.650 4.870 Passenger Cars (AM=98.6%, PM=98.5%, Daily=94.9%) 0.645 0.085 0.730 0.086 0.554 0.640 4.620 2-Axle Trucks (AM=0.23%, PM=0.25%, Daily=0.85%) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.042 3-Axle Trucks (AM=0.29%, PM=0.31%, Daily=1.05%) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.052 4+-Axle Trucks (AM=0.88%, PM=0.94%, Daily=3.20%) 0.004 0.002 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.157 1 Trip Generation & Vehicle Mix Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.

Normalized % - Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2-Axle trucks, 20.7% 3-Axle trucks, 62.6% 4-Axle trucks.

Daily
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

General Light Industrial 398.901 TSF
Passenger Cars: 257 34 291 34 221 255 1,844
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
4+-axle Trucks: 2 1 3 1 1 2 62
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 2 1 3 1 1 2 102
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 259 35 294 35 222 257 1,946 1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3475
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

February 22, 2023

15364-01 VMT

PROPOSED PROJECT
Trip generation rates for the proposed Project are shown on Table 4. The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based upon information collected by the ITE as provided in their Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). For purposes of the VMT screening evaluation, the following ITE land use codes and vehicle mixes have been utilized for the proposed Project (see Table 4):
• High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 155) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 292,976 square feet of the proposed Project (or 85% of the overall building square footage). The ITE Trip Generation Manual has trip generation rates for high-cube fulfillment center use for both non-sort and sort facilities (ITE land use code 155). As defined by ITE, a high-cube warehouse is a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses.

A typical high-cube warehouse has a high level of on-site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly efficient processing of goods through the high-cube warehouse. The ITE Trip Generation Manual has two subcategories for the High-Cube Fulfillment Center use: sort and non-sort.

ITE describes a sort facility as a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. In comparison, a nonsort facility is a fulfillment center that ships large box items that are processed primarily with automation rather than through manual means. Some limited assembly and repackaging may occur within the facility. In light of the on-site parking provided, a non-sort facility has been assumed for the purposes of calculating trip generation for the proposed Project. The off-street parking for the currently proposed Project would not support the anticipated daily passenger car (employee) traffic generated by a sort facility (the passenger car sort rate is nearly 4 times that of the non-sort passenger car rate). The vehicle mix (passenger cars versus trucks) has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle =

62.6%.
• ITE land use code 157 (High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 51,702 square feet (15% of the light industrial area). High-cube cold storage warehouses include warehouses characterized by the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. High-cube cold storage warehouses are facilities typified by temperature-controlled environments for frozen food or other perishable products. The High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse vehicle mix (passenger cars versus trucks) has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following 3476
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

February 22, 2023

15364-01 VMT
SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 34.7%; 3-Axle = 11.0%; 4+-Axle =

54.3%.

TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES

The trip generation summary for the proposed Project is shown on Table 5. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 644 two-way trips per day.

TABLE 5: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Non-Sort)3 TSF 155 0.122 0.028 0.150 0.062 0.098 0.160 1.810 Passenger Cars 0.112 0.018 0.130 0.057 0.093 0.150 1.580 2-Axle Trucks 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.038 3-Axle Trucks 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.048 4+-Axle Trucks 0.006 0.007 0.013 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.144 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.034 0.086 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.076 0.004 0.080 0.019 0.071 0.090 1.370 2-Axle Trucks 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.260 3-Axle Trucks 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.083 4+-Axle Trucks 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.016 0.407 1 Trip Generation & Vehicle Mix Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.

Normalized % - Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2-Axle trucks, 20.7% 3-Axle trucks, 62.6% 4-Axle trucks.

Normalized % - With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2-Axle trucks, 11.0% 3-Axle trucks, 54.3% 4-Axle trucks.

Daily
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

High-Cube Fulfillment (Non-Sort) 292.976 TSF
Passenger Cars: 33 5 38 17 27 44 464
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 0 0 12
3-axle Trucks: 1 1 1 0 0 1 14
4+-axle Trucks: 2 2 4 1 1 2 42
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 4 3 7 1 1 2 68
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 37 8 45 18 28 46 532
High-Cube Cold Storage 51.702 TSF
Passenger Cars: 4 0 4 1 4 5 72
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4+-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 0 0 0 22
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 1 1 0 0 0 40
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 4 1 5 1 4 5 112
Passenger Cars 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Trucks 4 4 8 1 1 2 108
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 41 9 50 19 32 51 644
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3477
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

February 22, 2023

15364-01 VMT

TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Table 7 shows the trip generation comparison between the existing and proposed use. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 899 fewer two-way trips per day as compared to the existing use.

TABLE 7: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON – EXISTING VS. PROPOSED PROJECT Table 8 shows the trip generation comparison between the adopted TOP 2050 land use (Industrial) and proposed use. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,302 fewer twoway trips per day as compared to the adopted TOP 2050.

TABLE 8: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON – TOP 2050 VS. PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 4 4 8 1 1 2 108
Total Trips 41 9 50 19 32 51 644
Existing
Passenger Cars: 78 54 132 42 79 121 1,468
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 4 2 6 3 1 4 75
Total Trips 82 56 138 45 80 125 1,543
Net Change
Passenger Cars: -41 -49 -90 -24 -48 -72 -932
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 2 2 -2 0 -2 33
Total Trips -41 -47 -88 -26 -48 -74 -899
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 4 4 8 1 1 2 108
Total Trips 41 9 50 19 32 51 644
TOP 2050 (Industrial)
Passenger Cars: 257 34 291 34 221 255 1,844
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 2 1 3 1 1 2 102
Total Trips 259 35 294 35 222 257 1,946
Net Change
Passenger Cars: -220 -29 -249 -16 -190 -206 -1,308
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 2 3 5 0 0 0 6
Total Trips -218 -26 -244 -16 -190 -206 -1,302
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3478
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

February 22, 2023

15364-01 VMT
As shown in Table 7 and 8 the Proposed Project is estimated to have a net reduction in vehicle trips as compared to both the existing land uses and the land uses assumed in the TOP 2050.

Therefore, the Project’s estimated trips will not exceed the City’s 110 net new daily vehicle trip threshold.

Project Type screening criteria is met.

As the Project was found to meet the Project Type screening criteria, it is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
3479
15364-01 VMT

REFERENCES

1. City of Ontario. SB 743 VMT Thresholds. City of Ontario : s.n., June 2020. 3480
15364-01 VMT

ATTACHMENT A

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
3481
15364
-01 VMT 3482
15364-01 VMT

ATTACHMENT B

EXISTING DRIVEWAY COUNTS
3483
15364-01 VMT
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Woodruff, Northly Dwy
Passenger Cars: 16 9 25 2 17 19 222
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 17
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 1 2 0 0 0 17
Total Trips1 17 10 27 2 17 19 239
Woodruff, Northeast Dwy
Passenger Cars: 6 4 10 4 4 8 104
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 0 0 13
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 0 1 0 0 0 13
Total Trips1 7 4 11 4 4 8 117
Woodruff, Southeast Dwy
Passenger Cars: 4 1 5 13 15 28 209
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total Trips1 4 1 5 13 15 28 212
Woodruff, Southwest Dwy
Passenger Cars: 41 27 68 23 43 66 769
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 3 1 4 27
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 0 1 3 1 4 27
Total Trips1 42 27 69 26 44 70 796
Wanamaker Dwy
Passenger Cars: 11 13 24 0 0 0 163
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 15
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 1 2 0 0 0 15
Total Trips1 12 14 26 0 0 0 178
* Note: data is an average of counts collected on May 31, June 1, and June 2, 2022. 1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Total Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3484
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

JOB NO:

July 25, 2023
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
Charlene So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.
15364-03 TA Letter

WOODRUFF LOGISTICS CENTER FOCUSED TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Focused Traffic Assessment for the proposed Woodruff Logistics Center development (Project), which is located northeast of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue, south of Wanamaker Avenue, and straddling the existing Woodruff Way in the City of Ontario. The purpose of the following focused traffic assessment is to respond to the City’s comment requesting an intersection peak hour level of service (LOS) operations analysis at the intersection of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue to evaluate the effect of an additional westbound right turn traffic at the intersection due to the vacation and termination of the existing Woodruff Way. This assessment will also determine whether a westbound dedicated right turn lane is needed at the intersection of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue to support the anticipated traffic volume or acceptable peak hour operations.

PROPOSED PROJECT
It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of a 344,678 square foot industrial warehouse building (see Exhibit 1). Access is proposed to Rockefeller Avenue via two driveways (one to serve trucks with both serving passenger cars), Wanamaker Avenue via two driveways (one to serve trucks with both serving passenger cars), and one driveway on Woodruff Way to serve trucks only. As part of the Project, Woodruff Way will be vacated between the existing Carl’s Jr. restaurant Wanamaker Avenue. As a result of the vacation, vehicles previously using Woodruff Way to access Wanamaker Avenue will now be using Jurupa Street to Rockefeller Avenue.
3485
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
July 25, 2023

15364-03 TA Letter

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Traffic counts were conducted on April 26, 2023, at the following intersections:

1. Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street

2. Woodruff Way & Carl’s Jr. Driveway

3. Woodruff Way & Jurupa Street
The existing peak hour intersection operations analysis has been conducted for Rockefeller Avenue and Jurupa Street only. Existing traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 1. Traffic counts were also collected at intersections along Woodruff Way to reassign existing traffic that is currently using Woodruff Way from Jurupa Street to access Wanamaker Avenue (or vice versa).

Since the Project is vacating Woodruff Way north of the existing Carl’s Jr. driveway, through traffic at the Carl’s Jr. driveway will need to be reassigned from Woodruff Way at Jurupa Street to the intersection of Rockefeller Avenue at Jurupa Street for With Project traffic conditions (see blue boldface volumes on Exhibit 1). Lastly, volumes into and out of the Carl’s Jr. driveway from the north will also be reassigned to the northbound left and eastbound right turn movements. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Attachment A.

EXISTING 1: EXISTING (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 1, which indicates that the intersection of Rockefeller Avenue and Jurupa Street is currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS) during the peak hours. LOS E is the minimum LOS standard for intersections within the City. The Existing (2023) intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Attachment B.
3486
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
July 25, 2023

15364-03 TA Letter
TABLE 1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2023) CONDITIONS

PROJECT TRAFFIC

TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation summary illustrating daily, and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project in actual and passenger car equivalent (PCE) vehicles are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. As shown in Table 2, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 644 two-way trips per day with 50 AM peak hour trips and 51 PM peak hour trips (in actual vehicles). In comparison, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 812 two-way PCE trips per day with 62 PCE AM peak hour trips and 59 PCE PM peak hour trips (see Table 3).

The trip generation reflected is consistent with that presented in the Woodruff Logistics Center Trip Generation Assessment (dated February 21, 2023).

TABLE 2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION (ACTUAL VEHICLES)
Traffic
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM
1 Rockefeller Av. & Jurupa St. TS 17.9 22.4 B C Ontario / LOS E 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Service
Level of
(secs.)
Delay1
Jurisdiction(s) / LOS
Standard3
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

High-Cube Fulfillment (Non-Sort) 292.976 TSF
Passenger Cars: 33 5 38 17 27 44 464
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 0 0 12
3-axle Trucks: 1 1 1 0 0 1 14
4+-axle Trucks: 2 2 4 1 1 2 42
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 4 3 7 1 1 2 68
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 37 8 45 18 28 46 532
High-Cube Cold Storage 51.702 TSF
Passenger Cars: 4 0 4 1 4 5 72
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4+-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 0 0 0 22
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 1 1 0 0 0 40
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 4 1 5 1 4 5 112
Passenger Cars 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Trucks 4 4 8 1 1 2 108
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 41 9 50 19 32 51 644
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3487
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
July 25, 2023

15364-03 TA Letter
TABLE 3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION (PCE)
The site is occupied by existing uses that are currently active, specifically the Citrus Motors Ford and Citrus Motors Kia auto dealerships. The Citrus Motors Kia auto dealership lies on a 5.56-acre parcel (APN 238-201-41) located at 1350 Woodruff Way. The Citrus Motors Ford auto dealership lies on a 10.59-acre parcel (APN 238-221-22) located at 1375 Woodruff Way. Table 4 shows the trip generation comparison between the existing and proposed use. The resulting net new trips are identified in Table 4. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 770 fewer two-way trips per day with 79 fewer AM peak hour trips and 68 fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing uses (in PCE). Per the City’s Guidelines, the trip generation comparison is based on PCE as the existing and proposed uses are truck-intensive uses and any operations analysis performed (if necessary) would utilize PCE values.

Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

High-Cube Fulfillment (Non-Sort) 292.976 TSF
Passenger Cars: 33 5 38 17 27 44 464
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 1 1 1 0 0 1 18
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 1 2 3 1 1 2 36
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 5 6 11 3 3 6 128
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 7 9 16 4 4 8 182
Total Trips (PCE)2 40 14 54 21 31 52 646
High-Cube Cold Storage 51.702 TSF
Passenger Cars: 4 0 4 1 4 5 72
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 0 1 1 0 0 0 20
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 1 2 3 1 1 2 64
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 3 4 1 1 2 94
Total Trips (PCE)2 5 3 8 2 5 7 166
Passenger Cars 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Trucks 8 12 20 5 5 10 276
Total Trips (PCE)2 45 17 62 23 36 59 812
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3488
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
July 25, 2023

15364-03 TA Letter
TABLE 4: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON

TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern of passenger cars is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 2 illustrates the passenger car trip distribution patterns and Exhibit 3 illustrates the truck trip distribution patterns. Project trip distribution patterns for the Project are based on existing travel patterns per the traffic count data collected.

EXHIBIT 2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 37 5 42 18 31 49 536
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 8 12 20 5 5 10 276
Total Trips 45 17 62 23 36 59 812
Existing
Passenger Cars: 78 54 132 42 79 121 1,468
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 6 3 9 5 2 6 114
Total Trips 84 57 141 47 81 127 1,582
Net Change
Passenger Cars: -41 -49 -90 -24 -48 -72 -932
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 2 9 11 1 4 4 162
Total Trips -39 -40 -79 -24 -45 -68 -770
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3489
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
July 25, 2023

15364-03 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 3: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION

TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4. Project volumes are shown based on the trip generation reflected in Table 2 and the net change in Project trips (accounting for the existing use) is also shown (negative values reflect a reduction in trips). 3490
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
July 25, 2023

15364-03 TA Letter
EXHIBIT 4: PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus Project traffic (E+P). The traffic volumes for E+P traffic conditions account for the reassignment of existing trips from Woodruff Way to Rockefeller Avenue along Jurupa Street. The intersection analysis result is summarized in Table 5 for E+P traffic conditions which indicates the intersection of Rockefeller Avenue at Jurupa Street is anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. Since the development of the proposed Project will result in a net reduction in trips from the existing use, the peak hour intersection operations at Rockefeller Avenue and Jurupa Street are anticipated to improve under E+P traffic conditions in comparison to Existing traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for E+P traffic conditions are included in Attachment C.

TABLE 5: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR E+P CONDITIONS
Traffic
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Rockefeller Av. & Jurupa St. TS 17.9 22.4 B C 17.4 21.4 B C Ontario / LOS E 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal
E+P
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. (secs.) Service (secs.) Service
Existing (2023)
Jurisdiction(s) /
LOS Standard3
Delay Level of 1 Delay1 Level of
3491
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
July 25, 2023

15364-03 TA Letter

HORIZON YEAR WITH PROJECT
This scenario includes the refined post-process volumes obtained from the San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM), plus the traffic generated by the proposed Project. The Project trips shown in Exhibit 4 have been added to post-processed Horizon Year Without Project traffic volumes (not the net change in Project trips). The intersection analysis result is summarized in Table 6 for Horizon Year traffic conditions which indicates the intersection of Rockefeller Avenue at Jurupa Street is anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS.

The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year With Project traffic conditions are included in Attachment D.

TABLE 6: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS

FINDINGS
The City of Ontario adheres to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (dated February 2020, by Fehr & Peers) which has been used to determine whether additional traffic analysis is necessary for the proposed Project. The existing and future westbound right turn volume at the intersection of Rockefeller Avenue and Jurupa Street is less than 300 vehicles per hour during the peak hours. In addition, the intersection is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the existing lane geometrics, so the intersection operations do not suggest additional capacity (such as a right turn lane) are necessary to maintain acceptable peak hour operations.

If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at [email protected].

Traffic
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM
1 Rockefeller Av. & Jurupa St. TS 61.7 30.7 E C Ontario / LOS E 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay1 Level of
Jurisdiction(s) / LOS
Standard3 (secs.) Service
3492
15364-03 TA Letter

ATTACHMENT A

EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
3493
T050223
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3977
Wed, Apr 26, 23 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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 1 21 1 9 20 92 0 5 244 26 419 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 7:15 AM 0 1 2 14 0 13 10 119 1 5 221 24 410 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 2 25 0 9 30 134 1 7 237 18 463 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 1 3 7:45 AM 0 1 1 20 1 6 23 147 0 10 264 29 502 0 0 0 7 7 1 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 2 1 25 0 13 30 121 0 6 237 46 481 0 0 0 4 4 1 2 0 4 8:15 AM 0 5 0 26 0 16 20 104 1 13 240 23 448 0 0 0 9 9 0 2 0 2 8:30 AM 2 2 2 25 2 10 25 103 1 6 206 23 407 1 0 0 3 4 0 2 0 0 8:45 AM 0 2 5 36 0 12 17 100 0 12 185 21 390 0 0 0 8 8 1 2 0 0 VOLUMES 2 13 14 192 4 88 175 920 4 64 1,834 210 3,520 1 0 0 37 38 5 18 1 11 APPROACH % 7% 45% 48% 68% 1% 31% 16% 84% 0% 3% 87% 10%
APP/DEPART 29 / 398 284 / 36 1,099 / 1,163 2,108 / 1,923 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 8 4 96 1 44 103 506 2 36 978 116 1,894 2 6 1 9 APPROACH % 0% 67% 33% 68% 1% 31% 17% 83% 0% 3% 87% 10%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.600 0.839 0.899 0.932 0.943
APP/DEPART 12 / 227 141 / 16 611 / 629 1,130 / 1,022 0
4:00 PM 0 2 6 76 0 25 17 252 0 27 168 9 582 0 0 0 18 18 1 1 0 2 4:15 PM 0 2 11 57 1 13 20 203 0 9 152 7 475 0 1 1 8 10 6 2 0 1 4:30 PM 1 2 6 68 1 21 23 210 1 12 139 11 495 0 0 2 10 12 3 9 0 2 4:45 PM 0 3 2 51 1 16 16 224 0 5 152 9 479 0 0 0 4 4 1 3 0 3 5:00 PM 0 0 8 75 7 34 23 250 1 17 122 5 542 0 0 0 14 14 2 15 0 0 5:15 PM 0 17 74 60 2 11 16 222 0 8 101 11 522 0 0 0 7 7 22 2 0 4 5:30 PM 0 1 17 57 3 11 8 207 0 11 139 7 461 0 0 1 8 9 11 4 0 1 5:45 PM 0 0 4 38 0 15 17 168 0 6 120 10 378 0 0 0 6 6 2 7 0 3 VOLUMES 1 27 128 482 15 146 140 1,736 2 95 1,093 69 3,934 0 1 4 75 80 48 43 0 16 APPROACH % 1% 17% 82% 75% 2% 23% 7% 92% 0% 8% 87% 5%
APP/DEPART 156 / 233 643 / 37 1,878 / 2,420 1,257 / 1,244 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 1 22 90 254 11 82 78 906 2 42 514 36 2,038 28 29 0 9 APPROACH % 1% 19% 80% 73% 3% 24% 8% 92% 0% 7% 87% 6%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.310 0.748 0.900 0.892 0.940
APP/DEPART 113 / 134 347 / 20 986 / 1,285 592 / 599 0
Rockefeller

NORTH SIDE
Jurupa WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Jurupa

SOUTH SIDE
Rockefeller

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

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

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

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

U-TURNS
Rockefeller Rockefeller Jurupa Jurupa
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3494
927 234 19 674 TOTAL 631
643 146 15 482 PM 233
284 88 4 192 AM 398
2,108 1,257 3,365
3,167 1,244 1,923
210
69 279
1,834 1,093 2,927
TOTAL
PM
AM
64 95
159
315 140 175
AM
PM
TOTAL
2,656 1,736
920
6 2 4
1,163 2,420 3,583
2,977 1,878 1,099
36 AM 2 13 14 29
37 PM 1 27 128 156
73 TOTAL 3 40 142 185
488 126 12 350 TOTAL 361
347 82 11 254 PM 134
141 44 1 96 AM 227
1,130
592
1,722
1,621
599
1,022
116
36 152
978 514
1,492
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
36 42 78
181
78 103
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
1,412
906 506
PM 4:30 PM
3:45 PM
4 2 2
629
1,285 1,914
1,597
986 611
16 AM 0 8 4 12
20 PM 1 22 90 113
36 Total 1 30 94 125
Rockefeller
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Rockefeller
Jurupa
Jurupa
Ontario
SC3977

ALL HOURS
Rockefeller
Rockefeller
Jurupa
Jurupa

PEAK HOUR
3495
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Rockefeller LOCATION #: 1
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Jurupa CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 2: NOTES: AM ▲
2-AXLE PM N
WORK MD ◄ W E ►

VEHICLES/ OTHER S
TRUCKS OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 1 11 0 25 0001 1 0000
7:15 AM 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 12 0 0 8 1 28 0000 0 1100
7:30 AM 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 10 0 0 9 1 30 0000 0 0101
7:45 AM 0 0 0 6 0 1 5 15 0 3 11 0 41 0002 2 0000
8:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 16 0 0 16 2 44 0000 0 0000
8:15 AM 0 0 0 5 0 3 1 15 0 2 14 0 40 0002 2 0000
8:30 AM 0 0 0 8 1 4 3 10 0 0 9 1 36 0000 0 0100
8:45 AM 0 0 1 10 0 3 3 11 0 1 21 1 51 0001 1 0100
VOLUMES 0 0 2 40 1 17 22 101 0 7 99 6 295 0006 6 1401
APPROACH % 0% 0% 100% 69% 2% 29% 18% 82% 0% 6% 88% 5%
APP/DEPART 2 / 28 58 / 2 123 / 149 112 / 116 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 17 0 8 16 56 0 1 50 3 155 0101
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 68% 0% 32% 22% 78% 0% 2% 86% 5%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.781 0.857 0.806 0.881
APP/DEPART 0 / 19 25 / 1 72 / 77 58 / 58 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 15 0 1 10 1 32 0000 0 0001
4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 11 0 0 5 0 20 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 7 0 14 0000 0 0000
4:45 PM 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 7 0 14 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 3 1 3 1 8 0 0 14 3 33 0000 0 0200
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 0 6 0 16 0000 0 0100
5:30 PM 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 8 0 14 0000 0 0000
5:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 0 0 15 0 26 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 1 0 13 2 12 3 61 0 1 72 4 169 0000 0 0301
APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 48% 7% 44% 5% 95% 0% 1% 94% 5%
APP/DEPART 1 / 8 27 / 3 64 / 74 77 / 84 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 1 0 5 2 7 1 24 0 0 34 3 77 0 3 0 0
APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 36% 14% 50% 4% 96% 0% 0% 92% 8%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.500 0.694 0.544 0.583
APP/DEPART 1 / 5 14 / 2 25 / 29 37 / 41 0
Rockefeller

NORTH SIDE
Jurupa WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Jurupa

SOUTH SIDE
Rockefeller
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:30 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Rockefeller Rockefeller Jurupa Jurupa
3496
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Rockefeller LOCATION #: 1
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Jurupa CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 3: NOTES: AM ▲
3-AXLE PM N
TRUCKS 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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 7 0000 0 0000
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 10 0000 0 0000
7:30 AM 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 16 0000 0 0000
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 11 0000 0 1000
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 7 0000 0 0000
8:15 AM 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 0 15 0000 0 0000
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 8 0000 0 0000
8:45 AM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 11 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 1 13 0 0 1 35 0 0 35 0 85 0000 0 1000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 3% 97% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 1 / 1 13 / 0 36 / 49 35 / 35 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 19 0 0 20 0 49 1000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.563 0.679 0.714 0.766
APP/DEPART 1 / 0 9 / 0 19 / 29 20 / 20 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 0000 0 0000
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 8 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 5 0 11 0000 0 0000
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 9 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 7 0000 0 0000
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 5 0000 0 0000
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 2 8 0000 0 0001
5:45 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 6 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 25 0 0 27 4 61 0000 0 0001
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 4% 96% 0% 0% 87% 13%
APP/DEPART 0 / 5 4 / 0 26 / 29 31 / 27 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 17 0 0 11 1 32 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 6% 94% 0% 0% 92% 8%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.500 0.563 0.600 0.727
APP/DEPART 0 / 2 2 / 0 18 / 19 12 / 11 0
Rockefeller

NORTH SIDE
Jurupa WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Jurupa

SOUTH SIDE
Rockefeller
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:30 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Rockefeller Rockefeller Jurupa Jurupa
3497
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Rockefeller LOCATION #: 1
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Jurupa CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 4: NOTES: AM ▲
4 OR MORE PM N
AXLE MD ◄ W E ►

TRUCKS 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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 10 0 0 13 5 37 0000 0 0100
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 17 4 42 0000 0 0000
7:30 AM 0 0 0 7 0 2 2 19 0 0 18 2 50 0000 0 0001
7:45 AM 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 12 0 0 13 6 39 0000 0 0000
8:00 AM 0 0 0 8 0 2 3 16 0 0 15 4 48 0000 0 0001
8:15 AM 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 11 0 0 21 0 38 0000 0 0000
8:30 AM 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 18 0 0 20 5 49 0000 0 0000
8:45 AM 0 0 0 7 0 1 1 19 0 0 23 2 53 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 0 37 0 11 15 125 0 0 140 28 356 0000 0 0102 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 77% 0% 23% 11% 89% 0% 0% 83% 17%
APP/DEPART 0 / 43 48 / 0 140 / 162 168 / 151 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 23 0 6 9 58 0 0 67 12 175 0002
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 79% 0% 21% 13% 87% 0% 0% 85% 15%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.725 0.798 0.940 0.875
APP/DEPART 0 / 21 29 / 0 67 / 81 79 / 73 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 18 0 0 12 1 35 0000 0 0000
4:15 PM 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 12 0 0 15 2 35 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 20 0 0 11 1 41 0000 0 0200
4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 13 0 0 21 1 38 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 18 0 0 8 0 30 0000 0 0000
5:15 PM 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 11 0 0 7 0 24 0000 0 0000
5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 15 0 0 17 2 36 0000 0 0000
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 14 0 0 13 2 32 0000 0 0101
VOLUMES 0 0 0 11 0 13 13 121 0 0 104 9 271 0000 0 0301
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 46% 0% 54% 10% 90% 0% 0% 92% 8%
APP/DEPART 0 / 22 24 / 0 134 / 132 113 / 117 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 5 0 8 9 62 0 0 47 2 133 0200
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 38% 0% 62% 13% 87% 0% 0% 96% 4%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.650 0.740 0.557 0.811
APP/DEPART 0 / 11 13 / 0 71 / 67 49 / 55 0
Rockefeller

NORTH SIDE
Jurupa WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Jurupa

SOUTH SIDE
Rockefeller
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:30 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Rockefeller Rockefeller Jurupa Jurupa
3498
T050223
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3977
Wed, Apr 26, 23 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 3
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: NO CONTROL
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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: 0 1 X X 1 0 0 X 0 X X X 0 0 0 0 X X X X
7:00 AM 7 31 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 4 36 0 0 1 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 4 32 0 0 5 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 7 45 0 0 3 2 3 0 7 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 3 39 0 0 7 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 5 27 0 0 3 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 5 27 0 0 5 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 3 30 0 0 8 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 38 267 0 0 33 14 16 0 24 0 0 0 392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 12% 88% 0% 0% 70% 30% 40% 0% 60% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 305 / 283 47 / 57 40 / 0 0 / 52 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 18 152 0 0 16 8 9 0 12 0 0 0 215 0 0 0 0
APPROACH % 11% 89% 0% 0% 67% 33% 43% 0% 57% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.817 0.667 0.525 0.000 0.802
APP/DEPART 170 / 161 24 / 28 21 / 0 0 / 26 0
4:00 PM 1 5 0 0 17 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 9 0 0 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 2 9 0 0 9 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 3 3 0 0 11 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 2 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 2 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 1 3 0 0 9 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 1 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 12 39 0 0 63 22 3 0 14 0 0 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 24% 76% 0% 0% 74% 26% 18% 0% 82% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 51 / 42 85 / 77 17 / 0 0 / 34 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 6 26 0 0 44 13 3 0 8 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
APPROACH % 19% 81% 0% 0% 77% 23% 27% 0% 73% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.727 0.620 0.688 0.000 0.758
APP/DEPART 32 / 29 57 / 52 11 / 0 0 / 19 0
Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Carls Jr WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Carls Jr

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff
AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:00 PM
RTOR
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Ontario
Woodruff
Carls Jr

U-TURNS
Woodruff Woodruff Carls Jr Carls Jr
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3499
132 36 96 0 TOTAL 325
85 22 63 0 PM 42
47 14 33 0 AM 283
0 0 0
86 34 52
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
0 0 0
19 3
16 AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
38 14 24
0 0 0
57 17 40
57 AM 38 267 0 305
77 PM 12 39 0 51
134 TOTAL 50 306 0 356
81 21 60 0 TOTAL 190
57 13 44 0 PM 29
24 8 16 0 AM 161
0 0 0
45 19 26
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:15 AM
8:45 AM
0 0 0
12 3 9
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
PM 4:00 PM
3:45 PM
20 8
12 0 0 0
32 11 21
28 AM 18 152 0 170
52 PM 6 26 0 32
80 Total 24 178 0 202
Woodruff
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Woodruff
Carls Jr
Carls Jr
Ontario
SC3977

ALL HOURS
Woodruff
Woodruff
Carls Jr
Carls Jr

PEAK HOUR
3500
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Woodruff LOCATION #: 3
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Carls Jr CONTROL: NO CONTROL
CLASS 2: NOTES: AM ▲
2-AXLE PM N
WORK MD ◄ W E ►

VEHICLES/ OTHER S
TRUCKS OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: 01XX100X0XXX X X X X
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
7:15 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0000 0 0000
7:30 AM 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0000 0 0000
7:45 AM 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0000 0 0000
8:00 AM 1 9 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0000 0 0000
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000
8:45 AM 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 3 33 0 0 4 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 45 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 8% 92% 0% 0% 67% 33% 33% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 36 / 34 6 / 6 3 / 0 0 / 5 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 2 28 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 34 0000
APPROACH % 7% 93% 0% 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.750 0.375 0.250 0.000 0.654
APP/DEPART 30 / 28 3 / 3 1 / 0 0 / 3 0
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
4:15 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0000 0 0000
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 22% 78% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 9 / 7 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 2 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0000
APPROACH % 25% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.667
APP/DEPART 8 / 6 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 2 0
Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Carls Jr WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Carls Jr

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff
AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:00 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Woodruff Woodruff Carls Jr Carls Jr
3501
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Woodruff LOCATION #: 3
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Carls Jr CONTROL: NO CONTROL
CLASS 3: NOTES: AM ▲
3-AXLE PM N
TRUCKS 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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: 01XX 1 00X0XXX X X X X
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 1 / 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000
APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250
APP/DEPART 1 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
5:15 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 3 / 3 0 / 0 1 / 0 0 / 1 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000
APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.500
APP/DEPART 1 / 2 0 / 0 1 / 0 0 / 0 0
Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Carls Jr WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Carls Jr

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff
AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:00 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Woodruff Woodruff Carls Jr Carls Jr
3502
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Woodruff LOCATION #: 3
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Carls Jr CONTROL: NO CONTROL
CLASS 4: NOTES: AM ▲
4 OR MORE PM N
AXLE MD ◄ W E ►

TRUCKS 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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: 01XX100X0XXX X X X X
7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 20% 80% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 5 / 5 1 / 1 1 / 0 0 / 1 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0000
APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.750
APP/DEPART 3 / 3 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 1 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000
APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250
APP/DEPART 1 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0
Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Carls Jr WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Carls Jr

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff
AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:00 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Woodruff Woodruff Carls Jr Carls Jr
3503
T050223
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC3977
Wed, Apr 26, 23 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 4
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: STOP S
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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: X X X X X 1 X 3 X X 3 1 0 0 0 0 X X X X
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 116 0 0 263 38 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 136 0 0 255 40 433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 164 0 0 279 36 485 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 175 0 0 285 57 527 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 151 0 0 291 42 492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 130 0 0 268 32 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 133 0 0 240 32 415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 149 0 0 234 33 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 1,154 0 0 2,115 310 3,634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 87% 13%
APP/DEPART 0 / 310 55 / 0 1,154 / 1,154 2,425 / 2,170 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 620 0 0 1,123 167 1,940 0 0 0 0
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 87% 13%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.750 0.886 0.943 0.920
APP/DEPART 0 / 167 30 / 0 620 / 620 1,290 / 1,153 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 352 0 0 159 7 539 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 278 0 0 170 9 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 294 0 0 159 11 475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 281 0 0 162 6 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 340 0 0 135 4 486 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 363 0 0 115 6 489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 289 0 0 163 4 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 216 0 0 141 5 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 2,413 0 0 1,204 52 3,743 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 96% 4%
APP/DEPART 0 / 52 74 / 0 2,413 / 2,413 1,256 / 1,278 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 1,205 0 0 650 33 1,937 0 0 0 0
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 95% 5%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.583 0.856 0.954 0.898
APP/DEPART 0 / 33 49 / 0 1,205 / 1,205 683 / 699 0
Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Jurupa WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Jurupa

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:00 PM
RTOR
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Ontario
Woodruff
Jurupa

U-TURNS
Woodruff Woodruff Jurupa Jurupa
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3504
129 129 0 0 TOTAL 362
74 74 0 0 PM 52
55 55 0 0 AM 310
2,425 1,256 3,681
3,448 1,278 2,170
310
52 362
2,115 1,204 3,319
TOTAL
PM
AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
AM
PM
TOTAL
3,567 2,413 1,154
0 0 0
1,154 2,413 3,567
3,567 2,413 1,154
0 AM 0 0 0 0
0 PM 0 0 0 0
0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
79 79 0 0 TOTAL 200
49 49 0 0 PM 33
30 30 0 0 AM 167
1,290
683
1,973
1,852
699
1,153
167
33 200
1,123
650
1,773
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
1,825 1,205
620
PM 4:00 PM
3:45 PM
0 0 0
620
1,205 1,825
1,825 1,205
620
0 AM 0 0 0 0
0 PM 0 0 0 0
0 Total 0 0 0 0
Woodruff
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Woodruff
Jurupa
Jurupa
Ontario
SC3977

ALL HOURS
Woodruff
Woodruff
Jurupa
Jurupa

PEAK HOUR
3505
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Woodruff LOCATION #: 4
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Jurupa CONTROL: STOP S
CLASS 2: NOTES: AM ▲
2-AXLE PM N
WORK MD ◄ W E ►

VEHICLES/ OTHER S
TRUCKS OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: XXXXX1X3XX31 X X X X
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 12 1 27 0000 0 0000
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 9 6 32 0000 0 0000
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 15 4 34 0000 0 0000
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 14 10 47 0000 0 0000
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 18 0 0 16 10 46 0000 0 0000
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 0 0 15 0 38 0000 0 0000
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 13 1 32 0000 0 0000
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 23 0 0 21 4 50 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 149 0 0 115 36 306 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 76% 24%
APP/DEPART 0 / 36 6 / 0 149 / 149 151 / 121 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 77 0 0 60 24 165 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 71% 29%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.500 0.837 0.808 0.878
APP/DEPART 0 / 24 4 / 0 77 / 77 84 / 64 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 12 1 30 0000 0 0000
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 9 3 25 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 7 3 16 0000 0 0000
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 14 1 19 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 17 0 28 0000 0 0000
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 14 0000 0 0000
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 8 0 13 0000 0 0000
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 15 1 26 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 88 9 171 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 91% 9%
APP/DEPART 0 / 9 0 / 0 74 / 74 97 / 88 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 42 8 90 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 84% 16%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.588 0.833 0.750
APP/DEPART 0 / 8 0 / 0 40 / 40 50 / 42 0
Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Jurupa WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Jurupa

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:00 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Woodruff Woodruff Jurupa Jurupa
3506
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Woodruff LOCATION #: 4
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Jurupa CONTROL: STOP S
CLASS 3: NOTES: AM ▲
3-AXLE PM N
TRUCKS 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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: XXXX X 1X3XX31 X X X X
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 7 0000 0 0000
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 12 0000 0 0000
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 6 0 16 0000 0 0000
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 3 0 11 0000 0 0000
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 1 8 0000 0 0000
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 7 0 15 0000 0 0000
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 8 0000 0 0000
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 2 0 11 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 49 0 0 37 1 88 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 97% 3%
APP/DEPART 0 / 1 1 / 0 49 / 49 38 / 38 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 20 1 50 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 95% 5%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.725 0.750 0.781
APP/DEPART 0 / 1 0 / 0 29 / 29 21 / 20 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0000 0 0000
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 8 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 10 0000 0 0000
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 1 10 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 7 0000 0 0000
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 7 0000 0 0000
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 0 12 0000 0 0000
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 6 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 35 3 67 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 92% 8%
APP/DEPART 0 / 3 0 / 0 29 / 29 38 / 35 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 19 1 35 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 95% 5%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.469 0.714 0.875
APP/DEPART 0 / 1 0 / 0 15 / 15 20 / 19 0
Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Jurupa WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Jurupa

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:00 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Woodruff Woodruff Jurupa Jurupa
3507
DATE: LOCATION: Ontario PROJECT #: SC3977
4/26/23 NORTH & SOUTH: Woodruff LOCATION #: 4
WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST: Jurupa CONTROL: STOP S
CLASS 4: NOTES: AM ▲
4 OR MORE PM N
AXLE MD ◄ W E ►

TRUCKS 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 NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES: XXXXX1X3XX31 X X X X
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 18 1 32 0000 0 0000
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 21 1 43 0000 0 0000
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 20 1 47 0000 0 0000
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 19 0 36 0000 0 0000
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 19 1 44 0000 0 0000
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 21 0 35 0000 0 0000
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 21 0 0 21 1 44 0000 0 0000
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 25 0 51 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 162 0 0 164 5 332 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 97% 3%
APP/DEPART 0 / 5 1 / 0 162 / 162 169 / 165 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 79 2 162 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 98% 2%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.779 0.964 0.862
APP/DEPART 0 / 2 0 / 0 81 / 81 81 / 79 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 13 0 32 0000 0 0000
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 17 0 33 0000 0 0000
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 12 0 33 0000 0 0000
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 22 1 37 0000 0 0000
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 9 0 27 0000 0 0000
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 7 0 21 0000 0 0000
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 19 0 35 0000 0 0000
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 15 0 29 0000 0 0000
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 114 1 247 0000 0 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 99% 1%
APP/DEPART 0 / 1 0 / 0 132 / 132 115 / 114 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 64 1 135 0000
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 98% 2%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.707 0.912
APP/DEPART 0 / 1 0 / 0 70 / 70 65 / 64 0
Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Jurupa WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Jurupa

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:00 PM

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]

U-TURNS RTOR
Woodruff Woodruff Jurupa Jurupa
3508
A16123
DATE: CITY: Ontario
JOB #: SC3977 LOCATION: CLASS1 Jurupa east of Rockefeller AM PM
TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL
0:00 73 1 1 22 0 0 97 12:00 172 11 9 16 0 1 209
0:15 95 0 0 12 0 0 107 12:15 133 15 6 26 0 0 1800:30 116 3 2 11 0 0 132 12:30 183 23 6 25 0 0 237 0:45 67 2 3 13 0 0 85 12:45 182 20 4 27 0 0 2331:00 68 2 1 11 0 0 82 13:00 151 21 3 32 0 1 2081:15 62 1 3 12 0 0 78 13:15 185 14 10 19 0 0 2281:30 42 5 3 14 0 0 64 13:30 204 21 7 28 0 0 2601:45 36 1 2 9 0 0 48 13:45 224 18 6 26 0 0 2742:00 43 4 4 15 0 0 66 14:00 222 18 8 29 0 1 2782:15 55 0 2 16 0 0 73 14:15 204 12 5 27 0 0 2482:30 53 2 1 8 0 0 64 14:30 314 27 8 11 0 0 3602:45 38 0 4 11 0 0 53 14:45 258 18 4 18 0 0 2983:00 53 3 2 8 0 0 66 15:00 219 16 9 19 0 1 2643:15 37 1 3 5 0 0 46 15:15 255 9 9 16 0 0 2893:30 36 1 0 15 0 0 52 15:30 295 13 6 20 0 0 3343:45 38 2 5 12 0 0 57 15:45 247 14 2 16 0 0 279 4:00 37 0 2 13 0 0 52 16:00 321 17 0 19 0 0 357
4:15 37 1 3 14 0 0 55 16:15 246 13 2 16 0 1 2784:30 41 2 4 11 0 0 58 16:30 265 6 5 21 0 0 2974:45 47 2 7 5 0 1 62 16:45 260 4 8 14 0 0 2865:00 34 2 1 6 0 0 43 17:00 318 11 4 18 0 0 3515:15 35 10 1 12 0 0 58 17:15 322 8 2 14 0 1 3475:30 60 5 4 7 0 0 76 17:30 258 5 5 16 0 0 2845:45 58 7 7 7 0 1 80 17:45 197 6 3 14 0 0 2206:00 65 12 7 10 0 0 94 18:00 231 4 1 8 0 0 2446:15 58 9 3 12 0 0 82 18:15 206 6 3 16 0 0 2316:30 117 24 6 14 0 0 161 18:30 229 4 6 11 0 1 251 6:45 92 16 7 21 0 1 137 18:45 194 13 3 7 0 0 2177:00 85 14 3 13 0 0 115 19:00 160 8 1 10 0 0 1797:15 91 16 7 21 0 0 135 19:15 175 12 4 15 0 0 2067:30 114 14 10 26 0 0 164 19:30 185 8 2 6 0 0 201 7:45 126 23 7 17 0 1 174 19:45 169 13 4 11 0 0 197
8:00 110 18 3 24 0 0 155 20:00 152 6 3 14 0 0 175
8:15 95 22 8 14 0 0 139 20:15 176 8 2 7 0 0 1938:30 92 18 2 21 0 0 133 20:30 171 4 0 8 0 0 1838:45 90 23 8 26 0 1 148 20:45 145 7 1 13 0 0 1669:00 119 26 10 29 0 0 184 21:00 164 2 1 10 0 0 177 9:15 94 48 4 22 0 0 168 21:15 122 3 2 10 0 0 1379:30 84 34 4 23 0 0 145 21:30 133 2 1 12 0 0 1489:45 106 17 5 28 0 1 157 21:45 110 1 4 14 0 0 129 10:00 91 22 2 25 0 0 140 22:00 125 1 3 5 0 0 13410:15 85 18 6 25 0 0 134 22:15 98 3 2 11 0 0 11410:30 113 28 5 27 0 0 173 22:30 126 2 1 6 0 0 13510:45 115 25 8 19 0 0 167 22:45 95 1 1 12 0 0 10911:00 146 20 6 21 0 1 194 23:00 80 1 0 13 0 0 9411:15 133 20 7 27 0 0 187 23:15 96 0 2 9 0 0 10711:30 150 18 4 20 0 0 192 23:30 83 2 1 11 0 0 9711:45 129 24 7 25 0 0 185 23:45 68 1 1 15 0 0 85 TOTAL 3,761 566 204 779 0 7 5,317 TOTAL 9,128 452 180 741 0 7 10,508 AM PEAK HOUR 11:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 758 AM PEAK VOLUME 1,281
CLASS 1 PASSENGER VEHICLES TOTAL: AM+PM 12,889 1,018 384 1,520 0 14 15,825 CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 81.4% 6.4% 2.4% 9.6% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKSCLASS 4 4 OR MORE AXLE TRUCKSCLASS 5 RV TOTAL: ALL 25,249 1,770 684 2,949 1 33 30,686 CLASS 6 Buses % OF TOTAL 82.3% 5.8% 2.2% 9.6% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0% 24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Wednesday, April 26, 2023
EB EB
3509
A16123
DATE: CITY: OntarioJOB #: SC3977 LOCATION: CLASS1 Jurupa east of Rockefeller AM PM
TIME 123456 TOTAL Time 123456 TOTAL
0:00 49 2 3 8 0 0 62 12:00 125 12 5 25 0 0 1670:15 34 1 2 7 0 0 44 12:15 129 15 4 26 0 0 174 0:30 36 2 1 4 0 0 43 12:30 130 14 6 26 0 0 176
0:45 52 0 0 6 0 0 58 12:45 123 14 7 16 0 1 161
1:00 39 1 0 5 0 0 45 13:00 139 12 4 31 0 0 186
1:15 46 2 1 6 0 0 55 13:15 146 18 5 26 0 0 1951:30 35 0 1 10 0 0 46 13:30 171 16 3 26 0 0 216 1:45 46 1 3 12 0 0 62 13:45 181 17 10 24 0 1 233
2:00 36 1 2 5 0 0 44 14:00 128 14 8 24 0 0 174
2:15 41 2 2 7 0 0 52 14:15 137 14 5 15 1 0 1722:30 46 1 0 7 0 0 54 14:30 147 6 7 12 0 0 172 2:45 81 0 1 11 0 0 93 14:45 175 5 7 23 0 0 210
3:00 74 0 3 9 0 0 86 15:00 132 10 7 19 0 1 169
3:15 116 3 1 11 0 0 131 15:15 127 11 5 18 0 0 161
3:30 151 1 1 9 0 0 162 15:30 179 9 2 23 0 0 2133:45 138 5 1 11 0 0 155 15:45 150 9 6 18 0 1 184 4:00 112 3 2 7 0 0 124 16:00 171 11 7 13 0 0 202
4:15 105 6 4 7 0 0 122 16:15 139 5 6 17 0 0 167
4:30 171 1 2 11 0 0 185 16:30 136 7 5 12 0 0 1604:45 242 4 1 15 0 0 262 16:45 133 7 1 22 0 0 163 5:00 180 4 3 13 0 0 200 17:00 115 17 3 8 0 1 144
5:15 171 4 1 12 0 0 188 17:15 116 6 3 7 0 0 132
5:30 245 7 4 7 0 1 264 17:30 127 8 2 19 0 0 1565:45 303 8 3 16 0 0 330 17:45 100 15 3 14 0 1 133 6:00 234 7 2 9 0 0 252 18:00 120 10 1 13 0 0 144
6:15 258 20 5 21 0 0 304 18:15 105 7 1 6 0 0 119
6:30 204 11 6 16 0 1 238 18:30 99 7 4 14 0 0 124
6:45 274 15 4 19 0 0 312 18:45 120 2 1 4 0 1 128
7:00 239 12 3 18 0 1 273 19:00 114 4 2 12 0 0 1327:15 216 9 3 21 0 1 250 19:15 130 0 1 6 0 0 137 7:30 235 9 6 19 0 1 270 19:30 129 5 2 10 0 1 147
7:45 266 14 3 19 0 1 303 19:45 104 1 1 10 0 0 116
8:00 245 18 4 18 0 0 285 20:00 83 4 3 14 0 0 104
8:15 230 16 7 21 0 0 274 20:15 111 1 1 10 0 0 1238:30 193 10 6 25 0 1 235 20:30 100 1 2 8 0 0 111 8:45 167 23 3 25 0 0 218 20:45 83 2 0 9 0 0 94
9:00 185 18 8 29 0 1 241 21:00 98 3 1 15 0 0 117
9:15 121 13 5 25 0 0 164 21:15 81 1 1 12 0 0 95
9:30 153 13 5 23 0 1 195 21:30 76 0 0 8 0 0 849:45 134 19 6 24 0 0 183 21:45 86 2 1 10 0 0 99 10:00 108 19 8 22 0 0 157 22:00 87 0 0 15 0 0 102
10:15 148 23 4 27 0 0 202 22:15 62 1 0 12 0 0 75
10:30 135 11 6 23 0 0 175 22:30 50 0 1 8 0 0 59
10:45 135 16 3 15 0 1 170 22:45 54 2 0 7 0 0 63
11:00 101 21 3 26 0 0 151 23:00 67 0 1 4 0 0 72
11:15 106 18 3 33 0 0 160 23:15 60 1 1 2 0 0 64
11:30 126 14 6 32 0 0 178 23:30 65 1 0 4 0 0 70
11:45 111 17 3 20 0 1 152 23:45 47 0 0 6 0 0 53
TOTAL 6,873 425 154 746 0 11 8,209 TOTAL 5,487 327 146 683 1 8 6,652 AM PEAK HOUR 5:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 1,150 AM PEAK VOLUME 830
CLASS 1 PASSENGER VEHICLES TOTAL: AM+PM 12,360 752 300 1,429 1 19 14,861CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 83.2% 5.1% 2.0% 9.6% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKSCLASS 4 4 OR MORE AXLE TRUCKSCLASS 5 RVCLASS 6 BUS 24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Wednesday, April 26, 2023
WB WB
3510
15364-03 TA Letter

ATTACHMENT B
EXISTING (2023) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS
3511
Timings Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364)
1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/10/2023
Existing (2023) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Ø3
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 129 683 37 1157 8 5 160 1 60
Future Volume (vph) 129 683 37 1157 8 5 160 1 60
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52168174 3
Permitted Phases 8 4
Detector Phase 521681744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 35.5 9.6 35.5 36.6 9.6 9.6 37.2 37.2 9.6 Total Split (s) 10.0 37.8 9.6 37.4 36.6 9.6 11.0 38.0 38.0 9.6 Total Split (%) 10.5% 39.8% 10.1% 39.4% 38.5% 10.1% 11.6% 40.0% 40.0% 10% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.5 3.6 5.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.2 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 5.9 30.0 5.4 24.2 13.7 11.4 7.9 16.9 16.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.48 0.09 0.39 0.22 0.18 0.13 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.29 0.25 0.69 0.03 0.01 0.75 0.00 0.12
Control Delay 71.2 13.9 39.1 19.6 21.9 0.0 56.2 16.0 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 71.2 13.9 39.1 19.6 21.9 0.0 56.2 16.0 0.4

LOS E B D B C A E B A
Approach Delay 23.0 20.1 15.6 40.8
Approach LOS C C B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 95
Actuated Cycle Length: 62.4
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.0 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 3512
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364) 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/10/2023
Existing (2023) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 129 683 2 37 1157 142 0 8 5 160 1 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 129 683 2 37 1157 142 0 8 5 160 1 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 137 727 1 39 1231 141 0 9 3 170 1 58 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, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 173 2358 3 73 1820 208 3 66 121 205 436 370
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5349 7 1810 4720 541 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 137 470 258 39 902 470 0 9 3 170 1 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1898 1810 1729 1803 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 5.0 5.0 1.2 12.2 12.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 5.2 0.0 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 5.0 5.0 1.2 12.2 12.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 5.2 0.0 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 173 1525 837 73 1334 695 3 66 121 205 436 370 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.31 0.31 0.53 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.83 0.00 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 173 1919 1053 160 1894 987 160 1078 977 205 1105 936 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.0 10.2 10.2 26.5 14.4 14.4 0.0 26.4 24.2 24.5 16.7 17.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.0 0.1 0.2 2.2 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 22.4 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 1.3 1.5 0.5 3.5 3.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 10.3 10.4 28.8 15.0 15.6 0.0 27.3 24.3 46.9 16.7 17.6 LnGrp LOS D B B C B B A C C D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 865 1411 12 229
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.8 15.6 26.6 39.3
Approach LOS B B C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 31.4 0.0 18.2 10.0 28.3 11.0 7.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 5.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 * 5.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 31.3 5.0 32.8 5.4 30.9 6.4 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 7.0 0.0 3.6 6.2 14.2 7.2 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 3513
Timings Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364)
1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/10/2023
Existing (2023) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 98 1059 42 636 1 23 90 269 12 102
Future Volume (vph) 98 1059 42 636 1 23 90 269 12 102
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 521638174
Permitted Phases 8 4
Detector Phase 5216381744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 35.5 9.6 35.5 9.6 36.6 9.6 9.6 37.2 37.2 Total Split (s) 11.3 37.4 9.6 35.7 9.6 36.6 9.6 21.4 48.4 48.4 Total Split (%) 10.8% 35.6% 9.1% 34.0% 9.1% 34.9% 9.1% 20.4% 46.1% 46.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.5 3.6 5.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.2 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 7.1 25.7 5.3 20.8 5.3 13.8 16.0 17.5 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.07 0.27 0.07 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.37 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.65 0.36 0.51 0.01 0.19 0.14 0.69 0.02 0.16 Control Delay 57.0 25.9 49.3 25.3 43.0 16.3 0.7 42.1 16.5 2.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.0 25.9 49.3 25.3 43.0 16.3 0.7 42.1 16.5 2.9

LOS E C D C D B A D B A
Approach Delay 28.6 26.7 8.9 30.8
Approach LOS C C A C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 105
Actuated Cycle Length: 76.3
Natural Cycle: 105
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69
Intersection Signal Delay: 27.4 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 3514
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364) 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/10/2023
Existing (2023) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 98 1059 2 42 636 43 1 23 90 269 12 102 Future Volume (veh/h) 98 1059 2 42 636 43 1 23 90 269 12 102 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 104 1127 2 45 677 36 1 56 45 286 13 78 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, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 134 1662 3 78 1411 75 3 254 284 337 605 513
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5347 9 1810 5043 267 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 729 400 45 463 250 1 56 45 286 13 78 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1898 1810 1729 1852 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 11.8 11.8 1.6 7.1 7.2 0.0 1.7 1.5 9.8 0.3 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 11.8 11.8 1.6 7.1 7.2 0.0 1.7 1.5 9.8 0.3 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 1075 590 78 967 518 3 254 284 337 605 513 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.68 0.68 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.35 0.22 0.16 0.85 0.02 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 189 1669 916 141 1577 845 141 950 873 475 1282 1087 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 29.1 19.3 19.3 30.1 19.2 19.2 31.9 24.8 22.3 25.2 15.0 15.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.4 0.8 1.4 2.5 0.4 0.7 25.7 0.4 0.3 7.3 0.0 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 1.6 3.9 4.4 0.7 2.4 2.6 0.0 0.8 0.6 4.5 0.1 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.5 20.0 20.6 32.6 19.5 19.9 57.6 25.2 22.6 32.5 15.0 15.8 LnGrp LOS DCCCBBECCCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1233 758 102 377
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 20.4 24.4 28.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.4 26.4 4.7 25.6 9.3 24.4 16.5 13.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 5.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 * 5.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.9 5.0 43.2 6.7 29.2 16.8 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 13.8 2.0 4.2 5.6 9.2 11.8 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 3515
15364-03 TA Letter

ATTACHMENT C
E+P INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
3516
Timings Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364)
1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/11/2023
Existing plus Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Ø3
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 119 683 37 1157 8 5 145 1 61
Future Volume (vph) 119 683 37 1157 8 5 145 1 61
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52168174 3
Permitted Phases 8 4
Detector Phase 521681744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 35.5 9.6 35.5 36.6 9.6 9.6 37.2 37.2 9.6 Total Split (s) 10.0 37.8 9.6 37.4 36.6 9.6 11.0 38.0 38.0 9.6 Total Split (%) 10.5% 39.8% 10.1% 39.4% 38.5% 10.1% 11.6% 40.0% 40.0% 10% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.5 3.6 5.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.2 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 5.7 33.1 5.3 27.7 13.7 11.5 7.7 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.51 0.08 0.42 0.21 0.18 0.12 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.28 0.27 0.71 0.03 0.01 0.72 0.00 0.12
Control Delay 73.3 13.5 40.4 19.4 22.3 0.0 56.4 17.0 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 73.3 13.5 40.4 19.4 22.3 0.0 56.4 17.0 0.5

LOS E B D B C A E B A
Approach Delay 22.4 19.9 16.0 39.7
Approach LOS C B B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 95
Actuated Cycle Length: 65.5
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80
Intersection Signal Delay: 22.3 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 3517
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364) 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/11/2023
Existing plus Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 119 683 2 37 1157 281 0 8 5 145 1 61 Future Volume (veh/h) 119 683 2 37 1157 281 0 8 5 145 1 61 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 727 1 39 1231 289 0 9 3 154 1 59 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, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 163 2470 3 73 1729 406 3 66 120 195 419 355
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5349 7 1810 4196 985 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 127 470 258 39 1015 505 0 9 3 154 1 59 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1898 1810 1729 1723 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 5.0 5.0 1.2 14.3 14.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.9 0.0 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 5.0 5.0 1.2 14.3 14.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.9 0.0 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 163 1597 877 73 1425 710 3 66 120 195 419 355 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.29 0.29 0.54 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.79 0.00 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 166 1844 1012 154 1820 907 154 1036 941 197 1062 900 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.1 9.8 9.8 27.6 14.4 14.4 0.0 27.5 25.2 25.5 17.8 18.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.8 0.1 0.2 2.3 0.9 1.9 0.0 0.9 0.1 17.6 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 1.3 1.5 0.5 4.2 4.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 9.9 10.0 29.9 15.3 16.3 0.0 28.4 25.3 43.1 17.8 18.7 LnGrp LOS D A B C B B A C C D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 855 1559 12 214
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.2 16.0 27.6 36.3
Approach LOS B B C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 33.6 0.0 18.1 9.9 30.7 10.9 7.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 5.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 * 5.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 31.3 5.0 32.8 5.4 30.9 6.4 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 7.0 0.0 3.7 6.0 16.3 6.9 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 3518
Timings Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364)
1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/11/2023
Existing plus Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 92 1059 42 636 1 23 90 251 12 133
Future Volume (vph) 92 1059 42 636 1 23 90 251 12 133
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 521638174
Permitted Phases 8 4
Detector Phase 5216381744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 35.5 9.6 35.5 9.6 36.6 9.6 9.6 37.2 37.2 Total Split (s) 11.3 37.4 9.6 35.7 9.6 36.6 9.6 21.4 48.4 48.4 Total Split (%) 10.8% 35.6% 9.1% 34.0% 9.1% 34.9% 9.1% 20.4% 46.1% 46.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.5 3.6 5.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.2 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 7.3 26.1 5.4 20.9 5.4 14.0 16.0 16.3 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.35 0.07 0.28 0.07 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.37 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.63 0.35 0.52 0.01 0.18 0.14 0.69 0.02 0.21 Control Delay 53.6 25.5 48.7 25.0 43.0 16.2 0.7 42.4 16.5 4.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.6 25.5 48.7 25.0 43.0 16.2 0.7 42.4 16.5 4.3

LOS D C D C D B A D B A
Approach Delay 27.8 26.4 8.9 28.8
Approach LOS C C A C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 105
Actuated Cycle Length: 75.4
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69
Intersection Signal Delay: 26.6 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 3519
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364) 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/11/2023
Existing plus Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 1059 2 42 636 61 1 23 90 251 12 133 Future Volume (veh/h) 92 1059 2 42 636 61 1 23 90 251 12 133 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 1127 2 45 677 55 1 56 45 267 13 110 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, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 126 1674 3 78 1402 113 3 257 287 319 589 499 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5347 9 1810 4892 395 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 729 400 45 477 255 1 56 45 267 13 110 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1898 1810 1729 1829 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 11.5 11.5 1.5 7.2 7.3 0.0 1.7 1.5 9.0 0.3 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 11.5 11.5 1.5 7.2 7.3 0.0 1.7 1.5 9.0 0.3 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 126 1083 594 78 991 524 3 257 287 319 589 499 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.48 0.49 0.35 0.22 0.16 0.84 0.02 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 193 1700 933 144 1606 849 144 967 888 484 1306 1106 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 28.8 18.8 18.8 29.5 18.6 18.6 31.4 24.2 21.8 25.0 15.1 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 0.7 1.3 2.5 0.4 0.7 24.6 0.4 0.3 4.8 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 3.8 4.3 0.6 2.4 2.6 0.0 0.7 0.6 4.0 0.1 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.2 19.5 20.1 32.0 18.9 19.3 56.0 24.6 22.1 29.9 15.1 16.3 LnGrp LOS C B C C B B E C C C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1227 777 102 390
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.8 19.8 23.8 25.6
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 26.2 4.7 24.7 9.0 24.5 15.7 13.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 5.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 * 5.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.9 5.0 43.2 6.7 29.2 16.8 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 13.5 2.0 5.2 5.3 9.3 11.0 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 3520
15364-03 TA Letter

ATTACHMENT D

HORIZON YEAR WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
3521
Timings Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364)
1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/11/2023
Horizon Year (2045) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Ø3
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 189 1107 41 1506 9 7 304 1 107
Future Volume (vph) 189 1107 41 1506 9 7 304 1 107
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 52168174 3
Permitted Phases 8 4
Detector Phase 521681744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 35.5 9.6 35.5 36.6 9.6 9.6 37.2 37.2 9.6 Total Split (s) 10.0 37.8 9.6 37.4 36.6 9.6 11.0 38.0 38.0 9.6 Total Split (%) 10.5% 39.8% 10.1% 39.4% 38.5% 10.1% 11.6% 40.0% 40.0% 10% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.5 3.6 5.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.2 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 5.6 36.7 5.2 31.8 13.6 11.8 8.5 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.52 0.07 0.45 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio 1.42 0.44 0.33 0.87 0.03 0.02 1.49 0.00 0.23
Control Delay 252.7 14.8 43.1 24.9 22.6 0.2 269.5 17.0 2.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 252.7 14.8 43.1 24.9 22.6 0.2 269.5 17.0 2.7

LOS F B D C C A F B A
Approach Delay 49.4 25.3 14.7 199.5
Approach LOS D C B F
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 95
Actuated Cycle Length: 70.3
Natural Cycle: 135
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.49
Intersection Signal Delay: 53.4 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 3522
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364) 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/11/2023
Horizon Year (2045) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 189 1107 2 41 1506 395 0 9 7 304 1 107 Future Volume (veh/h) 189 1107 2 41 1506 395 0 9 7 304 1 107 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 201 1178 1 44 1602 410 0 10 5 323 1 108 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, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 150 2666 2 76 1887 477 3 77 133 178 398 337
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5353 5 1810 4127 1044 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 201 761 418 44 1339 673 0 10 5 323 1 108 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1899 1810 1729 1712 1810 1900 1607 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 9.2 9.2 1.6 22.3 22.9 0.0 0.3 0.2 6.4 0.0 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4 9.2 9.2 1.6 22.3 22.9 0.0 0.3 0.2 6.4 0.0 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 150 1722 946 76 1581 783 3 77 133 178 398 337 V/C Ratio(X) 1.34 0.44 0.44 0.58 0.85 0.86 0.00 0.13 0.04 1.82 0.00 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 150 1722 946 139 1640 812 139 933 857 178 957 811 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 10.5 10.5 30.6 15.7 15.8 0.0 30.1 27.5 29.4 20.4 21.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 190.9 0.2 0.3 2.6 4.2 9.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 388.8 0.0 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 10.0 2.5 2.8 0.7 7.3 8.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 21.8 0.0 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 220.7 10.7 10.8 33.2 19.9 24.8 0.0 30.9 27.6 418.2 20.4 22.4 LnGrp LOS F B B C B C A C C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1380 2056 15 432
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.3 21.8 29.8 318.3
Approach LOS D C C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 38.9 0.0 18.8 10.0 36.3 11.0 7.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 5.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 * 5.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 31.3 5.0 32.8 5.4 30.9 6.4 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 11.2 0.0 5.7 7.4 24.9 8.4 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 61.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 3523
Timings Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364)
1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/11/2023
Horizon Year (2045) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 140 1372 46 866 1 25 99 330 14 193 Future Volume (vph) 140 1372 46 866 1 25 99 330 14 193
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 521638174
Permitted Phases 8 4
Detector Phase 5216381744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 35.5 9.6 35.5 9.6 36.6 9.6 9.6 37.2 37.2 Total Split (s) 11.3 37.4 9.6 35.7 9.6 36.6 9.6 21.4 48.4 48.4 Total Split (%) 10.8% 35.6% 9.1% 34.0% 9.1% 34.9% 9.1% 20.4% 46.1% 46.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.5 3.6 5.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.2 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 7.0 30.7 5.3 26.0 5.3 13.9 16.1 17.6 29.8 29.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.38 0.07 0.32 0.07 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.37 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.75 0.42 0.63 0.01 0.22 0.16 0.90 0.02 0.28 Control Delay 106.7 27.6 54.5 26.1 44.0 17.0 0.8 62.8 17.6 4.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 106.7 27.6 54.5 26.1 44.0 17.0 0.8 62.8 17.6 4.0

LOS F C D C D BAEBA
Approach Delay 35.0 27.4 9.4 40.5
Approach LOS C C A D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 105
Actuated Cycle Length: 81.4
Natural Cycle: 115
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96
Intersection Signal Delay: 32.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 3524
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Woodruff Logistics Center (JN 15364) 1: Rockefeller Avenue & Jurupa Street 05/11/2023
Horizon Year (2045) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 1372 2 46 866 103 1 25 99 330 14 193 Future Volume (veh/h) 140 1372 2 46 866 103 1 25 99 330 14 193 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 149 1460 2 49 921 100 1 63 51 351 15 174 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, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 158 1859 3 76 1436 155 2 232 264 389 638 541 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5349 7 1810 4751 514 1810 1900 1606 1810 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 149 944 518 49 670 351 1 63 51 351 15 174 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1899 1810 1729 1807 1810 1900 1606 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 18.8 18.8 2.0 12.8 12.9 0.0 2.3 2.1 14.5 0.4 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 18.8 18.8 2.0 12.8 12.9 0.0 2.3 2.1 14.5 0.4 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 158 1201 660 76 1045 546 2 232 264 389 638 541 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.79 0.79 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.40 0.27 0.19 0.90 0.02 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 158 1395 766 118 1318 689 118 794 739 397 1072 908 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 34.8 22.4 22.4 36.1 23.1 23.1 38.2 30.5 27.6 29.3 17.0 18.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 53.7 2.6 4.7 3.3 0.7 1.4 34.6 0.6 0.4 22.2 0.0 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 4.9 6.8 7.9 0.9 4.6 4.9 0.0 1.1 0.8 8.3 0.2 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.4 25.1 27.1 39.4 23.8 24.5 72.8 31.1 28.0 51.4 17.0 19.3 LnGrp LOS F CCDCCECCDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1611 1070 115 540
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.6 24.8 30.1 40.1
Approach LOS CCCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 33.1 4.7 30.9 11.3 29.6 21.1 14.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 5.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 * 5.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.9 5.0 43.2 6.7 29.2 16.8 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 20.8 2.0 8.2 8.3 14.9 16.5 4.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 3525
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PSPA22-006, AN AMENDMENT TO

THE CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL/FOOD/HOTEL TO

LIGHT INDUSTRAIL, UPDATE EXHIBITS AND TEXT TO SUPPORT THE

CHANGE, AND BRING THE SPECIFIC PLAN INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 (GENERAL PLAN), ON 16.65 ACRES OF

LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
ROCKEFELLER AVENUE AND WANAMAKER AVENUE, AT 1350 AND
1375 S. WOODRUFF WAY, WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA COMMERCE

CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF—APNS: 0238-201-41 AND 0238-221-22.

WHEREAS, LINK LOGISTICS REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, LLC (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) has filed an Application for the approval of an amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan, File No. PSPA22-006, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as Application or Project); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 16.65 acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Rockefeller and Wanamaker Avenues, at 1350 and 1375 South Woodruff Way within the proposed Light Industrial land use designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan, and is presently improved with two commercial buildings (Citrus Motors); and
WHEREAS, the properties to the north and west of the Project site are located within the Light Industrial land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan, and are developed with industrial buildings. The property to the east of the project site is the Interstate-15 Freeway (I-15). The properties to the south of the project site are located within the Commercial / Food / Hotel land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan and are developed with a gas station and fast-food drive-thru restaurant; and
WHEREAS, the Application has been submitted in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 20559 (File No. PMTT22-025) to consolidate two existing parcels into one and facilitate the vacation of a portion of Woodruff Way, and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034) to demolish the existing commercial buildings (approximately 161,320 square feet) and construct one 343,110 square-foot industrial building; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan to modify the land use designation on the Project site from Commercial / Food / Hotel to Light Industrial to support the Project and bring the property into compliance with TOP 2050’s Land Use Plan, which designates the property as Industrial (0.55 Floor Area Ratio [FAR]); and
3526
WHEREAS, the amendment includes graphic and textual modifications throughout to support the proposed Project, and the document has been appended to this Resolution as Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as Certified SEIR), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as SEIR Addendum) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this project were thoroughly analyzed in the SEIR Addendum, which concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR, and that the Certified SEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as CEQA) and an SEIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within San 3527
Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, at the September 26, 2023, hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the October 24, 2023, hearing date; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the SEIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-078, recommending the City Council adopt the SEIR Addendum, and voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-079, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on November 21, 2023, the City Council issued a Resolution adopting the SEIR Addendum, finding that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts and applying all previously adopted mitigation measures to the Project, which were incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1. Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 2. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
3528
On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and
SECTION 3. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The Project site’s current zoning (Commercial / Food / Hotel land use designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan) is inconsistent with the Policy Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial (0.55 FAR). With the Project’s conditions of approval, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Light Industrial would make the Project site consistent with the Policy Plan, as well as the Vision and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, as it would facilitate the development of a well-designed industrial building in keeping with, and complementary to, the existing industrial neighborhood surrounding the Project site. (2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed modifications established by the Specific Plan Amendment have been created with the intent to safeguard and further the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and/or general welfare, and to ensure that the purposes of The Ontario Plan 2050 and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, are maintained. The Project site is located within an existing industrial neighborhood; as such, an industrial development is an appropriate land use for the site.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The location of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and the proposed conditions under which future developments will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050 and the City’s Development Plan, and, therefore, 3529
will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The Project site is located within an existing industrial neighborhood; as such, an industrial development is an appropriate land use for the site. (4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment has been reviewed by all City departments, which have established that the project site is physically suitable for the anticipated development in terms of parcel size, shape, and availability of utilities. Development of the Project site is subject to Planning Commission review and approval of the related development entitlements (File Nos. PMTT22-025 and PDEV22-034), which have also been reviewed by all City departments and conditioned to ensure that the proposed development is appropriate for the Project site. Lastly, the Project site exceeds the Specific Plan and Development Code minimum requirements for lot size and dimensions and proposed development does not exceed the maximum FAR as prescribed by The Ontario Plan 2050.

SECTION 4. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Specific Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Attachment A, and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5. Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
3530
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
3531

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2023 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held November 21, 2023 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2023 duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held November 21, 2023. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
3532
ATTACHMENT A:

Amended California Commerce Center Specific Plan,
for File No. PSPA22-006
(Document follows this page)
3533

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE
CENTER
Ontario, California
Specific Specific Plan

FIRST APPROVAL
JANUARY 1983
REVISED DECEMBER 31, 1990

AS AMENDED THROUGH
JUNE 19, 2018
3534
3535
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
.

I . INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1-1 A . PURPOSE OF SPECIFIC PLAN ................................ 1-1 B . AUTHORITY ............................................ 1-1 C . DEFINITIONS ........................................... 1-1 I1 . PLANNING CONCEPTS ........................................... 11-1 A . GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................. 11-1 5 . VISUALIMAGE ......................................... 11-1 C . COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE .................... 11-2 Ill . GENERAL NOTES ............................................... llI-1 IV . SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................... 1V-I A . PROJECT LOCATION ..................................... IV-1 1 . REGIONAL CONTEXT ............................... IV-1 2 . AREACONTEXT ................................... iV-1 B . SITE CONDITIONS-EXISTING LAND USES ...................... IV-7 C . EXISTING CIRCULATION .................................. IV-7 1 . REGlONAL CIRCULATION ............................ IV-7 2 . LOCAL CIRCULATION ............................... IV-7 D . EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS .......................... IV+12 1 . TOPOGRAPHY ................................... IV-12 2 . GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................. IV-I 2 3 . CLIMATE ....................................... IV-12 4 . SEISMICITY ..................................... IV-12 5 . HYDROLOGY .................................... IV-12 6 . VEGETATION .................................... IV-16 E . - EXISTING UTILITIES ..................................... IV-18 1 . SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ........................... IV-18 2 . WATER ........................................ 1V-18 3 . GAS .......................................... 1V-18 4 . ELECTRICITY .................................... IV-18 5 . TELEPHONE ..................................... IV-18 6 . WASTEWATER ................................... IV-23 V . COMPONENT PLANS ............................................ V-1 A . LAND USE CONCEPT ..................................... V-1 1 . RAIL INDUSTHIAL USES .............................. V-I 2 . LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES ............................ V-1 3 . OFFICE USES ..................................... V-3 4 . COMMERCIAt/FOOD/HOTEL .......................... V-3 5 . AIRPORT RELATED ALTERNATIVE ...................... V-3 B . PHASING ............................................. V-5 C . CIRCULATION AND ACCESS ............................... V-8 1 . VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SYSTEM .................... V-11 2 . STREET NAMES .................................. V-I1 3 . STREET HIERAHCHY ............................... V-11 4 . RAILROAD ACCESS ............................... V-20 5 . SIDEWALKS ..................................... V-20 .

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPEClFlC PLAN
October 6. f 992 Page i
3536

TABLE OF CONTENTS
D . INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................... 1 . PHASING OF UTILITIES ............................. 2 . STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ............................ 3 . WATERSYSTEM .................................. 4 . WASTEWATER ................................... 5 . PUBLIC UTILITIES ................................. E . UMMUNITY FACtLITlES ................................. 1 . FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION ....................... 2 . OPENSPACE .................................... F . GRADING ............................................. a. LANDSCAPE CONCEPT ................................... 1 . STREETSCAPE .................................... 2 . BUFFER PLANTING ................................. 3 . lNTERSECTlONS ................................... H . LANDSCAPING ..................................

VI . DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA ........................... Vl- 1 A . RAIL INDUSTRIAL ....................................... Vl-1 B . LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ...................................... VI-I C . OFFICE ............................................... VI-1 D . ~OMMERC1ALIFOODtHOTEt ................................ VI-1 E . AIRPORT RELATED ALTERNATIVE ............................ VI-1 F . BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS .......................... VI-1 G . FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S REGULATIONS ON CLEAR ZONESIBUILDING HEIGHTS ............................... VI-24 H . SOUND ATTENUATION CRITERIA ........................... V1-25 I . CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING ADJACENT TO FREEWAYS ........... VI-32 1 . BUILDING ORIENTATION ............................ VI-32 2 . LANDSCAPING ................................... VI-32 J . AIRPORT RESTRICTIVE OVERLAYS .......................... VI-32 1 . PERMITTED USES .................................. VI-32 2 . PROHIBITED USES ................................ VI-33 3 . DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ......................... VI-34 4 . REQUIHED SUBMITTALS ............................ VI-35 K . COMMUNITY FACILITIES .. POL1CE PROTECTION ................ VI-35 V11 . ARCHlTECTURAL/DESIGN CONCEPTS ............................. VI1- 1 A . SIGNAGE AND GRAPHICS ................................ VI1-l 1 . DEFlNlTlON OF SIGN TYPES AND RELATED TERMS ......... VII-1 2 . GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ........................... VII-3 3 . SINGLE BUILDING OCCUPANT IDENTIFICATION: ........... Vll-4 CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECtFlC PLAN
October 6. 1992 Page ii
3537

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page IV-1
IV. SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. PROJECT LOCATION

1. REGIONAL CONTEXT
The California Commerce Center encompasses approximately 1400 acres of agricultural land in Southern California, and is located in the southwest corner of San Bernardino County within the City of Ontario (see Exhibit 1, State of California, and Exhibit 2, Southern California Regional Map). This area is part of the Chino Basin, formed by the San Bernardino Mountains, the Jurupa Mountains, and the Santa Ana Mountains, separated on the west from the Los Angeles Basin by the San Jose Hills. The project is centrally located, being approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County. Neighboring cities include Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Fontana, Chino, and Montclair (see Exhibit 3, Regional Context).

Land uses in the region range from former agricultural lands devoted to citrus/grape production and the raising of dairy cattle, to areas of industrial and residential expansion.

2. AREA CONTEXT

The California Commerce Center is located in the eastern portion of the City of Ontario, immediately adjacent to Ontario International Airport. All development proposals shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The site is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad mainline to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, the San Bernardino County Sanitary Landfill site along Mission Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the east (see Exhibit 4, Area Context, and Exhibit 5, Project Site). 3553

3563

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page V-1
V. COMPONENT PLANS
A. LAND USE CONCEPT
The land uses proposed for the California Commerce Center are Rail Industrial, Light Industrial, Office, Commercial/Food/Hotel, and Miscellaneous Services. Such designations are intended to respond to a wide range of demands for land uses, while offering a variety of development and employment opportunities, all within an integrated setting.

The Land Use Plan has been designed to allow for future flexibility in determining specific land uses and their intensity, so that as market demands changes over time, the project can respond to those changes. The land use plan presented at this time includes 596.9 acres of light industrial, 417.7 acres of rail industrial, 146.8 acres of commercial/food/hotel, and 60.1 acres of office use. However, if demand increases for more office spaces and less industrial space, during the period of project construction, the plan has the flexibility to allow for this.

A major amendment to this Specific Plan would be required as outlined in Section IX.B., Amendment Process Major Amendments, of this document.

The circulation patterns, utility systems, and overall design of the plan can, through project phasing, meet these changes in demand. This is an important concept in a region that is experiencing rapid growth (see Exhibit 17, Land Use Plan. Note that illustrative streets and landscaping designations are shown in Exhibit 34-A-K, Conceptual Landscape Plan).

1. RAIL INDUSTRIAL USES
Rail Industrial uses will be those uses directly serviced by rail lines. These uses will be located at the periphery of the site on parcels closest to the mainlines of the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific Railroad, and are expected to occupy approximately 417.7 acres, or 29.5% of the project site. Building heights will be primarily one story.

2. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES

The Industrial category will include industrial buildings together with administrative business offices associated with permitted uses. Industrial development will consist primarily of corporate manufacturing, research and development, multi-tenant industrial, and corporate terminals with air-related facilities. The buildings will be predominantly single story.

The Industrial category will occupy approximately 596.9 acres, or 42.2% of the project site. 3578
3579

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page V-3

3. OFFICE USES
The Office Development category will include corporate and general offices. Buildings will be of multiple stories ranging from low-rise garden office (one to two stories) in clustered landscaped settings, to more urban, or mid-rise office buildings (three to eight stories).

The Office category will occupy approximately 60.1 acres, or 4% of the project site.

The design guidelines developed for the California Commerce Center will insure compatibility between the light industrial and office uses.

4. COMMERICAL/FOOD/HOTEL
This category will include 146.8 acres, or 10% of the project site, of retail-related services such as food parks, retail facilities, and a hotel complex. The food parks and retail facilities will be located at various points within the project area, and are intended primarily to serve local employees. Food parks will be located within walking distance of many of the industrial/office uses to reduce mid-day automobile travel. Food parks will be landscaped, and may offer open space areas or courtyards to provide a pleasant setting.

The hotel complex will be located near the Ontario Airport and is intended to service air travelers. The complex will be urban in character, multi-story, with retail and office uses on the ground floor and in adjacent buildings.

5. AIRPORT RELATED ALTERNATIVE
This category relates to the 167.4 acres, or 12% of the project site, located east of Haven Avenue, north of Jurupa Street, south of Airport Drive, and west of Commerce Parkway.

This area has potential taxiway access to Ontario International Airport. Uses in this area may include aircraft manufacturing, service, storage, air cargo, airline food service, executive air terminals, general aviation facilities, and other related uses. The proposed streets and taxiways shown on Exhibit 17A, Airport Related Alternative Land Use Plan, are conceptual. More refined configurations will be developed with specific uses are identified.

If this alternative is implemented, development standards will be prepared during the “minor revision process”, based on a more specific development design, and prior to submittal of a specific development plan.

All development proposals shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for additional criteria and policies that may limit the restriction of allowable land uses, allowable FAR, overall site design and building/structure heights. 3580
3581

3585
3586

3589

3603
3604

3607

3614
3615

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-1
VI. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
A. RAIL INDUSTRIAL
B. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
C. OFFICE
D. COMMERCIAL/FOOD/HOTEL
E. AIRPORT RELATED ALTERNATIVE
F. BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS
G. FEDERAL AVIATIQN ADMINISTRATION'S REGULATIONS ON

CLEAR ZONE/BUILDING HEIGHTS
H. SOUND ATTENUATION RITERIA
I. CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING ADJACENT TO FREEWAYS
J. AIRPORT RESTRICTIVE OVERLAYS/AIRPORT RESERVATION

AREA/CLEAR ZONE/LOW EMPLOYEE INTENSITY AREA
The following regulations and criteria establish minimum development standards for the land uses proposed in this project. These regulations shall govern all property within the California Commerce Center and shall supersede the City of Ontario Zoning Ordinance.

The Approving Agent for California Commerce Center shall review al! proposed development plans prior to review and approval by the City of Ontario.

All development proposals shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for additional criteria and policies that may limit the restriction of allowable land uses, allowable FAR, overall site design and building/structure heights.
3659

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-3
A. EXHIBIT 38

RAIL INDUSTRIAL

PERMITTED USES
• Administrative/professional/business offices associated with on-site permitted uses • Distribution/storage/warehousing, within an enclosed structure • Interim agricultural production
• Manufacturing/assembly, testing/repair
• Research/development/laboratories
• Wholesale and limited retail sales of products manufactured or warehoused on-site

LIMITED USES
The following uses require review by the City Planner prior to approval of a site plan or business license. To approve the use at the proposed location, the City Planner must determine that parking, access, and/or any other factors associated with the use or the location will be adequately resolved. • Auto/truck services
All other uses are prohibited unless a finding is made by the Planning Commission that the use is similar to and no more objectionable than a permitted or a limited use.

MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE 2.5 acres
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Refer to Federal Aviation Administration Regulations as shown in Section VI.G
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS Refer to Building Setbacks Summary, Exhibit 48 (Measured from property line)
MINIMUM PARKING SETBACKS Refer to Parking Setbacks Summary, Exhibit 49

PARKING REGULATIONS
(per City of Ontario Parking Standards) Refer to Appendix B

LANDSCAPE

MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
• Minimum landscape coverage Not applicable
• Building front and exterior side setbacks 100%
Parking front and exterior side setbacks 100%
• Front and exterior side building elevations 10’
softened by minimum landscaped area
• Interior side building setback (interior parcels, in 5’ front of concrete screenwall)
• In front of screewalls {sea Exhibit 39) 6’
• All parking visible from any public street must be Front and exterior setbacks shielded by bermed mounding planted with trees,
shrubs, and grass per Mater Streetscape Plan
• Maximum 10 cars between finger type planters, Front, exterior side and interior side (refer to minimum 6’ wide from parking areas (in front of Conceptual Site Plan) concrete screenwall)
• All landscaped area to be delineated with 100%
minimum 6” concrete curb
All development proposals shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for additional criteria and policies that may limit the restriction of allowable land uses, allowable FAR, overall site design and building/structure heights. 3661

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-8
B. EXHIBIT 41

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL

PERMITTED USES
• Administrative/professional/general business offices in conjunction with an on-site permitted use • Airport related uses such as Air Cargo and airline food service facilities (refer to Exhibit 47C, Airport Related Alternative)
• Distribution/storage/warehousing, within an enclosed structure • Manufacturing/assembly/testing/repair
• Research/development/laboratories
• Retail auto center east of 1-15 Freeway and at the northeast corner of Jurupa Street and Woodruff Way, including ancillary uses, e.g., auto repair
• Service industries including, but not limited to: public utilities, printing/lithography, auto rental agencies • Wholesale and limited retail sales of products manufactured or warehoused on-site

LIMITED USES
The following uses require review by the City Planner prior to approval of a site plan or business license. To approve the use at the proposed location, the City Planner must determine that parking, access, and/or any other factors associated with the use or the location will be adequately resolved. • Administrative/professional/general business offices
• Financial institutions
• Medical and healthcare clinics
• Recreation facilities
• Restaurants, sandwich shops, delicatessens, donut shops, etc.

All other uses are prohibited unless a finding is made by the Planning Commission that the use is similar to and no more objectionable than a permitted or a limited use.

MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE 1.0 ACRE EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS:

A subdivision with less than one (1) acre parcels may be permitted subject to the following conditions:
a. Minimum site area shall be twenty (20) acres.
b. · The 20-acre site shall be masterplanned as a unit subject to approval by the City of Ontario Development Advisory Board.
c. Construction must be underway, or building permits must be issued, for those buildings located on the proposed subdivision site.
d. Minimum parcel size under this provision shall be one half (0.5) acre.

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Refer to Federal Aviation Administration Regulations as shown in Section VI.G
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS Refer to Building Setbacks Summary, Exhibit 48 (Measured from property line)
MINIMUM PARKING SETBACKS Refer to Parking Setbacks Summary, Exhibit 49

PARKING REGULATIONS
(per City of Ontario Parking Standards) Refer to Appendix B All development proposals shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for additional criteria and policies that may limit the restriction of allowable land uses, allowable FAR, overall site design and building/structure heights. 3666
B. EXHIBIT 41 (Continued)

LANDSCAPE
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REO.UIREMENTS
•
•
•
•
MinilTIUtn !andsrn,pe coveraqo
Butl,Jing front ,er,d exterW, side
setbacks
Parking front and exterior side sotbook$
Frol't wld cxt11rior side bufiding
elevafams softened by minimum
laodscape.:l al'i!e

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
•
•
lnt11rior sids parldnp setback
(in fnmt of GW11m1t& scro<,.,wal!i
All parldng llis!blc from ,:my public
street mullt be 11hielded by bo11rmed
moundir,U plimted with trees, ehtub&,
and graw p.)f Master Str�e1scapta Piao
Maximum 10 cars bectwe,m finglt<' type
ph:mt.,rs, minimum 6' wid• fr<,mpark'.lng

LOADING AREAS
•
eteas
• AU l11ndsooped 1;r11;,,i to b# (H<'!neated
with mirumum e· ooneraa eurb
100%
10'
ϱΖ ($e" fil<h.ihlts 42 and 43)
Front and extarior 11111.bs,:,ks
100%
1,
i
I.Qttdin1,1 araas .. hall be dttSigned to provide for baeking and mene1.111&1i»g Ort-site and not from a public str&eL Repealed.

3. All loading amm, shall bo, s,m,enad '!rnm adj,..,un\ pareeh, end ttreets. 4, Bw!dif!gs shat! b.l desigrntd per th,;, conceptual site plans shown in C"hib\h! 39, 40, 42, 43 which show loiodlnq aroes primarily looa1ed to the <1id➔ and re;,r oi the bu<ding.

5. Where loading doors front a pubifo 11tr..,r, roll-up donr11 and ,;,pWJings in the aet'fln wall shall bo, po$!tioned such that the d1JOrw arc not visibh, from the sttaet.

6. AU loadlflg araes frontit'!g e p0bl!c street shllll be scroMed by a cOl'tlblnation of s.creer; walls, omamer,taJ !11;,Qseapin9, ar>rifor pori!ons of \he bu:lding such thllt th" ro�·"-P Qo❖r$ we r.M vimbie trnm lhs stree1.

7. lm:idin_g Brtus ar,:d do,,rs riat frm·hr,g a puLl1c ,meet sh;;;!! Im scre,ensd from view cl� public street by umcre�,o w:ng wuils with redwooo 5Wlne.-O oa\e, or equsL 8, LG11ding d::iore fro,oting i;, pibbe st"'"! shell nat b" closer th"" 70' fm•n rm::>pllr1y lino.

9. Al! ;1,:reenwall,a and wing walls shall be II maximum er 14' in height.

10. A a:,ghHim, .ar.1lysis shall In, r11qt,i1e:l with "11 developm*1it .appt,:;tititms, a'1d shell show tho:\ all rtiii•up ,:fo,m; fife s¢'<'¢r>4d lla!l' vu,w from au,oiniflf! po1ce!u a'ld pc:blic strea!s \sea cliawam in f)(bib1t 40A).

OUTDOOR. STORAGE
• No outd,our sfo,$Qe shvll bs pem>;;!!!<l un!e-ss 4dequa\d'f u,n:,i,r,eJ by fir\ opaqo&. matcr,-;,J ,;;pproved by Cttliforria Corr,merna Cem,n's A:;:,pwvin;, AgP,nt.

AJ stot11g1, scrM>lir,g sh"1l be a m>nh1wro -0f S' in h!iight and no m,1u«idl shth Ls> swred higher lhM S'. � AH 1Jtorago ar,;1m1 fronting Iii p<.1b�c stroct shaJ be S◊rtle<111d by a oonmllte 11cre11r:: wli!ll and orn11ment11l landscaping.
• Loeatil'!ll of o,,,tdo,:,r i.tor.llge 11r.ist111 !'hall bit shown \Ill t� dev-e!uprrn1r1t -sit,:; p!M. and -,ha!l be S<Jbj1;1ct to llflproval by Californhl Commeme Cunter's Appwlling Agent and '1111 C:ty of 011tar!o O;;,v11lopment A,;lllisory 8o!i!rd.
l':XTER!OR SUILD!N"G MATER:At.s:
• All Pl-!Ming lmprr,1111Merrt'<, with the 11xceptfon of trim arid minor llit<:kit;wt.<.,r,;I f,eatur(ls, shall be <><J!lStructed <>f ma11orir11, """'""''"'t"', glass, or othat n.a1e11t1i .:cppruvttd by Califo1n,a Cornmern1t C,mHr's Ajjtm,vir,g Autm ina precision block}.
" AU .exterklt will!$ shaJf be painted¢, SU:tab!y tmllte:L

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
October 6, 1992
3667

5' 5' 5'
0'

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-13
C. EXHIBIT 44
OFFICE

PERMITTED USES
• Administrative/professional/business offices
• Commercial and office services, e.g. print shops/retail office supplies • Financial Institutions
• Interim agricultural uses
• Medical/health care clinics
• Research/development/laboratories
• Restaurants/sandwich shops, delicatessens, donut shops, etc.

All other uses are prohibited unless a finding is made by the Planning Commission that the use is similar to and no more objectionable than a permitted or a limited use.

MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE Not Applicable
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Refer to Federal Aviation Administration Regulations as shown in Section VI.G
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS Refer to Building Setbacks Summary, Exhibit 48 (Measured from property line)
MINIMUM PARKING SETBACKS Refer to Parking Setbacks Summary, Exhibit 49

PARKING REGULATIONS
(per City of Ontario Parking Standards) Refer to Appendix B

LANDSCAPE

MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
• Minimum landscape coverage 15%
• Building front and exterior side, interior 100%
and rear side setbacks
• Parking front and exterior, interior 100%
and rear side setbacks
• Elevations softened by minimum landscaped area 15’
• All parking visible from any public street 100%
must be shielded by bermed mounding planted
with trees, shrubs, and grass per Mater
Streetscape Plan
• Maximum 10 cars between finger type planters, 100%
minimum 6’ wide from parking areas
• All landscaped area to be delineated with 100%
minimum 6” concrete curb

LOADING AREAS
• Loading areas shell be designed to provide for backing and maneuvering on-site and not from a public street. • Loading areas shall not be visible from street or on-site passenger circulation drives and shall be screened from adjacent parcels.

OUTDOOR STORAGE
• No outdoor storage shall be permitted unless adequately screened by an opaque material approved by California Commerce Center's Approving Agent.

All development proposals shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for additional criteria and policies that may limit the restriction of allowable land uses, allowable FAR, overall site design and building/structure heights. 3671

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-17
D. EXHIBIT 47

COMMERICAL/FOOD/HOTEL

PERMITTED USES
• Administrative/professional/business offices
• Automobile rental agencies
• Auto service
• Financial Institutions
• Health and recreational facilities
• Hotels/motels/hometels
• Interim agricultural production
• Medical and health care facilities
• Restaurants/sandwich shops, delicatessens, donut shops, etc. • Retail sales (excluding auto and truck sales and office services, e.g. print shops, courier services, etc.

LIMITED USES
The following uses require review by the City Planner prior to approval of a site plan or business license. To approve the use at the proposed location, the City Planner must determine that parking, access, and/or any other factors associated with the use or the location will be adequately resolved. • Child day care centers
All other uses are prohibited unless a finding is made by the Planning Commission that the use is similar to and no more objectionable than a permitted or a limited use.

MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE Not Applicable
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Refer to Federal Aviation Administration Regulations as shown in Section VI.G
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS Refer to Building Setbacks Summary, Exhibit 48 (Measured from property line)
MINIMUM PARKING SETBACKS Refer to Parking Setbacks Summary, Exhibit 49

PARKING REGULATIONS
(per City of Ontario Parking Standards) Refer to Appendix B

LANDSCAPE

MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
• Minimum landscape coverage 15%
• Building front and exterior side, interior 100%
and rear side setbacks
• Parking front and exterior, interior 100%
and rear side setbacks
• Elevations softened by minimum landscaped area 15’
• All parking visible from any public street 100%
must be shielded by bermed mounding planted
with trees, shrubs, and grass per Mater
Streetscape Plan
• Maximum 10 cars between finger type planters, 100%
minimum 6’ wide from parking areas
• All landscaped area to be delineated with 100%
minimum 6” concrete curb
All development proposals shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for additional criteria and policies that may limit the restriction of allowable land uses, allowable FAR, overall site design and building/structure heights 3675

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-21
E. EXHIBIT 47-C

AIRPORT RELATED ALTERNATIVE

PERMITTED USES
• Potential taxiway access to Ontario International Airport • Aircraft manufacturing and Service
• Aircraft storage
• Air cargo
• Airline food service
• Executive air terminals
• General aviation facilities and related uses

MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE

BUILDING COVERAGE, HEIGHT & SETBACKS

MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS (measured from property line) • Front
• Exterior Side (corner parcels)
• Interior Side (1 side only)
• Rear (interior parcels)
• All Buildings over 35' in height
• All Buildings over 1 50' in length (length determined by its dimension parallel to street)

PARKING

MINIMUM PARKING SETBACKS
• Front
• Exterior Side (corner parcels)
• Interior Sides (front of Screenwall)
• Rear (interior parcels)

PARKING REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
• Aircraft manufacturing
• Service area
• Storage/Air cargo areas
• Airline food service area
• Executive Air Terminals
• General Aviation Facilities
• Related Uses

LANDSCAPE

MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS

LOADING AREAS

OUTDOOR STORAGE

EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS

ROOFING ANO ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT

SIGNAGE
Note: If this alternative ls implemented. development standards will be prepared during the "minor revision process”, based on a more specific development design and prior lo submittal of a specific development plan. That which is provided above is a gene1ol outline for use in developing any future standards.

All development proposals shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for additional criteria and policies that may limit the restriction of allowable land uses, allowable FAR, overall site design and building/structure heights.
3679
F. EXHIBIT 48

BUILDING SETBACK SUMMARY
Jurupa Strne_t, Cgmmsrne Psrkway
RAIL
INDl'SlE'AI
!from A:rport Drivo ex\,,ndinij approx. 700' :iooth of Jurupe) and Arnort Drive (west o( Mill<kim)
40•
40•
-0-
35'
-0-
45'
n·
❖
35'
.Q.

2.3'
40"
·C·
as·
.Q.
35•
:w
C
35·
0-
UGHT
!NP\JSIBIAI
40'
40•
.().
-0,
45'
,,.
-0.
0 "'
"'
.O,
·O
3&'
35'
-0
-0
Fmnt
Exterior Sid" (Ccmar parcels)
lntflrior Slde (OM s:de only)
interiQr Sido {Other side)
!'I.ear
w'!ilfik&n Awnu!l- l:l!nrnrn 62111>1.•ll
fr,;;ot
Exttrior SiGe (Come, par,;11M
lnt-,;rior SiiJe \Ona side on'.yJ
Interior Slue \Other ;J1(fel
Rear
dJreo!l Drive
\111i11t of !viillik!,n Aven,.,eJ
fr<mt
Exterior Side (Corner parceis
loterio1 Side (0'10 11kle only)
Interior Side {Ot.7tr sllfol
Rear
6ft Oth11r Streets
Fn:mt
Extw;or S!Jtr (Cemer parcels)
lnte,i,:,r Sidi] iCno s,de cnlyl
hte;fo., Sid;i !Othor sk!,d
Rell�
l. A.'i snb,d,� •"' ,l\sMueed Imm, •. ., pq,,,H/ ', -�
OFF.CE
•o·
40•
35'
as·

3.5'
45'
,,.
35'
35'
"'
23'
40·
as•
35'
35'
,s·
35-·
25'
25'
2"''

COMMERCIAL/
f'OCQIHQJEI
40•
.,.
35•
35'
3$'
45'
32'
35'
35'
"'
,,.
40•
3$'
35'
35'
35•
35'
25'
25'
25'
'l. A'I <•"' u,hao,.,:, for ,�,I •�cv..J =� ffll>,I N ,,oj�CI lo n•� "'f'V<Nd <rl C:,,ifornia C.,rr,m.,,;,, Gt,,,er·� A"!ir<Wiri9 A;..-t ba••� up�n � fu¼I d""¥J" "'"odorda ad 11�rlo!.�e. Q"! ,:.c� CC!io,f!',;.

11. fl""' ff t,-,t,,,,o, $ld• bui',fog -oks •·•If�� •��ftl 1¢ v,, fofo,.,.,g ,equi•om•'lt• jlllllU.••1: \<> S<1ction 5061b, cl !1w Caih,mi;, l.!n,;,m,, l:Li\ding Cw.:
\!!) {� E:ttw !!'!ill"<�•�•"""'""'"' al eo ffillt tjdjfiil ••1b�d< .,.m,,, bd;-111 P,,rMl1 ffil {ij) !.knl* "'11vora, ':'.O fo�t b� ooi:ar<!liM \,ohW:11!1 t,e r,,-o:co'"d build"'!! &•d i,x,ti·-11 Wlidi,\�t 1:n l!ljl"ffl? ;.a·c,,ls; o,
/ii) Manlatft • rn,ni,m-,, d 30 fo,1 bo1da�g sat',ac� whM h<iilc",-g, or, edjacsd P"'""I•...., lb! ,h; �thee fwa, aM 1�1000, .,,b o$>ta:u ttt/f\' be .os .w.:,�� ir. V$ Sp.,,ific Pb- Standed, '" 1"'1� ""1"'0'"'-�d bw,'Q,f1!;1s me-,> all o<;�., t;,,:fo,m l':w,ldi,-11 Coda Star,;"'��.

CAUFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page Vl-22
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
3680
�!uea §!fl!!!!, �gmmerce Pat��a�
lbeTWHA Aitport Drive arid
Paaschtfe<t S!rteti and Airport Orlwi
(we,;t -of Millik11r, Av&nueJ
From:
fxulrlor Sklto !CoTT'H!!r Parcels}
Interior Sides
,�,
Mil!ike"! AWliillf
HYve!' Aveoo"
:Front
£xt<11!>0! Side (Corner P1m:,,;ds)
!nt<i,rior Sidos
·-·
Airport Orivs
(aa"t cf Milrikon Av�ua)
'"'"'
Extertor Side (Corr111t ParsetllsJ
!ntooor Sides
Row
An _Other Streets:

Fnmt
ExteriO'! Sid1t (Comer f>ai-eijlsl
!1rte1i<,.. Sides
fi:,.,.,
RAU.
!NOIJSTRfAL
20'
20'
S'
O·
12'
12'
5'
-0-
,,
3'
5'
-0-
15'
16'
5'
-0-
F.

Note: A,1 GUtU),<)\(l\ &rn mo,;,;,m;d fo;;m the property !inn,

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
October 6, 1992
EXHIBIT 49

PARKING SETBACK SUMMARY
-LIGHT
INO!JSTIUAt. OFFICE
20' 20'
20' 20'
1 O'
0 1 O'
12' 12'
12' 12'
10'
-0- 10'
,. ,,
3' 3'
10'
-0- 10'
15" 15'
1S' 15'
10'
-0· 10'

COMMERCIAL/
FOOD HOTEL.
,0'
20'
10'
10'
12'
12'
10'
10'
3'
,.
10'
10'
15'
15'
10'
10'
Page vt-23
5'
5'
5'
5'
3681

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-24
A. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S REGULATIONS ON CLEAR

ZONES/BUILDING HEIGHTS
Because of the close proximity of the project to Ontario International Airport, building heights will be restricted as required under the Revised Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations.

Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for allowable building heights and FAA notification requirements.
3682

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-32
I. CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING ADJACENT TO FREEWAYS
The City of Ontario has established standards for regulating development adjacent to Mission Boulevard, the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10), the Pomona Freeway (SR 60), and the Ontario Freeway (1-15). These standards have been adopted by the Ontario Planning Commission, Resolution No. 2392, May 27, 1980, and shall apply to such development within the California Commerce Center's project.

1. BUILDING ORIENTATION
a. All buildings shall face the highway, except where the highway is substantially elevated.
b. The size, height, number, and type of on-premise signs shall be the minimum necessary for identification pursuant to the California Commerce Center's Master Signage Plan.
c. Open storage of materials and equipment should be permitted only when incidental to the permitted use, provided that such storage area shall not face the highway, and shall be shown and approved on the site plan. d. Overhead doors, garages or loading zones shall be placed facing away from view of the highway.
e. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.

2. LANDSCAPING
a. Not less than 20 feet of landscaping, measured from the public right-of-way, shall be provided and permanently maintained.
b. Proposed development should be designed to preserve existing stands of trees wherever practicable.

I. AIRPORT RESTRICTIVE OVERLAYS
On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity.

Refer to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for additional criteria and policies that may limited to the restriction of allowable land uses, allowable FAR, overall site design and building/structure heights.
3685

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VI-35
K. COMMUNITY FACILITIES - POLICE PROTECTION
Commercial developments within the project area may require the use of on-site security, and/or Ontario Police department facilities. If on-site security is required, the applicant will have the option of providing in-house security, or contracting with an outside security company. Whatever security system is chosen, it must meet with the approval of the Ontario Police Department pursuant to OMC 3-1601.

The use of physical security measures, i.e. CCTV, Card Access, Burglar and Robbery Alarms, as well as other electronic security measures, will be utilized as necessary to provide adequate surveillance of the site and security for persons and property at the site.

The projected fiscal impact to the Ontario Police Department may be mitigated by the payment of a one-time developer impact assessment fee according to a schedule of fees contained in a pending Development Assessment Fee Ordinance that is yet to be adopted by the Ontario City Council.

In addition to the payment of Impact Fees, the developer must also comply with all physical security requirements contained in the Ontario Security Code, OMC 4-11.01. 3686

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VIII-11
• Landscape and irrigation drawings of entire project site must be submitted to the Building Department and approved by Community Services and Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. • All existing established plant materials shall be saved, if possible. • No work within the project in regards to landscape and irrigation shall be permitted until all water meters are installed.
• All parkway trees shall be designated by the Community Services Agency.
• All landscape and irrigation designs shall incorporate drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigation systems.
• Information on design requirements, drought tolerant plant material and street tree staking can be obtained in Community Services.

Mitigation Measure No. 32

32. Streets adjacent to the airport shall be heavily landscaped. Although this will not provide significant noise reductions, the Department of Airports feels that shielding a noise source visually can make the noise more acceptable.

The Specific Plan establishes landscape criteria for Haven Avenue, as well as all other streets within the project area (see Section V.G., Component Plans; Landscape Concept) and Exhibit 34 (Conceptual Landscape Plan).

Mitigation Measures No. 33 and 34

33. Site plans submitted to the City for review shall have building elevations plotted to indicate conformance with FAA height restrictions.

33.A. Any structures exceeding 45' in height shall be reviewed to conform with City of Ontario High Rise Ordinance 2188.

34. The City of Ontario, through its permit approval processes, shall notify the FAA, in accordance with Regulc1tions Part 77, prior to building construction.

The Specific Plan addresses height and building restrictions in accordance with Revised Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations (see Section VI.E., Development Standards and Criteria; Federal Aviation Administration's Regulations on Building Heights).

These measures will be specifically addressed during site plan review, prior to issuing Building Permits.

Mitigation Measure No. 35

35. The Project Sponsor shall work with the City of Ontario and the Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA) to analyze alternatives for taxiway access crossing or bridging Haven Avenue.
3714

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page VIII-12
The Specific Plan establishes a phasing program for development which will allow sufficient time for the Project Sponsor, the City of Ontario, and the Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA) to analyze alternatives for taxiway access crossing or bridging Haven Avenue. See Section V.B. (Component Plans; Phasing).

Mitigation Measure No. 36
Refer to the ONT ALUCP for Safety Zone and Airspace criteria and policies.

Mitigation Measures No. 37 - 40

37. Special design treatment shall be given to private office uses and in some cases, general office uses, depending on their specific locations, as indicated by acoustical analysis.

38. Should the proposed hotel facility be constructed near Haven Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad mainline, substantial design features shall be incorporated to reduce interior noise levels as indicated by acoustical analysis.

39. All building plans shall be subject to acoustical analysis prior to issuance of a Building Permit, and all construction plans must be certified by an acoustical engineer.

40. If residential uses are developed on-site, they must conform to Title 25, Section 1092 of the California Administrative Code, and the City of Ontario's Noise Element.

Maximum interior sound levels have been establish d for each land use within the project area (see Section VI.F., Development Standards and Criteria; Sound Attenuation Criteria). Building plans will be reviewed for their conformance with these standards, as part of site plan approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

Mitigation Measures No. 41 - 44

41. Site specific soils testing shall be performed prior to grading and construction to determine the degree of compaction, the potential for settling, and the strength of the soil materials.

42. The structural engineering and design of buildings shall take into account the possibility of ground shaking.
3715

ATTACHMENT B:

File No. PSPA22-006
Conditions of Approval
(Document to follow this page)
3729