Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, March 19, 2024 (part 8 of 10)

1855
Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SCS Engineers - San Diego
8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290
SCS101122-13
01222196.00 / Ontario, CA
San Diego, CA 92123 Keith Etchells 24-Oct-22 15:59
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled

ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
Date Received
SVP-16-5 E210039-01 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-17-5 E210039-02 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-18-5 E210039-03 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-19-5 E210039-04 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-20-5 E210039-05 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-9-5 E210039-06 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-7-5 E210039-07 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-12-5 E210039-08 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-6-5 E210039-09 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-11-5 E210039-10 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-11-5 REP E210039-11 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-5-5 E210039-12 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-15-5 E210039-13 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-14-5 E210039-14 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-1-5 E210039-15 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-2-5 E210039-16 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-3-5 E210039-17 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-8-5 E210039-18 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-4-5 E210039-19 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-10-5 E210039-20 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22
SVP-13-5 E210039-21 Vapor 11-Oct-22 11-Oct-22

Page 2 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

DETECTIONS SUMMARY
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-16-5 E210039-01
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 51 10 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Carbon disulfide 31 13 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Chloroform 220 9.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 4000 14 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-17-5 E210039-02
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 35 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 1400 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-18-5 E210039-03
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 14 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 1700 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-19-5 E210039-04
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 19 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Toluene 4.4 3.8 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 1000 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-20-5 E210039-05
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 11 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) 7.1 5.6 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 570 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-9-5 E210039-06
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 11 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Chloroform 50 4.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Bromodichloromethane 43 6.8 ug/m3 EPA TO-15

Page 3 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-9-5 E210039-06
Notes
Reporting
Tetrachloroethene 1400 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-7-5 E210039-07
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 16 10 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 5700 14 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-12-5 E210039-08
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 7.4 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 1700 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-6-5 E210039-09
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 20 10 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 5500 14 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-11-5 E210039-10
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 17 10 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Chloroform 12 9.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 4400 14 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-11-5 REP E210039-11
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 17 10 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Chloroform 12 9.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 4400 14 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-5-5 E210039-12
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 27 25 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 10000 34 ug/m3 EPA TO-15

Page 4 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-15-5 E210039-13
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 15 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Chloroform 18 4.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 2600 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-14-5 E210039-14
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 9.6 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Chloroform 8.8 4.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 1100 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-1-5 E210039-15
Notes
Reporting
Carbon disulfide 7.1 6.3 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Toluene 4.9 3.8 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 64 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-2-5 E210039-16
Notes
Reporting
Tetrachloroethene 240 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-3-5 E210039-17
Notes
Reporting
Tetrachloroethene 520 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-8-5 E210039-18
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 19 10 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 5500 14 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-4-5 E210039-19
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 7.9 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Toluene 5.6 3.8 ug/m3 EPA TO-15

Page 5 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-4-5 E210039-19
Notes
Reporting
Tetrachloroethene 2100 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-10-5 E210039-20
Notes
Reporting
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 9.2 5.0 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Tetrachloroethene 1300 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SVP-13-5 E210039-21
Notes
Reporting
Tetrachloroethene 53 6.9 ug/m3 EPA TO-15

Page 6 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-16-5 (E210039-01) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 11 ug/m3 2 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 20-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 51 10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 14 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 5.2 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 32 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 11 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 15 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 7.1 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide 31 13 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8.2 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 60 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform 220 9.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 8.2 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 6.5 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 13 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 14 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 7.6 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 17 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 4000 14 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 18 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 8.6 " " " " " "

Page 7 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-16-5 (E210039-01) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 8.8 ug/m3 2 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 20-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 21 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 75 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 110 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 113 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 103 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-17-5 (E210039-02) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 35 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "

Page 8 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-17-5 (E210039-02) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 1400 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 114 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 9 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-18-5 (E210039-03) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 14 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 1700 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "

Page 10 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-18-5 (E210039-03) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 4.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 114 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-19-5 (E210039-04) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 19 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "

Page 11 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-19-5 (E210039-04) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene 4.4 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 1000 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 112 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 12 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-20-5 (E210039-05) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 11 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) 7.1 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 570 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "

Page 13 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-20-5 (E210039-05) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 4.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 113 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-9-5 (E210039-06) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 11 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform 50 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "

Page 14 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-9-5 (E210039-06) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane 43 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 1400 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 111 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 103 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 15 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-7-5 (E210039-07) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 11 ug/m3 2 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 16 10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 14 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 5.2 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 32 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 11 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 15 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 7.1 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 13 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8.2 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 60 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 9.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 8.2 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 6.5 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 13 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 14 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 7.6 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 17 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 5700 14 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 18 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 8.6 " " " " " "

Page 16 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-7-5 (E210039-07) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 8.8 ug/m3 2 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 21 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 75 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 110 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 113 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-12-5 (E210039-08) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 7.4 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "

Page 17 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-12-5 (E210039-08) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22002 20-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 1700 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 113 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 18 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-6-5 (E210039-09) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 11 ug/m3 2 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 20 10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 14 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 5.2 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 32 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 11 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 15 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 7.1 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 13 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8.2 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 60 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 9.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 8.2 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 6.5 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 13 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 14 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 7.6 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 17 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 5500 14 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 18 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 8.6 " " " " " "

Page 19 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-6-5 (E210039-09) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 8.8 ug/m3 2 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 21 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 75 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 110 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 118 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 103 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-11-5 (E210039-10) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 11 ug/m3 2 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 17 10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 14 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 5.2 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 32 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 11 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 15 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 7.1 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 13 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8.2 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 60 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform 12 9.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 8.2 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 6.5 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 13 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 11 " " " " " "

Page 20 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-11-5 (E210039-10) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 ug/m3 2 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 14 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 7.6 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 17 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 4400 14 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 18 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 8.6 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 21 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 75 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 110 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 119 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 103 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 21 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-11-5 REP (E210039-11) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 11 ug/m3 2 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 17 10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 14 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 5.2 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 32 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 11 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 15 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 7.1 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 13 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8.2 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 60 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform 12 9.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 8.2 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 6.5 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 13 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 14 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 7.6 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 17 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 4400 14 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 18 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 8.6 " " " " " "

Page 22 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-11-5 REP (E210039-11) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 8.8 ug/m3 2 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 21 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 75 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 110 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 118 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-5-5 (E210039-12) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 27 ug/m3 5 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 27 25 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 10 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 35 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 13 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 79 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 40 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 28 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 20 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 39 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 18 " " " " " "
Carbon disulfide ND 32 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 21 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 150 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 20 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 25 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 28 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 21 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 16 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 32 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 27 " " " " " "

Page 23 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-5-5 (E210039-12) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 47 ug/m3 5 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 34 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 23 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 41 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 23 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 19 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 28 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 41 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 43 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 10000 34 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 39 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 35 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 23 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 22 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 44 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 22 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 22 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 52 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 35 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 25 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 25 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 25 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 61 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 61 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 61 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 190 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 270 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 117 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 24 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-15-5 (E210039-13) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 15 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform 18 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 2600 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "

Page 25 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-15-5 (E210039-13) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 4.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 118 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-14-5 (E210039-14) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 9.6 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform 8.8 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "

Page 26 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-14-5 (E210039-14) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 1100 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 117 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 27 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-1-5 (E210039-15) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide 7.1 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene 4.9 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 64 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "

Page 28 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-1-5 (E210039-15) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 4.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 116 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-2-5 (E210039-16) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "

Page 29 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-2-5 (E210039-16) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 240 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 117 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 30 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-3-5 (E210039-17) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 520 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "

Page 31 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-3-5 (E210039-17) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 4.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 117 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 103 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-8-5 (E210039-18) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 11 ug/m3 2 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 19 10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 14 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 5.2 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 32 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 11 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 15 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 7.1 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 13 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8.2 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 60 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 9.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 8.2 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 6.5 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 13 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 11 " " " " " "

Page 32 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-8-5 (E210039-18) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 ug/m3 2 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 21-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 14 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 9.2 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 7.6 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 11 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 17 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 17 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 5500 14 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 16 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 18 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 8.6 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 21 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 14 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 75 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 110 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 115 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 105 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 33 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-4-5 (E210039-19) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 22-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 7.9 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene 5.6 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 2100 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "

Page 34 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-4-5 (E210039-19) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 4.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 22-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 119 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "
SVP-10-5 (E210039-20) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 22-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 9.2 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "

Page 35 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-10-5 (E210039-20) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 22-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 1300 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 117 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 103 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 36 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-13-5 (E210039-21) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 22-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 " " " " " "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 16 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 " " " " " " Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 " " " " " "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 4.9 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 3.2 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 3.8 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 " " " " " "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 53 6.9 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 " " " " " "
Styrene ND 4.3 " " " " " "

Page 37 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SVP-13-5 (E210039-21) Vapor Sampled: 11-Oct-22 Received: 11-Oct-22 o-Xylene ND 4.4 ug/m3 1 EJ22103 21-Oct-22 22-Oct-22 EPA TO-15 Bromoform ND 10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 " " " " " "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 " " " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 116 % 76-134 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 104 % 78-125 " " " "

Page 38 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15 - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EJ22002 - TO-15
Blank (EJ22002-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 20-Oct-22
1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 5.0 "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 "
Bromomethane ND 16 "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 "
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 "
Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 "
Chloroform ND 4.9 "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 "
Benzene ND 3.2 "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 "
Toluene ND 3.8 "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 "
Tetrachloroethene ND 6.9 "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 "

Page 39 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15 - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EJ22002 - TO-15
Blank (EJ22002-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 20-Oct-22
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 ug/m3
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 "
Styrene ND 4.3 "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 "
Bromoform ND 10 "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 238 " 214 111 76-134
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 214 " 208 103 78-125
LCS (EJ22002-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 20-Oct-22
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 120 5.0 ug/m3 101 121 59-128 Vinyl chloride 58 2.6 " 52.0 111 64-127
Chloroethane 61 8.0 " 53.6 114 63-127
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) 130 5.6 " 113 112 62-126
1,1-Dichloroethene 92 4.0 " 80.8 114 61-133
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) 160 7.7 " 155 105 66-126 Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) 74 3.5 " 70.8 104 62-115 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 88 8.0 " 80.8 109 67-124
1,1-Dichloroethane 81 4.1 " 82.4 98.5 68-126
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 88 4.0 " 80.0 110 70-121
Chloroform 110 4.9 " 99.2 108 68-123
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 120 5.5 " 111 104 68-125
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 90 4.1 " 82.4 109 65-128
Benzene 67 3.2 " 64.8 103 69-119

Page 40 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15 - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EJ22002 - TO-15
LCS (EJ22002-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 20-Oct-22
Carbon tetrachloride 130 6.4 ug/m3 128 104 68-132
Trichloroethene 110 5.5 " 110 102 71-123
Toluene 75 3.8 " 76.8 98.2 66-119
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 100 5.5 " 111 94.4 73-119
Tetrachloroethene 130 6.9 " 138 91.7 66-124
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 120 7.0 " 140 88.6 67-129
Ethylbenzene 82 4.4 " 88.4 93.1 70-124
m,p-Xylene 87 8.8 " 88.4 98.9 61-134
o-Xylene 81 4.4 " 88.4 91.2 67-125
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 110 7.0 " 140 76.6 65-127
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 249 " 214 116 76-134
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 211 " 208 102 78-125
Batch EJ22103 - TO-15
Blank (EJ22103-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 21-Oct-22
1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 5.5 ug/m3
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 5.0 "
Chloromethane ND 2.1 "
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) ND 7.1 "
Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 "
Bromomethane ND 16 "
Chloroethane ND 8.0 "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 5.6 "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 "
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 7.7 "
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 3.5 "
Carbon disulfide ND 6.3 "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8.0 "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 4.1 "
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 30 "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 4.0 "
Chloroform ND 4.9 "

Page 41 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15 - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EJ22103 - TO-15
Blank (EJ22103-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 21-Oct-22
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 ug/m3
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 4.1 "
Benzene ND 3.2 "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 6.4 "
Trichloroethene ND 5.5 "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 9.4 "
Bromodichloromethane ND 6.8 "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 "
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 8.3 "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 4.6 "
Toluene ND 3.8 "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5.5 "
2-Hexanone (MBK) ND 8.3 "
Dibromochloromethane ND 8.6 "
Tetrachloroethene ND 6.9 "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 7.8 "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 "
Chlorobenzene ND 4.7 "
Ethylbenzene ND 4.4 "
m,p-Xylene ND 8.8 "
Styrene ND 4.3 "
o-Xylene ND 4.4 "
Bromoform ND 10 "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 7.0 "
4-Ethyltoluene ND 5.0 "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5.0 "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 12 "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 38 "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 54 "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 249 " 214 117 76-134

Page 42 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15 - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EJ22103 - TO-15
Blank (EJ22103-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 21-Oct-22
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 213 ug/m3 208 102 78-125
LCS (EJ22103-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 21-Oct-22
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 130 5.0 ug/m3 101 126 59-128 Vinyl chloride 58 2.6 " 52.0 111 64-127
Chloroethane 63 8.0 " 53.6 117 63-127
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) 130 5.6 " 113 119 62-126
1,1-Dichloroethene 93 4.0 " 80.8 115 61-133
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) 170 7.7 " 155 108 66-126 Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) 75 3.5 " 70.8 105 62-115 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 89 8.0 " 80.8 110 67-124
1,1-Dichloroethane 90 4.1 " 82.4 110 68-126
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 89 4.0 " 80.0 112 70-121
Chloroform 110 4.9 " 99.2 110 68-123
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 120 5.5 " 111 108 68-125
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 94 4.1 " 82.4 114 65-128
Benzene 67 3.2 " 64.8 103 69-119
Carbon tetrachloride 140 6.4 " 128 107 68-132
Trichloroethene 120 5.5 " 110 105 71-123
Toluene 79 3.8 " 76.8 103 66-119
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 110 5.5 " 111 95.4 73-119
Tetrachloroethene 120 6.9 " 138 86.9 66-124
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 120 7.0 " 140 83.8 67-129
Ethylbenzene 76 4.4 " 88.4 86.3 70-124
m,p-Xylene 80 8.8 " 88.4 90.9 61-134
o-Xylene 77 4.4 " 88.4 86.9 67-125
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 100 7.0 " 140 73.8 65-127
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 261 " 214 122 76-134
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 213 " 208 102 78-125

Page 43 of 44 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Notes and Definitions
Percent Recovery
RPD Relative Percent Difference
%REC
MDL Method Detection Limit
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit LCC Leak Check Compound
Appendix
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc. is approved as an Environmental Testing Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory in accordance with the DoD -ELAP Program and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 programs through PJLA, accreditation number 69070 for EPA Method TO-15, EPA Method 8260B and H&P 8260SV.

H&P is approved by the State of California as an Environmental Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory in conformance with the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) for the category of Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Chemistry of Hazardous Waste, certification numbers 2740, 2741, 2743 & 2745.

H&P is approved by the State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certification number 04138
The complete list of stationary and mobile laboratory certifications along with the fields of testing (FOTs) and analyte lists are available at www.handpmg.com/about/certifications.

All soil results are reported in wet weight.

Page 44 of 44 ends

1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
Soil Management Plan www.scsengineers.com

APPENDIX C
Conceptual VIMS Design
1904
Environmental Consultants & Contractors
December 12, 2022
File No. 01222196.00

DESIGN BASIS MEMORANDUM
TO: JAFAM Corporation
Mr. Trevor Fabeck
3200 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite 220
Ontario, California 91764
FROM: Alissa Barrow, P.E., Keith Etchells, P.G, CHg
SUBJECT: Watermarke Ontario (Project) Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System (VIMS) 1028 West 4th Street, Ontario, California
Dear Mr. Fabeck:

SCS Engineers (SCS) was retained by the JAFAM Corporation (Client or JAFAM), to provide engineering services for the design of a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) for the proposed construction of the Watermarke Ontario (Project), located at 1028 W. 4th Street, (Site) in Ontario, California. This Design Basis Memorandum (DBM) provides a basis of design with information on Site conditions, regulatory considerations, engineering assumptions, and vendor information, for initial review and concurrence by JAFAM. Upon concurrence from JAFAM, SCS will prepare construction level design drawings for a VIMS for the Project.
1 SITE BACKGROUND
SCS understands that the Site consists of County of San Bernardino Assessor Parcel Number 1008- 522-02 comprising approximately 4.4 acres of land in Ontario, California (Figure 1). The Site is located on the northeast corner of West 4th Street and North Mountain Avenue in Ontario, California.

Reportedly, the Site is developed with two buildings – one that is currently occupied by a United States Postal Service (USPS) office, and the other a commercial retail building that is currently occupied by various small retail tenants, and was previously occupied by a dry cleaner. The Site is bounded to the north by a church property and single-family residences, to the east by single-family residences, to the west by North Mountain Avenue, and to the south by West 4th Street.

A former dry cleaning establishment, Ontario Plaza Laundromat/Cleaners (formerly located in the northwest corner of the building at 1118 North Mountain Avenue) was located at the Site from approximately 1960 to 2008. The Fabricare Dry Cleaner (1026 West 4th Street) occupied the farthest east side of the Site building reportedly from 1964 until February 2020.

Based on reports and documents available for the Site from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor website, the former dry cleaning tenant previously experienced a release of chlorinated solvents including the chlorinated volatile organic compound tetrachloroethene (PCE) impacting soil and soil vapor, which was remediated using soil vapor extraction under regulatory oversight from the DTSC. The unauthorized release case was closed by the DTSC with land use restrictions in place on December 21, 2017.
1905
JAFAM Corporation Design Basis Memorandum
December 12, 2022 Project Number 01222196.00

Page 2 ends

Extensive soil and soil vapor sampling and remedial measures have previously been conducted at the Site to address the former dry cleaning land uses at the Site. Soil screening and mitigation measures are proposed to be carried out during construction of the proposed commercial project at the Site, including implementation of a VIMS, as described herein.

Based on a review of the construction plans, SCS understands that the proposed Project will include construction of an approximately 145,310 square foot, mixed use facility with multifamily residences, parking structure, commercial retail space, and a new post office building. The new buildings will consist of:
 A 4-story mixed use building with 297 multi-family residential units averaging 823 square feet per unit and 4,000 square feet of ground level retail space, which are located approximately along the perimeter of the Site and not within the commercial use deed restriction.
 A 6-story parking structure with 664 parking stalls, including 16 designated for retail, which is located in the southern-central portion of the Site and is within the commercial use deed restriction.
 A new 1-story post office building with 24 parking spaces, which is located in the south/southwest portion of the Site.
2 JUSTIFICATION OF VIMS IN PROJECT DESIGN

SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
On October 11, 2022, SCS oversaw the drilling and installation of 20 soil vapor probes (SVP-1 SVP-2, SVP-3, SVP-4, SVP-5, SVP-6, SVP-7, SVP-8, SVP-9, SVP-10, SVP-11, SVP-12, SVP-13, SVP-14, SVP-15, SVP-16, SVP-17, SVP-18, SVP-19, and SVP-20) to assess the area encompassing the proposed structures of the Project for the presence of vapor-phase VOCs and assess the necessity of completing a conceptual VIMS design. Locations of soil vapor samples are included in Figure 2.

The soil vapor sample borings SVP-1 through SVP-20 were advanced with a direct-push drilling rig to depths of approximately 5 feet below. After sampling, the soil vapor borings were backfilled with hydrated bentonite to depths of approximately 5 feet below grade.

Soil vapor sampling activities were conducted in general accordance with the DTSC, Los Angeles RWQCB, and San Francisco RWQCB Advisory on Active Soil Gas Investigations, dated July 2015. A temporary soil vapor well, consisting of Nylaflow™ tubing attached to a soil gas probe tip, was installed near the bottom of each boring. An appropriate sand pack a minimum of 6 inches thick was placed around the soil gas probe tip, and the borings were backfilled with at least 6 inches of dry granular bentonite above each sample port and topped with hydrated granular bentonite to the surface. The soil vapor sampling probes were allowed to stabilize for approximately 2 hours prior to sampling, followed by removing the DTSC-default of three purge volumes, and performing a shut-in test and leak test.

Soil vapor samples were collected from the soil vapor sampling probes by collecting soil vapor drawn through the probes into laboratory-provided summa canisters. Soil vapor samples were handed to an on-Site state certified, mobile laboratory (H&P Mobile Geochemistry) and analyzed for VOCs in general accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method TO-15. In accordance with the DTSC guidance, one replicate sample was analyzed (SVP-11-5 Rep). Chain-of-custody procedures were implemented for sample tracking.
1906
JAFAM Corporation Design Basis Memorandum
December 12, 2022 Project Number 01222196.00

Page 3 ends

VOCS IN SOIL VAPOR
A total of twenty-one soil vapor samples, identified as SVP-1 SVP-2, SVP-3, SVP-4, SVP-5, SVP-6, SVP7, SVP-8, SVP-9, SVP-10, SVP-11, SVP-11 Rep, SVP-12, SVP-13, SVP-14, SVP-15, SVP-16, SVP-17, SVP-18, SVP-19, and SVP-20, were analyzed for VOCs in general accordance with EPA Method TO-15.

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was reported to be present in all 20 vapor samples collected beneath the proposed Project with concentrations in excess of the applicable residential screening level (480 micrograms per cubic meter [ug/m3]) in all locations except SVP-1 and SVP-2 in the northeast corner, and SVP-13 in the southeast corner of the Site. Due to the continued presence and concentrations of PCE in shallow soil vapor beneath the Site, the understanding that the proposed buildings share a foundation slab, and the assumption that the Project will be vetted by the DTSC, a VIMS is recommended to be incorporated into the Project.
3 PRELIMINARY VIMS DESIGN
The proposed VIMS would be installed beneath the ground-level portions of the proposed buildings to mitigate potential vapor phase migration of residual VOCs. The proposed VIMS design will consist of a passive vent system with the option to convert to an active system should the future need arise.

The vapor barrier will conform to the general requirements and specifications presented by the DTSC in the Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory Final Revision 1, dated October 2011, and will be designed in a fashion that it can be converted from a passive to an active system, if necessary. SCS anticipates the proposed vapor barrier design will include, but not be limited to, the following:
 4-inch layer of permeable coarse sand with a hydraulic conductivity at least 10-3 centimeters per second (cm/s).
 Low-profile, 1-inch sub-slab Multi-flow (or equivalent) vent piping installed within the coarse sand layer, which will transition to 3-inch solid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe where penetration though building footers occurs.
 The solid PVC pipe will then transition to 4-inch carbon steel vent risers, installed on the outside walls of the buildings, which will terminate above the roof line with rainguards.  T-60 non-woven geotextile base fabric installed over the sand layer.  CETCO Liquid Boot VI-20 geomembrane installed over the base fabric layer.  40-mil CETCO Liquid Boot 500 soil VOC vapor barrier installed over the VI-20 geomembrane layer (for a total membrane thickness of 60 mil).
 Quality assessment/quality control (QA/QC) of vapor barrier using industry standard smoke testing.
 8 oz. geotextile protection course installed over the soil VOC vapor membrane.  An optional 2-inch thick clean sand layer installed over the geotextile layer to protect the VIMS membrane during building construction.
1907
JAFAM Corporation Design Basis Memorandum
December 12, 2022 Project Number 01222196.00

Page 4 ends

A preliminary VIMS design is included in Figures 3 and 4, and design components are further described below. Upon concurrence from JAFAM, SCS will prepare construction level design drawings of a VIMS for the Project, which would presumably be submitted to the DTSC, as well as potentially local planning agencies if required, for review and concurrence.

VIMS DESIGN COMPONENTS
Passive Sub-Slab Venting System
The passive sub-slab venting system will allow VOCs to be passively diverted into the ventilation system and safely discharged to the atmosphere by means of vertical vent risers terminating at the building roofline. The venting system will consist of a sub-slab coarse sand layer beneath the entire footprint of the buildings that contains low-profile, 1-inch sub-slab Multi-flow (or equivalent) vapor collection pipes, which will transition to 3-inch solid PVC pipe where penetration though building footers occurs. The collection pipes will be connected to steel vertical risers along the building exterior that terminate above the roof line. Venting system components include the following:
 Venting layer under membrane: Clean coarse sand with a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 10-3 cm/s will be used to construct the permeable ventilation/depressurization layer.  Sub-slab passive vent piping will consist of 1-inch diameter, factory slotted low profile, 1 inch high by 1 foot wide, Multi-flow vent pipe (or equivalent) placed in the venting layer, which will transition to 3-inch Schedule (Sch.) 40 PVC pipe where penetration though building footers occurs. The piping will be located so that no portion of the slab is greater than 35 feet from a sub-slab collection pipe. The piping will be networked together, and will transition vent risers attached to the exterior building walls and extending to the roofline (Figures 3 and 4).  Vertical vent riser piping will be used to manage potential VOC vapor through passive venting via the sub-slab piping to the roofline for the proposed building footprint. Each vertical vent riser will be located a minimum of 10 feet from air intakes or openings into the building (i.e., windows or doors), and will terminate a minimum of 1 foot above the building roofline.

Vertical vent riser pipe will consist of 4-inch diameter Sch 40, threaded carbon steel pipe. A minimum of twelve (12) vent risers will be provided for the 145,309 square foot first floor/ground level footprint of the development. Preliminary vent riser locations are depicted on Figure 2, but are subject to change based on input from the Project design team (architect, etc.).

Impervious Membrane
The membrane barrier will be installed above the sub-slab passive venting system and beneath the entire extent of the building footprint. The membrane barrier will consist of a minimum cured thickness of 60 mil (0.06 inches) Liquid Boot Plus VI-20 geomembrane. Liquid boot is a fluid/mono applied, single course, high-build polymer chloroprene modified asphalt (CMA) emulsion overlaid onto a VI 20 geomembrane. VI 20 is a 20 mil, 7-layer, co-extruded ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) geomembrane manufactured by CETCO Inc., and consists of a copolymer of polyethylene, polyvinyl alcohol, and ethylene vinyl alcohol. The material is flexible, chemically resistant, stress resistant, crack resistant, and virtually impermeable to VOCs. 1908
JAFAM Corporation Design Basis Memorandum
December 12, 2022 Project Number 01222196.00

Page 5 ends

The membrane will be placed between two (2) layers of non-woven, needle-punched polypropylene geotextile fabric. An optional 2-inch thick clean sand layer can be applied over the membrane barrier on top of the geotextile layer to protect the membrane during building construction.

Seals are to be installed at all pipe or conduit penetrations through the sub-slab liner. Utility perforations through the membrane liner will be sealed in accordance with the membrane manufacturer’s recommendations and design detail provided on the drawings. Seals should be provided where the subslab liner attaches to interior and perimeter footings.

Sub-slab Monitoring Probes
Monitoring probes will be placed within the sand layer and terminate in monitoring vaults or utility boxes outside the building perimeter wall. Sub-slab vapor monitoring probes will be used to monitor soil vapor VOC and/or radon concentrations under the slab.

A minimum of twenty (20) monitoring probes will be provided for the approximately 145,310 square foot first level building footprint.

Utility Trench Dams and Electrical Conduit Seals
Utility trench dams constructed of a bentonite-concrete slurry are required for all utility trenches that extend beneath and/or through the building foundation from outside areas, and will be placed immediately adjacent to the exterior perimeter of the building foundation. Utility trench dams will extend a minimum of 3 feet from the perimeter of the building and at least 6 inches around all conduits and pipes.

Electrical conduit seals, either end seals or EYS seals, will be installed approximately 18 inches above the location where the conduit penetrates the building floor slab. Electrical conduit seals consisting of a sealing compound with fiber dams will be installed to fill the void space and to prevent the infiltration of subsurface VOCs into interior spaces.

Signage
Upon completion of construction, warning signs will be posted at prominent locations that incorporate the following language:
“WARNING: A vapor intrusion mitigation system is installed beneath the building floor slab to prevent vapor intrusion from the soil. Any proposed penetration or alteration of the floor slab requires prior written notification to the owner. It is illegal to remove this sign.” In addition, soil vapor notification labels that provide information regarding the vent designation and purpose will be attached to all vent risers. 1909
JAFAM Corporation Design Basis Memorandum
December 12, 2022 Project Number 01222196.00
SCS Engineers

FIGURES
1910
San Bernardino County, Maxar, Microsoft, County of Los Angeles, County of Riverside, San Bernardino County, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, USDA, USGS National Map 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). September 7, 2022., USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National C:\Users\5180bjl\OneDrive - SCS Engineers\Documents\projects_Barb\Watermark, Ontario CA\Pro\Watermark - Ontario CA\Watermark - Ontario CA.aprx BY 5180bjl

SCS ENGINEERS
Figure 1 Nov 2022
JAFAM Corporation
1028 West 4th Street, Ontario,
California 91762
Three-Way Site Location Map
0 250 500
²
Feet

SITE LOCATION
0 500 1,000
²
Feet

SITE LOCATION
0 100 200
²
Feet
Disclaimer: This figure is based on available data.

Building layout provided by TCA Architects in the Yield Study dated May 26, 2022. Actual conditions may differ.

All locations and dimensions are approximate.

SITE AERIAL LOCATION
2-DIMENSIONAL SITE LOCATION 3-DIMENSIONAL SITE LOCATION

SITE LOCATION
1911
2 1912
~73 STALLS THIS LEVEL RAMP UP5% W FOURTH ST
N MOUNTAIN AVE W HARVARD PL LEASING / LOUNGE / MAIL / PARCEL FITNESS CLUBROOMPOOL EQUP. RR BREEZEWAY BREEZEWAY ELEC. TRASH TRASH ELEC. 1-STORY 2-STORY 2-STORY 1-STORY VEHICULAR ENTRY BREEZEWAY BREEZEWAY ADJACENT SITE (N.I.C.) A1 A1 FAN RM FAN RM LOBBY/ LOUNGE T T DN RAMP 5% ELEV. RM ELEV. RM ELEV. RM RETAIL A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 B3 B1 A1 A1 B2 S1 B3 A1 S1 A1 A1 A1 A1 S1 B3 B1 A1 A1 A1A1 A2 A2 B1 A1 B3B3 A1 A1 B1 A1A1 S1 B3 B3 A1 A1 S1 S1 A1 B1 B1B1B1 A1 B3 B2 B1 B1 B1 RETAIL TRASHLOADING TRASH STAGING GUEST / DROP-OFF RESIDENT S1A1A1A1A1S1S1 B3B3 A1 A1 A1 S1 A2 A2 A1 A1 A1 S1 LOADING STALLS A1 VR-5 VR-4 VR-7 VR-6 VR-8 VR-9 VR-3 VR-10 VR-1 VR-2 VR-12 VR-11

WATERMARKE ONTARIO PROJECT

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SCS ENGINEERS

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
N0. SHEET TITLE:

ACAD FILE: APP. BY:DWN. BY: CHK. BY:PROJ. NO. DSN. BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWING NO.

DATE REVISION
3900 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, SUITE 100
LONG BEACH, CA 90806 PH. (562) 426-9544 FAX. (562) 427-0805 RR RR
AB -AB 11-29-2022 1/64"=1'-0" FIGURE 3
PROJECT TITLE:

CONCEPTUAL VAPOR INTRUSION

MITIGATION SYSTEM PLAN LAYOUT
CLIENT:

JAFAM CORPORATION LEGEND 4" VENT RISER 4" VENT RISER AND TRANSITION PIPING (VENT RISER EXTENDING TO ROOF LINE) LIMITS OF SUB-SLAB SOIL GAS VAPOR BARRIER SYSTEM SUB-SLAB VENT PIPE SUB-SLAB SOIL GAS VAPOR BARRIER VR-4 QUANTITIES FIRST FLOOR - 145,309.54 SF VENT RISERS - 12 01222196.00 NOTE: 1. BUILDING LAYOUT PROVIDED BY TCA ARCHITECTS IN THE YIELD STUDY DATED MAY 26, 2022. CONCEPTUAL PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1913
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2023
APPENDIX G – ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
1914
Acoustical Assessment
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario, California
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Ave Suite. 300
Riverside, California 92501
Contact: Mr. Alex Pohlman
951.543.9868
August 2023
1915
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 1 2 ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS

2.1 Sound and Environmental Noise .............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Groundborne Vibration ............................................................................................................................ 9 3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 State of California ................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Local ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 Existing Noise Sources ............................................................................................................................ 14

4.2 Noise Measurements ............................................................................................................................. 15

4.3 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................................ 17 5 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

5.1 CEQA Thresholds .................................................................................................................................... 19

5.2 Plans, Programs, and Policies ................................................................................................................. 20

5.3 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 20 6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 Acoustical Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 23

6.2 Cumulative Noise Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 33 7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 36 TABLES
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms ....................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations................. 10 Table 4: Noise level Exposure and Land use Compatibility Guildelines ....................................................................... 12 Table 5: Exterior Noise Standards - City of Ontario ..................................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................................................................... 14 Table 7: Existing Noise Measurements ........................................................................................................................ 15 Table 8: Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 9: Groundborne Vibration Criteria - Architectural Damage ............................................................................... 20 Table 10: Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................................................ 26 Table 11: Project Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 26 Table 12: Project Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................................................................................... 28 Table 13: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................................................... 31 Table 14: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 34

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 2: Site Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 4: Noise Measurement Locations .................................................................................................................... 16 Exhibit 5: Sensitive Receptor Locations ....................................................................................................................... 18 1916
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | ii

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Existing Ambient Noise Measurements
Appendix B: Noise Modeling Data
1917
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
ADT average daily traffic
dBA A-weighted sound level
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL community equivalent noise level
Ldn day-night noise level
dB decibel
Leq equivalent noise level
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HVAC heating ventilation and air conditioning
Hz hertz
in/sec inches per second
Lmax maximum noise level
µPa micropascals
Lmin minimum noise level
PPV peak particle velocity
RMS root mean square
VdB vibration velocity decibels
1918
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an Acoustical Assessment completed for the Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project (Project). The purpose of this Acoustical Assessment is to evaluate the potential construction and operational noise and vibration levels associated with the Project and determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.

This analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the proposed Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the conclusions discussed in The Ontario Plan 2050, certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364). The purpose of this analysis is to support an Addendum EIR that will document whether any new noise-related impacts would occur from the Project (described below) compared to the level of significance that was identified in the General Plan EIR pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (et seq.).

1.1 Project Location
The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Mountain Avenue and 4th Street.

The project site currently consists of a United States Post Office building and a commercial building with various retail uses. The City of Ontario is located in the San Bernardino Valley within San Bernardino County approximately 60 miles east of Los Angeles, California; see Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map and Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map.

1.2 Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing uses and proposes the development of a four-story Type V warp building containing multifamily residential and retail uses as well as a six level Type III above grade parking structure. The Project would include the development of 357 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 2,700 square feet (sf) of leasing, 5,700 sf of amenity space, and 3,800 sf of retail on 5.8 acres; refer to Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan.
1919
Source: ArcGIS Pro World Street Map
Not to scale
Exhibit 1: Regional Locaon Map
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario

PROJECT

LOCATION
1920
Source: Google Earth
Not to scale
Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario 4th Street
Harvard Place
Rosewood Court
J Street J Street
Princeton Street
Yale Street
Mountain Avenue
Azalea Avenue
Palmetto Avenue
Boulder Avenue
Boulder Avenue
1921
Source: TCA Architects
Not to scale
Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario 1922 City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 5
2 ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS

2.1 Sound and Environmental Noise
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g., air) to human (or animal) ear. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and are called sound.

The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or hertz (Hz).

Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. The fundamental acoustics model consists of a noise source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source, obstructions, or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path, determine the perceived sound level and noise characteristics at the receptor. Acoustics deal primarily with the propagation and control of sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady background noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. The sound from individual local sources is superimposed on this background noise. These sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from traffic on a major highway. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micropascals (µPa) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The dB scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Table 1: Typical Noise Levels provides typical noise levels.

Table 1: Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities – 110 – Rock Band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
– 100 –
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
– 90 –
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour Food blender at 3 feet – 80 – Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet – 70 – Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet – 60 –
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime – 50 – Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime – 40 – Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime
– 30 – Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) – 20 –
Broadcast/recording studio
– 10 –
Lowest threshold of human hearing – 0 – Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 1923
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 6
Noise Descriptors
The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of equivalent noise level (Leq) that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. While Leq represents the continuous sound pressure level over the measurement period, the day-night noise level (Ldn) and Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) are measures of energy average during a 24-hour period, with dB weighted sound levels from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined in Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms.

Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20.

Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in µPa (or 20 micronewtons per square meter), where 1 pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in dB as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 µPa). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound Level
(dBA)
The sound pressure level in dB as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) The average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
Minimum Noise Level (Lmin)
The maximum and minimum dBA during the measurement period.

Exceeded Noise Levels
(L01, L10, L50, L90)
The dBA values that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn) A 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity at nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL)
A 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM and a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 m to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
1924
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 7
Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the sound’s average character (Leq) or the variations’ statistical behavior (LXX) must be utilized. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The predicted models’ accuracy depends on various factors, such as the distance between the noise receptor and the noise source, the character of the ground surface (e.g., hard or soft), and the presence or absence of structures (e.g., walls or buildings) or topography, and how well model inputs reflect these conditions.

A-Weighted Decibels
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by dBA values. There is a strong correlation between dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the dBA has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this document are in terms of dBA, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.

Addition of Decibels
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10.1 When the standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound.2 When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one source under the same conditions.3 Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of approximately 5 dBA.

Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics.4 No excess attenuation is assumed for hard 1 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
2 Noise Sources and Their Effects. Available at: https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm 3 FHWA, Noise Fundamentals, 2017. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm 4 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Page 2-29, September 2013.
1925
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 8
surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed in this report.

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the noise receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm can reduce noise levels by 5 to 15 dBA.5 The way older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA.6 Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semicommercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted7:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1-dBA change cannot be perceived by humans.
 Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.  A minimum 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 5-dBA increase is typically considered substantial.  A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. 5 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic and Construction Noise - Problem and Response, April 2006. 6 Compiled from James P. Cowan, Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, 1994 and Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979.
7 Compiled from California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, and FHWA, Noise Fundamentals, 2017.
1926
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 9
Effects of Noise on People
Hearing Loss. While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.8 Annoyance. Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. A noise level of about 55 dBA Ldn is the threshold at which a substantial percentage of people begin to report annoyance9.

2.2 Groundborne Vibration
Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions or heavy equipment use during construction). Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave and is expressed in terms of inches-per- second (in/sec). The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is expressed in terms of velocity decibels (VdB). The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.

Table 3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the individual’s sensitivity. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying.

Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.
8 U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Standards, 29 CFR 1910 (Occupational Noise Exposure). 9 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992. 1927
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 10
Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur.

However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as earth-moving which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate constructiongenerated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

Table 3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations Maximum
PPV (in/sec)
Vibration Annoyance
Potential Criteria
Vibration Damage Potential
Threshold Criteria FTA Vibration Damage Criteria

0.008 --
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins,
ancient monuments --

0.01 Barely Perceptible -- --

0.04 Distinctly Perceptible -- --

0.1 Strongly Perceptible Fragile buildings --

0.12 -- --
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration
damage

0.2 -- -- Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings

0.25 -- Historic and some old buildings --

0.3 -- Older residential structures Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)

0.4 Severe -- --

0.5 --
New residential structures, Modern
industrial/commercial buildings Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; FTA = Federal Transit Administration Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2020 and Federal Transit administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, 2018. 1928
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 11
3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the State have established standards and ordinances to control noise.

3.1 State of California
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable”, “conditionally acceptable”, “normally unacceptable”, and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.

Title 24 – Building Code
The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, hotel rooms, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings and habitable rooms (including hotels), the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.

3.2 Local
City of Ontario – The Ontario Plan Safety Element
The Safety and Land Use Elements of The Ontario Plan (TOP) set forth goals, policies, and land use guidelines to protect residential neighborhoods and noise-sensitive receptors from excessive noise levels.

The City uses the Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibly Guidelines (shown in Table 4 below) when siting new development and making land use decisions. 1929
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 12
Table 4: Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Categories Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Category Uses
Clearly
Acceptable1
Normally
Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4
Residential/Lodging
Single Family/Duplex <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Multi-Family <60 60-65 65-75 75-85
Mobile Homes <60 60-65 - 65-85
Hotel/Motel <65 65-70 70-80 80-85
Public/Institutional
Schools/Hospitals <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Churches/Libraries <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Auditoriums/Concert Halls <55 55-60 60-70 70-85
Commercial
Offices <65 65-75 75-80 80-85
Retail <70 70-75 75-80 80-85
Industrial
Manufacturing <70 70-75 75-85 -
Warehousing <70 70-80 80-85 -
Recreational/Open
Space
Parks/Playgrounds <65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Golf Course/Riding Stables <65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Outdoor Spectator Sports <60 60-65 65-70
Outdoor Music
Shells/Amphitheaters - <60 60-65 65-85
Livestock/Wildlife
Preserves <70 - 70-75 75-85
Crop Agriculture <55-85 - - -
Source: The Ontario Plan
1 No special noise insulation required, assuming buildings of normal conventional construction. 2 Acoustical reports will be required for major new residential construction. Conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems of air conditions will normally suffice
3 New construction should be discouraged. Noise/aviation easements required for all new construction. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made, and necessary noise insulation features included. 4 No new construction should be permitted.

The following goals and policies from TOP Safety Element are directly relevant to the proposed project:

Goal S4 An environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare
Goal S4-1 Noise Mitigation. Utilize the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes and subdivision and development codes to mitigate noise impacts.

Goal S4-2 Coordination with Transportation Authorities. Collaborate with airport owners, FAA, Caltrans, SANBAG, SCAG, neighboring jurisdictions, and other transportation providers in the preparation and maintenance of, and updates to transportation related plans to minimize noise impacts and provide appropriate mitigation measures.

Goal S4-4 Truck Traffic. Manage truck traffic to minimize noise impacts on sensitive land uses.

Goal S4-5 Roadway Design. Design streets and highways to minimize noise impacts. 1930
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 13
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario enforces noise limits through the Municipal Code Chapter 29, Noise. Table 5 summarizes the City of Ontario’s noise limits.

Table 5: Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario
Land Use
Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, Leq
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
Single-Family Residential 65 dBA 45 dBA
Multi-Family Residential, Mobile Home Parks 65 dBA 50 dBA Commercial Property 65 dBA 60 dBA
Residential Portion of Mixed Use 70 dBA 70 dBA
Manufacturing and Industrial, Other Uses 70 dBA 70 dBA
Source: City of Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 29 Noise – Section 5-29.04 Exterior Noise Standards, 2022.

The noise limits summarized in Table 5 are subject to the following:
• The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen-minute (15) period; and • A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response). • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The Noise Zone IV (residential portion of mixed use) standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property or use, if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.
• If the measurement location is on a boundary between two (2) different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. • Section 5-29.11, the noise standards assigned to Noise Zone I (single-family residential) also apply to the outdoor use area of any school, day care center, hospital or similar health care institution, library or museum while it is in use.
• Section 5-29.06(e), noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of a public right-of-way is exempt from the provisions of the Municipal Code. • Section 5-29.09 addresses construction noise and states that 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 AM and 6:00 PM or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
1931
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 14
4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 Existing Noise Sources
Much of the City of Ontario has been developed with residential, commercial and industrial land uses.

Transportation related noise is the primary noise source in the City. Other noise sources include noise generated from commercial, residential, institutional, and recreational activities.

Mobile Sources
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes from the Traffic Study for the Proposed Watermarke Ontario Project in the City of Ontario (prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2023). The noise prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along roadway segments proximate to the project site are included in Table 6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels.

Table 6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT dBA CNEL1
Mountain Avenue
North of 4th Street 23,130 65.9
South of 4th Street 20,380 65.4
4 th Street
West of Mountain Avenue 6,740 58.1
Mountain Avenue to Palmetto Avenue 8,390 59.1
East of Palmetto Avenue 8,150 59.0
Palmetto Avenue South of 4th Street 600 42.1
ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level

1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

As identified in Table 6, the existing traffic-generated noise level on project-vicinity roadways currently ranges from 42.1 dBA CNEL to 65.9 dBA CNEL 100 feet from the centerline. As previously described, CNEL is 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Stationary Sources
The stationary noise sources in the vicinity of the project site are existing residential properties to the north and east and commercial properties to the west and south. Noise sources from residential commercial uses typically include mechanical equipment such as HVAC, automobile-related noise such as 1932
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 15
cars starting and doors slamming, and landscaping equipment. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence or short-term noise.

4.2 Noise Measurements
The Project area is primarily occupied by commercial and residential uses. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted five short-term noise measurements on July 26, 2023; see Appendix A: Existing Ambient Noise Measurements. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 11:58 AM and 12:54 PM on a Wednesday. Measurements of Leq are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 7: Existing Noise Measurements and shown on Exhibit 4: Noise Measurement Locations.

Table 7: Existing Noise Measurements
Site Location Measurement Period Duration Leq (dBA)
Short-Term Noise Measurements
1 At the intersection of N Mountain Ave and W
4th Street, inside the parking lot 12:11 – 12:21 PM 10 Minutes 71.4 2 W 4th Street, sidewalk near southeastern
entrance to parking lot. 12:30 – 12:40 PM 10 Minutes 68.5 3 End of W Harvard Place 12:44 – 12:54 PM 10 Minutes 57.2 4 Sidewalk on the south side of the W Princeton
Street (eastbound) (10th house down) 12:58 – 1:08 PM 10 Minutes 52.0 5 At the NE corner of the intersection of N Mountain
Ave and W Princeton Street 11:58 – 12:08 PM 10 Minutes 71.4 Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley-Horn, July 26, 2023. See Appendix A for noise measurement results. 1933
Source: Google Earth
Not to scale
Exhibit 4: Noise Measurement Locaons
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario 1 2
3 4
4th Street
Harvard Place
Princeton Street
5 Mountain Avenue
# Short-Term Noise Measurements
1934
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 17

4.3 Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Noise sensitive uses typically include residences, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities, and places of assembly. Vibration sensitive receivers are generally similar to noise sensitive receivers but may also include businesses, such as research facilities and laboratories that use vibration-sensitive equipment. The project site is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial properties to the west, north, east, and south. Noise sensitive land uses nearest to the project site are listed in Error! Reference source not found. and shown on Exhibit 4: Noise Measurement Locations.

Table 8: Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive
Receptor
Number
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the
Project
1 Single-family Residences Adjacent to the east
2 Single-family Residences Adjacent to the north
3 Church 23 feet to the north
4 Single-family Residences 75 feet to the southeast
Source: Google Earth

1935
Source: Google Earth
Not to scale
Exhibit 5: Sensive Receptor Locaons
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario 1 2
3 4
4th Street
Harvard Place
Princeton Street
Mountain Avenue
# Noise Sensi! ve Receptors
1936
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 19
5 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

5.1 CEQA Thresholds
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains analysis guidelines related to noise and vibration. These guidelines have been used by the City to develop thresholds of significance for this analysis. A project would create a significant environmental impact if it would:
 Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
 Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; and  For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Thresholds
Construction Noise
The City of Ontario has not established quantitative construction noise standards; therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts. The City Municipal Code states that construction is only permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Saturday and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sunday.

Operational Noise
Non-Transportation Noise
Non-transportation related noise generators are commonly called “stationary,” “fixed,” “area,” or “point” sources of noise. Industrial processing, mechanical equipment, pumping stations, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment are examples of fixed location, non-transportation noise sources.

Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s Noise Ordinance (Ontario Municipal Code, Section 5-29.04, Exterior Noise Standards) and the City’s General Plan. In general, exterior noise levels within multi-family residential and commercial areas are limited to 65 dBA in the daytime, between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Nighttime noise thresholds, between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, are limited to 50 dBA for multi-family residential uses and 60 dBA for commercial uses (refer to Table 5). These noise limits are used as significance thresholds for the impact of stationary noise sources on receptors located within the City of Ontario.

Mobile Noise
Traffic noise, including automobiles, trucks, and other motor vehicles is the most pervasive source of noise in the City of Ontario. Traffic generated noise impacts are evaluated based on standards within the 1937
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 20
General Plan. A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment. Based on this, the following thresholds of significance are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations:10
 Greater than 1.5 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher;  Greater than 3 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of 60 -64 CNEL; and  Greater than 5 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL.

Vibration
Architectural Damage
The cities of Ontario and Chino do not have established vibration damage criteria, therefore the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of ground-borne vibration for various types of buildings is used for this analysis. Structures that amplify ground borne vibration and wood-frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which ground borne vibration is strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards shown in Table 9: Ground borne Vibration Criteria – Architectural Damage.

Table 9: Groundborne Vibration Criteria - Architectural Damage Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

5.2 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP N-1 The proposed project shall comply with City of Ontario MC Chapter 29, Exterior Noise Standards and Section 5-29.09, which limits construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm.
10 City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan 2050 Environmental Impact Report, 2022. 1938
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 21

5.3 Methodology
Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.

Construction noise modeling was conducting using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations.

Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst-case estimate of actual temporary construction noise. The City of Ontario does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. As noted above, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and 85 dBA (8-hour Leq) for commercial/non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.

Operations
The analysis of the Without Project and With Project noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day.

Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s Noise Ordinance and TOP. The Without Project and With Project traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures (walls and buildings), barriers, and topography. The noise attenuating effects of changes in elevation, topography, and intervening structures were not included in the model. Therefore, the modeling effort is considered a worst-case representation of the roadway noise. In general, a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable.

Vibration
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria. 1939
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 22
Construction vibration levels were calculated using the following formula:

PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
1940
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 23
6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 Acoustical Impacts
Previous Significance Determination
The 2022 Final Supplemental EIR for The Ontario Plan 2050 concluded that implementation of The Ontario Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to construction noise and vibrations. The EIR determined that development under the General Plan could generate construction noise levels in excess of 80 dBA Leq and generate disturbances for prolonged periods of time at noise-sensitive receptors.

MM 12-4 would reduce potential noise impacts to the extent feasible however construction could still result in increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and exceed the 80 dBA Leq threshold. However, the EIR determined that operation noise, including stationary sources and traffic noise would not result in new or a substantial increase noise. Therefore, although operational noise would not exceed City thresholds, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable impact.

The Certified EIR also determined that development of the General Plan could generate varying degrees of vibrations based on the type of construction equipment used and the distance from receptors. MM 12- 2 would reduce the potential impacts associated with construction vibration to extent feasible. However, due to the potential proximity of construction activities, the number of construction projects occurring, and the potential duration of construction activities, the EIR concluded that impacts associated with construction related vibrations would be significant and unavoidable.

The Final EIR also concluded that residents and other sensitive receptors located within the Ontario International Airport noise contour would be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and consequently indoor and exterior noise environments would be exposed to elevated noise levels from aircraft overflights. With the implementation of MM 12-1, impacts to future sensitive receptors from excessive airport-related noise would be reduced to interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less. However, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed noise compatibility standards for the City, therefore airport noise impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 6.1 Would the Project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the construction activity’s nature or phase (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.

During construction, exterior noise levels could affect noise-sensitive receptors near the construction site.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site construction area are existing residential uses to the north and east, located adjacent to the Project property boundary. However, it is noted that construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near noise-sensitive receptors.
1941
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 24
Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities would require:
 Industrial saws, excavators, and dozers during demolition;  Dozers and tractors during site preparation;
 Excavators, graders, dozers, and tractors during grading;  Cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction;  Pavers, rollers, and paving equipment during paving; and  Air compressors during architectural coating.

Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 10: Typical Construction Noise Levels. For safety reasons, heavy duty construction equipment and machinery are assumed to stay a minimum of 25 feet from the boundaries of occupied properties.

Table 10: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50
feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 25
feet from Source1
Air Compressor 80 86
Backhoe 80 86
Compactor 82 88
Concrete Mixer 85 91
Concrete Pump 82 88
Concrete Vibrator 76 82
Crane, Mobile 83 89
Dozer 85 91
Generator 82 88
Grader 85 91
Impact Wrench 85 91
Jack Hammer 88 94
Loader 80 86
Paver 85 91
Pneumatic Tool 85 91
Pump 77 83
Roller 85 91
Saw 76 82
Scraper 85 91
Shovel 82 88
Truck 84 90

1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2) Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Although the construction equipment noise levels in Table 10 are from FTA’s 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, the noise levels are based on measured data from a U.S. 1942
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 25
Environmental Protection Agency report which uses data from the 1970s,11 the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model which uses data from the early 1990s, and other measured data. Since that time, construction equipment has been required to meet more stringent emissions standards and the additional necessary exhaust systems also reduce noise from what is shown in the table.

Section 5-29.09 (Construction Activity Noise Regulations) of the City of Ontario Municipal Code restricts noise sources associated with construction activities between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday. 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. The City’s permitted hours of construction are required in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant impact.

Quantitative Construction Noise Assessment
However, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA and 85 dBA (8-hour Leq) to evaluate construction noise impacts for residential and commercial uses, respectively.12 It should be noted that although Table 10 shows that some equipment would exceed 80 dBA at 25 feet, the FTA’s noise threshold is measured over an eight hour period, meaning that a single piece equipment would need to be stationary and operating continuously for eight hours to exceed the 80 dBA threshold. In addition, standard construction provides 25 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise attenuation with windows closed and 15 dBA with windows open.13 Therefore, it can be assumed that exterior noise levels of 94 dBA (jack hammer) would equal 69 dBA when measured from the interior with windows closed.

Following FTA’s methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, construction-generated noise levels associated with the Project were calculated using FHWA’s RCNM computer program. RCNM enables the prediction of construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on a compilation of empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. When calculating construction noise, all construction equipment is assumed to operate simultaneously at the center of the active construction zone to represent an average distance throughout the day. See Appendix B: Noise Modeling Data for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis.

The noise levels calculated in Table 11: Project Construction Noise Levels, show estimated exterior construction noise. Construction noise would increase ambient noise in the project’s vicinity. Generally, noise increases of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Therefore, ambient noise level increases greater than 5 dBA would be considered significant.

As shown in Table 11, construction noise would lead to an increase in ambient noise levels by a maximum of 15.6 dBA. However, the combined noise level would remain below the 80 dBA construction threshold for residential uses. Thus, construction noise would be considered less than significant. 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, NTID300.1, December 31, 1971.
12 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018.
13 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), 1979. 1943
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 26
Table 11: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Modeled Exterior
Construction
Noise Level at
Nearest
Residence
(dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq) 1
Exceed
Threshold?
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Construction +
Ambient
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Exceed
Threshold?
Demolition 71.5
80 No

57.2 71.7 No 4
Site Preparation 72.7 No 72.8 No 4
Grading 72.3 No 72.4 No 4
Combined Building
Construction and Paving 2

71.8 No 71.9 No 4
Combined Building
Construction and
Architectural Coating 3

71.1 No 71.3 No 4

1. Federal Transit Administration noise threshold of 80 dBA for residences.

2. Based on the construction schedule, building construction and paving activities are anticipated to overlap. Therefore, the equipment from these two activities have been combined.

3. Based on the construction schedule, building construction and architectural coating activities are anticipated to overlap. Therefore, the equipment from these two activities have been combined.

4. Combined Noise level remains below the 80 dBA construction noise threshold for residential uses.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix B for noise modeling results.

Operations
Project implementation would create new sources of noise in the site vicinity. The mixed-use development’s major noise sources including the following:
 Stationary Noise Sources - mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.);  Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and  Off-site traffic noise
Stationary Noise Sources
The project site is located near residential properties to the north and east, while properties to the south and west are primarily commercial. The nearest sensitive receptors are located to the north and east, adjacent to the Project’s property boundary. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the project site would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet14. At the closest sensitive receptor, approximately 160 feet away, mechanical equipment noise levels would attenuate to 41.9 dBA, which is below the City’s ambient noise standards of 60 to 65 dBA for residential receptors (refer to Error! Reference source not found.). The ambient noise level at Sensitive Receptor 1 was measured at 57.2 dBA (refer to Table 7) and would increase by 0.1 dBA with the inclusion of the HVAC equipment. This increase would be below the 3 dBA perceptibility threshold. 14 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.
1944
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 27
Parking Noise
All parking would be provided on the project site with a six level above grade parking structure. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA.15 Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech.16 It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than the reference levels identified above.

For the purpose of providing a conservative, quantitative estimate of the noise levels that would be generated from the vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot, the methodology recommended by FTA for the general assessment of stationary transit noise sources is used. Using the methodology, the Project’s peak hourly noise level that would be generated by the on-site parking levels was estimated using the following FTA equation for a parking lot:

Leq(h) = SELref + 10 log (NA/1,000) – 35.6
Where:

Leq(h) = hourly Leq noise level at 50 feet
SELref = reference noise level for stationary noise source represented in sound exposure level (SEL) at 50 feet
NA = number of automobiles per hour

35.6 is a constant in the formula, calculated as 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in an hour
Based on the peak hour trip generation rates in the Traffic Study, approximately 76 trips during the AM peak hour and 81 trips during the PM peak hour would be made to the project site each day. Using the FTA’s reference noise level of 92 dBA SEL17 at 50 feet from the noise source, the Project’s highest peak hour vehicle trips would generate noise levels of approximately 45.5 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the parking lot. The nearest residential property is 180 feet north of the parking structure entrance, on the opposite side of the church (currently under construction). Based strictly on distance attenuation, parking lot noise at the nearest receptor would be 34.4 dBA which is below the City’s residential and residential noise standards of 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards. The ambient noise level at Sensitive Receptor 2, which is located nearest to a parking structure entrance/exit, was measured at 52.0 dBA (refer Table 7) and would increase by 0.1 dBA with the inclusion of parking structure noise. This increase would be below the 3 dBA perceptibility threshold.
15 Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991. 16 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.
17 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 1945
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 28
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments.

According to the Traffic Analysis, the Project Buildout would generate a total of 8,820 daily trips which would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.

Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions With and Without the Project, based on traffic volumes from the Traffic Analysis. Table 12: Project Traffic Noise Levels identifies Project traffic-generated noise levels. Noise levels on Project area roadways under With Project conditions would range between 44.3 dBA CNEL and 66.5 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.2 dBA CNEL along 4th Street. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant.

Table 12: Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Opening Year Opening Year Plus Project Project Change
from No Build
Conditions
Significant
ADT dBA CNEL1 ADT dBA CNEL1 Impact?
Mountain Avenue
North of 4th Street 25,605 66.4 26,035 66.5 0.1 No
South of 4th Street 21,715 65.7 21,845 65.7 0.0 No
4 th Street
West of Mountain
Avenue 7,320 58.5 7,450 58.6 0.1 No
Mountain Avenue to
Palmetto Avenue 9,106 59.4 9,366 59.6 0.2 No
East of Palmetto
Avenue 8,866 59.3 8,996 59.4 0.1 No
Palmetto Avenue South of 4th Street 1,004 44.3 1,004 44.3 0.0 No ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level

Source: Traffic Study for the Proposed Watermarke Ontario Project in the City of Ontario, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2023. Refer to Appendix B for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.
2022 The Ontario Plan 2050 FEIR Mitigation Measures. The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of The Ontario Plan 2050. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the proposed Project:

MM 12-4 Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or 1946
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 29
construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
• Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to6:00 PM Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electronically powered whenever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
• Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City’s Engineering Department. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noiseproducing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch of back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
1947
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 30
• Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors) as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Conclusion
As demonstrated in Table 11 and Table 12, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels. Table 11 confirms that construction of the Project would not exceed construction noise thresholds. In addition, Table 12 demonstrates that operational noise levels from the Project would not exceed applicable noise standards during the Project’s opening year. Noise impacts related to the proposed Project are less than the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.

Threshold 6.2 Would the Project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction Vibration
Construction can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.

Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.

Table 13: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical construction equipment and at 5 feet, the distance from the Project boundary to the nearest existing structure (Sensitive Receptor 1). In addition, vibration levels at 23 feet, the distance from the nearest 1948
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 31
construction area to an existing structure is also included, as heavy construction equipment would not be operated at the project boundary next to sensitive receptors. As indicated in Table 13, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.101 in/sec PPV at 23 feet from the source of activity.

Table 13: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 5 Feet (in/sec)1
Peak Particle Velocity
at 23 Feet (in/sec)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.9951 0.101
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.9951 0.101
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.8497 0.086
Jackhammer 0.035 0.3913 0.040
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0335 0.003

1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

Table 13 shows that at 23 feet, the vibration velocities from construction equipment would exceed 0.101 in/sec PPV which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of groundborne vibration. Groundborne vibration surrounding the Project currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways. Operations of the proposed Project would include activities associated with residential development that typically would not cause excessive ground-borne vibrations. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of groundborne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced groundborne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. According to the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual, trucks rarely create vibration levels that exceed 70 VdB (equivalent to 0.012 in/sec PPV) when they are on roadways. Therefore, automobiles accessing the project site or traveling along surrounding roadways would not exceed FTA thresholds for building damage. Vibration impacts associated with Project operations would be less than significant in this regard.
2022 The Ontario Plan 2050 FEIR Mitigation Measures. The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of The Ontario Plan 2050. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the proposed Project:

MM 12-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. Construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered 1949
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 32
timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed FTA architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry).

If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are exceeded.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Conclusion
As demonstrated in Table 13 and discussed above, implementation of the Project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration levels. Vibration impacts related to the proposed Project are less than the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.

Threshold 6.3 For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest airport to the Project site is the Ontario International Airport located approximately three miles to the southeast. Therefore, the Project is not within two miles of the Ontario Airport, and it is outside the 60 CNEL noise contour. 18 Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project would not expose people working in the Project area to excessive airport related noise levels and no mitigation is required.
2022 The Ontario Plan 2050 FEIR Mitigation Measures. The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of The Ontario Plan 2050. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the proposed Project:

MM 12-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Ontario International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State 18 City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan 2050, Safety Element, S-4 Noises Hazards. Figure S-06c Airport Noise Contours, 2020. 1950
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 33
Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations).

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Conclusion
The Project site is located outside the Ontario International Airport noise contours and Project impacts are less than the significant unavoidable impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impact relative to airport noise or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.

6.2 Cumulative Noise Impacts
Cumulative Construction Noise
The Project’s construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise would be periodic and temporary noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.

Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the project site would be required to comply with applicable City rules related to noise and would take place during daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the project site and vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative impact existed. Impacts in this regard are not cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing and Opening Year Without Project scenarios to the Opening Year Plus Project scenario. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future growth assumed in the transportation model, as well as cumulative projects.
1951
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 34
A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined and incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase. • Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed Project.
• Incremental Effects. The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.

A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

Table 14: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the Project vicinity for “Existing,” “Opening Year Without Project,” and “Opening Year With Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative impacts.

Table 14: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing
dBA
CNEL1
Opening
Year
Without
Project
dBA
CNEL1
Opening
Year
With
Project
dBA
CNEL1
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Difference in
dBA Between
Existing and
Opening Year
With Project
Difference in
dBA Between
Opening Year
With and
Without
Project
Mountain Avenue
North of 4th Street 65.9 66.4 66.5 0.6 0.1 No
South of 4th Street 65.4 65.7 65.7 0.3 0.0 No
4 th Street
West of Mountain
Avenue 58.1 58.5 58.6 0.5 0.1 No
Mountain Avenue to
Palmetto Avenue 59.1 59.4 59.6 0.5 0.2 No
East of Palmetto Avenue 59.0 59.3 59.4 0.4 0.1 No
Palmetto Avenue South of 4th Street 42.1 44.3 44.3 0.2 0.0 No ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level

A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded, and the resultant noise level exceeds the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility noise 1952
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 35
standard. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

Table 14 shows that off-site traffic noise will not exceed both the combined and incremental noise thresholds used to identify cumulative impacts. As discussed above, a cumulative traffic noise impact would only occur if both the combined and incremental effects criteria are exceeded, and the resultant noise level exceeds the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility standard. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Cumulative Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources of the proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in nontransportation noise sources in the vicinity of the project site. However, as discussed above, operational noise caused by the proposed Project would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed Project, other planned and approved projects would be required to mitigate for stationary noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, if necessary. As stationary noise sources are generally localized, there is a limited potential for other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational noise levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact, and even if there was such a significant cumulative impact, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative operational noises.

Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Conclusion
As demonstrated in Table 14 and discussed above, implementation of the Project would not result in cumulatively significant off-site traffic noise or stationary noise. Cumulative noise impacts related to the proposed Project are less than the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.
1953
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Acoustical Assessment
August 2023
Page | 36
7 REFERENCES

1. California Department of Transportation, California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, 1987.

2. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2020.

3. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013.

4. California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2020.

5. City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/safety.

6. City of Ontario. 2022. Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 29 Noise – Section 5-29.04 Exterior Noise Standards. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-41849

7. City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Report Impact, Section 5.13, Noise. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.

8. Cowan, James P., Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, 1994.

9. Federal Highway Administration, Noise Fundamentals, 2017.

10. Federal Highway Administration, Noise Measurement Handbook – Final Report, 2018.

11. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006.

12. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide Final Report, 2006.

13. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, 1992.

14. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

15. Kimley-Horn, Traffic Scoping Agreement for the Proposed Watermarke Ontario Project in the City of Ontario, California, 2023

16. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), 1979. 1954
Appendix A
Existing Ambient Noise Measurements
1955
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 195490001
Site No.: Date: 7/26/2023
Analyst: Time: 12:11 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

71.4 56.4 81.1 97.0
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 96° Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 7 NE
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 29.92"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 27%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
Ontario Watermarke project
1 Heather Boland and Daria Young
At the intersection of N Mountain Ave and W 4th Street, inside the parking lot Traffic from intersection, cars pulling into post office, construction at the NW corner of Mountain Ave and 4th Street, people walking by and talking. 1956
Summary
File Name on Meter ST-.137.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0007061
Model SoundExpert® LxT
Firmware Version 2.404
User
Location
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2023-07-26 11:58:51
Stop 2023-07-26 12:08:51
Duration 00:10:00.0
Run Time 00:10:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2023-06-20 09:26:23
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction FF:90 2116
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.4 dB
A C
Under Range Peak 78.9 75.9
Under Range Limit 24.2 25.2
Noise Floor 15.1 16.1
First Second
Instrument Identification 1100 W. Town&Country Rd, #700 LxTse_0007061-20230726 115851-ST-.137.ldbin
1957
Results
LAeq 71.4 dB
LAE 99.2 dB
EA 920.257 µPa²h
LApk (max) 2023-07-26 12:03:18 97.0
LASmax 2023-07-26 12:07:59 81.1
LASmin 2023-07-26 12:00:02 56.4
SEA -99.9 dB
Exceedance Counts
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0.0
Community Noise LDN LDay 07:00-22:00

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

68.5 51.8 90.3 107.0
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 97° Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 5 NE
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 29.91"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 27%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
Ontario Watermarke project
2 Heather Boland and Daria Young
Sidewalk near southeastern entrance to parking lot.

Cars driving into the lot, traffic on W 4th Street, people walking by and talking, and large truck exiting driveway.
1959
Summary
File Name on Meter ST-.139.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0007061
Model SoundExpert® LxT
Firmware Version 2.404
User
Location
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2023-07-26 12:30:33
Stop 2023-07-26 12:40:33
Duration 00:10:00.0
Run Time 00:10:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2023-06-20 09:26:23
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction FF:90 2116
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.4 dB
A C
Under Range Peak 78.9 75.9
Under Range Limit 24.2 25.2
Noise Floor 15.1 16.1
First Second
Instrument Identification 1100 W. Town&Country Rd, #700 LxTse_0007061-20230726 123033-ST-.139.ldbin
1960
Results
LAeq 68.5 dB
LAE 96.3 dB
EA 471.964 µPa²h
LApk (max) 2023-07-26 12:39:20 107.0
LASmax 2023-07-26 12:39:20 90.3
LASmin 2023-07-26 12:36:09 51.8
SEA -99.9 dB
Exceedance Counts
LAS > 85.0 dB 1 2.6
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0.0
Community Noise LDN LDay 07:00-22:00

68.5 68.5
LCeq 77.6 dB
LAeq 68.5 dB
LCeq - LAeq 9.1 dB
LAIeq 71.7 dB
LAeq 68.5 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 3.2 dB
dB Time Stamp
Leq 68.5
LS(max) 90.3 2023/07/26 12:39:20
LS(min) 51.8 2023/07/26 12:36:09
Lpk(max) 107.0 2023/07/26 12:39:20
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
OBA Overload Count 0
OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s
Statistics
LA 5.00 71.7 dB
LA 10.00 69.8 dB
LA 33.30 65.5 dB
LA 50.00 63.5 dB
LA 66.60 60.8 dB
LA 90.00 56.3 dB
Calibration History
Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa
PRMLxT1L 2023-06-20 09:26:23 -26.15
Duration
A
1961
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 195490001
Site No.: Date: 7/26/2023
Analyst: Time: 12:44 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

57.2 45.6 61.8 80.1
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 97° Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 8 NE
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 29.91"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 27%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
Ontario Watermarke project
3 Heather Boland and Daria Young
End of W Harvard Place
Birds, rustling leaves
1962
Summary
File Name on Meter ST-.140.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0007061
Model SoundExpert® LxT
Firmware Version 2.404
User
Location
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2023-07-26 12:44:31
Stop 2023-07-26 12:54:31
Duration 00:10:00.0
Run Time 00:10:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2023-06-20 09:26:23
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction FF:90 2116
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.4 dB
A C
Under Range Peak 78.9 75.9
Under Range Limit 24.2 25.2
Noise Floor 15.1 16.1
First Second
Instrument Identification 1100 W. Town&Country Rd, #700 LxTse_0007061-20230726 124431-ST-.140.ldbin
1963
Results
LAeq 57.2 dB
LAE 85.0 dB
EA 34.987 µPa²h
LApk (max) 2023-07-26 12:44:51 80.1
LASmax 2023-07-26 12:48:30 61.8
LASmin 2023-07-26 12:44:47 45.6
SEA -99.9 dB
Exceedance Counts
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0.0
Community Noise LDN LDay 07:00-22:00

57.2 57.2
LCeq 65.7 dB
LAeq 57.2 dB
LCeq - LAeq 8.5 dB
LAIeq 57.7 dB
LAeq 57.2 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 0.5 dB
dB Time Stamp
Leq 57.2
LS(max) 61.8 2023/07/26 12:48:30
LS(min) 45.6 2023/07/26 12:44:47
Lpk(max) 80.1 2023/07/26 12:44:51
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
OBA Overload Count 0
OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s
Statistics
LA 5.00 58.7 dB
LA 10.00 58.3 dB
LA 33.30 57.9 dB
LA 50.00 57.7 dB
LA 66.60 57.5 dB
LA 90.00 50.6 dB
Calibration History
Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa
PRMLxT1L 2023-06-20 09:26:23 -26.15
Duration
A
1964
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 195490001
Site No.: Date: 7/26/2023
Analyst: Time: 12:58 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

52.0 46.3 65.4 81.7
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 94° Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 6 NE
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 29.92"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 29%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
Ontario Watermarke project
4 Heather Boland and Daria Young
Sidewalk on the south side of the W Princeton street (eastbound) (10th house down) Cars driving by on Princeton Street
1965
Summary
File Name on Meter ST-.141.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0007061
Model SoundExpert® LxT
Firmware Version 2.404
User
Location
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2023-07-26 12:58:53
Stop 2023-07-26 13:08:53
Duration 00:10:00.0
Run Time 00:10:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2023-06-20 09:26:23
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction FF:90 2116
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.4 dB
A C
Under Range Peak 78.9 75.9
Under Range Limit 24.2 25.2
Noise Floor 15.1 16.1
First Second
Instrument Identification 1100 W. Town&Country Rd, #700 LxTse_0007061-20230726 125853-ST-.141.ldbin
1966
Results
LAeq 52.0 dB
LAE 79.8 dB
EA 10.566 µPa²h
LApk (max) 2023-07-26 13:05:55 81.7
LASmax 2023-07-26 13:05:55 65.4
LASmin 2023-07-26 13:04:51 46.3
SEA -99.9 dB
Exceedance Counts
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0.0
Community Noise LDN LDay 07:00-22:00

52.0 52.0
LCeq 65.0 dB
LAeq 52.0 dB
LCeq - LAeq 13.0 dB
LAIeq 53.6 dB
LAeq 52.0 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.6 dB
dB Time Stamp
Leq 52.0
LS(max) 65.4 2023/07/26 13:05:55
LS(min) 46.3 2023/07/26 13:04:51
Lpk(max) 81.7 2023/07/26 13:05:55
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
OBA Overload Count 0
OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s
Statistics
LA 5.00 55.8 dB
LA 10.00 53.8 dB
LA 33.30 51.5 dB
LA 50.00 50.7 dB
LA 66.60 49.7 dB
LA 90.00 48.1 dB
Calibration History
Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa
PRMLxT1L 2023-06-20 09:26:23 -26.15
Duration
A
1967
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 195490001
Site No.: Date: 7/26/2023
Analyst: Time: 11:58 AM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

71.4 56.4 81.1 97.0
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 96° Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 6 NE
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 29.92"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 28%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
Ontario Watermarke project
5 Heather Boland and Daria Young
At the NE corner of the intersection of N Mountain Ave and W Princeton Street Cars driving down Mountain Ave
Please note - no wall just a shrub, had to move towards this area to avoid dog barking on the SE corner of the intersection
1968
Summary
File Name on Meter ST-.137.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0007061
Model SoundExpert® LxT
Firmware Version 2.404
User
Location
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2023-07-26 11:58:51
Stop 2023-07-26 12:08:51
Duration 00:10:00.0
Run Time 00:10:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2023-06-20 09:26:23
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction FF:90 2116
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.4 dB
A C
Under Range Peak 78.9 75.9
Under Range Limit 24.2 25.2
Noise Floor 15.1 16.1
First Second
Instrument Identification 1100 W. Town&Country Rd, #700 LxTse_0007061-20230726 115851-ST-.137.ldbin
1969
Results
LAeq 71.4 dB
LAE 99.2 dB
EA 920.257 µPa²h
LApk (max) 2023-07-26 12:03:18 97.0
LASmax 2023-07-26 12:07:59 81.1
LASmin 2023-07-26 12:00:02 56.4
SEA -99.9 dB
Exceedance Counts
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0.0
Community Noise LDN LDay 07:00-22:00

71.4 71.4
LCeq 76.7 dB
LAeq 71.4 dB
LCeq - LAeq 5.3 dB
LAIeq 72.5 dB
LAeq 71.4 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.1 dB
dB Time Stamp
Leq 71.4
LS(max) 81.1 2023/07/26 12:07:59
LS(min) 56.4 2023/07/26 12:00:02
Lpk(max) 97.0 2023/07/26 12:03:18
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
OBA Overload Count 0
OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s
Statistics
LA 5.00 75.6 dB
LA 10.00 74.5 dB
LA 33.30 72.0 dB
LA 50.00 70.3 dB
LA 66.60 68.3 dB
LA 90.00 62.7 dB
Calibration History
Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa
PRMLxT1L 2023-06-20 09:26:23 -26.15
Duration
A
1970
Appendix B
Noise Modeling Data
1971
FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels Project Name: Watermarke
Project Number: 195490001
Scenario: Existing
Ldn/CNEL: CNEL
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at Distance to Contour # Roadway Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 1 Mountain North of 4th Street 4 10 23,130 40 0 1.0% 1.8% 65.9 - 124 393 1,242 2 Mountain South of 4th Street 4 10 20,380 40 0 1.0% 1.8% 65.4 - 109 346 1,095 3 4th Street West of Mountain Avenue 4 0 6,740 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 58.1 - - 65 205 4 4th Street Mountain Avenue to Palmetto Avenue 4 0 8,390 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 59.1 - - 81 256 5 4th Street East of Palmetto Avenue 4 0 8,150 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 59.0 - - 79 248 6 Palmetto South of 4th Street 2 0 600 25 0 0.6% 0.0% 42.1 - - - - 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. 1 1972
FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels Project Name: Watermarke
Project Number: 195490001
Scenario: Opening Year
Ldn/CNEL: CNEL
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at Distance to Contour # Roadway Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 1 Mountain North of 4th Street 4 10 25,605 40 0 1.0% 1.8% 66.4 - 138 435 1,375 2 Mountain South of 4th Street 4 10 21,715 40 0 1.0% 1.8% 65.7 - 117 369 1,166 3 4th Street West of Mountain Avenue 4 0 7,320 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 58.5 - - 71 223 4 4th Street Mountain Avenue to Palmetto Avenue 4 0 9,106 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 59.4 - - 88 278 5 4th Street East of Palmetto Avenue 4 0 8,866 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 59.3 - - 85 270 6 Palmetto South of 4th Street 2 0 1,004 25 0 0.6% 0.0% 44.3 - - - - 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. 1 1973
FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels Project Name: Watermarke
Project Number: 195490001
Scenario: Opening Year Plus Project
Ldn/CNEL: CNEL
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at Distance to Contour # Roadway Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 1 Mountain North of 4th Street 4 10 26,035 40 0 1.0% 1.8% 66.5 - 140 442 1,398 2 Mountain South of 4th Street 4 10 21,845 40 0 1.0% 1.8% 65.7 - 117 371 1,173 3 4th Street West of Mountain Avenue 4 0 7,450 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 58.6 - - 72 227 4 4th Street Mountain Avenue to Palmetto Avenue 4 0 9,366 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 59.6 - - 90 286 5 4th Street East of Palmetto Avenue 4 0 8,996 35 0 0.6% 0.9% 59.4 - - 87 274 6 Palmetto South of 4th Street 2 0 1,004 25 0 0.6% 0.0% 44.3 - - - - 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. 1 1974
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2023
APPENDIX H – TRANSPORTATION ANALYSES
1975

Traffic Study
for:

Watermarke Ontario
Project
In the City of Ontario
July 2023
1976

TRAFFIC STUDY

FOR THE PROPOSED

WATERMARKE ONTARIO PROJECT

IN THE CITY OF ONTARIO
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
July 2023
1977
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Study Objectives....................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 4 Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Intersection Analysis – HCM Methodology .............................................................................................................. 4 Level of Service Standards and Measure of Significance ................................................................................... 6 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 AREA CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Existing Street System ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Transit Service ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Peak Hour Operating Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 9 FUTURE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Opening Year 2025 Cumulative .................................................................................................................................. 12 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Peak Hour Operating Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 12 PROJECT TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Trip Distribution and Assignment............................................................................................................................. 18 FUTURE CONDITIONS PLUS PROJECT.......................................................................................................................... 18 Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project ........................................................................................................ 18 Peak Hour Operating Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 18 ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 24 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 27 SITE ACCESS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27 STORAGE CAPACITY AT LEFT-TURN POCKETS ....................................................................................................... 27 REQUIRED PARKING ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 31 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 33 1978
LIST OF FIGURES Page
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Project Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 – Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control .................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 – City of Ontario Mobility Element Roadway Classifications .............................................................. 8 Figure 5 – Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 6 – Location of Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 7 – Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8 – Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 16 Figure 9 – Project Trip Distribution............................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 10 – Project-Related Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 11 – Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................... 22 LIST OF TABLES Page
Table 1 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Existing Conditions .............................................................. 11 Table 2 – Summary of Cumulative Projects Trip Generation .............................................................................. 13 Table 3 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Opening Year 2025 Cumulative ...................................... 17 Table 4 – Summary of Project Trip Generation......................................................................................................... 19 Table 5 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project ............ 23 Table 6 – Summary of Approach Volumes .................................................................................................................. 26 Table 7 – Summary of All-Way Stop Warrants .......................................................................................................... 27 Table 8 – Summary of Left-Turn Pocket Storage Capacity ................................................................................... 28 Table 9 – Summary of Parking Requirements ........................................................................................................... 30

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: APPROVED SCOPING AGREEMENT
APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA SHEETS
APPENDIX C: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX D: CUMULATIVE PROJECT INFORMATION
APPENDIX E: ADT COUNT DATA SHEETS
APPENDIX F: TRUCK TURNING DIAGRAM
1979
Watermarke Ontario Project - 1 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

TRAFFIC STUDY

FOR THE PROPOSED

WATERMARKE ONTARIO PROJECT

IN THE CITY OF ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Study Objectives
This traffic study has been prepared to address the traffic-related effects of the proposed Watermarke Ontario project in the City of Ontario. This traffic study has been conducted in accordance with the traffic study requirements of the City of Ontario and the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) Congestion Management Program (CMP).

This report includes a description of existing traffic conditions in the surrounding area, estimated project trip generation and distribution, future traffic growth, and an assessment of project-related effects on the transportation system. Where necessary, circulation system improvements have been identified to address project-related effects at the study locations.

Project Overview
The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Mountain Avenue and 4th Street in the City of Ontario. The project site is shown in its regional setting on Figure 1. The proposed site is bounded by vacant and residential uses to the north, residential uses to the east, 4th Street to the south, and Mountain Avenue to the west.

The project site currently consists of a United States Post Office building and a commercial building with various retail uses. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing uses and construct 357 multi-family dwelling units and 3,800 square feet (SF) of retail on 5.8 acres. A copy of the project site plan is provided on Figure 2.

Direct vehicular access provisions for the project site would consist of one main entry full-movement driveway on 4th Street and one full-movement driveway on Mountain Avenue that provides access to the parking garage for residents.
1980
10 INTERSTATE
- 2 -
1981
1982
Watermarke Ontario Project - 4 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS AND METHODOLOGY
The analysis scenarios and methodology were established in consultation with City of Ontario staff through the Scoping Agreement process. A copy of the approved Scoping Agreement is provided in Appendix A.

Analysis Scenarios
In accordance with the traffic study requirements of the City of Ontario, the project will be evaluated in the morning and evening peak hours for the following conditions:
• Existing Conditions
• Opening Year 2025 Cumulative (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects) • Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project
Intersection Analysis – HCM Methodology
Peak hour intersection operations at the study intersections and driveways were evaluated using the methods prescribed in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition (HCM), consistent with the traffic study requirements of the City of Ontario. The intersection analysis was conducted using the Vistro software program and using the input parameters specified in the San Bernardino County CMP.

For signalized intersections, the HCM methodology estimates the average delay (in average seconds per vehicle) for each of the movements through the intersection, considering a number of factors, including the number of lanes, volume of traffic, and the signal timing phasing.

For unsignalized intersections, the HCM methodology analysis determines the average total delay for each vehicle making any movement from the stop-controlled minor street, as well as left turns from the major street. Delay values are calculated based on the relationship between traffic on the major street and the availability of acceptable gaps in the traffic stream through which conflicting traffic movements can be made.

The HCM delay forecast translates to a Level of Service (LOS) designation, ranging from LOS A to LOS F. A summary of each LOS and the corresponding delay is provided in the following chart:
1983
Watermarke Ontario Project - 5 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service
Description
A
No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.

B
This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized, and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles.

C
This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted but not objectionably so.

D
This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction, approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups.

E
Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand.

F
This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity.

These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA

FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of
Service
Signalized Intersection
(Average delay per vehicle,
in seconds) 1
Unsignalized Intersections
(Average delay per vehicle,
in seconds) 2
A < 10 0 – 10
B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15
C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25
D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35
E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50
F > 80 > 50
1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 7th Edition), Exhibit 19-8. 2 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 7th Edition), Exhibit 20-2. 1984
Watermarke Ontario Project - 6 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023
Level of Service Standards and Measure of Significance
The City of Ontario minimum LOS standards require that intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning and evening peak hours.

If the project traffic causes operations at an intersection to go from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS, the project would have a project-related effect at the intersection. Where necessary, recommended improvements will be identified to achieve acceptable intersection operation at deficient study intersections.

STUDY AREA
This traffic study includes documentation of existing conditions, future conditions, and identification of project-related effects at the following study locations:

Intersections:

1. Mountain Avenue at 4th Street

2. Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
D1. Mountain Avenue at Project Driveway
D2. 4th Street at Project Driveway
The study locations were established in consultation with City of Ontario staff through the Scoping Agreement process. A copy of the approved Scoping Agreement is provided in Appendix A.

AREA CONDITIONS
Existing Street System
Regional access to the site is provided primarily by the Interstate 10 (I-10) Freeway and State Route 83 (SR-83) Freeway. Direct access to the project site is provided via Mountain Avenue and 4th Street.

Existing lane configurations and intersection controls at the study intersections are shown on Figure 3. A copy of the City of Ontario Mobility Element Roadway Classifications is provided on Figure 4. The following provides a description of the roadways surrounding the project site.

Mountain Avenue – Mountain Avenue is a north-south divided roadway with two lanes in each direction and a center left-turn lane within the project vicinity. On-street parking is prohibited along the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Mountain Avenue is designated as a Principal Arterial in the City of Ontario Mobility Element. 1985
- 7 -
LEGEND:
= Turn or Through Lane
= Signal
= Stop Sign
= Study Intersection

1. Mountain Avenue at
4th Street

2. Palmetto Avenue at
4th Street
D1. Mountain Avenue at
Project Driveway
D2. 4th Street at
Project Driveway
FUTURE

INTERSECTION
FUTURE

INTERSECTION
1986
1987
Watermarke Ontario Project - 9 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023
Palmetto Avenue – Palmetto Avenue is a north-south undivided roadway with one lane in each direction within the project vicinity. On-street parking is permitted along the roadway. 4th Street – 4th Street is an east-west divided roadway with one to two lanes in each direction and a center left-turn lane within the project vicinity. On-street parking is generally prohibited along the roadway within the project vicinity, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. 4th Street is designated as a Collector in the City of Ontario Mobility Element within the project vicinity.

Transit Service
Transit service within the project area is provided by OmniTrans, which serves the City of Ontario and other surrounding communities. The closest bus stop in the project vicinity is located at the intersection of Mountain Avenue and 4th Street. A description of the bus route serving the project area is provided below.

Route 84 – Route 84 operates within the communities of Ontario, Chino, and Upland, traveling along Mountain Avenue. Route 84 operates on weekdays from approximately 5:45 AM to 9:00 PM with approximately 60-minute headways (the time between bus arrivals). On the weekends, Route 84 operates from approximately 6:00 AM to 7:55 PM with approximately 60-minute headways.

Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing morning peak hour and evening peak hour counts were conducted at the study intersections in May 2023.

Existing morning and evening peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 5. Peak hour intersection traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix B.

Peak Hour Operating Conditions
Intersection LOS analysis was conducted for the morning and evening peak hours using the analysis procedures and assumptions described previously in this report. The results of the intersection analysis for Existing Conditions are shown on Table 1. Copies of Existing Conditions intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

Review of this table indicates that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS. 1988
- 10 -
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes

1. Mountain Avenue at
4th Street

2. Palmetto Avenue at
4th Street
D1. Mountain Avenue at
Project Driveway
D2. 4th Street at
Project Driveway
FUTURE

INTERSECTION
FUTURE

INTERSECTION
1989
TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Mountain Avenue at 4th Street S 14.7 B 16.2 B
2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street U 11.7 B 13.4 B
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.

S = Signalized
U = Unsignalized
Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Study
- 11 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

July 2023
1990
Watermarke Ontario Project - 12 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

FUTURE CONDITIONS
Opening Year 2025 Cumulative
The project Opening Year (the year the project would be constructed and occupied) is anticipated to be Year 2025. An ambient growth rate of 2% per year to Opening Year 2025 was applied to existing traffic volumes. Cumulative Project traffic was also added to Opening Year 2025 volumes and is detailed below.

Cumulative Projects
In addition to ambient growth, Cumulative Project traffic volumes are added to existing traffic volumes. Information about Cumulative Projects in the area was provided by the City of Ontario and the City of Upland. Cumulative Projects consist of any project that has been approved but is not yet constructed/occupied, and projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process but have not yet been approved. A summary of Cumulative Projects in the project vicinity and the trip generation associated with each is provided on Table 2. The locations of the Cumulative Projects are shown on Figure 6.

Trip generation information for the Cumulative Projects was derived either from approved traffic studies, where available; or developed by Kimley-Horn if approved traffic studies were not available.

Likewise, trip distribution and assignment for the Cumulative Projects were either derived from approved traffic studies, where available; or were developed by Kimley-Horn if approved traffic studies were not available. Project information and trip distribution assumptions for Cumulative Projects are provided in Appendix D. Traffic volumes associated with Cumulative Projects were compiled for each of the study intersections and are shown on Figure 7.

The ambient growth and the traffic volumes from the Cumulative Projects were added to the Existing peak hour volumes to develop Opening Year 2025 Cumulative traffic forecasts. The resulting traffic volumes are shown in Figure 8.

Peak Hour Operating Conditions
Intersection LOS analysis was conducted for the morning and evening peak hours for the Opening Year 2025 Cumulative conditions. The results are shown on Table 3. Intersection analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix C.

Review of this table indicates that all study intersections would continue to operate an acceptable LOS.
1991
Trip Generation Estimates
Proj # Description Location Land Use
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
1 PDEV21-009 221 North Mountain Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 39 DU 263 4 12 16 13 7 20 2 PDEV21-008 SWC of Emporia and Palm Avenue Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 50 DU 337 5 15 20 16 9 25 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 144 DU 971 14 44 58 46 27 73 General Office Building 4.500 KSF 49 6 1 7 1 5 6
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 109 DU 735 10 33 43 35 21 56 General Office Building 4.050 KSF 44 5 1 6 1 5 6
5 PDEV22-023 NEC of Laurel Avenue and D Street Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 28 DU 189 3 9 12 9 5 14 6 PDEV23-001 SWC of D Street and Sultana Fire and Rescue Station 30.996 KSF -- -- -- -- 4 11 15 7 PDEV21-021 SWC of 6th Street and Mountian Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-thru 2.370 KSF 1,108 54 52 106 41 38 79 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 59 DU 398 6 18 24 19 11 30 General Office Building 2.500 KSF 27 3 0 3 1 3 4
9 PDEV19-002 1055 West Mission Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 68 DU 458 7 21 28 22 13 35 10 PDEV19-027 SWC of State Street and San Antonio Avenue General Light Industrial 104.078 KSF 507 68 9 77 9 58 67 11 Risen Bakery and Grill 1600 W. 9th Street Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop w/o D.T. 1.291 KSF -- 43 48 91 18 18 36 12 Commercial Office 137 E. 7th Street General Office Building 4.000 KSF 43 5 1 6 1 5 6 13 Medical Office Building 185 E. 7th Street Medical-Dental Office Building 3.475 KSF 125 9 2 11 4 10 14 Senior Adult Housing-Multifamily 160 Occ. DU 518 11 21 32 24 16 40 Assisted Living 74 Bed 192 8 5 13 7 11 18
15 Magnolia Villas 255 E. Stowell Street Affordable Housing 93 DU 447 10 24 34 25 18 43 Senior Adult Housing-Multifamily 81 Occ. DU 262 6 11 17 12 8 20 General Office Building 1.500 KSF 16 2 0 2 0 2 2
Total Project Trips 6,689 279 327 606 308 301 609
City of Ontario
City of Upland
PDEV20-009 549 West Holt
Quantity
TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION
Units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DU = Dwelling Unit, KSF = 1,000 square feet
3 PDEV20-020 NEC of C Street and Euclid Avenue
4 PDEV22-031 NEC of D Street and Euclid Avenue
8 16 Euclid Villas 120 N. Euclid Avenue
14 Citrus Village Senior Living 895 & 911 W. Arrow Highway Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Study
- 13 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

July 2023
1992
10 INTERSTATE LEGEND: = Cumulative Project
1993
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 15 -

1. Mountain Avenue at
4th Street

2. Palmetto Avenue at
4th Street
D1. Mountain Avenue at
Project Driveway
D2. 4th Street at
Project Driveway
1994
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 16 -

1. Mountain Avenue at
4th Street

2. Palmetto Avenue at
4th Street
D1. Mountain Avenue at
Project Driveway
D2. 4th Street at
Project Driveway
1995
TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
OPENING YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE
Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Mountain Avenue at 4th Street S 16.1 B 17.8 B
2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street U 12.3 B 14.3 B
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.

S = Signalized
U = Unsignalized
Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Study
- 17 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

July 2023
1996
Watermarke Ontario Project - 18 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

PROJECT TRAFFIC
Trip Generation
Trip estimates for existing and proposed uses were calculated using the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (11th Edition) for Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Land Use 220), United States Post Office (ITE Land Use 732), and Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (ITE Land Use 822). Pass-by reduction factors were applied to applicable uses based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, (11th Edition).

The trip generation rates, and the resulting trip generation estimates for the proposed Watermarke Ontario project are summarized on Table 4. After applying existing use credits and pass-by reduction factors, the project is estimated to generate approximately 1,269 net new vehicle trips on a daily basis, 76 net new trips (4 fewer inbound and 80 outbound) in the AM peak hour, and 81 net new trips (64 inbound and 17 outbound) in the PM peak hour.

Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution assumptions for the project were based on the proximity to regional and local roadways and existing travel patterns. Trip distribution percentages at each study intersection were applied to the project trip generation to determine the project trips through each intersection. Project trip distribution for the project is shown on Figure 9, and project-related traffic volumes are shown on Figure 10.

FUTURE CONDITIONS PLUS PROJECT
Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project
Project-related traffic was added to the Opening Year 2025 Cumulative traffic volumes, and the resulting morning and evening peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 11.

Peak Hour Operating Conditions
Intersection LOS analysis was conducted for the morning and evening peak hours for the Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The results of the intersection analysis are shown on Table 5. Copies of intersection analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix C.

Review of this table indicates that all study intersections would continue to operate an acceptable LOS.
1997
TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

WATERMARKE ONTARIO PROJECT
Trip Generation Rates 1
Land Use Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 822 KSF 54.450 1.416 0.944 2.360 3.295 3.295 6.590 United States Post Office 732 KSF 103.940 4.306 3.974 8.280 5.717 5.493 11.210 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 DU 6.740 0.096 0.304 0.400 0.321 0.189 0.510 Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Quantity Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 17.1 KSF 931 24 16 40 56 56 112 Pass-by Trips (40% PM) 2
- 40% -44 - - - -22 -22 -44
United States Post Office 4.3 KSF 447 19 17 36 25 24 49 Total Existing Trips 1,334 43 33 76 59 58 117
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 357 DU 2,406 34 109 143 115 67 182 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 3.8 KSF 207 5 4 9 13 13 26
Pass-by Trips (40% PM) 2
- 40% -10 - - - -5 -5 -10
Total Proposed Project Trips 2,603 39 113 152 123 75 198 Net Difference (Proposed Minus Existing) 1,269 -4 80 76 64 17 81 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition 2 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual - Volume 1: User's Guide and Handbook, 11th Edition Existing Use
Proposed Use
Note: The User's Guide and Handbook does not provide pass-by rates for daily trip generation. The daily pass-by trips shown are the sum of the AM and the PM peak hour pass-by trips.

ITE Code
Daily
Daily
Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Study
- 19 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

July 2023 1998
LEGEND:
- 20 -
55%
15% 15%
15%
XX% = Project Trip
Distribution
= Study Intersection
1999
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 21 -

1. Mountain Avenue at
4th Street

2. Palmetto Avenue at
4th Street
D1. Mountain Avenue at
Project Driveway
D2. 4th Street at
Project Driveway
2000
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 22 -

1. Mountain Avenue at
4th Street

2. Palmetto Avenue at
4th Street
D1. Mountain Avenue at
Project Driveway
D2. 4th Street at
Project Driveway
2001
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Int. # Intersection Traffic
Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Mountain Avenue at 4th Street S 16.1 B 16.3 B 0.2 No 17.8 B 17.9 B 0.1 No 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street U 12.3 B 12.4 B 0.1 No 14.3 B 14.4 B 0.1 No D1 Mountain Avenue at Project Driveway U - - 14.0 B - - - - 13.8 B - - D2 4th Street at Project Driveway U - - 12.1 B - - - - 14.0 B - - Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service ProjectRelated
Effect?
Change In
Delay
Change In
Delay
ProjectRelated
Effect?
TABLE 5
Without Project With Project
- Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.

S = Signalized
U = Unsignalized
OPENING YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
Without Project With Project
Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Study
- 23 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

July 2023
2002
Watermarke Ontario Project - 24 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT ANALYSIS
Per request from City staff, an all-way stop warrant analysis was conducted for the existing sidestreet stop-controlled (SSSC) intersection of Palmetto Avenue and 4th Street (intersection #2). The warrant analysis was based on the methodologies noted in Section 2B.07 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).
4th Street is a roadway that runs in the east and west direction with one lane in each direction east of Palmetto Avenue and two lanes in each direction west of Palmetto Avenue within the project vicinity. 4th Street has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Palmetto Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway with no posted speed limit. The eastbound and westbound 4th Street approaches at the intersection are free-flow, while the northbound Palmetto Avenue approach at the intersection is stop-controlled.

Unlike a signal warrant analysis, formal warrants are not identified to justify the installation of an allway stop control; rather, the CA MUTCD outlines criteria to be “considered” as part of an engineering study. The following is a brief description of the criteria considered, as outlined in the CA MUTCD.

Criterion A – Interim Traffic Control
Criterion A considers intersections where a traffic signal is justified. A 4-way stop control condition can be implemented as a temporary condition to facilitate traffic, while permanent traffic signal equipment is being constructed/installed. As permanent signal equipment is not being installed, this criterion does not apply.

Criterion Findings
As permanent signal equipment is not being installed, this criterion does not apply.

Criterion B – Crash Rate
Criterion B considers crash frequency at the studied intersection. A 4-way stop control condition shall be considered if 5 or more crashes occur at the studied intersection within a 12-month period, that can be addressed by implementing said condition. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions, as well as right-angle collisions.

Criterion Findings
Collision data was pulled from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for a 5- year period between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. During this time period, there were three collisions reported at the intersection of Palmetto Avenue and 4th Street. The collision data indicates that Criterion B has not been met.
2003
Watermarke Ontario Project - 25 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023
Criterion C – Minimum Volumes
Criterion C establishes vehicular volume thresholds for which a 4-way stop control condition shall be considered for installation. The CA MUTCD identifies 3 thresholds:

1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and

2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection form the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 second per vehicle during the highest hour; but’

3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in items 1 and 2.

Criterion Findings
24-hour traffic volumes were collected in July 2023 at the existing approaches for the intersection of Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street, and the data collection worksheets are provided in Appendix E. Due to the closure of schools for summer break, an adjustment factor was calculated based on a comparison of May 2023 and July 2023 traffic counts at intersection #2 (Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street). The peak hour intersection traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Based on a comparison of the May 2023 and July 2023 traffic count data, an adjustment factor of 27% was applied to the 24-hour traffic volumes that were collected in July 2023. The adjusted existing hourly approach volumes are summarized on Table 6.

As shown in Table 6, the total major street approach volume reaches at least 300 vehicles per hour during 15 hours of the day. The total minor street approach volume does not reach at least 200 vehicles during any hour of the day. Since the minimum total volumes for the major and minor approaches are not met during at least the same 8 hours, Criterion C has not been met.

Conclusions
An all-way stop warrant analysis was conducted for the existing side-street stop-controlled (SSSC) intersection of Palmetto Avenue and 4th Street. The warrant analysis was based on the methodologies noted in Section 2B.07 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The warrant takes into consideration vehicular volumes and other criteria.

Table 7 summarizes if the study intersection fulfilled the criteria evaluated. The results of the analysis indicate that the unsignalized intersection of Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street does not satisfy CA MUTCD all-way stop warrant criteria A, B, and C.
2004
TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF APPROACH VOLUMES

CRITERION C - MINIMUM VOLUMES
EB Approach WB
Approach Total NB Approach Total
Major
Approach1
Minor
Approach2
Both
Approaches
12:00 AM - 1:00 AM 55 22 76 4 4 No No No
1:00 AM - 2:00 AM 32 8 39 3 3 No No No
2:00 AM - 3:00 AM 14 10 24 0 0 No No No
3:00 AM - 4:00 AM 18 23 41 8 8 No No No
4:00 AM - 5:00 AM 32 56 88 8 8 No No No
5:00 AM - 6:00 AM 32 75 107 13 13 No No No
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 81 136 217 20 20 No No No
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 117 199 316 29 29 Yes No No
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 177 265 442 41 41 Yes No No
9:00 AM - 10:00 AM 229 268 497 24 24 Yes No No
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM 281 300 580 25 25 Yes No No
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM 320 309 629 33 33 Yes No No
12:00 PM - 1:00 PM 339 340 679 25 25 Yes No No
1:00 PM - 2:00 PM 418 345 763 37 37 Yes No No
2:00 PM - 3:00 PM 396 279 676 28 28 Yes No No
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 408 357 765 29 29 Yes No No
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 511 366 876 30 30 Yes No No
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 545 391 936 32 32 Yes No No
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 471 324 795 27 27 Yes No No
7:00 PM - 8:00 PM 441 281 721 33 33 Yes No No
8:00 PM - 9:00 PM 348 216 564 25 25 Yes No No
9:00 PM - 10:00 PM 262 136 398 14 14 Yes No No
10:00 PM - 11:00 PM 193 85 278 5 5 No No No
11:00 PM - 12:00 AM 110 46 156 1 1 No No No
2 The total minor approach volume is at least 200 vehicles per hour.

Time Period
Major Street Volumes
(4th Street)
Minor Street Volumes
(Palmetto Avenue) Volume Thresholds Met?
Notes:
- Bold values indicate when certain thresholds are met. 1 The total major approach volume is at least 300 vehicles per hour.

Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Study
- 26 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

July 2023 2005
Watermarke Ontario Project - 27 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023
Table 7 – Summary of All-Way Stop Warrants
Criteria Criteria Satisfied?
Criterion A – Interim Traffic Control N/A
Criterion B – Crash Rate Not Satisfied
Criterion C – Minimum Volumes Not Satisfied

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the LOS standards and criteria noted earlier in the report (see page 6), no improvements are required for the project.

SITE ACCESS
Vehicular access for the project site would be provided via one main entry full-movement driveway on 4th Street and one full-movement driveway on Mountain Avenue that provides access to the parking garage for residents.

Trucks would enter the project site on Mountain Avenue. The turn radius for trucks entering the site on Mountain Avenue is shown on a truck turning diagram provided in Appendix F.

STORAGE CAPACITY AT LEFT-TURN POCKETS
Queue lengths at the left-turn pockets were assessed at the following locations:
• Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
o Westbound Left Turn
• 4th Street at Project Driveway
o Eastbound Left Turn
A summary of the left-turn pocket storage capacity, as well as 95th percentile queue lengths at the locations noted above are summarized on Table 8. The table shows that all left-turn pockets would have adequate storage capacity for 95th percentile queues under Existing, Opening Year 2025 Cumulative, and Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

The left-turn pocket capacities are provided in the intersection analysis worksheets in Appendix C of this report.
2006
TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF LEFT-TURN POCKET STORAGE CAPACITY

WATERMARKE ONTARIO PROJECT
95th Percentile 95th Percentile 95th Percentile
AM 27 27 39
PM 49 49 52
AM - - 0
PM - - 1
Mountain Avenue at 4th Street WBL 130
4th Street at Project Driveway EBL 150
Intersection Movement
Storage
Capacity
(ft/ln)
Peak Hour
Queue Length (ft/ln)
Existing Opening Year 2025
Cumulative
Opening Year 2025
Cumulative Plus
Project
Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Study
- 28 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

July 2023
2007
Watermarke Ontario Project - 29 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

REQUIRED PARKING
The City of Ontario Development Code has established regulations regarding minimum parking requirements for all development sites, based on the type of land use. The City’s parking requirements for the proposed uses on the site, as indicated in Section 9-1.3010 of the City of Ontario Development Code, are as follows:

Multi-Family Dwellings
• Studio Unit: 1.5 parking spaces per unit
• One Bedroom Unit: 1.75 parking spaces per unit
• Two Bedroom Unit: 2 parking spaces per unit
Retail
• 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area A summary of the City’s parking requirements for the project site is provided on Table 9. Per the parking requirements noted above, the proposed parking requirement for the project site is 655 parking spaces. The site will provide 657 parking spaces, resulting in a surplus of 2 parking spaces, compared to City code.
2008
TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Quantity/ Parking Required
Unit Capacity Code 1
Parking
Multi-Family Dwellings (Studio Unit) Rooms 47 1.5 71
Multi-Family Dwellings (One Bedroom Unit) Rooms 202 1.75 354 Multi-Family Dwellings (Two Bedroom Unit) Rooms 107 2.0 214 Retail SF 3,800 0.004 16
TOTAL Parking Required 655
TOTAL Parking Provided 657
Parking Surplus 2
1 Source: City of Ontario Development Code, Section 9-1.3010 Building / Use
Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Study
- 30 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

July 2023
2009
Watermarke Ontario Project - 31 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was approved by California legislature in September 2013. SB 743 requires changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically directing the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular “Level of Service” (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has prepared a technical advisory (“OPR Technical Advisory”) for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace LOS as the primary measure of transportation impacts. The Natural Resources Agency has adopted updates to CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 that requires VMT for the purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA.

The City of Ontario’s Resolution adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (June 2020) provide details on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed level analysis. Screening thresholds are broken down into the following criteria:

1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening

2. Low VMT Area Screening

3. Low Trip Generating Uses

4. Project Type Screening by Land Use Type
Land development projects that meet one or more of the above screening thresholds may be presumed to create a less-than-significant impact on transportation and circulation. The screening thresholds were reviewed and evaluated for this project.

Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
Projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact. A TPA is defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop of an existing stop along a highquality transit corridor. ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail 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 evening peak commute periods. A ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with a fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during the peak commute hours.

Based on the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the project is not located within a TPA.

The TPA Screening criteria is not met.

2010
Watermarke Ontario Project - 32 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023
Low VMT Area Screening
Projects located within a low VMT generating area (<-15% below County Baseline) may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact. Based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, the project is located in a Low VMT Area. The SBCTA VMT Screening Tool results are provided in the Approved Scoping Agreement in Appendix A.

The Low VMT Area Screening criteria is met.

Low Trip Generating Uses
A project generating less than 110 Average Daily Trips (ADT) is presumed to have a less-thansignificant impact based on the City’s guidelines. As mentioned previously, the project is estimated to generate 1,269 net new daily trips. Therefore, the project would not screen out under Low Trip Generating Uses.

The Low Trip Generating Uses Screening threshold is not met.

Project Type Screening
Projects which serve the local community and have the potential to reduce VMT should not be required to complete a VMT assessment. These projects are noted below:
• Local-Serving Retail less than 50,000 SF
• Local-Serving K-12 Schools
• Local Parks
• Day Care Centers
• Local-Serving Gas Stations
• Local-Serving Banks
• Local-Serving Hotels
• Student Housing Projects
• Local Serving Community Colleges
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips The Project Type Screening criteria is not met.

Based on review of the VMT screening criteria, the project meets the Low VMT Area Screening threshold. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant transportation impact, and no additional VMT analysis is required.
2011
Watermarke Ontario Project - 33 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Study July 2023

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
• The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Mountain Avenue and 4th Street in the City of Ontario.
• The project proposes to demolish the existing uses and construct 357 multi-family dwelling units and 3,800 SF of retail on 5.8 acres.
• Vehicular access for the project site would be provided via one main entry full-movement driveway on 4th Street and one full-movement driveway on Mountain Avenue that provides access to the parking garage for residents.
• Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS. • Under Opening Year 2025 Cumulative conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS.
• The project is estimated to generate approximately 1,269 net new daily trips with 76 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 81 net new trips in the PM peak hour. • Under Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS.
• An all-way stop warrant analysis was conducted for the existing side-street stop-controlled intersection of Palmetto Avenue and 4th Street. The results of the analysis indicate that the unsignalized intersection of Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street does not satisfy CA MUTCD all-way stop warrant criteria A, B, and C.
• Per the City’s parking requirements, the proposed parking requirement for the project site is 655 parking spaces. The site will provide 657 parking spaces, resulting in a surplus of 2 parking spaces, compared to City code.
• Based on review of the VMT screening criteria, the project meets the Low VMT Area Screening threshold. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant transportation impact, and no additional VMT analysis is required.
2012

APPENDIX A

APPROVED SCOPING AGREEMENT
2013
1 From: Jaime Maciel-Carrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 11:43 AM
To: FyneNsofor, John <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Grahn <[email protected]>; Burnett, Candyce <[email protected]>; Jonny Schneider ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Jay Bautista <[email protected]>; Diego Tapia <[email protected]>; Nathan Kuan <[email protected]> Subject: RE:

Good Morning John,
We’ve reviewed the updated scoping agreement and would like to approve it as noted with the following minor comments:
1) We’d like the “Specific Issues” section updated to evaluate the left turn queuing on Fourth Street at Mountain Avenue and the proposed driveway to determine if there will be any conflicts between westbound left turn queues at Mountain and eastbound left turn queues at the driveway. We want to confirm that there is adequate left turn stacking available in both directions. 2) The VMT screening threshold used must be Below County Baseline (-15%). Also please confirm the project opening year as 2023. Please update the VMT screening screenshot on the formal submittal.

Please proceed with preparation of the analyses based on the comments above.

Thanks,

Jaime Maciel-Carrera, T.E.

Senior Associate Engineer
City of Ontario
909-395-2151
From: FyneNsofor, John <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Thomas Grahn <[email protected]>
Cc: Burnett, Candyce <[email protected]>; Jonny Schneider ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Jaime Maciel-Carrera <[email protected]> Subject: RE:

Good afternoon Tom,
Please see the attached traffic scoping agreement. It has been revised based on comments provided by the City. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
2014
kimley-horn.com 3380 Lemon Street, Suite 420, Riverside CA 92501 951 543 9868

MEMORANDUM
To: Jonny Schneider
Watermarke Properties

From: Trevor Briggs, P.E. (C87664)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: May 12, 2023
Subject: Traffic Scoping Agreement for the Proposed Watermarke Ontario Project in the City of Ontario, California
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is submitting this Traffic Scoping Agreement to the City of Ontario regarding the traffic study scope and assumptions for the proposed Watermarke Ontario project located in the City of Ontario, California. The proposed traffic scope and assumptions for the project are presented below.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Mountain Avenue and 4th Street. The project site currently consists of a United States Post Office building and a commercial building with various retail uses. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing uses and construct 357 multi-family dwelling units and 3,800 square feet (SF) of retail on 5.8 acres. The project is shown in its local setting on Figure 1. A copy of the project site plan is shown on Figure 2.

Access to the project site would be provided via one main entry full-movement driveway on 4th Street and one full-movement driveway on Mountain Avenue that provides access to the parking garage for residents. Each project driveway would be unsignalized.

SCOPE OF STUDY
Project Trip Generation
Trip estimates for existing and proposed uses were calculated using the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (11th Edition) for Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Land Use 220), United States Post Office (ITE Land Use 732), and Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (ITE Land Use 822). Pass-by reduction factors were applied to applicable uses based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, (11th Edition). 2015
- 2 -
2016
2017
Mr. Jonny Schneider, May 12, 2023, Page 4
kimley-horn.com 3380 Lemon Street, Suite 420, Riverside CA 92501 951 543 9868 Trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation estimates for the existing and proposed uses are summarized on Table 1. The project is estimated to generate approximately 1,269 net new trips on a daily basis, with 76 net new trips (4 fewer inbound and 80 outbound) in the AM peak hour, and 81 net new trips (64 inbound and 17 outbound) in the PM peak hour.

Project Trip Distribution
Project distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, and the likely origins and destinations of the proposed project. Trip distribution assumptions are shown on Figure 3.

Study Area
A Level of Service (LOS) analysis will be conducted at the following study intersections (see Figure 3):

1. Mountain Avenue at 4th Street

2. Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
D1. Mountain Avenue at Project Driveway
D2. 4th Street at Project Driveway
Study Scenarios
• Existing Conditions
• Opening Year 2025 (Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative Projects) • Opening Year 2025 Plus Project
A 2.0% annual ambient growth rate will be applied to the existing traffic counts up to Opening Year 2025.

Specific Issues
Per request from City staff, the following specific issues will be analyzed as part of the traffic study:
• An All-Way Stop Warrant analysis at the intersection of Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street. • A truck turning template for trucks turning into the project site on 4th Street. • A Queuing Analysis at the following intersections:
o Westbound Left-Turn at the intersection of Mountain Avenue at 4th Street o Eastbound Left-Turn at the intersection of 4th Street at Project Driveway 2018
TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

ITE Code
Daily
Daily
Watermarke Ontario Project
Traffic Scoping Agreement
- 5 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2023 2019
XX%
55%
15% 15%
15%
- 6 -
2020
Mr. Jonny Schneider, May 12, 2023, Page 7
kimley-horn.com 3380 Lemon Street, Suite 420, Riverside CA 92501 951 543 9868

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING
The City of Ontario Resolution adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (June 2020) provides details on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed analysis. Screening thresholds are broken into the following three steps:

1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening

2. Low VMT Area Screening

3. Low Trip Generating Uses

4. Project Type Screening by Land Use Type
Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
A project located within a TPA as determined by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool would be considered to have a less-than-significant transportation impact. Based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool results, the proposed project is not located within a TPA.

The TPA Screening threshold is not met.

Low VMT Area Screening
A project located within a low VMT generating area as determined by the City’s guidelines and the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool would be considered to have a less-than-significant transportation impact. Based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool results (see Attachment A), the proposed project is located within a low VMT area (<-15% below County Baseline).

The Low VMT Area Screening threshold is met.

The Low Trip Generating Uses Screening threshold is not met. 2021
Mr. Jonny Schneider, May 12, 2023, Page 8
kimley-horn.com 3380 Lemon Street, Suite 420, Riverside CA 92501 951 543 9868 Project Type Screening by Land Use Type
Some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less-than-significant impact. These projects include residential projects within a high-quality transit corridor, local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet, certain transportation projects that do not add vehicle capacity, local serving K–12 public schools, local/neighborhood parks, childcare facilities, affordable housing, community institutions, senior housing facilities and non-destination small hotels. Based on the City’s guidelines, the proposed project would not screen out of VMT based on Project Type.

The Project Type Screening threshold is not met.

TRAFFIC CONSISTENCY WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) EIR
The project site is located within The Ontario Plan (TOP) area in the City of Ontario. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for The Ontario Plan was approved in January 2010 and later amended in August 2022. The approved EIR serves as an environmental review for the economic mix-used development of approximately 50 square miles of retail, office, and civic uses in the City of Ontario. The entire 32,022-acre area was included in the environmental documentation for The Ontario Plan.

Level of Service was the applicable threshold when the City certified the VGMP EIR. The mandate requiring lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts was adopted in 2018 and effective in 2020. It does not constitute as “new information” requiring additional environmental review nor does it affect the assessment of project environmental impacts or mitigation measures compared to those analyzed in the VGMP EIR.

In the TOP, the project site is zoned as a Mixed-Use Neighborhood Activity Hub (MU-NH) for the Neighborhood Center of Mountain Avenue and 4th Street. The TOP allows for a mixture of retail and residential uses within a density of 20 to 75 dwelling units per acre and 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail.

As noted previously, the project consists of 357 dwelling units on 5.8 acres, which equates to approximately 61 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the density of the proposed project is within the land use and zoning assumptions in The Ontario Plan, and increase in population generated by the site has already been anticipated by SCAG.
2022
Mr. Jonny Schneider, May 12, 2023, Page 9
kimley-horn.com 3380 Lemon Street, Suite 420, Riverside CA 92501 951 543 9868

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the City’s guidelines and the project trip generation, a Level of Service (LOS) analysis is required for the proposed project. The proposed project would screen out of VMT based on the project being located within a Low VMT Area. As such, the proposed project would be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, no further VMT analysis is required for the proposed project.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. 2023
ATTACHMENT A – SBCTA VMT SCREENING TOOL RESULTS
2024

APPENDIX B

TRAFFIC COUNT DATA SHEETS
2025
File Name : 01_ONT_Mtn_4th AM
Site Code : 10823489
Start Date : 5/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of Ontario
N/S: Mountain Avenue
E/W: 4th Street
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Mountain Avenue
Southbound
4th Street
Westbound
Mountain Avenue
Northbound
4th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 14 135 18 167 8 27 25 60 9 175 7 191 16 12 12 40 458 07:15 AM 18 173 17 208 5 26 17 48 12 201 6 219 25 21 11 57 532 07:30 AM 32 193 27 252 6 37 22 65 16 224 4 244 25 37 11 73 634 07:45 AM 32 210 23 265 10 28 30 68 21 243 7 271 21 35 23 79 683 Total 96 711 85 892 29 118 94 241 58 843 24 925 87 105 57 249 2307 08:00 AM 38 172 14 224 6 30 22 58 8 184 8 200 21 18 6 45 527 08:15 AM 21 162 13 196 8 13 16 37 9 164 1 174 10 20 3 33 440 08:30 AM 21 168 13 202 7 11 31 49 7 189 5 201 16 15 7 38 490 08:45 AM 51 174 11 236 6 35 30 71 15 182 17 214 21 21 4 46 567 Total 131 676 51 858 27 89 99 215 39 719 31 789 68 74 20 162 2024 Grand Total 227 1387 136 1750 56 207 193 456 97 1562 55 1714 155 179 77 411 4331 Apprch % 13 79.3 7.8 12.3 45.4 42.3 5.7 91.1 3.2 37.7 43.6 18.7 Total % 5.2 32 3.1 40.4 1.3 4.8 4.5 10.5 2.2 36.1 1.3 39.6 3.6 4.1 1.8 9.5 Mountain Avenue
Southbound
4th Street
Westbound
Mountain Avenue
Northbound
4th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 18 173 17 208 5 26 17 48 12 201 6 219 25 21 11 57 532 07:30 AM 32 193 27 252 6 37 22 65 16 224 4 244 25 37 11 73 634 07:45 AM 32 210 23 265 10 28 30 68 21 243 7 271 21 35 23 79 683 08:00 AM 38 172 14 224 6 30 22 58 8 184 8 200 21 18 6 45 527 Total Volume 120 748 81 949 27 121 91 239 57 852 25 934 92 111 51 254 2376 % App. Total 12.6 78.8 8.5 11.3 50.6 38.1 6.1 91.2 2.7 36.2 43.7 20.1 PHF .789 .890 .750 .895 .675 .818 .758 .879 .679 .877 .781 .862 .920 .750 .554 .804 .870 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
2026
File Name : 01_ONT_Mtn_4th AM
Site Code : 10823489
Start Date : 5/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of Ontario
N/S: Mountain Avenue
E/W: 4th Street
Weather: Clear
Mountain Avenue
4th Street
4th Street
Mountain Avenue
Right
81 Thru
748
Left
120
Out In Total
1035 949 1984
Right
91 Thru
121
Left
27 Out Total In
256 239 495
Left
57 Thru
852
Right
25 Out In Total
826 934 1760
Left
92 Thru
111
Right
51 Total Out In
259 254 513
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 18 173 17 208 8 27 25 60 12 201 6 219 25 21 11 57 +15 mins. 32 193 27 252 5 26 17 48 16 224 4 244 25 37 11 73 +30 mins. 32 210 23 265 6 37 22 65 21 243 7 271 21 35 23 79 +45 mins. 38 172 14 224 10 28 30 68 8 184 8 200 21 18 6 45 Total Volume 120 748 81 949 29 118 94 241 57 852 25 934 92 111 51 254 % App. Total 12.6 78.8 8.5 12 49 39 6.1 91.2 2.7 36.2 43.7 20.1 PHF .789 .890 .750 .895 .725 .797 .783 .886 .679 .877 .781 .862 .920 .750 .554 .804 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
2027
File Name : 01_ONT_Mtn_4th PM
Site Code : 10823489
Start Date : 5/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of Ontario
N/S: Mountain Avenue
E/W: 4th Street
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Mountain Avenue
Southbound
4th Street
Westbound
Mountain Avenue
Northbound
4th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 62 221 13 296 15 34 30 79 26 233 11 270 23 50 12 85 730 04:15 PM 47 239 24 310 11 47 34 92 23 232 15 270 27 54 11 92 764 04:30 PM 50 205 13 268 14 42 26 82 17 219 8 244 24 59 16 99 693 04:45 PM 53 216 17 286 12 36 32 80 16 224 16 256 17 42 11 70 692 Total 212 881 67 1160 52 159 122 333 82 908 50 1040 91 205 50 346 2879 05:00 PM 58 251 20 329 14 49 32 95 16 230 11 257 23 59 11 93 774 05:15 PM 57 236 24 317 14 46 35 95 23 195 12 230 20 57 14 91 733 05:30 PM 49 206 23 278 13 37 31 81 16 206 9 231 24 64 7 95 685 05:45 PM 44 212 19 275 15 42 30 87 20 209 14 243 28 56 12 96 701 Total 208 905 86 1199 56 174 128 358 75 840 46 961 95 236 44 375 2893 Grand Total 420 1786 153 2359 108 333 250 691 157 1748 96 2001 186 441 94 721 5772 Apprch % 17.8 75.7 6.5 15.6 48.2 36.2 7.8 87.4 4.8 25.8 61.2 13 Total % 7.3 30.9 2.7 40.9 1.9 5.8 4.3 12 2.7 30.3 1.7 34.7 3.2 7.6 1.6 12.5 Mountain Avenue
Southbound
4th Street
Westbound
Mountain Avenue
Northbound
4th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 47 239 24 310 11 47 34 92 23 232 15 270 27 54 11 92 764 04:30 PM 50 205 13 268 14 42 26 82 17 219 8 244 24 59 16 99 693 04:45 PM 53 216 17 286 12 36 32 80 16 224 16 256 17 42 11 70 692 05:00 PM 58 251 20 329 14 49 32 95 16 230 11 257 23 59 11 93 774 Total Volume 208 911 74 1193 51 174 124 349 72 905 50 1027 91 214 49 354 2923 % App. Total 17.4 76.4 6.2 14.6 49.9 35.5 7 88.1 4.9 25.7 60.5 13.8 PHF .897 .907 .771 .907 .911 .888 .912 .918 .783 .975 .781 .951 .843 .907 .766 .894 .944 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
2028
File Name : 01_ONT_Mtn_4th PM
Site Code : 10823489
Start Date : 5/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of Ontario
N/S: Mountain Avenue
E/W: 4th Street
Weather: Clear
Mountain Avenue
4th Street
4th Street
Mountain Avenue
Right
74 Thru
911
Left
208
Out In Total
1120 1193 2313
Right
124
Thru
174
Left
51 Out Total In
472 349 821
Left
72 Thru
905
Right
50 Out In Total
1011 1027 2038
Left
91 Thru
214
Right
49 Total Out In
320 354 674
Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:45 PM 05:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM
+0 mins. 53 216 17 286 14 49 32 95 26 233 11 270 23 59 11 93 +15 mins. 58 251 20 329 14 46 35 95 23 232 15 270 20 57 14 91 +30 mins. 57 236 24 317 13 37 31 81 17 219 8 244 24 64 7 95 +45 mins. 49 206 23 278 15 42 30 87 16 224 16 256 28 56 12 96 Total Volume 217 909 84 1210 56 174 128 358 82 908 50 1040 95 236 44 375 % App. Total 17.9 75.1 6.9 15.6 48.6 35.8 7.9 87.3 4.8 25.3 62.9 11.7 PHF .935 .905 .875 .919 .933 .888 .914 .942 .788 .974 .781 .963 .848 .922 .786 .977 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
2029
File Name : 02_ONT_Pal_4th AM
Site Code : 10823489
Start Date : 5/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of Ontario
N/S: Palmetto Avenue
E/W: 4th Street
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
4th Street
Westbound
Palmetto Avenue
Northbound
4th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 47 47 6 0 6 27 2 29 82
07:15 AM 1 45 46 4 1 5 39 1 40 91
07:30 AM 3 65 68 6 0 6 64 7 71 145
07:45 AM 1 77 78 7 5 12 61 2 63 153
Total 5 234 239 23 6 29 191 12 203 471
08:00 AM 2 74 76 2 2 4 53 2 55 135
08:15 AM 0 51 51 8 4 12 36 6 42 105
08:30 AM 0 62 62 3 1 4 42 3 45 111
08:45 AM 0 86 86 5 1 6 68 3 71 163
Total 2 273 275 18 8 26 199 14 213 514
Grand Total 7 507 514 41 14 55 390 26 416 985
Apprch % 1.4 98.6 74.5 25.5 93.8 6.2
Total % 0.7 51.5 52.2 4.2 1.4 5.6 39.6 2.6 42.2
4th Street
Westbound
Palmetto Avenue
Northbound
4th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 3 65 68 6 0 6 64 7 71 145
07:45 AM 1 77 78 7 5 12 61 2 63 153
08:00 AM 2 74 76 2 2 4 53 2 55 135
08:15 AM 0 51 51 8 4 12 36 6 42 105
Total Volume 6 267 273 23 11 34 214 17 231 538
% App. Total 2.2 97.8 67.6 32.4 92.6 7.4
PHF .500 .867 .875 .719 .550 .708 .836 .607 .813 .879
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
2030
File Name : 02_ONT_Pal_4th AM
Site Code : 10823489
Start Date : 5/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of Ontario
N/S: Palmetto Avenue
E/W: 4th Street
Weather: Clear
4th Street
4th Street
Palmetto Avenue
Thru
267
Left
6 Out Total In
225 273 498
Left
23 Right
11 Out In Total
23 34 57
Thru
214
Right
17 Total Out In
290 231 521
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
08:00 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 2 74 76 6 0 6 64 7 71
+15 mins. 0 51 51 7 5 12 61 2 63
+30 mins. 0 62 62 2 2 4 53 2 55
+45 mins. 0 86 86 8 4 12 36 6 42
Total Volume 2 273 275 23 11 34 214 17 231
% App. Total 0.7 99.3 67.6 32.4 92.6 7.4
PHF .250 .794 .799 .719 .550 .708 .836 .607 .813
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
2031
File Name : 02_ONT_Pal_4th PM
Site Code : 10823489
Start Date : 5/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of Ontario
N/S: Palmetto Avenue
E/W: 4th Street
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
4th Street
Westbound
Palmetto Avenue
Northbound
4th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 2 82 84 9 0 9 99 6 105 198
04:15 PM 2 77 79 4 3 7 106 7 113 199
04:30 PM 3 77 80 4 1 5 106 7 113 198
04:45 PM 0 91 91 4 5 9 103 7 110 210
Total 7 327 334 21 9 30 414 27 441 805
05:00 PM 4 91 95 3 3 6 118 4 122 223
05:15 PM 2 92 94 5 1 6 106 9 115 215
05:30 PM 1 74 75 4 2 6 122 6 128 209
05:45 PM 2 75 77 4 4 8 104 7 111 196
Total 9 332 341 16 10 26 450 26 476 843
Grand Total 16 659 675 37 19 56 864 53 917 1648
Apprch % 2.4 97.6 66.1 33.9 94.2 5.8
Total % 1 40 41 2.2 1.2 3.4 52.4 3.2 55.6
4th Street
Westbound
Palmetto Avenue
Northbound
4th Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 0 91 91 4 5 9 103 7 110 210
05:00 PM 4 91 95 3 3 6 118 4 122 223
05:15 PM 2 92 94 5 1 6 106 9 115 215
05:30 PM 1 74 75 4 2 6 122 6 128 209
Total Volume 7 348 355 16 11 27 449 26 475 857
% App. Total 2 98 59.3 40.7 94.5 5.5
PHF .438 .946 .934 .800 .550 .750 .920 .722 .928 .961
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
2032
File Name : 02_ONT_Pal_4th PM
Site Code : 10823489
Start Date : 5/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of Ontario
N/S: Palmetto Avenue
E/W: 4th Street
Weather: Clear
4th Street
4th Street
Palmetto Avenue
Thru
348
Left
7 Out Total In
460 355 815
Left
16 Right
11 Out In Total
33 27 60
Thru
449
Right
26 Total Out In
364 475 839
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:30 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM
+0 mins. 3 77 80 9 0 9 118 4 122
+15 mins. 0 91 91 4 3 7 106 9 115
+30 mins. 4 91 95 4 1 5 122 6 128
+45 mins. 2 92 94 4 5 9 104 7 111
Total Volume 9 351 360 21 9 30 450 26 476
% App. Total 2.5 97.5 70 30 94.5 5.5
PHF .563 .954 .947 .583 .450 .833 .922 .722 .930
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
2033

APPENDIX C

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS
2034
APPENDIX C-1

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
WORKSHEETS –

EXISTING CONDITIONS
2035
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: K:\...\1. EX AM.pdf 6/2/2023
Vistro File: K:\...\Watermarke Ontario_AM.vistro Scenario 1 EX AM Watermarke Ontario Project
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

NB Left 0.046 11.7 B
HCM 7th
Edition 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street Two-way stop
EB Left 0.397 14.7 B
HCM 7th
Edition Signalized Mountain Avenue at 4thStreet 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2036
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.397
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 14.7
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Intersection Setup
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2037
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 66 979 29 138 860 93 106 128 59 31 139 105 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 16 245 7 34 215 23 26 32 15 8 35 26 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 57 852 25 120 748 81 92 111 51 27 121 91 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 57 852 25 120 748 81 92 111 51 27 121 91 Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2038
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 21 0 0 17 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 10 40 0 14 44 0 0 36 0 0 36 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - Lead - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 1 6 0 5 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2039
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 13.49 205.49 9.49 35.96 201.05 196.25 102.86 76.34 72.52 27.16 103.76 97.32 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.54 8.22 0.38 1.44 8.04 7.85 4.11 3.05 2.90 1.09 4.15 3.89 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 7.50 116.85 5.27 19.98 113.64 110.18 57.14 42.41 40.29 15.09 57.64 54.07 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.30 4.67 0.21 0.80 4.55 4.41 2.29 1.70 1.61 0.60 2.31 2.16 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No No Lane Group LOS A B A A B B D C C C C C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 5.11 10.55 7.33 6.80 10.36 10.40 40.16 29.85 30.00 34.65 30.51 30.81 X, volume / capacity 0.12 0.46 0.03 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.49 0.24 0.26 0.13 0.32 0.34 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, 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 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 0.10 0.70 0.06 1.22 1.16 1.20 1.72 0.32 0.38 0.23 0.46 0.60 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 5.01 9.84 7.27 5.58 9.20 9.21 38.44 29.53 29.62 34.41 30.05 30.21 c, Capacity [veh/h] 537 2143 956 525 1142 1103 216 395 354 244 395 341 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 703 3560 1589 692 1870 1807 1136 1870 1678 1196 1870 1615 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.09 0.27 0.02 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.07 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.61 0.61 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 63 54 54 63 55 55 19 19 19 19 19 19 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Lane Group L C R L C C L C C L C C
Lane Group Calculations
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2040
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 5.11 10.55 7.33 6.80 10.38 10.40 40.16 29.89 30.00 34.65 30.54 30.81 Movement LOS A B A A B B D C C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 10.13 9.93 33.62 31.10
Approach LOS B A C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 14.68
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.397
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 36.45
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 2.937 3.099 2.514 2.554 Crosswalk LOS C C B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 800 889 711 711 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 16.20 13.89 18.69 18.69
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.446 2.460 1.801 1.786 Bicycle LOS B B A A
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2041
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.046
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 11.7
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 15.00 35.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 26 13 243 19 7 304
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 7 3 61 5 2 76
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 23 11 214 17 6 267
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 23 11 214 17 6 267
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2042
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.80
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 11.10 0.00 0.17
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 4.95 4.95 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Movement LOS B A A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 11.70 9.90 0.00 0.00 7.77 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2043
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: K:\...\1. EX PM.pdf 6/2/2023
Vistro File: K:\...\Watermarke Ontario_PM.vistro Scenario 1 EX PM Watermarke Ontario Project
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

NB Left 0.038 13.4 B
HCM 7th
Edition 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street Two-way stop
EB Left 0.412 16.2 B
HCM 7th
Edition Signalized Mountain Avenue at 4thStreet 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2044
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.412
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 16.2
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Intersection Setup
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2045
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 76 959 53 220 965 78 96 227 52 54 184 131 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 19 240 13 55 241 20 24 57 13 14 46 33 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 72 905 50 208 911 74 91 214 49 51 174 124 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 72 905 50 208 911 74 91 214 49 51 174 124 Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2046
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 21 0 0 17 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 10 42 0 18 50 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - Lead - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 1 6 0 5 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2047
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 16.69 215.99 19.28 65.81 229.73 225.97 93.29 114.33 110.15 49.15 135.98 125.45 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.67 8.64 0.77 2.63 9.19 9.04 3.73 4.57 4.41 1.97 5.44 5.02 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 9.27 124.50 10.71 36.56 134.60 131.82 51.83 63.51 61.20 27.30 75.55 69.69 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.37 4.98 0.43 1.46 5.38 5.27 2.07 2.54 2.45 1.09 3.02 2.79 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Lane Group LOS A B A A B B D C C D C C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 5.93 11.83 8.48 9.08 11.60 11.65 40.24 29.97 30.08 36.30 30.48 30.79 X, volume / capacity 0.15 0.47 0.06 0.42 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.34 0.35 0.24 0.40 0.42 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, 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 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 0.14 0.77 0.12 2.39 1.43 1.48 1.67 0.49 0.54 0.55 0.61 0.77 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 5.79 11.06 8.36 6.68 10.16 10.17 38.56 29.48 29.54 35.75 29.86 30.02 c, Capacity [veh/h] 495 2051 916 530 1117 1088 205 415 389 224 415 360 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 666 3560 1589 718 1870 1821 1064 1870 1752 1100 1870 1621 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.11 0.27 0.03 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.09 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.69 0.58 0.58 0.69 0.60 0.60 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 62 52 52 62 54 54 20 20 20 20 20 20 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Lane Group L C R L C C L C C L C C
Lane Group Calculations
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2048
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 5.93 11.83 8.48 9.08 11.62 11.65 40.24 30.01 30.08 36.30 30.51 30.79 Movement LOS A B A A B B D C C D C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 11.26 11.18 32.64 31.46
Approach LOS B B C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 16.23
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.412
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 36.45
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 2.999 3.122 2.554 2.686 Crosswalk LOS C C B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 844 1022 578 578 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 15.02 10.76 22.76 22.76
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.457 2.602 1.869 1.864 Bicycle LOS B B A A
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2049
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.038
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 13.4
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 15.00 35.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 17 11 467 27 7 362
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 3 117 7 2 91
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 16 11 449 26 7 348
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 16 11 449 26 7 348
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2050
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.46
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 12.65 0.00 0.16
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 4.45 4.45 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Movement LOS B B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 13.41 11.47 0.00 0.00 8.37 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 1: 1 EX PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2051
APPENDIX C-2

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
WORKSHEETS –
OPENING YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE
2052
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: K:\...\2. OY CUM AM.pdf 6/30/2023
Vistro File: K:\...\Watermarke Ontario_AM.vistro Scenario 2 OY CUM AM Watermarke Ontario Project
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

NB Left 0.052 12.3 B
HCM 7th
Edition 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street Two-way stop
EB Left 0.440 16.1 B
HCM 7th
Edition Signalized Mountain Avenue at 4thStreet 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2053
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.440
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 16.1
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Intersection Setup
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2054
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 68 1043 30 177 916 102 116 136 61 32 149 145 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 17 261 7 44 229 26 29 34 15 8 37 36 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 59 907 26 154 797 89 101 118 53 28 130 126 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 21 0 29 19 5 5 3 0 0 4 31
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 57 852 25 120 748 81 92 111 51 27 121 91 Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2055
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 21 0 0 17 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 10 40 0 14 44 0 0 36 0 0 36 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - Lead - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 1 6 0 5 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2056
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 16.16 241.58 10.98 55.59 234.25 228.77 112.16 77.23 73.18 26.94 118.55 117.44 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.65 9.66 0.44 2.22 9.37 9.15 4.49 3.09 2.93 1.08 4.74 4.70 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 8.98 143.39 6.10 30.89 137.94 133.89 62.31 42.91 40.66 14.97 65.86 65.24 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.36 5.74 0.24 1.24 5.52 5.36 2.49 1.72 1.63 0.60 2.63 2.61 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No No Lane Group LOS A B A A B B D C C C C C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 6.34 12.74 8.58 9.44 12.34 12.41 39.53 27.82 27.94 32.39 28.76 29.31 X, volume / capacity 0.14 0.51 0.03 0.36 0.48 0.48 0.51 0.23 0.24 0.12 0.33 0.38 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, 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 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 0.13 0.94 0.07 2.12 1.49 1.55 1.80 0.26 0.30 0.18 0.43 0.63 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 6.22 11.81 8.51 7.32 10.86 10.86 37.73 27.56 27.64 32.21 28.32 28.68 c, Capacity [veh/h] 491 2027 905 485 1089 1051 226 447 402 276 447 380 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 677 3560 1589 676 1870 1805 1085 1870 1681 1185 1870 1589 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.10 0.29 0.02 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.09 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.67 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 61 51 51 61 52 52 21 21 21 21 21 21 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Lane Group L C R L C C L C C L C C
Lane Group Calculations
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2057
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 6.34 12.74 8.58 9.44 12.37 12.41 39.53 27.85 27.94 32.39 28.76 29.31 Movement LOS A B A A B B D C C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 12.25 11.94 32.20 29.36
Approach LOS B B C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 16.10
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.440
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 36.45
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 2.966 3.161 2.524 2.603 Crosswalk LOS C C B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 800 889 711 711 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 16.20 13.89 18.69 18.69
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.501 2.545 1.818 1.829 Bicycle LOS B B A A
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2058
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.052
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 12.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 15.00 35.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 27 13 290 20 7 356
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 7 3 73 5 2 89
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 24 11 255 18 6 313
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 32 0 0 35
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 23 11 214 17 6 267
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2059
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.73
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 11.66 0.00 0.15
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 5.53 5.53 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Movement LOS B B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 12.33 10.26 0.00 0.00 7.89 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2060
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: K:\...\2. OY CUM PM.pdf 6/30/2023
Vistro File: K:\...\Watermarke Ontario_PM.vistro Scenario 2 OY CUM PM Watermarke Ontario Project
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

NB Left 0.044 14.3 B
HCM 7th
Edition 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street Two-way stop
EB Left 0.459 17.8 B
HCM 7th
Edition Signalized Mountain Avenue at 4thStreet 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2061
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.459
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 17.8
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Intersection Setup
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2062
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 79 1013 55 263 1022 86 105 240 54 56 196 174 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 20 253 14 66 256 21 26 60 14 14 49 43 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 75 956 52 248 965 81 99 227 51 53 185 164 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 15 0 32 18 4 4 4 0 0 4 35
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 72 905 50 208 911 74 91 214 49 51 174 124 Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2063
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 21 0 0 17 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 10 42 0 18 50 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - Lead - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 1 6 0 5 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2064
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 19.78 254.30 22.68 93.81 264.57 260.71 102.23 116.21 111.79 49.39 158.13 142.65 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.79 10.17 0.91 3.75 10.58 10.43 4.09 4.65 4.47 1.98 6.33 5.71 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 10.99 152.90 12.60 52.11 160.64 157.73 56.79 64.56 62.10 27.44 87.85 79.25 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.44 6.12 0.50 2.08 6.43 6.31 2.27 2.58 2.48 1.10 3.51 3.17 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Lane Group LOS A B B B B B D C C C C C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 7.17 14.50 10.11 12.58 13.54 13.64 40.11 28.24 28.34 34.50 29.21 29.55 X, volume / capacity 0.17 0.53 0.06 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.23 0.43 0.45 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, 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 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 0.18 1.05 0.14 3.74 1.83 1.89 1.87 0.41 0.45 0.47 0.62 0.80 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 6.99 13.45 9.97 8.84 11.72 11.74 38.24 27.83 27.88 34.04 28.59 28.75 c, Capacity [veh/h] 456 1914 855 508 1071 1043 209 460 431 246 460 391 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 643 3560 1589 727 1870 1820 1012 1870 1754 1085 1870 1590 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.12 0.28 0.03 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.11 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.66 0.54 0.54 0.66 0.57 0.57 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 60 48 48 60 52 52 22 22 22 22 22 22 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Lane Group L C R L C C L C C L C C
Lane Group Calculations
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2065
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 7.17 14.50 10.11 12.58 13.59 13.64 40.11 28.28 28.34 34.50 29.21 29.55 Movement LOS A B B B B B D C C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 13.78 13.40 31.40 30.05
Approach LOS B B C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17.80
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.459
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 36.45
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 3.028 3.181 2.566 2.734 Crosswalk LOS C C B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 844 1022 578 578 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 15.02 10.76 22.76 22.76
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.506 2.691 1.889 1.911 Bicycle LOS B B A A
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2066
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.044
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 14.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 15.00 35.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 18 11 523 28 7 417
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 3 131 7 2 104
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 17 11 503 27 7 401
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 36 0 0 39
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 16 11 449 26 7 348
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2067
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.45
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 13.41 0.00 0.14
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 5.06 5.06 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Movement LOS B B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 14.26 12.03 0.00 0.00 8.54 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 2: 2 OY CUM PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2068
APPENDIX C-3

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
WORKSHEETS –
OPENING YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE

PLUS PROJECT
2069
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: K:\...\3. OY CUM WP AM.pdf 6/30/2023
Vistro File: K:\...\Watermarke Ontario_AM.vistro Scenario 3 OY CUM WP AM Watermarke Ontario Project
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

SB Left 0.025 12.1 B
HCM 7th
Edition 102 4th Street at Project Driveway Two-way stop WB Right 0.103 14.0 B
HCM 7th
Edition Two-way stop Mountain Avenue at ProjectDriveway 101 NB Left 0.052 12.4 B
HCM 7th
Edition 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street Two-way stop
EB Left 0.442 16.3 B
HCM 7th
Edition Signalized Mountain Avenue at 4thStreet 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2070
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.442
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 16.3
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Intersection Setup
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2071
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 68 1043 30 177 916 102 116 136 61 46 163 145 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 17 261 7 44 229 26 29 34 15 11 41 36 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 59 907 26 154 797 89 101 118 53 40 142 126 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 21 0 29 19 5 5 3 0 0 4 31
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 57 852 25 120 748 81 92 111 51 27 121 91 Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2072
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 21 0 0 17 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 10 40 0 14 44 0 0 36 0 0 36 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - Lead - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 1 6 0 5 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2073
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 16.31 242.85 11.05 56.03 235.39 229.88 112.14 77.01 72.97 39.13 129.25 118.31 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.65 9.71 0.44 2.24 9.42 9.20 4.49 3.08 2.92 1.57 5.17 4.73 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 9.06 144.33 6.14 31.13 138.79 134.71 62.30 42.78 40.54 21.74 71.81 65.73 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.36 5.77 0.25 1.25 5.55 5.39 2.49 1.71 1.62 0.87 2.87 2.63 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No No Lane Group LOS A B A A B B D C C C C C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 6.41 12.86 8.65 9.53 12.45 12.51 39.48 27.68 27.81 32.73 28.88 29.20 X, volume / capacity 0.14 0.52 0.03 0.37 0.48 0.48 0.51 0.23 0.24 0.17 0.36 0.38 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, 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 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 0.13 0.95 0.07 2.13 1.50 1.56 1.81 0.25 0.30 0.28 0.48 0.63 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 6.28 11.91 8.59 7.40 10.95 10.95 37.68 27.43 27.51 32.45 28.40 28.57 c, Capacity [veh/h] 489 2020 902 484 1086 1048 226 450 405 279 450 383 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 678 3560 1589 677 1870 1805 1071 1870 1681 1185 1870 1592 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.10 0.29 0.02 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.09 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.67 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 60 51 51 60 52 52 22 22 22 22 22 22 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Lane Group L C R L C C L C C L C C
Lane Group Calculations
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2074
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 6.41 12.86 8.65 9.53 12.48 12.51 39.48 27.72 27.81 32.73 28.89 29.20 Movement LOS A B A A B B D C C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 12.36 12.04 32.10 29.51
Approach LOS B B C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 16.32
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.442
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 36.45
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 2.989 3.161 2.528 2.608 Crosswalk LOS C C B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 800 889 711 711 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 16.20 13.89 18.69 18.69
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.501 2.545 1.818 1.852 Bicycle LOS B B A A
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2075
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.052
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 12.4
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 15.00 35.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 27 13 304 20 7 356
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 7 3 76 5 2 89
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 0.8790 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 24 11 267 18 6 313
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 12 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 32 0 0 35
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 23 11 214 17 6 267
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2076
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.72
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 11.75 0.00 0.15
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 5.61 5.61 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Movement LOS B B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 12.42 10.36 0.00 0.00 7.92 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2077
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.103
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 14.0
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 101: Mountain Avenue at Project Driveway
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 15.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue Project Driveway
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1193 0 0 1095 0 46
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 298 0 0 274 0 12
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 1133 0 0 1040 0 44
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 44
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 57 0 0 53 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 1035 0 0 949 0 0
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue Project Driveway
Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2078
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.28
Approach LOS A A B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 13.99
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.56 8.56 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 Movement LOS A A B A D B
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 11.20 0.00 25.29 13.99 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.10
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 0 1
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Free Free Stop
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2079
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.025
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 12.1
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 102: 4th Street at Project Driveway
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Project Driveway Project Driveway 4th Street 4th Street Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 13 0 25 0 286 0 0 355 0 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 3 0 6 0 72 0 0 89 0 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 12 0 24 0 272 0 0 337 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 12 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 35 0
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 0 0 290 0
Name Project Driveway Project Driveway 4th Street 4th Street Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2080
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.59
Approach LOS B B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 11.08 10.47 0.00 0.00
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.32 4.32 4.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS B B A B B A A A A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 11.57 12.58 9.10 12.12 12.88 9.61 8.00 0.00 0.00 7.83 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 0
Flared Lane No No
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP AM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2081
Intersection Analysis Summary
Report File: K:\...\3. OY CUM WP PM.pdf 6/30/2023
Vistro File: K:\...\Watermarke Ontario_PM.vistro Scenario 3 OY CUM WP PM Watermarke Ontario Project
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.

SB Left 0.007 14.0 B
HCM 7th
Edition 102 4th Street at Project Driveway Two-way stop WB Right 0.019 13.8 B
HCM 7th
Edition Two-way stop Mountain Avenue at ProjectDriveway 101 NB Left 0.044 14.4 B
HCM 7th
Edition 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street Two-way stop
EB Left 0.460 17.9 B
HCM 7th
Edition Signalized Mountain Avenue at 4thStreet 1
ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2082
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.460
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 17.9
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Intersection Setup
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2083
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 79 1013 66 263 1022 86 105 251 54 59 199 174 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 20 253 16 66 256 21 26 63 14 15 50 43 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 75 956 62 248 965 81 99 237 51 56 188 164 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 3 3 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 15 0 32 18 4 4 4 0 0 4 35
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Proportion of CAVs [%] 0.00
Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 72 905 50 208 911 74 91 214 49 51 174 124 Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue 4th Street 4th Street Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2084
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 21 0 0 17 0
Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Split [s] 10 42 0 18 50 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0
Minimum Green [s] 5 10 0 5 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - Lead - - - - - - - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 1 6 0 5 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0
Control Type ProtPer Permiss Permiss ProtPer Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Semi-actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2085
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 19.87 254.99 27.52 94.38 265.25 261.38 102.20 120.75 116.23 52.37 159.35 143.69 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.79 10.20 1.10 3.78 10.61 10.46 4.09 4.83 4.65 2.09 6.37 5.75 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 11.04 153.42 15.29 52.43 161.15 158.23 56.78 67.09 64.57 29.10 88.53 79.83 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.44 6.14 0.61 2.10 6.45 6.33 2.27 2.68 2.58 1.16 3.54 3.19 Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Lane Group LOS A B B B B B D C C C C C
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 7.21 14.57 10.26 12.72 13.61 13.70 40.08 28.28 28.37 34.80 29.17 29.50 X, volume / capacity 0.17 0.53 0.08 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.43 0.45 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, 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 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 0.18 1.06 0.18 3.80 1.84 1.90 1.87 0.43 0.47 0.51 0.63 0.80 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 7.03 13.51 10.09 8.92 11.77 11.79 38.22 27.85 27.90 34.28 28.54 28.70 c, Capacity [veh/h] 455 1910 853 505 1070 1041 209 461 434 243 461 393 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 643 3560 1589 723 1870 1820 1009 1870 1758 1074 1870 1592 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.12 0.28 0.04 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.11 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.66 0.54 0.54 0.66 0.57 0.57 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 60 48 48 60 51 51 22 22 22 22 22 22 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Lane Group L C R L C C L C C L C C
Lane Group Calculations
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2086
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 7.21 14.57 10.26 12.72 13.65 13.70 40.08 28.31 28.37 34.80 29.17 29.50 Movement LOS A B B B B B D C C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 13.82 13.47 31.34 30.07
Approach LOS B B C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17.89
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.460
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 36.45
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 3.035 3.181 2.569 2.740 Crosswalk LOS C C B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 844 1022 578 578 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 15.02 10.76 22.76 22.76
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.515 2.691 1.898 1.916 Bicycle LOS B B A A
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2087
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.044
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 14.4
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 2: Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 15.00 35.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 18 11 527 28 7 428
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 3 132 7 2 107
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 0.9610 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 17 11 506 27 7 411
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 3 0 0 10
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 36 0 0 39
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 16 11 449 26 7 348
Name Palmetto Avenue 4th Street 4th Street
Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2088
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.44
Approach LOS B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 13.50 0.00 0.14
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 5.12 5.12 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Movement LOS B B A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 14.37 12.08 0.00 0.00 8.55 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2089
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.019
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 13.8
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 101: Mountain Avenue at Project Driveway
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk No No Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 15.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right
Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue Project Driveway
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1283 0 37 1363 0 8
Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 321 0 9 341 0 2
Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 1219 0 35 1295 0 8
Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 35 0 0 8
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 54 0 0 54 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 1120 0 0 1193 0 0
Name Mountain Avenue Mountain Avenue Project Driveway
Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2090
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.21
Approach LOS A A B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.00 0.32 13.80
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.00 0.00 5.53 0.00 1.46 1.46 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.06 0.06 Movement LOS A A B A D B
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 12.20 0.00 29.25 13.80 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.02
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 0 1
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0
Flared Lane No
Priority Scheme Free Free Stop
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2091
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.007
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 14.0
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 7th Edition
Control Type: Two-way stop
Intersection 102: 4th Street at Project Driveway
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Project Driveway Project Driveway 4th Street 4th Street Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 3 0 6 21 558 0 0 440 11 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 139 0 0 110 3 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 3 0 6 20 530 0 0 418 10 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 3 0 6 20 0 0 0 0 10
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 39 0
Growth Factor 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 0 0 364 0
Name Project Driveway Project Driveway 4th Street 4th Street Volumes
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2092
Intersection LOS B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.26
Approach LOS B B A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 13.61 11.14 0.30 0.00
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement LOS C C B B C A A A A A A A
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 15.02 15.80 10.01 13.99 15.73 9.72 8.32 0.00 0.00 8.57 0.00 0.00 V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 1 0 0
Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Yes
Storage Area [veh] 0 0 0 0
Flared Lane No No
Priority Scheme Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Settings
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Scenario 3: 3 OY CUM WP PM
Watermarke Ontario Project
Version 2022 (SP 0-11)
Generated with
2093

APPENDIX D

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

INFORMATION
2094

TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC
AM Peak Hour

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
1 Mountain Avenue at 4th Street 0 21 0 29 19 5 5 3 0 0 4 31 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 35 0 D1 Mountain Avenue at Project Driveway 0 57 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D2 4th Street at Project Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 35 0 PM Peak Hour

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
1 Mountain Avenue at 4th Street 0 15 0 32 18 4 4 4 0 0 4 35 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 39 0 D1 Mountain Avenue at Project Driveway 0 54 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D2 4th Street at Project Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 39 0 2095
Enter only in blue cells
Int. #: 1
Mirror distribution? Y Entire Intersection TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Mirror distribution? AM In 0 17 0 24 2 0 5 3 0 0 0 5
AM Out 0 4 0 5 17 5 0 0 0 0 4 26
AM Tot 0 21 0 29 19 5 5 3 0 0 4 31
PM In 0 13 0 28 5 0 4 4 0 0 0 4
PM Out 0 2 0 4 13 4 0 0 0 0 4 31
PM Tot 0 15 0 32 18 4 4 4 0 0 4 35
Zone # 1 Cumulative Project #1
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 20% AM In 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 13 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 2 Cumulative Projects #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 20% AM In 120 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20%
AM Out AM Out 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
PM In 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 141 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% PM Out 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Zone # 3 Cumulative Project #7
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 20% 10% 10% AM In 54 0 11 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Y 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 52 0 0 0 5 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% PM In 41 0 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 38 0 0 0 4 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 4 Cumulative Project #9
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 22 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
Yellow cells calculate
2096
Int. #: 1 Mountain Avenue at 4th Street
Zone # 5 Cumulative Projects #11 and 14
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 62 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 74 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 49 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 45 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 6 Cumulative Projects #12, 13, 15 and 16
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0%
AM Out AM Out 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% PM Out 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2097
Enter only in blue cells
Int. #: 2

Y TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
AM In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 5 0
AM Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 30 0
AM Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 35 0
PM In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 4 0
PM Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 35 0
PM Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 39 0
Zone # 1 Cumulative Project #1
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 2 Cumulative Projects #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 20% AM In 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0%
AM Out AM Out 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% PM Out 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 Zone # 3 Cumulative Project #7
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% PM In 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Zone # 4 Cumulative Project #9
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
Yellow cells calculate
2098
Int. #: 2 Palmetto Avenue at 4th Street
Zone # 5 Cumulative Projects #11 and 14
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 6 Cumulative Projects #12, 13, 15 and 16
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0%
AM Out AM Out 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% PM Out 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2099

APPENDIX E

ADT COUNT DATA SHEETS
2100

Page 1 ends

Ontario City CouncilMarch 19, 2024

Ontario City Council
March 19, 2024