Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 27 of 28)

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 6215
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
13 6216
San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
TuB—Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2sx6y
Elevation: 650 to 3,110 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 25 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 325 to 365 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Tujunga, loamy sand, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Tujunga, Loamy Sand
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand
C1 - 6 to 18 inches: loamy sand
C2 - 18 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R019XG912CA - Sandy Fan
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Tujunga, gravelly loamy sand
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 6217
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Hanford, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 6218
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 16 6219
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
17 6220
Meredith SPA
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery and US Topo. Data refreshed February, 2025., USGS TNM – National Hydrography Dataset. Data Flow Direction
Connector
CanalDitch
StreamRiver - Ephemeral
Artificial Path
Flowline - Large Scale
Ephemeral
Artificial Path
Canal Ditch
Connector
Area - Large Scale
CanalDitch
Waterbody - Large Scale
Lake Pond
Reservoir
Layers
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
8/19/2025
6221
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

APPENDIX B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
6222

ATTACHMENT B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report September 15, 2025 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project B-1 Photograph 1. South-facing view of the northern end of AF-1 (34.070073- 117.594839°).

Photograph 2. View looking south along the middle of AF-1 (34.069291°, - 117.594850°).
6223

ATTACHMENT B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report September 15, 2025 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project B-2 Photograph 3. View looking north along the southern end of AF-1 (34.068684°, - 117.595138°).

Photograph 4. View looking northeast towards Soil Pit 1 at the northern end of AF-1 (34.069948°, - 117.594869°).
6224
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

APPENDIX C

WETLAND DATA FORM
6225
6226
6227
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

APPENDIX D

ARID WEST STREAMFLOW

DURATION ASSESSMENT METHOD

DATA FORM
6228
Streamflow Duration Assessment Methods
SDAM Version 3.0.0 Release Date: June 2025
https://www.epa.gov/streamflow-duration-assessment
Visit date: 2025-08-05
Report generated date: 2025-08-05
Project name: Meredith SPA
Site code: N/A
Regional SDAM classification: EPHEMERAL
Northeast
Southeast
Western
Mountains
Arid
West
Pacific
Northwest Great
Plains
6229
General site information
Project name or number: Meredith SPA
Site code or identifier: N/A
SDAM Region: Arid West
Adjacent SDAM Regions within 10 miles: Unknown
Assessor(s): Stephen Anderson, Audrey Tamayo
Waterway name: Unnamed Drainage
Visit date: 2025-08-05
Current weather conditions: Clear/Sunny
Notes on current or recent weather conditions: No recent rain events Location: Not provided
Surrounding land use within 100 m: Urban, industrial, or residential Notes on land use: Undeveloped land subject to regular mowing Description of reach boundaries: Culvert at north end, culvert at south end Assessment reach length (m): 150
Disturbed or difficult conditions: Stream modifications (e.g., channelization) Notes on disturbances or difficult site conditions: Regularly mowed outside of channel Observed hydrology
Percent of reach with surface flow: 0
Percent of reach with surface and sub-surface flows: 0
Number of isolated pools: 1
Notes on observed hydrology: Surface water present at north end of reach Site photos
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 2 of 11 6230
Top of reach looking downstream:

Middle of reach looking upstream:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 3 of 11 6231
Middle of reach looking downstream:

Bottom of reach looking upstream:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 4 of 11 6232
Site sketch
Indicators
Mean bankfull channel width (m): 1
Notes on mean bankfull channel width: Bankfull consistent throughout channel.

Mean bankfull channel width photos and descriptions:

Description: Upstream end
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 5 of 11 6233
Description: middle
Description: downstream end
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 6 of 11 6234
Perennial indicator taxa: No perennial indicator taxa detected Aquatic macroinvertebrates in assessment area: Aquatic macroinvertebrates absent Notes on aquatic macroinvertebrates:

Macroinvertebrate photos and photo descriptions:

Slope (to the nearest half-percent): 0.99
Notes about slope:

Slope is minor and consistent
Slope photos and descriptions:

Description:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 7 of 11 6235
Number of hydrophytic plant species: 2
Vegetation in assessment area: vegetation present
Notes on hydrophytic plants:

Hydrophytic vegetation presence is very minor
Hydrophyte photos and photo descriptions:

Description: Hydrophytes at north end of drainage
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 8 of 11 6236
Prevalence of upland rooted plants in streambed: 0 (Poor) Rooted upland plants are prevalent within the streambed/thalweg.

Notes about upland rooted plants:

Upland rooted plants present throughout drainage
Upland rooted plants photos and descriptions:

Description: Upland plants along banks and within thalweg Algal cover: Not Detected
Check here if algae exclusively appears to have been deposited from an upstream source, and no local growth is evident: Not checked
Notes about algal cover:

None
Algal cover photos and descriptions:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 9 of 11 6237
Differences in vegetation: 0 (Poor) No compositional or density differences in vegetation are present between the banks and the adjacent uplands.

Notes about differences in vegetation:

None
Vegetation differences photos and descriptions:

Riffle-pool sequence: 0 (Poor) No riffle-pool sequences observed.

Notes about riffle-pool sequence:

None
Riffle-pool photos and descriptions:

Supplemental information
Additional notes about the assessment:

None
Supplemental information photos and descriptions:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 10 of 11 6238
Arid West Regional SDAM classification

EPHEMERAL
SDAM resources
End of Report
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 11 of 11 6239
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report

APPENDIX C

NOISE DATA
6240
Site Number: NM-1
Recorded By: Dennis Dinh, Darshan Shivaiah
Job Number: 205836
Date: 4/02/2025
Time: 11:59 a.m.

Location: West of the 2505 East Date Palm Paseo Building Source of Ambient Noise: Traffic along Inland Empire Boulevard Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB)

67.8 57.4 84.6
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 3011133 06/04/2023
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 3086765 06/04/2023
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 25380 06/04/2023
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 06/04/2023
Weather Data
Est.

Duration: 10 minutes Sky: Sunny
Note: dBA Offset = -0.01 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (inches) 6 62 30.06
Photo of Measurement Location

6241
2250
Instrument: 2250
Application: BZ7225 Version 4.7.6
Start Time: 04/02/2025 11:59:59
End Time: 04/02/2025 12:09:59
Elapsed Time: 00:10:00
Bandwidth: 1/3-octave
Max Input Level: 142.15
Time Frequency
Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC
Broadband Peak: C
Spectrum: FS Z
Instrument Serial Number: 3011133
Microphone Serial Number: 3086765
Input: Top Socket
Windscreen Correction: UA-1650
Sound Field Correction: Free-field
Calibration Time: 04/02/2025 11:02:21
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity: 43.4710383415222 mV/Pa
ONTSPA_001
Start End Elapsed Overload LAeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 67.8 84.6 57.4
Time 11:59:59 AM 12:09:59 PM 0:10:00
Date 04/02/2025 04/02/2025
6242
Cursor: (A) Leq=67.8 dB LFmax=84.6 dB LFmin=57.4 dB
ONTSPA_001

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
130
dB 04/02/2025 11:59:59 AM - 12:09:59 PM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.1% Cumulative: 0.8%
ONTSPA_001
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 04/02/2025 11:59:59 AM - 12:09:59 PM dB
L1 = 77.5 dB
L5 = 73.7 dB
L10 = 71.3 dB
L50 = 63.5 dB
L90 = 60.5 dB
L95 = 59.9 dB
L99 = 58.9 dB
Level Cumulative
6243
Cursor: 04/02/2025 12:04:58 PM - 12:04:59 PM LAIeq=64.6 dB LAFmax=64.8 dB LCpeak=84.0 dB LAFmin=61.7 dB ONTSPA_001
12:00:00 PM 12:02:00 PM 12:04:00 PM 12:06:00 PM 12:08:00 PM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
ONTSPA_001
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 64.6 64.8 61.7
Time 12:04:58 PM 0:00:01
Date 04/02/2025
6244
Cursor: (A) Leq=63.2 dB
ONTSPA_001

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 04/02/2025 12:04:58 PM - 12:04:59 PM
Hz
LZeq
Cursor: 04/02/2025 11:59:59 AM - 12:00:00 PM LAIeq=69.0 dB LAFmax=67.8 dB LCpeak=83.8 dB LAFmin=--- ONTSPA_001 Periodic reports
12:00:00 PM 12:10:00 PM 12:20:00 PM 12:30:00 PM 12:40:00 PM 12:50:00 PM 01:00:00 PM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
6245
ONTSPA_001 Periodic reports
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 69.0 67.8 ---
Time 11:59:59 AM 0:00:01
Date 04/02/2025
Cursor: (A) Leq=63.2 dB LFmax=67.8 dB LFmin=---
ONTSPA_001 Periodic reports

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 04/02/2025 11:59:59 AM - 12:00:00 PM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
6246
ONTSPA_001 Periodic reports
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% No statistic available
dB
6247
Site Number: NM-2
Recorded By: Dennis Dinh, Darshan Shivaiah
Job Number: 205836
Date: 4/02/2025
Time: 12:17 p.m.

Location: Approximately 100 feet east of the East Date Palm Paseo and Inland Empire Boulevard intersection Source of Ambient Noise: Traffic along Inland Empire Boulevard Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB)

66.8 59.7 79.5
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 3011133 06/04/2023
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 3086765 06/04/2023
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 25380 06/04/2023
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 06/04/2023
Weather Data
Est.

Duration: 10 minutes Sky: Sunny
Note: dBA Offset = -0.01 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (inches) 6 60 30.06
Photo of Measurement Location

6248
2250
Instrument: 2250
Application: BZ7225 Version 4.7.6
Start Time: 04/02/2025 12:17:32
End Time: 04/02/2025 12:27:32
Elapsed Time: 00:10:00
Bandwidth: 1/3-octave
Max Input Level: 142.15
Time Frequency
Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC
Broadband Peak: C
Spectrum: FS Z
Instrument Serial Number: 3011133
Microphone Serial Number: 3086765
Input: Top Socket
Windscreen Correction: UA-1650
Sound Field Correction: Free-field
Calibration Time: 04/02/2025 11:02:21
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity: 43.4710383415222 mV/Pa
ONTSPA_002
Start End Elapsed Overload LAeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 66.8 79.5 59.7
Time 12:17:32 PM 12:27:32 PM 0:10:00
Date 04/02/2025 04/02/2025
6249
Cursor: (A) Leq=66.8 dB LFmax=79.5 dB LFmin=59.7 dB
ONTSPA_002

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
130
dB 04/02/2025 12:17:32 PM - 12:27:32 PM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.1%
ONTSPA_002
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 04/02/2025 12:17:32 PM - 12:27:32 PM dB
L1 = 75.3 dB
L5 = 71.5 dB
L10 = 69.4 dB
L50 = 64.7 dB
L90 = 61.8 dB
L95 = 61.3 dB
L99 = 60.5 dB
Level Cumulative
6250
Cursor: 04/02/2025 12:22:31 PM - 12:22:32 PM LAIeq=69.0 dB LAFmax=69.0 dB LCpeak=92.5 dB LAFmin=67.1 dB ONTSPA_002
12:18:00 PM 12:20:00 PM 12:22:00 PM 12:24:00 PM 12:26:00 PM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
ONTSPA_002
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 69.0 69.0 67.1
Time 12:22:31 PM 0:00:01
Date 04/02/2025
6251
Cursor: (A) Leq=67.6 dB
ONTSPA_002

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 04/02/2025 12:22:31 PM - 12:22:32 PM
Hz
LZeq
Cursor: 04/02/2025 12:17:32 PM - 01:17:32 PM LAIeq=67.9 dB LAFmax=79.5 dB LCpeak=95.9 dB LAFmin=59.7 dB ONTSPA_002 Periodic reports
12:20:00 PM 12:30:00 PM 12:40:00 PM 12:50:00 PM 01:00:00 PM 01:10:00 PM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
6252
ONTSPA_002 Periodic reports
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 67.9 79.5 59.7
Time 12:17:32 PM 0:10:00
Date 04/02/2025
Cursor: (A) Leq=66.8 dB LFmax=79.5 dB LFmin=59.7 dB
ONTSPA_002 Periodic reports

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 04/02/2025 12:17:32 PM - 12:27:32 PM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
6253
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.1%
ONTSPA_002 Periodic reports
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 04/02/2025 12:17:32 PM - 12:27:32 PM dB
L1 = 75.3 dB
L5 = 71.5 dB
L10 = 69.4 dB
L50 = 64.7 dB
L90 = 61.8 dB
L95 = 61.3 dB
L99 = 60.5 dB
Level Cumulative
6254
Site Number: NM-3
Recorded By: Dennis Dinh, Darshan Shivaiah
Job Number: 205836
Date: 4/02/2025
Time: 12:42 p.m.

Location: In front of 701 Via Dolcetto
Source of Ambient Noise: Traffic along Inland Empire Boulevard Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB)

69.0 52.7 87.4
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 3011133 06/04/2023
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 3086765 06/04/2023
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 25380 06/04/2023
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 06/04/2023
Weather Data
Est.

Duration: 10 minutes Sky: Sunny
Note: dBA Offset = -0.01 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (inches) 6 61 30.06
Photo of Measurement Location

6255
2250
Instrument: 2250
Application: BZ7225 Version 4.7.6
Start Time: 04/02/2025 12:42:32
End Time: 04/02/2025 12:52:32
Elapsed Time: 00:10:00
Bandwidth: 1/3-octave
Max Input Level: 142.15
Time Frequency
Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC
Broadband Peak: C
Spectrum: FS Z
Instrument Serial Number: 3011133
Microphone Serial Number: 3086765
Input: Top Socket
Windscreen Correction: UA-1650
Sound Field Correction: Free-field
Calibration Time: 04/02/2025 11:02:21
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity: 43.4710383415222 mV/Pa
ONTSPA_003
Start End Elapsed Overload LAeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 69.0 87.4 52.7
Time 12:42:32 PM 12:52:32 PM 0:10:00
Date 04/02/2025 04/02/2025
6256
Cursor: (A) Leq=69.0 dB LFmax=87.4 dB LFmin=52.7 dB
ONTSPA_003

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
130
dB 04/02/2025 12:42:32 PM - 12:52:32 PM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.1% Cumulative: 1.2%
ONTSPA_003
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 04/02/2025 12:42:32 PM - 12:52:32 PM dB
L1 = 78.6 dB
L5 = 74.6 dB
L10 = 72.5 dB
L50 = 65.3 dB
L90 = 58.7 dB
L95 = 57.4 dB
L99 = 54.5 dB
Level Cumulative
6257
Cursor: 04/02/2025 12:47:31 PM - 12:47:32 PM LAIeq=63.3 dB LAFmax=62.8 dB LCpeak=81.9 dB LAFmin=61.4 dB ONTSPA_003
12:43:00 PM 12:45:00 PM 12:47:00 PM 12:49:00 PM 12:51:00 PM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
ONTSPA_003
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 63.3 62.8 61.4
Time 12:47:31 PM 0:00:01
Date 04/02/2025
6258
Cursor: (A) Leq=62.0 dB
ONTSPA_003

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 04/02/2025 12:47:31 PM - 12:47:32 PM
Hz
LZeq
Cursor: 04/02/2025 12:42:32 PM - 01:42:32 PM LAIeq=71.4 dB LAFmax=87.4 dB LCpeak=104.9 dB LAFmin=52.7 dB ONTSPA_003 Periodic reports
12:50:00 PM 01:00:00 PM 01:10:00 PM 01:20:00 PM 01:30:00 PM 01:40:00 PM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
6259
ONTSPA_003 Periodic reports
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 71.4 87.4 52.7
Time 12:42:32 PM 0:10:00
Date 04/02/2025
Cursor: (A) Leq=69.0 dB LFmax=87.4 dB LFmin=52.7 dB
ONTSPA_003 Periodic reports

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 04/02/2025 12:42:32 PM - 12:52:32 PM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
6260
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.1% Cumulative: 1.2%
ONTSPA_003 Periodic reports
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 04/02/2025 12:42:32 PM - 12:52:32 PM dB
L1 = 78.6 dB
L5 = 74.6 dB
L10 = 72.5 dB
L50 = 65.3 dB
L90 = 58.7 dB
L95 = 57.4 dB
L99 = 54.5 dB
Level Cumulative
6261

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Project Number: 205836
Project Name: Meredith SPA
Scenario: Existing
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumes: Michael Baker International
Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: X
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.50% 12.90% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80%
Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Analysis Condition 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 17 4th Street, West of Archibald Avenue, East of Hellman Av. 4 0 14,630 55 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.2 48 104 224 482 18 4th Street, East of Archibald Avenue 4 10 17,820 55 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 56 120 258 556 21 Inland Empire Boulevard, East of Archibald Avenue 4 10 10,920 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 63.0 - 74 159 343 22 Inland Empire Boulevard, West of Haven Avenue 4 15 12,720 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 63.7 - 82 177 382 23 Inland Empire Boulevard, East of Haven Avenue 4 15 12,480 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 63.6 - 81 175 377 10 Archibald Avenue, North of 4th Street 6 0 22,800 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.2 - 104 224 482 11 Archibald Avenue, North of Inland Empire Boulevard 4 0 28,860 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.1 65 140 301 648 12 Archibald Avenue, South of Inland Empire Boulevard 6 10 35,650 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 68.3 78 168 363 781 "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Michael Baker International Page 1
6262

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Project Number: 205836
Project Name: Meredith SPA
Scenario: Existing+Project
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumes: Michael Baker International
Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: X
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.50% 12.90% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80%
Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Analysis Condition 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 17 4th Street, West of Archibald Avenue, East of Hellman Av. 4 0 16,560 55 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.8 52 113 243 524 18 4th Street, East of Archibald Avenue 4 10 17,820 55 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 56 120 258 556 21 Inland Empire Boulevard, East of Archibald Avenue 4 10 12,240 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 63.5 - 80 172 370 22 Inland Empire Boulevard, West of Haven Avenue 4 15 13,460 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 64.0 - 85 184 397 23 Inland Empire Boulevard, East of Haven Avenue 4 15 13,140 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 63.9 - 84 181 390 10 Archibald Avenue, North of 4th Street 6 0 28,510 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 - 121 260 559 11 Archibald Avenue, North of Inland Empire Boulevard 4 0 37,310 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 68.3 77 166 357 769 12 Archibald Avenue, South of Inland Empire Boulevard 6 10 43,810 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 69.3 90 194 417 899 "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Michael Baker International Page 2
6263

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Project Number: 205836
Project Name: Meredith SPA
Scenario: Future 2035
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumes: Michael Baker International
Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: X
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.50% 12.90% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80%
Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Analysis Condition 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 17 4th Street, West of Archibald Avenue, East of Hellman Av. 4 0 21,913 55 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.0 63 136 293 631 18 4th Street, East of Archibald Avenue 4 10 23,032 55 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.3 66 142 306 659 21 Inland Empire Boulevard, East of Archibald Avenue 4 10 16,203 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 64.7 - 96 207 446 22 Inland Empire Boulevard, West of Haven Avenue 4 15 16,546 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 64.9 - 98 211 455 23 Inland Empire Boulevard, East of Haven Avenue 4 15 15,492 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 64.6 - 94 202 435 10 Archibald Avenue, North of 4th Street 6 0 31,106 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.6 59 128 275 593 11 Archibald Avenue, North of Inland Empire Boulevard 4 0 40,210 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 68.6 81 174 375 808 12 Archibald Avenue, South of Inland Empire Boulevard 6 10 50,290 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 69.9 99 212 457 986 "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Michael Baker International Page 3
6264

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Project Number: 205836
Project Name: Meredith SPA
Scenario: Future 2035 with Project
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumes: Michael Baker International
Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: X
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.50% 12.90% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80%
Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Analysis Condition 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 17 4th Street, West of Archibald Avenue, East of Hellman Av. 4 0 23,840 55 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.4 67 144 310 668 18 4th Street, East of Archibald Avenue 4 10 24,060 55 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.5 68 146 315 679 21 Inland Empire Boulevard, East of Archibald Avenue 4 10 17,520 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.1 - 101 218 470 22 Inland Empire Boulevard, West of Haven Avenue 4 15 17,290 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.1 - 101 217 469 23 Inland Empire Boulevard, East of Haven Avenue 4 15 16,150 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 64.8 - 96 208 448 10 Archibald Avenue, North of 4th Street 6 0 36,810 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.3 66 143 308 663 11 Archibald Avenue, North of Inland Empire Boulevard 4 0 48,660 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 69.4 92 198 426 918 12 Archibald Avenue, South of Inland Empire Boulevard 6 10 58,450 50 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 70.6 109 235 506 1,089 "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Michael Baker International Page 4
6265
Old PA-3 ADT= 9,628 =From 2015 TIA
New PA-3 ADT= 10,670 =Calculated
Roadway Roadway Segment Distribution Old ADT PA-3 New ADT PA-3 Existing With Project (Rounded) No Project With Project (Rounded) No Project With Project (Rounded) West of Archibald Avenue 14% 1,348 1,494 14,630 16,560 17,850 19,780 21,913 23,840 East of Archibald Avenue 3% 289 320 16,800 17,820 20,300 21,320 23,032 24,060East of Archibald Avenue 4% 385 427 10,920 12,240 13,750 15,070 16,203 17,520 West of Haven Avenue 4% 385 427 12,720 13,460 14,240 14,980 16,546 17,290 East of Haven Avenue 2% 193 213 12,480 13,140 13,970 14,630 15,492 16,150 North of 4th Street 20% 1,926 2,134 22,800 28,510 28,310 34,020 31,106 36,810 North of Inland Empire Boulevard 37% 3,562 3,948 28,860 37,310 36,420 44,870 40,210 48,660South of Inland Empire Boulevard 31% 2,985 3,308 35,650 43,810 44,850 53,010 50,290 58,450 Distribution Existing Year 2020 Year 2035
4th Street
Inland Empire Boulevard
Archibald Avenue
6266
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report

APPENDIX D

FOCUSED TRAFFIC STUDY
6267

205836

FOCUSED TRAFFIC STUDY
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Area 3
City of Ontario, California
Prepared for:

City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
December 5, 2025
6268
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Study Locations .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Level of Service Analysis Methodologies.................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Performance Criteria ................................................................................................................................................... 9 3 Forecast Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................... 10

3.1 Original 2015 tia Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 4 Level of Service Operations Analysis .................................................................................. 19

4.1 Existing Plus Project ................................................................................................................................................. 19

4.1.1 2015 TIA Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 19

4.1.2 Proposed Project Findings........................................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project .......................................................................................................................... 21

4.2.1 2015 TIA Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 21

4.2.2 Proposed Project Findings........................................................................................................................... 21

4.3 Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project ......................................................................................................... 24

4.3.1 2015 TIA Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 24

4.3.2 Proposed Project Findings........................................................................................................................... 24 5 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 28

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Project Location......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 1-2: Project Site ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Exhibit 1-3: Study Area ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Exhibit 3-1: 2015 TIA Project Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 3-2: Proposed Project Trip Assignment .......................................................................................................................... 14 Exhibit 3-3: Existing Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4 Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 16 Exhibit 3-4: Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4 Traffic Volumes .................................................. 17 Exhibit 3-5: Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4 Traffic Volumes ................................. 18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Land Use Comparison ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 1-2: Study Intersections..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2-1: HCM Intersection Level of Service Thresholds .......................................................................................................... 9 Table 2-2: Service Thresholds Criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3-1: Original 2015 TIA Planning Area 3 Trip Generation .................................................................................................. 10 Table 3-2: Proposed Planning Area 3 Trip Generation Rates .................................................................................................... 11 Table 3-3: Proposed Planning Area 3 Trip Generation .............................................................................................................. 11 Table 3-4: Project Trip Comparison .......................................................................................................................................... 12 6269
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study Page ii
Table 4-1: 2015 TIA Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results .................................................................................. 20 Table 4-2: Proposed Project Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results ..................................................................... 20 Table 4-3: 2015 TIA Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results ........................................................... 22 Table 4-4: Proposed Project Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results .............................................. 23 Table 4-5: 2015 TIA Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results .......................................... 26 Table 4-6: Proposed Project Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results ............................. 27 6270
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study Page iii

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Traffic Scoping Agreement
Appendix B: Volume Development
Appendix C: Existing Plus Project Analysis Worksheets
Appendix D: Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Analysis Worksheets Appendix E: Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Analysis Worksheets 6271
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 4 ends

1 INTRODUCTION
In 2015, the City of Ontario (City), as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2014051020) for the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment (Specific Plan). These documents are collectively referred to in this document as the Specific Plan EIR. The Specific Plan outlines a development plan, circulation plan, utility infrastructure plan, development standards, design guidelines, and an implementation plan to guide development within the area for a five to ten year planning period. As part of the Specific Plan EIR, the traffic operation impacts were assed in the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) [2015 TIA].

The Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project (proposed project) proposes to modify the Specific Plan to include a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 (PA-3) of the Specific Plan area, allowing the development of up to 1,400 residential units and up to 40,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses in addition to the uses permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation. This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared to the impacts of the Specific Plan as disclosed in the Specific Plan EIR.

The purpose of this Focused Traffic Study (study) is to compare the traffic analysis findings associated with the proposed modifications to PA-3 to the original findings outlined in the 2015 TIA. The original 2015 TIA identified potential traffic related impacts at several study intersections associated with the development of the specific plan area that were considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. This study assesses the change in land use assumptions associated with the proposed project, specifically with PA-3, to determine consistency with the findings of the 2015 TIA, including trip generation assumptions and level-of-service operations at select intersections.

In order to provide a direct comparison to the original 2015 TIA, this analysis utilizes the same baseline “without project” conditions as well as the same “with project” conditions associated with Planning Areas 1, 2, and 4. Therefore this analysis only considers the changes to the trip generation associated with the land use modifications in PA-3 only.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current amendment to the specific plan proposes to modify the land use assumptions of PA-3 to include a MixedUse Overlay which would allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in place of the uses and buildout currently permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation.

Table 1-1 lists the difference in land use assumptions between the 2014 TIA and the proposed project.

TABLE 1-1: LAND USE COMPARISON
Planning
Area
2015 TIA Assumptions Proposed Project
Acreage Land Use Buildout Acreage Land Use Buildout
3 25.3 Urban
Commercial
480,000 SF (including up
to 400 hotel rooms) 25.3 Mixed Use Overlay
1,400 units; 50,000 SF
commercial/ retail uses
Notes: SF = square feet

Regionally, the proposed project site is located within the City of Ontario (City), within the County of San Bernardino (County) as shown in Exhibit 1-1. Locally, the Project site is located on the northeast corner of E. Palm Canyon Drive and Monty Hall Drive as shown in Exhibit 1-2.
6272
Exhibit 1-1 H:\pdata\
Project Location
10 Legend: 10
Existing Roadway
10 20 23
27 40 41 28
33 Project Location
6273
Exhibit 1-2 H:\pdata\
Project Site
10 10
Legend:

Project Location
6274
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 7 ends

1.2 STUDY LOCATIONS
Table 1-2 lists the study intersections that were examined as part of this analysis. These intersections were selected, in coordination with City staff, due to their proximity to PA-3 to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project.

The intersection numbering maintains the intersection identification numbers from the original 2015 TIA. Exhibit 1-3 shows the study intersections within the study area.

TABLE 1-2: STUDY INTERSECTIONS
ID Intersection Jurisdiction
10 Archibald Ave and 6th St Rancho Cucamonga
20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St Ontario
23 Archibald Ave and 4th St Ontario
27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario
28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario
33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI Ontario / Caltrans
40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario
41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario

1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
In order to provide a direct comparison, this analysis utilizes the same baseline “without project” conditions which remain unchanged from the original 2015 TIA.

Therefore this study only analyzes the following “Plus Project” scenarios as defined in the 2015 TIA, have been evaluated:
• Existing Plus Project (Planning Area 1-4)
• Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project (Planning Area 1-4) • Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project (Planning Area 1-4) 6275
Exhibit 1-3 H:\pdata\
Project Study Area
10 10
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
#
10 20 23
27 40 41 28
33 Project Location
6276
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 9 ends

2 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
This Study has been prepared in to conform to the methodology used in the 2015 TIA. The scope of this traffic study has been coordinated with the City of Ontario and the approved scoping memo is included as Appendix A.

Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the type of traffic control and experienced delay at the intersection. Identical to the 2015 TIA methodology, the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) was utilized in this analysis to determine the operating LOS at each of the study intersections. LOS can range from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions). Delay in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh) passing through the intersection, is the primary measure of effectiveness for signalized, stop-controlled, and roundabout intersections. The corresponding average stopped delay range experienced per vehicle per LOS is shown in Table 2-1.

TABLE 2-1: HCM INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS Level of Service Signalized Intersection Average Delay (seconds/vehicle) LOS A x < 10
LOS B 10 < x < 20
LOS C 20 < x < 35
LOS D 35 < x < 55
LOS E 55 < x < 80
LOS F 80 < x
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Note: If the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) > 1.0, LOS = F.

LOS is reported for the average stopped delay per vehicle for the overall intersection (all movements) for signalized intersections. LOS and delay for the intersection analysis was conducted with Synchro (version 12) software.

2.2 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Based on the 2015 TIA, different LOS thresholds applied to different intersections depending on location and jurisdiction. Table 2-2 shows the impact criteria used in this analysis. Based on the 2015 TIA, mitigation improvements are expected to “Improve Levels of Service to an acceptable range and/or to pre-project conditions.” TABLE 2-2: SERVICE THRESHOLDS CRITERIA
Intersection Jurisdiction Minimum Acceptable LOS
10 Archibald Ave and 6th Street Rancho Cucamonga D
20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St Ontario E
23 Archibald Ave and 4th St Ontario E
27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario E
28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario E
33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI Ontario / Caltrans D 40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario E
41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario E
Source: Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) Chapter 3.4 Impact Criteria and Thresholds.
6277
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 10 ends

3 FORECAST PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

3.1 ORIGINAL 2015 TIA TRIP GENERATION
The Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) [2015 TIA], incorporated into the original 2015 EIR, analyzed the estimated project trips for each planning area based on the land use assumptions that were available at that time including a 400-room hotel, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 150,000 square feet of retail space. The forecast trip generation calculations were based on the available rates outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.

Table 3-1 provides the previously documented trip generation calculations for Planning Area 3. As shown, within Planning Area 3, a total of 9,628 daily trips, 473 AM Peak Hour trips, and 719 PM Peak Hour trips were anticipated during an average weekday.

TABLE 3-1: ORIGINAL 2015 TIA PLANNING AREA 3 TRIP GENERATION Source: Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, Jan 2015) Trip Rate Source: Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.

3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
To remain consistent with the original analysis documented in the 2015 TIA, the proposed project site trips were also estimated using trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Table 3-2 shows the trip generation rates used for the proposed project. ITE Land Use codes 220 (Apartments) and 820 (Shopping Center) were assumed for the entire proposed project site.
6278
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 11 ends

TABLE 3-2: PROPOSED PLANNING AREA 3 TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use ITE
Code Daily Trips Rate
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Apartments 220 6.66 / DU 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62
Shopping Center 820 42.70 / TSF 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 Notes: 1) Trip Rates – Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition 2) DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet.

Table 3-3 summarizes the trip generation for the proposed project. The proposed project includes a Pass-By Trip reduction and internal capture reduction consistent with analysis documented in the 2015 TIA. The total estimated net Project trips include 10,670 daily trips, 719 AM Peak Hour trips, and 941 PM Peak Hour trips.

TABLE 3-3: PROPOSED PLANNING AREA 3 TRIP GENERATION
Project Description Intensity Daily1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
220: Apartments 1,400 DU 9,310 140 574 714 560 308 868
820: Shopping Center 50 TSF 2,135 30 18 48 89 97 186
Less Pass-by Trips2
-214 -3 -2 -5 -30 -33 -63
(10% Daily, 10% AM, 34% PM)3
Total PA-3 Trip Generation Potential 11,232 167 590 757 619 372 991 Less Internal Capture (5%)3-562 -8 -30 -38 -31 -19 -50
Total PA-3 Net Trip Generation Potential 10,670 159 560 719 588 353 941 Notes: 1) Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. 2) Applies only to Shopping Center land use.
3) Consistent with analysis documented in Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, Jan 2015) The 2015 TIA originally assumed Planning Area 3’s land uses would consist of a 400-room hotel, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 150,000 square feet of retail space. With the Specific Plan Amendment, the project’s proposed land uses for Planning Area 3 would include up to 1,400 multi-family residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses. Because of these modifications to the land uses, the trip characteristics have also changed – particularly highlighted by the change from a hotel use to multi-family residential uses. The 2015 TIA showed higher entering trips in the AM Peak Hour and higher exiting trips in the PM Peak Hour. The proposed project’s land uses show the opposite trend, with higher exiting trips in the AM Peak Hour and high entering trips in the PM Peak Hour.

Table 3-4 compares the Planning Area 3 approved 2015 TIA project trips to the proposed project trips. As shown, within PA-3, the proposed project is expected to generate more daily and peak hour trips compared to the approved 2015 TIA. Since the trip generation of the proposed project is higher than the 2015 TIA trips, an operational analysis is needed to determine if new transportation impacts are identified. 6279
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 12 ends

TABLE 3-4: PROJECT TRIP COMPARISON
Project Description Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
2015 TIA: PA-3 9,628 325 148 473 309 410 719
Proposed Project: PA-3 10,670 159 560 719 588 353 941
Difference +1,042 -166 +412 +246 +279 -57 +222

3.3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution for PA-3 documented in the 2015 TIA was utilized to determine the trip assignment for the proposed project. Exhibits 3-1 shows the PA-3 trip distribution, as documented in the 2015 TIA. Exhibit 3-2 shows the trip assignment for the proposed project.
6280
Exhibit 1-2 H:\pdata\
Project Site
10 10
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
#
10 20 23
27 40 41 28
33 Project Location
Inbound Distribution
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Project Location
10 20 23
27 28 33
40 41
#
Exhibit 3-1
2015 EIR Project Trip Distribution
Outbound Distribution
6281
Exhibit 1-2 H:\pdata\
Project Site
10 10
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
#
10 20 23
27 40 41 28
33 Project Location
Inbound Trips
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Project Location
10 20 23
27 28 33
40 41
#
Exhibit 3-2
Modified Project Trip Assignment
Outbound Trips
XX/XX AM/PM Project Trips
6282
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 15 ends

3.4 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to provide a direct comparison, this analysis utilizes the same baseline “without project” conditions which remain unchanged from the original 2015 TIA. For the “plus project” condition, the 2015 TIA volumes were revised to extract and replace the original PA-3 trips with the proposed project trips for PA-3.

The Existing Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4 traffic volumes, with the proposed project, is shown in Exhibit 3-3.

The Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4 traffic volumes, with the proposed project, is shown in Exhibit 3-4.

The Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4 traffic volumes, with the proposed project, is shown in Exhibit 3-5.

Detailed volume development worksheets are contained in Appendix B. 6283
Exhibit 1-2 H:\pdata\
Project Site
10 10
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
#
10 20 23
27 40 41 28
33 Project Location XX/XX AM/PM Intersection Volumes
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Project Location
10 20 23
27 28 33
40 41
#
Exhibit 3-3
Existing Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, PA-4 Traffic Volumes 6284
Exhibit 1-2 H:\pdata\
Project Site
10 10
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
#
10 20 23
27 40 41 28
33 Project Location XX/XX AM/PM Intersection Volumes
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Project Location
10 20 23
27 28 33
40 41
#
Exhibit 3-4
Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, PA-4 Traffic Volumes 6285
Exhibit 1-2 H:\pdata\
Project Site
10 10
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
#
10 20 23
27 40 41 28
33 Project Location XX/XX AM/PM Intersection Volumes
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Project Location
10 20 23
27 28 33
40 41
#
Exhibit 3-5
Year 2035 General Buildout Plus Project PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, PA-4 Traffic Volumes 6286
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 19 ends

4 LEVEL OF SERVICE OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

4.1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT

4.1.1 2015 TIA Findings
Table 4-1 summarizes the analysis results for the Existing Plus Project condition documented in the 2015 TIA. As shown, none of the study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS. As such, no significant impacts were identified at these intersections.

4.1.2 Proposed Project Findings
Table 4-2 summarizes the analysis results for the Existing Plus Project condition under the proposed project. As shown, under the proposed project condition, all intersections are still operating at acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds.

The analysis indicates that, with the inclusion of the proposed project, the intersections’ operations do not degrade to unacceptable LOS, therefore, no new transportation impacts are identified. The Existing Plus Project analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix C.
6287
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 20 ends

TABLE 4-1: 2015 TIA EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTSSource: Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) Notes: 1) LOS = Level of Service.
2) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle.

TABLE 4-2: PROPOSED PROJECT EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTSNotes: 1) LOS = Level of Service. 2) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle.

ID Intersection
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
2015 TIA
Existing Plus Project
Significant Impact?
Potential
Mitigation
Improvement
in 2015 TIA
Existing Plus Project Plus Improvements Significant
Impact after
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mitigation? LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM 10 Archibald Ave and 6th St D B 19.8 C 23.9 No No
Not Applicable
20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St E D 42.3 E 75.7 No No 23 Archibald Ave and 4th St E C 34.4 D 48.2 No No 27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E C 25.4 D 49.5 No No 28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E D 46.0 E 74.0 No No 33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI D C 24.5 C 32.0 No No 40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 23.9 C 26.9 No No 41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 24.3 C 27.5 No No ID Intersection
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
Proposed Project
Existing Plus Project Significant Impact? Potential Mitigation Improvement
in 2015 TIA
Existing Plus Project Plus Improvements Significant Impact after AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mitigation? LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM 10 Archibald Ave and 6th St D B 19.1 C 24.1 No No
Not Applicable
20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St E D 40.7 E 75.6 No No 23 Archibald Ave and 4th St E D 35.6 D 46.6 No No 27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E D 50.3 C 33.0 No No 28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E D 42.3 E 65.4 No No 33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI D B 18.6 C 22.5 No No 40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 23.1 C 32.0 No No 41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd E B 18.7 C 27.5 No No 6288
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 21 ends

4.2 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT

4.2.1 2015 TIA Findings
Table 4-3 summarizes the analysis results for the Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project condition documented in the 2015 TIA. As shown, most intersections operate at acceptable LOS for both peak hours with the exception of:
• (#23) Archibald Ave and 4th St – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour • (#28) Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour As such, a significant impact was identified for these locations. Potential mitigation improvements were developed to improve the LOS of these intersections. The following potential improvements were proposed for the intersections:
• (#23) Archibald Ave and 4th St
o Construct 2nd NB Left-turn lane
o Additional NB through-lane
o Modify traffic signal
• (#28) Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd
o Construct 3rd NB Left-turn lane
o Additional SB through-lane
o Modify traffic signal
As shown, with the implementation of these potential improvements the significant impact was mitigated.

4.2.2 Proposed Project Findings
Table 4-4 summarizes the analysis results for the Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project condition under the proposed project. Similar to the 2015 TIA findings, most intersections operate at acceptable LOS for both peak hours with the exception of:
• (#23) Archibald Ave and 4th St – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour • (#28) Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour With the implementation of the identical potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, all intersections are operating at acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds.

The analysis indicates that, with the inclusion of the potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, the intersections’ operations do not degrade to unacceptable LOS, therefore, no new transportation impacts are identified. The Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix D.

In the 2015 EIR, under the Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project scenario, the project-related impacts at the intersections of Archibald Ave and 4th St (#23) and Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd (#28) are addressed through fee payments to complete required improvements. However, these locations were still identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable even with the payment of fees, due to right-of-way constraints. Since the findings of the proposed project rely on identical potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, these locations remain as cumulatively significant and unavoidable, consistent with the previous findings in the Specific Plan EIR.
6289
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 22 ends

TABLE 4-3: 2015 TIA YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTSSource: Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) Notes: 1) LOS = Level of Service.
2) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle.

ID Intersection
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
2015 TIA
Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Significant Impact? Potential Mitigation Improvement
in 2015 TIA
Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Plus
Improvements
Significant
Impact after
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mitigation? LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM 10 Archibald Ave and 6th St D C 22.2 C 29.0 No No
Not Applicable
20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St E D 48.4 E 78.9 No No 23 Archibald Ave and 4th St E D 41.6 F 83.7 No Yes • Construct 2nd
NB Left-turn lane
• Additional NB
through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 36.7 D 51.8 No No
27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E D 45.7 C 34.7 No No Not Applicable 28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E E 58.9 F 94.0 No Yes • Construct 3rd
NB Left-turn lane
• Additional SB
through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
E 56.5 E 72.7 No No
33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI D C 30.5 D 40.7 No No 40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 24.1 C 26.8 No No Not Applicable 41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 24.5 C 27.4 No No 6290
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 23 ends

TABLE 4-4: PROPOSED PROJECT YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTSNotes: 1) LOS = Level of Service. 2) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle.

ID Intersection
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
Proposed Project
Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Significant Impact? Potential Mitigation Improvement
in 2015 TIA
Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Plus
Improvements
Significant
Impact after
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mitigation? LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM 10 Archibald Ave and 6th St D C 22.0 C 31.5 No No
Not Applicable
20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St E D 44.5 E 75.1 No No 23 Archibald Ave and 4th St E D 46.3 F 93.9 No Yes • Construct 2nd
NB Left-turn lane
• Additional NB
through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 36.7 D 52.8 No No
27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E C 20.6 C 29.4 No No Not Applicable 28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E D 53.1 F 118.3 No Yes • Construct 3rd
NB Left-turn lane
• Additional SB
through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 47.1 E 72.0 No No
33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI D C 25.5 C 29.9 No No 40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 23.6 C 32.4 No No Not Applicable 41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 20.2 C 27.7 No No 6291
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 24 ends

4.3 YEAR 2035 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT

4.3.1 2015 TIA Findings
Table 4-5 summarizes the analysis results for the Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project condition documented in the 2015 TIA. As shown, most intersections operate at acceptable LOS for both peak hours with the exception of:
• (#20) Vineyard Ave and 4th St – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour • (#23) Archibald Ave and 4th St – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour • (#28) Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour As such, a significant impact was identified for these locations. Potential mitigation improvements were developed to improve the LOS of these intersections. The following improvements were proposed for the intersections:
• (#20) Vineyard Ave and 4th St
o Construct additional SB through-lane
o Modify traffic signal
• (#23) Archibald Ave and 4th St
o Construct 2nd NB Left-turn lane
o Additional NB through-lane
o Modify traffic signal
• (#28) Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd
o Construct 3rd NB Left-turn lane
o Additional SB through-lane
o Modify traffic signal
As shown, with the implementation of these potential improvements the significant impact was mitigated.

4.3.2 Proposed Project Findings
Table 4-6 summarizes the analysis results for the Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project condition under the proposed project. Similar to the 2015 TIA findings, most intersections operate at acceptable LOS for both peak hours with the exception of:
• (#20) Vineyard Ave and 4th St – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour • (#23) Archibald Ave and 4th St – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour • (#28) Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour With the implementation of the identical potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, all intersections are operating at acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds.

The analysis indicates that, with the inclusion of the potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, the intersections’ operations do not degrade to unacceptable LOS, therefore, no new transportation impacts are identified. The Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix E. 6292
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 25 ends

In the 2015 EIR, under the Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project scenario, the project-related impacts at the intersections of, Vineyard Ave and 4th St (#20), Archibald Ave and 4th St (#23), and Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd (#28) are addressed through fee payments to complete required improvements. However, these locations were still identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable even with the payment of fees, due to right-of-way constraints. Since the findings of the proposed project rely on identical potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, these locations remain as cumulatively significant and unavoidable, consistent with the previous findings in the Specific Plan EIR.
6293
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 26 ends

TABLE 4-5: 2015 TIA YEAR 2035 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTSSource: Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) Notes: 1) LOS = Level of Service.
2) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle.

ID Intersection
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
2015 TIA
Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Significant Impact? Potential Mitigation Improvement
in 2015 TIA
Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project
Plus Improvements
Significant
Impact after
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mitigation? LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM 10 Archibald Ave and 6th St D C 22.8 C 31.2 No No Not Applicable 20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St E E 76.2 F 92.2 No Yes • Construct
additional SB through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 47.0 E 61.1 No No
23 Archibald Ave and 4th St E D 43.1 F 98.6 No Yes
• Construct 2nd
NB Left-turn lane
• Additional NB
through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 37.3 D 53.9 No No
27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E C 24.4 D 37.7 No No Not Applicable 28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E E 60.4 F 103.3 No Yes • Construct 3rd
NB Left-turn lane
• Additional SB
through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 49.1 E 69.5 No No
33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI D C 30.8 D 46.4 No No 40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 24.2 C 26.5 No No Not Applicable 41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 24.5 C 27.5 No No 6294
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 27 ends

TABLE 4-6: PROPOSED PROJECT YEAR 2035 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTSNotes: 1) LOS = Level of Service. 2) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle.

ID Intersection
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
Proposed Project
Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Significant Impact? Potential Mitigation Improvement
in 2015 TIA
Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project
Plus Improvements
Significant
Impact after
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mitigation? LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 AM PM 10 Archibald Ave and 6th St D C 24.2 D 42.1 No No Not Applicable 20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St E E 78.3 F 95.4 No Yes • Construct
additional SB through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 46.9 E 64.7 No No
23 Archibald Ave and 4th St E E 61.5 F 123.3 No Yes
• Construct 2nd
NB Left-turn lane
• Additional NB
through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 40.5 E 60.6 No No
27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E C 29.4 D 41.1 No No Not Applicable 28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd E E 71.5 F 158.0 No Yes • Construct 3rd
NB Left-turn lane
• Additional SB
through-lane
• Modify traffic
signal
D 48.3 E 79.8 No No
33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI D C 30.8 D 36.9 No No 40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd E C 23.3 C 34.5 No No Not Applicable 41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd E B 19.5 C 28.6 No No 6295
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study

Page 28 ends

5 FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to document the traffic analysis findings associated with the with the proposed changes to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Planning Area 3 (proposed project). A Level of Service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the consistency with the findings documented in the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) [2015 TIA], which was incorporated into the Specific Plan EIR.

The proposed project proposes to modify the existing Specific Plan to include a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 to allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in place of the uses and buildout currently permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation. A revised trip generation for the proposed project was developed to estimate the project trips. The new trip estimates were used to update the Existing With Project, Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project, and Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project traffic volumes documented in the 2015 TIA. The revised traffic volumes were used in the LOS analysis of the proposed project. The analysis was conducted consistent with the process and methodology used in the 2015 TIA. The findings are summarized below:

Existing Plus Project
With the implementation of identical the potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds.

Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project
With the implementation of identical the potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds.

Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project
With the implementation of identical the potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds.

The analysis for all three scenarios indicates that, with the implementation of the identical potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, the intersections’ operations do not degrade to unacceptable LOS.

Therefore, outside of the impacts identified in the 2015 TIA, no new transportation impacts are identified due to the proposed project.

In the 2015 EIR, the project-related impacts at the intersections of Vineyard Ave and 4th St (#20), Archibald Ave and 4th St (#23), and Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd (#28) are addressed through fee payments to complete required improvements. However, these locations were still identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable even with the payment of fees, due to right-of-way acquisition requirements. Since the findings of the proposed project rely on identical potential mitigation improvements developed for the 2015 TIA, these locations remain as cumulatively significant and unavoidable, consistent with the previous findings in the Specific Plan EIR. 6296
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study Appendix A:

Traffic Scoping Agreement
6297
3536 Concours, Suite 100 | Ontario, CA 91764 | Office: 909-974-4908 | www.mbakerintl.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: City of Ontario
From: Jordan Gray PE TE, Michael Baker International
Alejandro Tapia PE, Michael Baker International
CC: Frances Yau, Michael Baker International
Date: October 24, 2025
Subject: Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Planning Area 3 – Focused Traffic Study Scoping Memorandum

1. Introduction
Michael Baker will be preparing a Focused Traffic Study for the proposed Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Planning Area 3 Project (modified project) within the City of Ontario, California. The original Environmental Impact Report for the specific plan was documented in the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report, dated March 2015 (2015 EIR). The 2015 EIR identified potential traffic related impacts at several study intersections associated with the development of the specific plan area that were considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. This memorandum will assess the change in land use assumptions associated with modified project specifically with PA-3 to determine consistency with the findings of the original EIR, including trip generation assumptions and level-of-service operations at select intersections.

The modified project proposes to modify the Specific Plan to include a Mixed-use Overlay across Planning Area 3, allowing for the development of up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses in addition to the uses permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation.

Exhibit 1 shows the Project location and Table 1 summarizes key development characteristics.

The following scoping memorandum outlines Michael Baker’s approach to updating the traffic analysis associated with the modified project. As described in subsequent sections, as part of this analysis the updated baseline “Without Project” scenarios remain unchanged from the original Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) [2015 TIA], documented in the original 2015 Specific Plan EIR. The analysis will follow be consistent with SBCTA’s Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (SBCTA Guidelines), dated February 2020. 6298

Page 2 ends

Table 1: Information Summary
Item Description
Project Location The site is bounded by Inland Empire Boulevard to the north, Archibald Avenue to the east, Interstate 10 to the south, and Deer Creek Channel to the west.

Existing Land Uses The project site has a Mixed Use - Meredith land use designation. Sparse ruderal vegetation and ornamental landscaping are present on-site.

Acreage 23.3 acres
Existing Zoning Meredith Internation Centre SP (2265-SP) – Urban Commercial Proposed Zoning Meredith Internation Centre SP (2265-SP) – Urban Commercial + Mixed Use Overlay Nearby Land Uses
Developed land uses exist on the North, East, South, and West sides of the Project site.

North: Inland Empire Boulevard is immediately north of the project site. Planning Areas 4 and 5 of the Specific Plan are located further north. Planning Area 4 is developed with multi-family residences, and Planning Area 5 is developed with commercial/retail uses, including fast food restaurants and a gas station/convenience store. Planning Area 4 is designated Urban Residential and Planning Area 5 is designated Urban Commercial.

South: Immediately south of the project site is I-10. Further south are warehouses and distribution centers; these properties are not within the Specific Plan area and are designated Mixed-Use and zoned Specific Plan (SP) with a Multimodal Transit Center (MTC) Overlay.

East: Immediately east of the project site is Archibald Avenue. Further east is a gas station, hotel (currently under construction), and vacant land; these properties are not within the Specific Plan area and are designated Office Commercial and zoned High Intensity Office (OH).

West: Deer Creek Channel is immediately west of the project site. Car dealerships and associated service centers are located further west. This area is within Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan and is designated Urban Commercial.
6299
Exhibit 2
Site Vicinity
Source: Google Earth Pro, February 2025

NOT TO SCALE
02/2025 • JN 205836

TURNER AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

E GUASTI RD

N ARCHIBALD AVE

ONTARIO AIRPORT

E AIRPORT DR
JAY ST
QVC WY

N VINEYARD AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVDINLAND EMPIRE BLVD

CONVENTION CENTER WAYCONVENTION CENTER WAY

E HOLT BLVDE HOLT BLVD

PROJECT SITE
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – PLANNING AREA 3 PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 1
6300

Page 4 ends

2. Trip Generation
2015 EIR
The Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, 2015) [2015 TIA], documented in the original 2015 Specific Plan EIR, analyzed the estimated project trips for each planning area based on the land use assumptions that were available at that time.

Table 2 provides the previously documented trip generation calculations for Planning Area 3. As shown, within Planning Area 3, a total of 9,628 daily trips, 473 AM Peak Hour trips, and 719 PM Peak Hour trips were anticipated during an average weekday.

Table 2: Approved 2015 EIR Planning Area 3 Trip Generation Source: Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, January 2015) Trip Rate Source: Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.

Modified Project
To remain consistent with the original analysis documented in the 2015 TIA, the modified project site trips were estimated using trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Table 3 shows the trip generation rates used for the modified project. ITE Land Use codes 220 (Apartments) and 820 (Shopping Center) were assumed for the entire modified project site.

Table 3: Modified Planning Area 3 Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE
Code Daily Trips Rate
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Apartments 220 6.66 / DU 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62
Shopping Center 820 42.70 / TSF 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 Notes: 1) Trip Rates – Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition 2) DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet.
6301

Page 5 ends

Table 3 summarizes the trip generation for the modified project. The modified project includes a Pass-By Trip reduction and internal capture reduction consistent with analysis documented in the 2015 TIA. The total estimated net Project trips include 10,670 daily trips, 719 AM Peak Hour trips, and 941 PM Peak Hour trips.

Table 3: Modified Planning Area 3 Trip Generation
Project Description Intensity Daily1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
220: Apartments 1,400 DU 9,310 140 574 714 560 308 868
820: Shopping Center 50 TSF 2,135 30 18 48 89 97 186
Less Pass-by Trips2
-214 -3 -2 -5 -30 -33 -63
(10% Daily, 10% AM, 34% PM)3
Total PA-3 Trip Generation Potential 11,232 167 590 757 619 372 991 Less Internal Capture (5%)3 -562 -8 -30 -38 -31 -19 -50 Total PA-3 Net Trip Generation Potential 10,670 159 560 719 588 353 941 Notes: 1) Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. 2) Applies only to Shopping Center land use.
3) Consistent with analysis documented in Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (LLG, January 2015) The 2015 TIA originally assumed Planning Area 3’s land use would consist of a 400-room hotel, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 150,000 square feet of retail space. The modified project’s proposed land use for Planning Area 3 consists of up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses. Because of the land use changes, the trip characteristics have changed. The 2015 TIA showed higher entering trips in the AM Peak Hour and higher exiting trips in the PM Peak Hour. The modified project’s land use show the opposite trend, with high exiting trips in the AM Peak Hour and high entering trips in the PM Peak Hour.

Table 4 compares the Planning Area 3 approved 2015 TIA project trips to the modified project trips. As shown, within the comparison boundary, the modified project is expected to generate more daily and peak hour trips compared to the approved 2015 TIA within Project Area 3. Since the trip generation of the modified is higher than the 2015 TIA trips, an operational analysis will be required to determine if new transportation impacts are identified.

Table 4: Project Trip Comparison
Project Description Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
2015 EIR: PA-3 9,628 325 148 473 309 410 719
Modified Project: PA-3 10,670 159 560 719 588 353 941
Difference 1,042 -166 412 246 279 -57 222
6302

Page 1 ends

3. Study Area & Trip Distribution
The eight intersections listed below were selected to assess the potential impacts of the modified project. Note that the list below maintains the intersection identification numbers from the original 2015 TIA for consistency. Refer to Exhibit 2 for the proposed study area.
• #10 Archibald Ave and 6th Street
• #20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St
• #23 Archibald Ave and 4th St
• #27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd
• #28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd
• #33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI
• #40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd
• #41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd
To remain consistent with the previous analysis, the trip distribution for the modified project will be identical to that used in the 2015 EIR analysis. Attachment A contains the original trip distribution for Planning Area 3 used in the original 2015 TIA.

4. Study Methodology & Scenarios
To remain consistent with the previous analysis, following methodology will be utilized:
• Highway Capacity Manual 2000, using Synchro Software (Version 12).

The analysis will utilize the same baseline “without project” volumes documented in the 2015 TIA. The “plus project” conditions will reflect identical trips for Planning Areas 1, 2, and 4. Only the estimated trips for Planning Area 3 will be updated for this analysis. The analysis will determine if new traffic impacts are identified at these study intersections and if the proposed improvements documented in the 2015 TIA are sufficient to mitigate any new potential impacts.

Table 5 summarizes the impact criteria that will be used in this analysis. The thresholds in this table remain consistent with those used in the 2015 TIA.

The following study scenarios, as defined in the 2015 TIA, will be evaluated:
• Existing Plus Project (Planning Area 1-4)
• Year 2020 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Plus Project (Planning Areas 1-4) • Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project (Planning Areas 1-4) Table 5: LOS Threshold Criteria
Intersection Jurisdiction Minimum Acceptable LOS
10 Archibald Ave and 6th Street Rancho Cucamonga D
20 Vineyard Ave and 4th St Ontario E
23 Archibald Ave and 4th St Rancho Cucamonga / Ontario D 27 Vineyard Ave and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario E
28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario E
33 Archibald Ave and I-10 Ramp SPI Ontario / Caltrans D 40 Project Dwy “C” and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario E
41 Project Dwy “D” and Inland Empire Blvd Ontario E
6303
Exhibit 2 H:\pdata\
Project Study Area
Date
10 10
Legend:

Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
#
10 20 23
27 40 41 28
33 Project Location
6304
Attachment A – 2015 EIR: Trip Distribution
for PA-3
6305
6306
6307
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study Appendix B:

Volume Development
6308
10 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NBL 0 0 0 0 23 66 23 66 26 74 26 74 28 82 28 82
NBT 90 260 21 57 78 49 147 252 870 1,321 927 1,313 1,120 1,533 1,177 1,525 1,223 1,660 1,280 1,652 NBR 20 59 4 12 17 11 33 58 156 140 169 139 194 155 207 154 211 165 224 164 SBL 0 0 0 0 78 96 78 96 96 110 96 110 100 121 100 121
SBT 206 156 39 37 22 82 189 201 1,074 1,025 1,057 1,070 1,239 1,296 1,222 1,341 1,342 1,410 1,325 1,455 SBR 0 0 0 0 38 83 38 83 43 93 43 93 79 127 79 127
EBL 0 0 0 0 76 41 76 41 85 46 85 46 125 65 125 65
EBT 0 0 0 0 242 195 242 195 279 224 279 224 318 251 318 251 EBR 0 0 0 0 99 65 99 65 111 73 111 73 122 76 122 76
WBL 48 34 10 9 5 18 43 43 102 172 97 181 112 209 107 218 118 227 113 236 WBT 0 0 0 0 102 230 102 230 119 265 119 265 172 311 172 311 WBR 0 0 0 0 52 98 52 98 60 118 60 118 67 118 67 118
Old PA1-4 AM PM
Existing With Project
(From TIA Exhibits)
Minus Old PA-3 New PA-3 New PA1-4
Project Only
Study Intersection:

North/South:

East/West:

Archibald Avenue / 6th Street
Archibald Avenue
6th Street
AM PM
NT With Proj (From
TIA Exhibits)
BO With Proj. (From
TIA Exhibits) BO With Project
AM PM
NT With Proj
AM PM
Existing Plus Project

AM PM AM PM
6309
20 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NBL 32 80 6 16 22 14 48 78 149 224 165 222 163 241 179 239 176 242 192 240 NBT 125 361 19 54 73 46 179 353 893 1,629 947 1,621 1,150 1,821 1,204 1,813 1,253 1,821 1,307 1,813 NBR 25 74 0 0 25 74 168 255 168 255 194 305 194 305 362 543 362 543 SBL 37 30 29 28 14 53 22 55 128 143 113 168 140 159 125 184 150 172 135 197 SBT 284 216 42 40 21 76 263 252 1,272 1,029 1,251 1,065 1,425 1,277 1,404 1,313 1,539 1,383 1,518 1,419 SBR 0 0 0 0 105 117 105 117 125 161 125 161 138 177 138 177 EBL 0 0 0 0 154 189 154 189 205 220 205 220 226 242 226 242 EBT 0 0 0 0 324 343 324 343 410 442 410 442 451 407 451 407 EBR 63 51 13 12 6 24 56 63 164 148 157 160 176 160 169 172 183 171 176 183 WBL 50 56 0 0 50 56 234 377 234 377 281 432 281 432 543 725 543 725 WBT 0 0 0 0 384 447 384 447 463 571 463 571 509 441 509 441 WBR 15 48 13 37 50 32 52 43 99 159 136 154 111 173 148 168 121 186 158 181 AM PM
Existing Plus Project NT With Proj

AM PM AM PM PM AM PM AM
Vineyard Avenue / 4th Street
Existing With Project
(From TIA Exhibits)
Study Intersection:

North/South:

East/West:

Project Only
Old PA1-4 New PA-3 New PA1-4
Vineyard Avenue
4th Street
AM PM Minus Old PA-3
NT With Proj (From
TIA Exhibits)
BO With Proj. (From
TIA Exhibits) BO With Project
6310
23 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NBL 21 57 21 57 78 49 78 49 108 205 165 197 140 281 197 273 152 303 209 295 NBT 116 320 30 83 112 71 198 308 915 1,376 997 1,364 1,144 1,582 1,226 1,570 1,247 1,708 1,329 1,696 NBR 21 61 4 12 17 11 34 60 191 182 204 181 221 245 234 244 241 263 254 262 SBL 0 0 0 0 100 130 100 130 119 176 119 176 131 194 131 194 SBT 255 195 64 62 32 118 223 251 1,023 976 991 1,032 1,171 1,216 1,139 1,272 1,263 1,318 1,231 1,374 SBR 37 28 0 0 37 28 103 93 103 93 114 112 114 112 158 219 158 219 EBL 12 51 0 0 12 51 65 112 65 112 82 122 82 122 122 298 122 298 EBT 0 0 0 0 352 384 352 384 402 445 402 445 437 495 437 495 EBR 46 43 46 43 22 82 22 82 189 155 165 194 242 215 218 254 262 232 238 271 WBL 50 35 10 9 5 18 45 44 228 311 223 320 279 377 274 386 302 411 297 420 WBT 0 0 0 0 365 630 365 630 423 719 423 719 443 850 443 850 WBR 0 0 0 0 123 139 123 139 171 164 171 164 188 186 188 186 AM PM
Existing Plus Project NT With Proj

AM PM AM PM PM AM PM AM
Archibald Avenue / 4th Street
Existing With Project
(From TIA Exhibits)
Study Intersection:

North/South:

East/West:

Project Only
Old PA1-4 New PA-3 New PA1-4
Archibald Avenue
4th Street
AM PM Minus Old PA-3
NT With Proj (From
TIA Exhibits)
BO With Proj. (From
TIA Exhibits) BO With Project
6311
27 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 358 7 0 0 358 7 1,404 1,518 1,404 1,518 1,703 1,767 1,703 1,767 1,584 1,910 1,584 1,910 NBR 356 350 36 34 18 64 338 380 395 415 377 445 403 435 385 465 443 509 425 539 SBL 288 375 55 52 27 100 260 423 346 416 318 464 353 420 325 468 374 443 346 491 SBT 72 268 0 0 72 268 1,296 1,465 1,296 1,465 1,502 1,774 1,502 1,774 1,877 1,779 1,877 1,779 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 189 533 16 45 62 39 235 527 296 680 342 674 320 704 366 698 371 859 417 853 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 164 457 25 70 95 60 234 447 230 584 300 574 238 599 308 589 237 648 307 638 Existing Plus Project NT With Proj BO With Project

AM PM AM PM AM PM
NT With Proj (From
TIA Exhibits)
BO With Proj. (From
TIA Exhibits)
Vineyard Avenue / Inland Empire Boulevard
Existing With Project
(From TIA Exhibits)
Study Intersection:

North/South:

East/West:

Project Only
Old PA1-4 New PA-3 New PA1-4
Vineyard Avenue
Inland Empire Boulevard
AM Minus Old PA-3 PM AM PM AM PM
6312
28 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NBL 380 418 101 97 49 182 328 503 501 558 449 643 516 575 464 660 529 665 477 750 NBT 0 0 0 0 1,053 1,302 1,053 1,302 1,329 1,645 1,329 1,645 1,463 1,819 1,463 1,819 NBR 0 0 0 0 399 348 399 348 465 460 465 460 512 506 512 506 SBL 0 0 0 0 99 78 99 78 116 104 116 104 128 114 128 114 SBT 0 0 0 0 1,181 1,219 1,181 1,219 1,442 1,582 1,442 1,582 1,587 1,748 1,587 1,748 SBR 357 351 120 114 59 218 296 455 384 389 323 493 387 394 326 498 390 403 329 507 EBL 165 538 55 152 207 131 317 517 177 563 329 542 178 566 330 545 180 579 332 558 EBT 24 69 6 16 22 14 40 67 94 127 110 125 105 146 121 144 146 184 162 182 EBR 246 540 46 127 174 109 374 522 283 561 411 543 287 564 415 546 320 587 448 569 WBL 0 0 0 0 263 366 263 366 362 448 362 448 398 493 398 493 WBT 51 42 13 12 6 24 44 54 178 229 171 241 204 257 197 269 219 356 212 368 WBR 0 0 0 0 64 55 64 55 89 71 89 71 98 78 98 78
AM PM
Existing Plus Project NT With Proj

AM PM AM PM PM AM PM AM
Archibald Avenue / Inland Empire Boulevard
Existing With Project
(From TIA Exhibits)
Study Intersection:

North/South:

East/West:

Project Only
Old PA1-4 Minus Old PA-3 New PA1-4
Archibald Avenue
Inland Empire Boulevard
AM PM New PA-3
NT With Proj (From
TIA Exhibits)
BO With Proj. (From
TIA Exhibits) BO With Project
6313
33 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NBL 0 0 0 0 51 327 51 327 83 486 83 486 145 804 145 804 NBT 75 48 3 3 2 6 74 51 332 647 331 650 394 863 393 866 426 945 425 948 NBR 0 0 0 0 73 288 73 288 108 443 108 443 166 487 166 487 SBL 121 270 26 70 95 59 190 259 593 728 662 717 706 888 775 877 765 950 834 939 SBT 47 77 1 4 6 4 52 77 553 650 558 650 705 817 710 817 771 891 776 891 SBR 74 113 19 53 73 46 128 106 594 761 648 754 695 882 749 875 757 959 811 952 EBL 77 110 42 40 21 76 56 146 963 961 942 997 1,104 1,104 1,083 1,140 1,207 1,203 1,186 1,239 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 208 244 208 244 309 355 309 355 591 540 591 540 WBL 0 0 0 0 196 83 196 83 296 175 296 175 313 193 313 193 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 217 167 56 54 26 100 187 213 650 601 620 647 804 714 774 760 863 769 833 815 AM PM
Existing Plus Project NT With Proj

AM PM AM PM PM AM PM AM
Archibald Avenue / I-10
Existing With Project
(From TIA Exhibits)
Study Intersection:

North/South:

East/West:

Project Only
Old PA1-4 New PA-3 New PA1-4
Archibald Avenue
I-10
AM PM Minus Old PA-3
NT With Proj (From
TIA Exhibits)
BO With Proj. (From
TIA Exhibits) BO With Project
6314
40 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NBL 20 73 19 53 73 46 74 66 20 73 74 66 20 73 74 66 20 73 74 66 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 62 192 59 164 224 141 227 169 62 192 227 169 62 192 227 169 62 192 227 169 SBL 82 44 0 0 82 44 82 44 82 44 82 44 82 44 82 44 82 44 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 69 37 0 0 69 37 69 37 69 37 69 37 69 37 69 37 69 37 EBL 17 67 0 0 17 67 17 67 17 67 17 67 17 67 17 67 17 67 EBT 207 838 49 46 24 88 182 880 326 944 301 986 343 969 318 1,011 418 1,065 393 1,107 EBR 44 58 42 40 21 76 23 94 44 58 23 94 44 58 23 94 44 58 23 94 WBL 133 151 130 124 63 236 66 263 133 151 66 263 133 151 66 263 133 151 66 263 WBT 598 479 22 62 84 53 660 470 873 844 935 835 917 894 979 885 915 1,092 977 1,083 WBR 19 81 0 0 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 AM PM
Existing Plus Project NT With Proj

AM PM AM PM PM AM PM AM
West Project Driveway / Inland Empire Boulevard
Existing With Project
(From TIA Exhibits)
Study Intersection:

North/South:

East/West:

Project Only
Old PA1-4 New PA-3 New PA1-4
West Project Driveway
Inland Empire Boulevard
AM PM Minus Old PA-3
NT With Proj (From
TIA Exhibits)
BO With Proj. (From
TIA Exhibits) BO With Project
6315
41 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NBL 23 87 22 62 84 53 85 78 23 87 85 78 23 87 85 78 23 87 85 78 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 48 156 48 131 179 113 179 138 48 156 179 138 48 156 179 138 48 156 179 138 SBL 105 56 0 0 105 56 105 56 105 56 105 56 105 56 105 56 105 56 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 72 39 0 0 72 39 72 39 72 39 72 39 72 39 72 39 72 39 EBL 18 70 0 0 18 70 18 70 18 70 18 70 18 70 18 70 18 70 EBT 281 936 59 164 224 141 446 913 400 1,042 565 1,019 417 1,067 582 1,044 492 1,163 657 1,140 EBR 51 69 49 46 24 88 26 111 51 69 26 111 51 69 26 111 51 69 26 111 WBL 106 122 104 99 51 188 53 211 106 122 53 211 106 122 53 211 106 122 53 211 WBT 656 584 130 124 63 236 589 696 931 949 864 1,061 975 999 908 1,111 973 1,197 906 1,309 WBR 26 102 0 0 26 102 26 102 26 102 26 102 26 102 26 102 26 102 AM PM
Existing Plus Project NT With Proj

AM PM AM PM PM AM PM AM
East Project Driveway / Inland Empire Boulevard
Existing With Project
(From TIA Exhibits)
Study Intersection:

North/South:

East/West:

Project Only
Old PA1-4 New PA-3 New PA1-4
East Project Driveway
Inland Empire Boulevard
AM PM Minus Old PA-3
NT With Proj (From
TIA Exhibits)
BO With Proj. (From
TIA Exhibits) BO With Project
6316
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study Appendix C:

Existing Plus Project Analysis Worksheets
6317
Meredith Specific Plan
10: Archibald Avenue & 6th Street Existing with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 76 242 99 97 102 52 23 927 169 78 1057 38 Future Volume (vph) 76 242 99 97 102 52 23 927 169 78 1057 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3453 1805 1803 1805 3526 1805 3591 Flt Permitted 0.62 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1183 3453 932 1803 1805 3526 1805 3591 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 80 255 104 102 107 55 24 976 178 82 1113 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 19 0 0 18 0 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 313 0 102 143 0 24 1136 0 82 1150 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 2.1 34.6 6.5 39.0 Effective Green, g (s) 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 2.1 34.6 6.5 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.44 0.08 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 384 1123 303 586 48 1550 149 1779
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.08 0.01 c0.32 c0.05 0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.11
v/c Ratio 0.21 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.50 0.73 0.55 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 19.2 19.7 20.1 19.5 37.8 18.2 34.7 14.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.2 8.0 1.8 4.3 0.8
Delay (s) 19.5 19.8 20.8 19.7 45.7 20.1 39.0 15.5
Level of Service B B C B D C D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.8 20.1 20.6 17.1
Approach LOS B C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6318
Meredith Specific Plan
20: Vineyard Avenue & 4th Street Existing with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 154 324 157 234 384 136 165 947 168 113 1251 105 Future Volume (vph) 154 324 157 234 384 136 165 947 168 113 1251 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3468 1805 3528 1805 3568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3468 1805 3528 1805 3568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 162 341 165 246 404 143 174 997 177 119 1317 111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 27 0 0 11 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 162 341 34 246 520 0 174 1163 0 119 1423 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 25.2 25.2 11.6 28.0 15.3 57.1 12.9 54.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 25.2 25.2 11.6 28.0 15.3 57.1 12.9 54.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.23 0.12 0.46 0.11 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 250 740 331 330 790 224 1640 189 1589 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.09 c0.07 c0.15 c0.10 0.33 0.07 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.46 0.10 0.75 0.66 0.78 0.71 0.63 0.90
Uniform Delay, d1 55.5 42.8 39.6 54.2 43.1 52.1 26.2 52.7 31.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 0.5 0.1 8.8 2.0 15.5 1.4 6.4 7.0 Delay (s) 61.2 43.3 39.8 63.0 45.0 67.6 27.6 59.1 38.4
Level of Service E D D E D E C E D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 46.8 50.6 32.8 40.0
Approach LOS D D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 40.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 122.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6319
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Existing with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 65 352 165 223 365 123 165 997 204 100 991 103 Future Volume (vph) 65 352 165 223 365 123 165 997 204 100 991 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3437 3502 5187 1615 1805 3518 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3437 3502 5187 1615 1805 3518 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 371 174 235 384 129 174 1049 215 105 1043 108 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 52 0 0 0 37 0 17 0 0 0 63
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 493 0 235 384 92 174 1247 0 105 1043 45 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 26.0 11.0 31.0 39.6 12.4 41.0 8.6 37.2 43.2 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 26.0 11.0 31.0 39.6 12.4 41.0 8.6 37.2 43.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.25 0.11 0.30 0.39 0.12 0.40 0.08 0.36 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 204 870 375 1567 686 218 1405 151 1308 742 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.14 c0.07 0.07 0.01 c0.10 c0.35 0.06 0.29 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.57 0.63 0.25 0.13 0.80 0.89 0.70 0.80 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 33.4 43.8 27.0 20.4 43.9 28.7 45.7 29.3 17.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.9 3.3 0.1 0.1 18.1 7.2 13.0 3.5 0.0 Delay (s) 47.3 34.2 47.1 27.1 20.5 62.0 35.8 58.7 32.8 17.7 Level of Service D C D C C E D E C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 35.7 32.2 39.0 33.7
Approach LOS D C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 35.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6320
Meredith Specific Plan
27: Vineyard Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Existing with Project AM Peak Hour Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 342 300 1404 377 318 1296
Future Volume (vph) 342 300 1404 377 318 1296
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 1615 5187 1615 1805 3610
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 1615 5187 1615 261 3610
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 360 316 1478 397 335 1364
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 34 0 142 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 360 282 1478 255 335 1364
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.4 25.4 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
Effective Green, g (s) 25.4 25.4 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 952 439 3332 1037 167 2319
v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 0.38
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.17 0.16 c1.28
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.64 0.44 0.25 2.01 0.59
Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 30.0 8.4 7.1 16.7 9.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 3.2 0.1 0.1 473.3 0.4
Delay (s) 27.8 33.2 8.4 7.2 490.0 10.0
Level of Service C C A A F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 30.3 8.2 104.6
Approach LOS C A F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 50.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6321
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Existing with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 329 110 411 263 171 64 449 1053 399 99 1181 323 Future Volume (vph) 329 110 411 263 171 64 449 1053 399 99 1181 323 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3183 3502 3463 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3183 3502 3463 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 346 116 433 277 180 67 473 1108 420 104 1243 340 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 187 0 0 32 0 0 0 267 0 0 224
Lane Group Flow (vph) 346 362 0 277 215 0 473 1108 153 104 1243 116 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 38.9 13.7 38.1 18.4 43.3 43.3 6.9 31.8 31.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.5 38.9 13.7 38.1 18.4 43.3 43.3 6.9 31.8 31.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.33 0.12 0.32 0.15 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 427 1042 403 1110 542 1890 588 203 1388 432 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.11 0.08 0.06 c0.14 0.21 0.03 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.35 0.69 0.19 0.87 0.59 0.26 0.51 0.90 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 50.8 30.3 50.5 29.2 49.1 30.5 26.5 54.3 41.9 34.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 0.2 4.8 0.1 14.4 0.5 0.2 2.2 7.8 0.3 Delay (s) 61.9 30.5 55.3 29.3 63.5 31.0 26.7 56.5 49.7 34.7 Level of Service E C E C E C C E D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 42.7 43.1 37.8 47.1
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 42.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6322
Meredith Specific Plan
33: Archibald Avenue & I-10 Existing with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 942 0 208 196 0 620 51 331 73 662 558 648 Future Volume (vph) 942 0 208 196 0 620 51 331 73 662 558 648 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 992 0 219 206 0 653 54 348 77 697 587 682 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 992 0 219 206 0 653 54 348 77 697 587 682 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Over Prot Over Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Protected Phases 7 5 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.5 11.1 25.5 22.5 11.1 9.5 69.5 22.5 20.9 69.5 Effective Green, g (s) 25.5 11.1 25.5 22.5 11.1 9.5 69.5 22.5 20.9 69.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.16 0.37 0.32 0.16 0.14 1.00 0.32 0.30 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1284 453 1284 920 559 893 1615 1133 1559 1615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.08 0.06 c0.23 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.42
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.48 0.16 0.71 0.10 0.39 0.05 0.62 0.38 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 19.4 26.6 14.8 20.6 24.9 27.4 0.0 19.8 19.2 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.8 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.8 Delay (s) 22.4 27.4 14.9 23.2 25.0 27.6 0.1 20.8 19.3 0.8 Level of Service C C B C C C A C B A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.3 21.2 22.9 13.4
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6323
Meredith Specific Plan
40: Project Driveway C & Inland Empire Boulevard Existing with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 301 23 66 935 19 74 0 227 82 0 69 Future Volume (vph) 17 301 23 66 935 19 74 0 227 82 0 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3572 1805 3599 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.51 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3572 1805 3599 1348 1615 966 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 500% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 89 317 24 69 984 20 78 0 239 86 0 73
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 162 0 0 49 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 335 0 69 1003 0 78 77 0 86 24 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 29.4 13.2 29.4 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 29.4 13.2 29.4 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.36 0.16 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 294 1299 294 1309 437 523 313 523
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.09 0.04 c0.28 0.05 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.09
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.77 0.18 0.15 0.27 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 29.7 18.0 29.4 22.7 19.6 19.4 20.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 0.4 2.7 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.0
Delay (s) 30.3 18.1 29.8 25.4 19.8 19.5 20.7 18.8
Level of Service C B C C B B C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.7 25.7 19.6 19.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6324
Meredith Specific Plan
41: Project Driveway D & Inland Empire Boulevard Existing with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 18 565 26 53 864 26 85 0 179 105 0 72 Future Volume (vph) 18 565 26 53 864 26 85 0 179 105 0 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3586 1805 3610 1615 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.61 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3586 1805 3610 1615 1344 1615 1159 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 595 27 56 909 27 89 0 188 111 0 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 16 0 114 0 0 46 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 619 0 56 909 11 89 74 0 111 30 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.7 24.3 9.4 31.0 31.0 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 Effective Green, g (s) 2.7 24.3 9.4 31.0 31.0 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.32 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 64 1160 225 1490 666 526 632 453 632 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.17 c0.03 c0.25 0.05 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 c0.10
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.53 0.25 0.61 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.25 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 35.3 20.8 29.7 17.3 13.0 14.9 14.6 15.4 14.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 37.9 21.2 30.2 18.1 13.0 15.0 14.7 15.7 14.2
Level of Service D C C B B B B B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.7 18.6 14.8 15.1
Approach LOS C B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6325
Meredith Specific Plan
10: Archibald Avenue & 6th Street Existing with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 41 195 65 181 230 98 66 1313 139 96 1070 83 Future Volume (vph) 41 195 65 181 230 98 66 1313 139 96 1070 83 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3475 1805 1815 1805 3558 1805 3571 Flt Permitted 0.32 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 607 3475 1046 1815 1805 3558 1805 3571 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 205 68 191 242 103 69 1382 146 101 1126 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 33 0 0 16 0 0 8 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 240 0 191 329 0 69 1520 0 101 1207 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 6.5 44.8 6.1 44.4 Effective Green, g (s) 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 6.5 44.8 6.1 44.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.51 0.07 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 176 1010 304 527 132 1797 124 1787
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.18 0.04 c0.43 c0.06 0.34
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.18
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.63 0.63 0.52 0.85 0.81 0.68
Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 24.0 27.3 27.3 39.6 19.0 40.7 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 4.0 2.3 3.7 3.9 32.1 1.0
Delay (s) 24.7 24.1 31.3 29.6 43.3 22.8 72.8 17.7
Level of Service C C C C D C E B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.2 30.2 23.7 22.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.0% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6326
Meredith Specific Plan
20: Vineyard Avenue & 4th Street Existing with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 189 343 160 377 447 154 222 1621 255 168 1065 117 Future Volume (vph) 189 343 160 377 447 154 222 1621 255 168 1065 117 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3471 1805 3536 1805 3556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3471 1805 3536 1805 3556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 199 361 168 397 471 162 234 1706 268 177 1121 123 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 136 0 26 0 0 10 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 199 361 32 397 607 0 234 1964 0 177 1238 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 25.0 25.0 12.0 27.1 19.7 66.0 11.0 57.3 Effective Green, g (s) 9.9 25.0 25.0 12.0 27.1 19.7 66.0 11.0 57.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.21 0.15 0.51 0.08 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 694 310 323 723 273 1795 152 1567 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.10 c0.11 c0.17 0.13 c0.56 c0.10 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.52 0.10 1.23 0.84 0.86 1.09 1.16 0.79
Uniform Delay, d1 58.8 47.1 43.3 59.0 49.4 53.8 32.0 59.5 31.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.9 0.7 0.1 127.3 8.5 22.3 51.9 124.0 2.7 Delay (s) 69.8 47.8 43.4 186.3 57.8 76.1 83.9 183.5 33.9 Level of Service E D D F E E F F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 52.8 107.4 83.1 52.6
Approach LOS D F F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 75.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6327
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Existing with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 112 384 194 320 630 139 197 1364 181 130 1032 93 Future Volume (vph) 112 384 194 320 630 139 197 1364 181 130 1032 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3428 3502 5187 1615 1805 3546 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3428 3502 5187 1615 1805 3546 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 118 404 204 337 663 146 207 1436 191 137 1086 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 53 0 0 0 54 0 8 0 0 0 52
Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 555 0 337 663 92 207 1619 0 137 1086 46 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 25.0 12.0 31.0 41.0 16.8 56.9 10.0 50.1 56.1 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 25.0 12.0 31.0 41.0 16.8 56.9 10.0 50.1 56.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.21 0.10 0.26 0.34 0.14 0.47 0.08 0.42 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 175 714 350 1341 606 252 1682 150 1508 809 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.16 c0.10 0.13 0.01 c0.11 c0.46 0.08 0.30 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.78 0.96 0.49 0.15 0.82 0.96 0.91 0.72 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 56.0 44.8 53.7 37.8 27.4 50.1 30.5 54.5 29.1 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.8 5.3 38.1 0.3 0.1 18.9 14.0 48.3 1.7 0.0 Delay (s) 65.8 50.1 91.8 38.1 27.5 69.0 44.5 102.9 30.8 17.5 Level of Service E D F D C E D F C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 52.7 52.5 47.2 37.3
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 46.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6328
Meredith Specific Plan
27: Vineyard Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Existing with Project PM Peak Hour Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 674 574 1518 445 464 1465
Future Volume (vph) 674 574 1518 445 464 1465
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 1615 5187 1615 1805 3610
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 1615 5187 1615 1805 3610
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 709 604 1598 468 488 1542
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 400 0 273 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 709 204 1598 195 488 1542
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.4 27.4 40.9 40.9 34.3 79.7
Effective Green, g (s) 27.4 27.4 40.9 40.9 34.3 79.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.69
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 833 384 1843 573 537 2499
v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 c0.27 0.43
v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.13 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.53 0.87 0.34 0.91 0.62
Uniform Delay, d1 41.9 38.2 34.6 27.2 38.9 9.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.3 1.4 4.6 0.4 19.1 0.5
Delay (s) 50.3 39.7 39.2 27.6 58.0 10.0
Level of Service D D D C E A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 45.4 36.5 21.5
Approach LOS D D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 33.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6329
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Existing with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 542 125 543 366 241 55 643 1302 348 78 1219 493 Future Volume (vph) 542 125 543 366 241 55 643 1302 348 78 1219 493 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3170 3502 3509 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3170 3502 3509 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 571 132 572 385 254 58 677 1371 366 82 1283 519 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 209 0 0 16 0 0 0 230 0 0 329
Lane Group Flow (vph) 571 495 0 385 296 0 677 1371 136 82 1283 190 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.0 39.4 15.6 38.0 21.0 45.0 45.0 4.8 28.8 28.8 Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 39.4 15.6 38.0 21.0 45.0 45.0 4.8 28.8 28.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.33 0.13 0.31 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 492 1033 452 1103 608 1932 601 139 1236 385 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.16 0.11 0.08 c0.19 0.26 0.02 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.12
v/c Ratio 1.16 0.48 0.85 0.27 1.11 0.71 0.23 0.59 1.04 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 51.9 32.5 51.5 31.0 49.9 32.3 26.0 57.0 46.0 39.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 92.8 0.4 14.3 0.1 71.7 1.2 0.2 6.3 36.0 1.0 Delay (s) 144.7 32.9 65.8 31.1 121.6 33.5 26.2 63.3 82.0 40.7 Level of Service F C E C F C C E F D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 83.0 50.3 57.1 69.8
Approach LOS F D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 65.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6330
Meredith Specific Plan
33: Archibald Avenue & I-10 Existing with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 997 0 244 83 0 647 327 650 288 717 650 754 Future Volume (vph) 997 0 244 83 0 647 327 650 288 717 650 754 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1049 0 257 87 0 681 344 684 303 755 684 794 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1049 0 257 87 0 681 344 684 303 755 684 794 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Over Prot Over Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Protected Phases 7 5 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.3 13.4 28.3 24.1 13.4 14.8 79.2 24.1 25.5 79.2 Effective Green, g (s) 28.3 13.4 28.3 24.1 13.4 14.8 79.2 24.1 25.5 79.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.17 0.36 0.30 0.17 0.19 1.00 0.30 0.32 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1251 480 1251 864 592 1221 1615 1065 1670 1615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.09 0.02 c0.24 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 c0.49
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.54 0.07 0.79 0.58 0.56 0.19 0.71 0.41 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 23.4 30.1 16.8 25.2 30.3 29.2 0.0 24.4 21.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 1.2 0.0 4.8 1.5 0.6 0.3 2.2 0.2 1.1 Delay (s) 28.4 31.2 16.8 30.0 31.8 29.8 0.3 26.6 21.1 1.1 Level of Service C C B C C C A C C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 29.0 28.5 23.6 15.9
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 22.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6331
Meredith Specific Plan
40: Project Driveway C & Inland Empire Boulevard Existing with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 986 94 263 835 81 66 0 169 44 0 37 Future Volume (vph) 67 986 94 263 835 81 66 0 169 44 0 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3563 1805 3562 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.56 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3563 1805 3562 1390 1615 1065 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 500% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 353 1038 99 277 879 85 69 0 178 46 0 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 7 0 0 129 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 1129 0 277 957 0 69 49 0 46 11 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.0 34.2 20.2 31.4 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Effective Green, g (s) 23.0 34.2 20.2 31.4 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.37 0.22 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 453 1331 398 1222 381 443 292 443
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.32 0.15 0.27 0.03 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.85 0.70 0.78 0.18 0.11 0.16 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 26.3 32.8 27.0 25.4 24.8 25.2 24.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.3 5.2 5.2 3.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 40.1 31.5 38.0 30.3 25.6 25.0 25.4 24.3
Level of Service D C D C C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.6 32.1 25.1 24.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 32.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 91.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6332
Meredith Specific Plan
41: Project Driveway D & Inland Empire Boulevard Existing with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 1019 111 211 1061 102 78 0 138 56 0 39 Future Volume (vph) 70 1019 111 211 1061 102 78 0 138 56 0 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3557 1805 3610 1615 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.61 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3557 1805 3610 1615 1388 1615 1157 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 1073 117 222 1117 107 82 0 145 59 0 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 58 0 104 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 1182 0 222 1117 49 82 41 0 59 11 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.1 41.1 19.6 46.6 46.6 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 41.1 19.6 46.6 46.6 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.41 0.19 0.46 0.46 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 252 1448 350 1667 745 387 451 323 451 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.33 c0.12 0.31 0.03 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.06 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.82 0.63 0.67 0.07 0.21 0.09 0.18 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 26.6 37.4 21.2 15.1 27.8 26.9 27.6 26.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 3.7 3.7 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 39.6 30.2 41.1 22.2 15.1 28.1 27.0 27.9 26.4
Level of Service D C D C B C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 30.8 24.6 27.4 27.3
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 27.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6333
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study Appendix D:

Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Analysis
Worksheets
6334
Meredith Specific Plan
10: Archibald Avenue & 6th Street Cumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 85 279 111 107 119 60 26 1177 207 96 1222 43 Future Volume (vph) 85 279 111 107 119 60 26 1177 207 96 1222 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3456 1805 1804 1805 3529 1805 3592 Flt Permitted 0.56 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1058 3456 799 1804 1805 3529 1805 3592 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 89 294 117 113 125 63 27 1239 218 101 1286 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 0 0 18 0 0 15 0 0 2 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 370 0 113 170 0 27 1442 0 101 1329 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.1 44.2 7.2 49.3 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 2.1 44.2 7.2 49.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.49 0.08 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 310 1013 234 528 42 1738 144 1974
v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.09 0.01 c0.41 c0.06 0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.14
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.37 0.48 0.32 0.64 0.83 0.70 0.67
Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 25.1 26.1 24.7 43.4 19.5 40.2 14.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.4 29.0 3.4 14.3 0.9 Delay (s) 25.0 25.3 27.7 25.1 72.4 23.0 54.5 15.4
Level of Service C C C C E C D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.3 26.1 23.9 18.1
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 22.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6335
Meredith Specific Plan
20: Vineyard Avenue & 4th Street Cumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 205 410 169 281 463 148 179 1204 194 125 1404 125 Future Volume (vph) 205 410 169 281 463 148 179 1204 194 125 1404 125 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3452 5090 3479 1805 5187 1615 1805 3566 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3452 5090 3479 1805 5187 1615 1805 3566 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 216 432 178 296 487 156 188 1267 204 132 1478 132 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 25 0 0 0 105 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 216 573 0 296 618 0 188 1267 99 132 1604 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 25.0 8.0 25.0 13.0 56.4 56.4 13.3 56.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 25.0 8.0 25.0 13.0 56.4 56.4 13.3 56.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.21 0.07 0.21 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 727 343 732 197 2464 767 202 1703 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.17 0.06 c0.18 c0.10 0.24 0.07 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.79 0.86 0.84 0.95 0.51 0.13 0.65 0.94
Uniform Delay, d1 55.0 44.3 54.8 45.0 52.6 21.6 17.4 50.5 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 36.2 5.7 19.5 8.8 50.7 0.2 0.1 7.4 10.9 Delay (s) 91.2 50.0 74.3 53.8 103.2 21.8 17.5 57.9 40.4 Level of Service F D E D F C B E D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 60.8 60.2 30.5 41.7
Approach LOS E E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 44.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6336
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Cumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 82 402 218 274 423 171 197 1226 234 119 1139 114 Future Volume (vph) 82 402 218 274 423 171 197 1226 234 119 1139 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3420 3502 5187 1615 1805 3523 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3420 3502 5187 1615 1805 3523 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 423 229 288 445 180 207 1291 246 125 1199 120 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 65 0 0 0 54 0 13 0 0 0 62
Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 587 0 288 445 126 207 1524 0 125 1199 58 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 27.8 10.0 31.8 40.8 15.4 49.0 9.0 42.6 48.6 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 27.8 10.0 31.8 40.8 15.4 49.0 9.0 42.6 48.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.25 0.09 0.28 0.36 0.14 0.44 0.08 0.38 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 850 313 1475 647 248 1544 145 1375 759 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.17 c0.08 c0.09 0.02 c0.11 c0.43 0.07 0.33 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.69 0.92 0.30 0.19 0.83 0.99 0.86 0.87 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 51.3 38.1 50.5 31.3 24.3 47.0 31.1 50.8 32.1 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 2.4 31.0 0.1 0.1 20.8 19.6 37.5 6.4 0.0 Delay (s) 53.1 40.5 81.5 31.4 24.4 67.8 50.7 88.3 38.4 18.5 Level of Service D D F C C E D F D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 42.0 45.8 52.7 41.1
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 46.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 111.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6337
Meredith Specific Plan
27: Vineyard Avenue & Inland Empire BoulevardCumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 366 308 1703 385 325 1502
Future Volume (vph) 366 308 1703 385 325 1502
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 1615 5187 1615 3502 5187
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 1615 5187 1615 3502 5187
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 385 324 1793 405 342 1581
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 275 0 206 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 385 49 1793 199 342 1581
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm Over NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.3 16.1 52.2 52.2 16.1 72.8
Effective Green, g (s) 25.3 16.1 52.2 52.2 16.1 72.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.15 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.69
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 835 245 2551 794 531 3559
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.35 c0.10 0.30
v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.20 0.70 0.25 0.64 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 34.6 39.4 20.9 15.6 42.3 7.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.2 2.7 0.1
Delay (s) 35.0 39.8 21.8 15.8 45.0 7.6
Level of Service C D C B D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 37.2 20.7 14.3
Approach LOS D C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6338
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire BoulevardCumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 330 121 415 362 197 89 464 1329 465 116 1442 326 Future Volume (vph) 330 121 415 362 197 89 464 1329 465 116 1442 326 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3441 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3441 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 347 127 437 381 207 94 488 1399 489 122 1518 343 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 46 0 0 0 311 0 0 182
Lane Group Flow (vph) 347 127 413 381 255 0 488 1399 178 122 1518 161 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 38.0 54.0 12.0 38.0 16.0 42.2 42.2 7.8 34.0 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 38.0 54.0 12.0 38.0 16.0 42.2 42.2 7.8 34.0 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.33 0.47 0.10 0.33 0.14 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 1182 807 362 1127 483 1886 587 235 1520 473 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.04 c0.07 c0.11 0.07 c0.14 0.27 0.03 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.11 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.96 0.11 0.51 1.05 0.23 1.01 0.74 0.30 0.52 1.00 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 51.8 27.2 21.8 52.0 28.3 50.0 32.2 26.4 52.3 41.0 32.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 36.1 0.0 0.6 61.8 0.1 43.6 1.6 0.3 1.9 22.6 0.4 Delay (s) 87.8 27.2 22.3 113.8 28.4 93.6 33.8 26.7 54.2 63.6 32.6 Level of Service F C C F C F C C D E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 47.9 76.1 44.6 57.6
Approach LOS D E D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 53.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6339
Meredith Specific Plan
33: Archibald Avenue & I-10 Cumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1083 0 309 296 0 804 83 393 108 775 710 749 Future Volume (vph) 1083 0 309 296 0 804 83 393 108 775 710 749 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1140 0 325 312 0 846 87 414 114 816 747 788 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1140 0 325 312 0 846 87 414 114 816 747 788 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Over Prot Over Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Protected Phases 7 5 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 16.0 36.0 34.1 16.0 11.6 93.7 34.1 29.7 93.7 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 16.0 36.0 34.1 16.0 11.6 93.7 34.1 29.7 93.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.17 0.38 0.36 0.17 0.12 1.00 0.36 0.32 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1345 485 1345 1034 597 809 1615 1274 1644 1615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.11 0.09 c0.30 0.02 0.06 0.23 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.49
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.67 0.23 0.82 0.15 0.51 0.07 0.64 0.45 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 26.3 36.4 19.5 27.0 33.0 38.4 0.0 24.7 25.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 3.6 0.1 5.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.2 1.1 Delay (s) 31.5 40.0 19.6 32.1 33.2 38.9 0.1 25.8 25.7 1.1 Level of Service C D B C C D A C C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.4 28.7 30.9 17.5
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6340
Meredith Specific Plan
40: Project Driveway C & Inland Empire Boulevard Cumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 318 23 66 979 19 74 0 227 82 0 69 Future Volume (vph) 17 318 23 66 979 19 74 0 227 82 0 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1805 3600 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.51 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3574 1805 3600 1348 1615 960 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 500% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 89 335 24 69 1031 20 78 0 239 86 0 73
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 162 0 0 50 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 354 0 69 1050 0 78 77 0 86 23 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 30.5 13.2 30.5 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 30.5 13.2 30.5 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.37 0.16 0.37 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 290 1329 290 1339 432 517 307 517
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.10 0.04 c0.29 0.05 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.09
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.78 0.18 0.15 0.28 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 18.0 30.0 22.8 20.1 19.9 20.8 19.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.0
Delay (s) 31.0 18.1 30.4 25.9 20.3 20.0 21.3 19.2
Level of Service C B C C C B C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.6 26.2 20.1 20.3
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6341
Meredith Specific Plan
41: Project Driveway D & Inland Empire Boulevard Cumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 18 582 26 53 908 26 85 0 179 105 0 72 Future Volume (vph) 18 582 26 53 908 26 85 0 179 105 0 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3587 1805 3610 1615 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.61 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3587 1805 3610 1615 1344 1615 1150 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 613 27 56 956 27 89 0 188 111 0 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 116 0 0 47 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 637 0 56 956 10 89 72 0 111 29 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.7 26.6 9.2 30.1 30.1 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5.7 26.6 9.2 30.1 30.1 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.34 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 1229 213 1400 626 516 620 441 620 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.18 c0.03 c0.26 0.04 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 c0.10
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.52 0.26 0.68 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.25 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 33.7 20.4 31.1 19.8 14.6 15.8 15.4 16.3 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 34.2 20.8 31.8 21.2 14.6 15.9 15.5 16.6 15.0
Level of Service C C C C B B B B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.1 21.6 15.6 16.0
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6342
Meredith Specific Plan
10: Archibald Avenue & 6th Street Cumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 46 224 73 218 265 118 74 1525 154 110 1341 93 Future Volume (vph) 46 224 73 218 265 118 74 1525 154 110 1341 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3477 1805 1812 1805 3560 1805 3575 Flt Permitted 0.20 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 388 3477 941 1812 1805 3560 1805 3575 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 236 77 229 279 124 78 1605 162 116 1412 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 32 0 0 16 0 0 7 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 281 0 229 387 0 78 1760 0 116 1505 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 5.5 52.7 7.0 54.2 Effective Green, g (s) 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 5.5 52.7 7.0 54.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.53 0.07 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 106 958 259 499 100 1895 127 1957
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.21 0.04 c0.49 c0.06 0.42
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 c0.24
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.29 0.88 0.78 0.78 0.93 0.91 0.77
Uniform Delay, d1 29.7 28.3 34.3 33.0 46.2 21.4 45.7 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.2 27.9 7.4 31.6 8.5 53.8 1.9 Delay (s) 32.7 28.4 62.3 40.4 77.7 29.9 99.5 19.4
Level of Service C C E D E C F B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 29.0 48.3 31.9 25.1
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 31.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6343
Meredith Specific Plan
20: Vineyard Avenue & 4th Street Cumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 220 442 172 432 571 168 239 1813 305 184 1313 161 Future Volume (vph) 220 442 172 432 571 168 239 1813 305 184 1313 161 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3458 5090 3487 1805 5187 1615 1805 3551 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3458 5090 3487 1805 5187 1615 1805 3551 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 232 465 181 455 601 177 252 1908 321 194 1382 169 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 34 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 232 612 0 455 755 0 252 1908 321 194 1543 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 35.0 8.0 33.0 14.0 48.0 120.0 13.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 35.0 8.0 33.0 14.0 48.0 120.0 13.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.29 0.07 0.28 0.12 0.40 1.00 0.11 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 291 1008 339 958 210 2074 1615 195 1390 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.18 c0.09 c0.22 c0.14 0.37 0.11 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.61 1.34 0.79 1.20 0.92 0.20 0.99 1.11
Uniform Delay, d1 54.0 36.6 56.0 40.3 53.0 34.2 0.0 53.5 36.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.0 1.0 172.6 4.4 126.6 7.1 0.3 62.6 60.3 Delay (s) 68.0 37.6 228.6 44.6 179.6 41.3 0.3 116.1 96.8 Level of Service E D F D F D A F F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 45.7 112.5 50.0 98.9
Approach LOS D F D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 75.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6344
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Cumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 122 445 254 386 719 164 273 1570 244 176 1272 112 Future Volume (vph) 122 445 254 386 719 164 273 1570 244 176 1272 112 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3413 3502 5187 1615 1805 3537 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3413 3502 5187 1615 1805 3537 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 468 267 406 757 173 287 1653 257 185 1339 118 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 68 0 0 0 53 0 10 0 0 0 46
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 667 0 406 757 120 287 1900 0 185 1339 72 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 29.1 11.0 32.3 42.3 18.0 52.0 10.0 44.0 51.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 29.1 11.0 32.3 42.3 18.0 52.0 10.0 44.0 51.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.25 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.15 0.44 0.08 0.37 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 231 840 326 1418 633 275 1557 152 1344 763 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.20 c0.12 c0.15 0.02 c0.16 c0.54 c0.10 0.37 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.79 1.25 0.53 0.19 1.04 1.22 1.22 1.00 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 41.7 53.6 36.5 26.1 50.1 33.1 54.1 37.0 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 5.2 133.6 0.4 0.1 66.1 105.1 143.0 23.5 0.1 Delay (s) 56.3 46.9 187.1 36.9 26.3 116.2 138.2 197.1 60.5 19.5 Level of Service E D F D C F F F E B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 48.3 81.2 135.3 72.9
Approach LOS D F F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 93.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.1% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6345
Meredith Specific Plan
27: Vineyard Avenue & Inland Empire BoulevardCumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 698 589 1767 465 468 1774
Future Volume (vph) 698 589 1767 465 468 1774
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 1615 5187 1615 3502 5187
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 1615 5187 1615 3502 5187
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 735 620 1860 489 493 1867
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 320 0 240 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 735 300 1860 249 493 1867
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm Over NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 25.0 47.5 47.5 25.0 76.5
Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 25.0 47.5 47.5 25.0 76.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.22 0.42 0.42 0.22 0.68
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 859 360 2199 684 781 3542
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.36 0.14 0.36
v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.83 0.85 0.36 0.63 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 40.4 41.5 29.0 22.0 39.3 8.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.4 15.1 3.2 0.3 1.7 0.1
Delay (s) 48.7 56.6 32.2 22.3 41.0 8.9
Level of Service D E C C D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 52.3 30.1 15.6
Approach LOS D C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 112.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6346
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire BoulevardCumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 545 144 546 448 269 71 660 1645 460 104 1582 498 Future Volume (vph) 545 144 546 448 269 71 660 1645 460 104 1582 498 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3497 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3497 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 574 152 575 472 283 75 695 1732 484 109 1665 524 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 20 0 0 0 311 0 0 258
Lane Group Flow (vph) 574 152 552 472 338 0 695 1732 173 109 1665 266 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 44.0 59.0 11.0 42.0 15.0 43.0 43.0 6.0 34.0 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 44.0 59.0 11.0 42.0 15.0 43.0 43.0 6.0 34.0 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.37 0.49 0.09 0.35 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 379 1323 847 321 1223 437 1858 578 175 1469 457 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.04 c0.08 0.13 0.10 c0.20 0.33 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.11 0.16
v/c Ratio 1.51 0.11 0.65 1.47 0.28 1.59 0.93 0.30 0.62 1.13 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 25.1 22.8 54.5 28.1 52.5 37.1 27.7 55.9 43.0 36.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 244.8 0.0 1.8 228.0 0.1 276.3 9.1 0.3 6.7 69.1 1.9 Delay (s) 298.3 25.2 24.6 282.5 28.2 328.8 46.2 28.0 62.6 112.1 38.8 Level of Service F C C F C F D C E F D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 145.4 172.8 110.7 93.0
Approach LOS F F F F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 118.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.3% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6347
Meredith Specific Plan
33: Archibald Avenue & I-10 Cumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1140 0 355 175 0 760 486 866 443 877 817 875 Future Volume (vph) 1140 0 355 175 0 760 486 866 443 877 817 875 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1200 0 374 184 0 800 512 912 466 923 860 921 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1200 0 374 184 0 800 512 912 466 923 860 921 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Over Prot Over Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Protected Phases 7 5 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 31.8 17.7 31.8 26.9 17.7 17.9 88.6 26.9 27.1 88.6 Effective Green, g (s) 31.8 17.7 31.8 26.9 17.7 17.9 88.6 26.9 27.1 88.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.20 0.36 0.30 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.30 0.31 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1256 567 1256 862 699 1320 1615 1063 1586 1615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.13 0.05 c0.28 0.15 0.14 0.26 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 c0.57
v/c Ratio 0.96 0.66 0.15 0.93 0.73 0.69 0.29 0.87 0.54 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 27.7 32.7 19.2 29.9 33.2 32.8 0.0 29.2 25.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.8 2.8 0.1 15.8 4.0 1.6 0.5 7.7 0.4 1.5 Delay (s) 43.5 35.5 19.3 45.7 37.2 34.4 0.5 36.8 26.0 1.5 Level of Service D D B D D C A D C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.6 40.8 26.8 21.3
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6348
Meredith Specific Plan
40: Project Driveway C & Inland Empire Boulevard Cumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 1011 94 263 885 81 66 0 169 44 0 37 Future Volume (vph) 67 1011 94 263 885 81 66 0 169 44 0 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3564 1805 3565 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.55 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3564 1805 3565 1390 1615 1042 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 500% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 353 1064 99 277 932 85 69 0 178 46 0 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 6 0 0 131 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 1156 0 277 1011 0 69 47 0 46 10 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.5 37.7 21.2 34.4 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 Effective Green, g (s) 24.5 37.7 21.2 34.4 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.39 0.22 0.36 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 459 1396 397 1274 365 424 274 424
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.32 0.15 0.28 0.03 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.83 0.70 0.79 0.19 0.11 0.17 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 33.2 26.3 34.5 27.7 27.5 26.9 27.3 26.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.6 4.2 5.3 3.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 40.8 30.5 39.8 31.2 27.7 27.0 27.6 26.3
Level of Service D C D C C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 32.9 33.0 27.2 27.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 32.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6349
Meredith Specific Plan
41: Project Driveway D & Inland Empire Boulevard Cumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 1044 111 211 1111 102 78 0 138 56 0 39 Future Volume (vph) 70 1044 111 211 1111 102 78 0 138 56 0 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3558 1805 3610 1615 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.60 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3558 1805 3610 1615 1388 1615 1148 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 1099 117 222 1169 107 82 0 145 59 0 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 0 56 0 105 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 1209 0 222 1169 51 82 40 0 59 11 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 42.9 20.1 49.0 49.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 42.9 20.1 49.0 49.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.42 0.19 0.47 0.47 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 1477 351 1712 766 380 442 314 442 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.34 c0.12 0.32 0.02 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.06 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.82 0.63 0.68 0.07 0.22 0.09 0.19 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 26.8 38.2 21.1 14.7 28.9 27.9 28.7 27.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 3.7 3.7 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 41.0 30.4 41.9 22.2 14.8 29.2 28.0 29.0 27.4
Level of Service D C D C B C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.0 24.6 28.4 28.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 27.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6350
With Mitigation Improvements 6351
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Cumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 82 402 218 274 423 171 197 1226 234 119 1139 114 Future Volume (vph) 82 402 218 274 423 171 197 1226 234 119 1139 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3420 3502 5187 1615 3502 5062 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3420 3502 5187 1615 3502 5062 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 423 229 288 445 180 207 1291 246 125 1199 120 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 62 0 0 0 27 0 25 0 0 0 66
Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 590 0 288 445 153 207 1512 0 125 1199 54 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 31.1 11.7 36.8 47.3 9.0 41.7 10.5 43.2 49.2 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 31.1 11.7 36.8 47.3 9.0 41.7 10.5 43.2 49.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.28 0.11 0.33 0.43 0.08 0.38 0.09 0.39 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 958 369 1719 746 283 1901 170 1404 774 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.17 c0.08 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.30 c0.07 c0.33 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.62 0.78 0.26 0.21 0.73 0.80 0.74 0.85 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 34.8 48.4 27.1 20.0 49.8 30.9 48.9 31.0 17.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 1.2 10.2 0.1 0.1 9.4 2.4 15.2 5.3 0.0 Delay (s) 52.7 35.9 58.6 27.2 20.2 59.2 33.2 64.1 36.3 17.8 Level of Service D D E C C E C E D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 37.9 35.7 36.3 37.2
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 36.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 111.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6352
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire BoulevardCumulative Projects with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 330 121 415 362 197 89 464 1329 465 116 1442 326 Future Volume (vph) 330 121 415 362 197 89 464 1329 465 116 1442 326 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3441 3502 5187 1615 3502 6536 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3441 3502 5187 1615 3502 6536 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 347 127 437 381 207 94 488 1399 489 122 1518 343 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 44 0 0 0 322 0 0 234
Lane Group Flow (vph) 347 127 414 381 257 0 488 1399 167 122 1518 109 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 42.0 59.0 14.0 42.1 17.0 41.0 41.0 7.0 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 42.0 59.0 14.0 42.1 17.0 41.0 41.0 7.0 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.35 0.49 0.12 0.35 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 405 1263 847 408 1207 496 1772 551 204 1688 417 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.04 c0.07 c0.11 0.07 c0.14 0.27 0.03 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.10 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.10 0.49 0.93 0.21 0.98 0.79 0.30 0.60 0.90 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 52.1 26.3 20.4 52.5 27.3 51.4 35.6 29.0 55.1 43.0 35.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.2 0.0 0.4 28.3 0.1 36.0 2.4 0.3 4.7 6.8 0.3 Delay (s) 68.2 26.3 20.9 80.9 27.4 87.3 38.0 29.3 59.8 49.8 35.7 Level of Service E C C F C F D C E D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 39.7 57.3 46.4 48.0
Approach LOS D E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 47.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6353
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Cumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 122 445 254 386 719 164 273 1570 244 176 1272 112 Future Volume (vph) 122 445 254 386 719 164 273 1570 244 176 1272 112 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3413 3502 5187 1615 3502 5082 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3413 3502 5187 1615 3502 5082 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 468 267 406 757 173 287 1653 257 185 1339 118 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 67 0 0 0 26 0 18 0 0 0 44
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 668 0 406 757 147 287 1893 0 185 1339 74 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 31.0 15.0 38.2 51.2 10.0 45.0 13.0 48.0 55.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 31.0 15.0 38.2 51.2 10.0 45.0 13.0 48.0 55.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.26 0.13 0.32 0.43 0.08 0.38 0.11 0.40 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 881 437 1651 742 291 1905 195 1444 804 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.20 c0.12 0.15 0.02 0.08 c0.37 c0.10 c0.37 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.76 0.93 0.46 0.20 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.93 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 54.4 41.0 52.0 32.6 21.5 54.9 37.4 53.2 34.3 17.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 3.8 25.9 0.2 0.1 48.5 19.0 49.3 10.5 0.1 Delay (s) 57.6 44.8 77.9 32.8 21.7 103.5 56.3 102.4 44.8 18.0 Level of Service E D E C C F E F D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 46.7 45.1 62.5 49.4
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 52.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6354
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire BoulevardCumulative Projects with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 545 144 546 448 269 71 660 1645 460 104 1582 498 Future Volume (vph) 545 144 546 448 269 71 660 1645 460 104 1582 498 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3497 3502 5187 1615 3502 6536 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3497 3502 5187 1615 3502 6536 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 574 152 575 472 283 75 695 1732 484 109 1665 524 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 21 0 18 0 0 0 300 0 0 300
Lane Group Flow (vph) 574 152 554 472 340 0 695 1732 184 109 1665 224 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 42.0 64.0 18.0 42.0 22.0 48.0 48.0 6.0 32.0 32.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 42.0 64.0 18.0 42.0 22.0 48.0 48.0 6.0 32.0 32.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.32 0.49 0.14 0.32 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 484 1166 844 484 1129 592 1915 596 161 1608 397 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.04 c0.11 0.13 0.10 c0.20 0.33 0.03 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.11 0.14
v/c Ratio 1.19 0.13 0.66 0.98 0.30 1.17 0.90 0.31 0.68 1.04 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 56.0 31.1 24.7 55.8 33.0 54.0 38.8 29.2 61.0 49.0 42.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 103.0 0.1 1.8 34.2 0.2 95.2 6.5 0.3 10.7 32.2 1.8 Delay (s) 159.0 31.1 26.6 90.0 33.1 149.2 45.3 29.5 71.8 81.2 44.7 Level of Service F C C F C F D C E F D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 85.5 65.5 67.5 72.4
Approach LOS F E E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 72.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6355
Meredith Intl. Centre SPA PA-3 ______________________________________________________ Focused Traffic Study Appendix E:

Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project
Analysis Worksheets
6356
Meredith Specific Plan
10: Archibald Avenue & 6th Street Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 125 318 122 113 172 67 28 1280 224 100 1325 79 Future Volume (vph) 125 318 122 113 172 67 28 1280 224 100 1325 79 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3460 1805 1820 1805 3529 1805 3580 Flt Permitted 0.43 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 819 3460 676 1820 1805 3529 1805 3580 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 132 335 128 119 181 71 29 1347 236 105 1395 83 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 14 0 0 15 0 0 4 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 424 0 119 238 0 29 1568 0 105 1474 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 3.4 49.3 8.6 54.5 Effective Green, g (s) 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 3.4 49.3 8.6 54.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.51 0.09 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 935 182 492 64 1816 162 2036
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 0.13 0.02 c0.44 c0.06 0.41
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 c0.18
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.45 0.65 0.48 0.45 0.86 0.65 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 29.1 31.0 29.3 45.3 20.3 42.1 15.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.4 8.2 0.8 5.0 4.5 8.6 1.3
Delay (s) 34.7 29.4 39.1 30.1 50.3 24.9 50.8 16.4
Level of Service C C D C D C D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 30.6 33.0 25.3 18.7
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.1% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6357
Meredith Specific Plan
20: Vineyard Avenue & 4th Street Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 226 451 176 543 509 158 192 1307 362 135 1518 138 Future Volume (vph) 226 451 176 543 509 158 192 1307 362 135 1518 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3458 5090 3482 1805 5187 1615 1805 3565 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3458 5090 3482 1805 5187 1615 1805 3565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 238 475 185 572 536 166 202 1376 381 142 1598 145 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 629 0 572 679 0 202 1376 381 142 1738 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 35.0 12.0 35.3 12.0 52.5 130.0 14.5 55.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 35.0 12.0 35.3 12.0 52.5 130.0 14.5 55.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.27 0.09 0.27 0.09 0.40 1.00 0.11 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 315 931 469 945 166 2094 1615 201 1508 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.18 c0.11 c0.20 c0.11 0.27 0.08 c0.49 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.68 1.22 0.72 1.22 0.66 0.24 0.71 1.15
Uniform Delay, d1 57.8 42.4 59.0 42.9 59.0 31.4 0.0 55.7 37.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.9 2.0 116.9 2.6 140.0 0.8 0.3 10.8 76.7 Delay (s) 67.6 44.4 175.9 45.5 199.0 32.2 0.3 66.5 114.2 Level of Service E D F D F C A E F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 50.5 104.0 43.2 110.6
Approach LOS D F D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 78.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6358
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 122 437 238 297 443 188 209 1329 254 131 1231 158 Future Volume (vph) 122 437 238 297 443 188 209 1329 254 131 1231 158 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3419 3502 5187 1615 1805 3523 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3419 3502 5187 1615 1805 3523 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 460 251 313 466 198 220 1399 267 138 1296 166 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 65 0 0 0 55 0 14 0 0 0 69
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 646 0 313 466 143 220 1652 0 138 1296 97 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 29.3 10.0 31.5 40.5 15.0 49.0 9.0 43.0 50.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 29.3 10.0 31.5 40.5 15.0 49.0 9.0 43.0 50.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.26 0.09 0.28 0.36 0.13 0.43 0.08 0.38 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 884 309 1442 634 238 1523 143 1370 781 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.19 c0.09 0.09 0.02 c0.12 c0.47 0.08 0.36 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.73 1.01 0.32 0.23 0.92 1.08 0.97 0.95 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 38.4 51.7 32.4 25.4 48.6 32.2 52.0 34.0 18.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 3.1 54.5 0.1 0.2 38.1 49.8 64.1 13.4 0.1 Delay (s) 53.2 41.5 106.2 32.6 25.6 86.6 82.0 116.1 47.4 18.3 Level of Service D D F C C F F F D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 43.3 54.7 82.5 50.3
Approach LOS D D F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 61.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6359
Meredith Specific Plan
27: Vineyard Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 417 307 1584 425 346 1877
Future Volume (vph) 417 307 1584 425 346 1877
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 1615 5187 1615 3502 5187
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 1615 5187 1615 3502 5187
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 439 323 1667 447 364 1976
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 236 0 235 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 439 87 1667 212 364 1976
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm Over NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 35.0 35.0 47.4 47.4 35.0 86.9
Effective Green, g (s) 35.0 35.0 47.4 47.4 35.0 86.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.67
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 943 435 1892 589 943 3469
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.32 0.10 c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.20 0.88 0.36 0.39 0.57
Uniform Delay, d1 39.6 36.6 38.6 30.2 38.7 11.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 5.2 0.4 0.3 0.2
Delay (s) 40.0 36.9 43.8 30.5 39.0 11.7
Level of Service D D D C D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 38.7 41.0 16.0
Approach LOS D D B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 129.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6360
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 332 162 448 398 212 98 477 1463 512 128 1587 329 Future Volume (vph) 332 162 448 398 212 98 477 1463 512 128 1587 329 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3439 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3439 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 349 171 472 419 223 103 502 1540 539 135 1671 346 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 46 0 0 0 348 0 0 167
Lane Group Flow (vph) 349 171 448 419 280 0 502 1540 191 135 1671 179 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.8 40.8 52.8 11.0 38.0 12.0 41.0 41.0 7.0 36.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.8 40.8 52.8 11.0 38.0 12.0 41.0 41.0 7.0 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.35 0.46 0.09 0.33 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 417 1271 792 332 1128 362 1836 571 211 1612 502 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.05 c0.06 c0.12 0.08 c0.14 0.30 0.04 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.12 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.13 0.57 1.26 0.25 1.39 0.84 0.33 0.64 1.04 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 49.9 25.5 23.1 52.4 28.4 51.9 34.4 27.4 53.2 39.9 30.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.6 0.0 0.9 139.9 0.1 190.3 3.5 0.3 6.2 32.5 0.4 Delay (s) 63.5 25.5 24.0 192.3 28.6 242.2 37.9 27.7 59.4 72.4 31.4 Level of Service E C C F C F D C E E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 38.2 120.7 75.5 65.0
Approach LOS D F E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 71.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6361
Meredith Specific Plan
33: Archibald Avenue & I-10 Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1186 0 591 313 0 833 145 425 166 834 776 811 Future Volume (vph) 1186 0 591 313 0 833 145 425 166 834 776 811 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1248 0 622 329 0 877 153 447 175 878 817 854 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1248 0 622 329 0 877 153 447 175 878 817 854 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Over Prot Over Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Protected Phases 7 5 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.2 23.9 36.2 32.0 23.9 14.3 94.5 32.0 22.4 94.5 Effective Green, g (s) 36.2 23.9 36.2 32.0 23.9 14.3 94.5 32.0 22.4 94.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.25 0.38 0.34 0.25 0.15 1.00 0.34 0.24 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1341 718 1341 962 885 989 1615 1185 1229 1615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.22 0.09 c0.31 0.04 0.07 0.25 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.53
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.87 0.25 0.91 0.17 0.45 0.11 0.74 0.66 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 27.9 33.8 19.8 29.9 27.6 36.5 0.0 27.6 32.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.6 10.7 0.1 12.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 2.5 1.4 1.2 Delay (s) 39.6 44.5 19.9 42.5 27.7 36.9 0.1 30.1 34.0 1.2 Level of Service D D B D C D A C C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.2 36.3 26.8 21.7
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 30.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6362
Meredith Specific Plan
40: Project Driveway C & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 393 23 66 977 19 74 0 227 82 0 69 Future Volume (vph) 17 393 23 66 977 19 74 0 227 82 0 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3580 1805 3600 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.50 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3580 1805 3600 1348 1615 956 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 500% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 89 414 24 69 1028 20 78 0 239 86 0 73
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 163 0 0 50 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 434 0 69 1047 0 78 76 0 86 23 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 31.1 13.2 31.1 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 31.1 13.2 31.1 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.38 0.16 0.38 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 288 1346 288 1353 430 515 305 515
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.12 0.04 c0.29 0.05 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.09
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.32 0.24 0.77 0.18 0.15 0.28 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 18.3 30.4 22.7 20.3 20.1 21.1 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 0.4 2.8 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.0
Delay (s) 31.3 18.5 30.8 25.5 20.5 20.2 21.6 19.5
Level of Service C B C C C C C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.6 25.9 20.3 20.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6363
Meredith Specific Plan
41: Project Driveway D & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 18 657 26 53 906 26 85 0 179 105 0 72 Future Volume (vph) 18 657 26 53 906 26 85 0 179 105 0 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3590 1805 3610 1615 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.60 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3590 1805 3610 1615 1344 1615 1148 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 692 27 56 954 27 89 0 188 111 0 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 16 0 116 0 0 47 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 716 0 56 954 11 89 72 0 111 29 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.7 26.3 9.3 32.9 32.9 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 Effective Green, g (s) 2.7 26.3 9.3 32.9 32.9 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.34 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 62 1215 216 1528 683 512 615 437 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.20 c0.03 c0.26 0.04 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 c0.10
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.59 0.26 0.62 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.25 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 36.6 21.2 31.1 17.6 13.0 15.9 15.6 16.5 15.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 39.4 22.0 31.7 18.4 13.0 16.1 15.7 16.8 15.2
Level of Service D C C B B B B B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.4 18.9 15.8 16.1
Approach LOS C B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6364
Meredith Specific Plan
10: Archibald Avenue & 6th Street Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 65 251 76 236 311 118 82 1652 164 121 1455 127 Future Volume (vph) 65 251 76 236 311 118 82 1652 164 121 1455 127 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3484 1805 1822 1805 3561 1805 3566 Flt Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 281 3484 873 1822 1805 3561 1805 3566 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 264 80 248 327 124 86 1739 173 127 1532 134 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 14 0 0 7 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 315 0 248 437 0 86 1905 0 127 1660 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 5.6 54.8 7.0 56.2 Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 5.6 54.8 7.0 56.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.54 0.07 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 933 233 488 100 1935 125 1988
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.24 0.05 c0.53 c0.07 0.47
v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 c0.28
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.34 1.06 0.90 0.86 0.98 1.02 0.83
Uniform Delay, d1 35.7 29.7 36.9 35.5 47.2 22.6 46.9 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 72.1 0.2 77.0 18.7 48.5 16.8 84.8 3.2 Delay (s) 107.8 29.9 113.9 54.2 95.7 39.3 131.7 21.7
Level of Service F C F D F D F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 42.8 75.4 41.8 29.5
Approach LOS D E D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 42.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 115.3% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6365
Meredith Specific Plan
20: Vineyard Avenue & 4th Street Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 242 407 183 725 441 181 240 1813 543 197 1419 177 Future Volume (vph) 242 407 183 725 441 181 240 1813 543 197 1419 177 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3442 5090 3452 1805 5187 1615 1805 3550 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3442 5090 3452 1805 5187 1615 1805 3550 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 255 428 193 763 464 191 253 1908 572 207 1494 186 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 581 0 763 621 0 253 1908 572 207 1673 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 35.0 14.0 35.3 13.0 51.0 130.0 14.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 35.0 14.0 35.3 13.0 51.0 130.0 14.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.27 0.10 0.39 1.00 0.11 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 369 926 548 937 180 2034 1615 194 1420 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.17 c0.15 c0.18 c0.14 0.37 0.11 c0.47 v/s Ratio Perm c0.35
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.63 1.39 0.66 1.41 0.94 0.35 1.07 1.18
Uniform Delay, d1 56.1 41.8 58.0 42.1 58.5 38.0 0.0 58.0 39.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 1.3 187.5 1.8 212.3 9.0 0.6 83.5 87.8 Delay (s) 61.6 43.1 245.5 43.8 270.8 47.0 0.6 141.5 126.8 Level of Service E D F D F D A F F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 48.5 152.4 58.0 128.4
Approach LOS D F E F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 95.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6366
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 298 495 271 420 850 186 295 1696 262 194 1374 219 Future Volume (vph) 298 495 271 420 850 186 295 1696 262 194 1374 219 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3419 3502 5187 1615 1805 3537 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3419 3502 5187 1615 1805 3537 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 314 521 285 442 895 196 311 1785 276 204 1446 231 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 62 0 0 0 30 0 10 0 0 0 23
Lane Group Flow (vph) 314 744 0 442 895 166 311 2051 0 204 1446 209 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 31.0 10.0 31.0 40.0 13.0 54.0 9.0 50.0 60.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 31.0 10.0 31.0 40.0 13.0 54.0 9.0 50.0 60.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.26 0.08 0.26 0.33 0.11 0.45 0.08 0.42 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 291 883 291 1339 592 195 1591 135 1504 861 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.22 c0.13 0.17 0.02 c0.17 c0.58 0.11 0.40 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.11
v/c Ratio 1.08 0.84 1.52 0.67 0.28 1.59 1.29 1.51 0.96 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 55.0 42.2 55.0 39.9 29.4 53.5 33.0 55.5 34.1 17.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 75.4 7.4 250.4 1.3 0.3 290.5 134.8 264.3 15.0 0.1 Delay (s) 130.4 49.6 305.4 41.2 29.7 344.0 167.8 319.8 49.0 17.2 Level of Service F D F D C F F F D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 72.2 115.9 190.9 74.5
Approach LOS E F F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 123.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.23
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6367
Meredith Specific Plan
27: Vineyard Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 853 638 1910 539 491 1779
Future Volume (vph) 853 638 1910 539 491 1779
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 1615 5187 1615 3502 5187
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 1615 5187 1615 3502 5187
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 898 672 2011 567 517 1873
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 357 0 238 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 898 315 2011 329 517 1873
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm Over NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 35.1 28.3 47.7 47.7 28.3 80.0
Effective Green, g (s) 35.1 28.3 47.7 47.7 28.3 80.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.23 0.39 0.39 0.23 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 998 371 2009 625 805 3370
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.39 0.15 0.36
v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.53 0.64 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 42.3 45.4 37.7 29.0 42.8 11.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.8 16.8 20.3 0.8 1.8 0.2
Delay (s) 53.1 62.1 58.0 29.8 44.6 12.0
Level of Service D E E C D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 57.0 51.8 19.1
Approach LOS E D B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 41.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 123.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6368
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 558 182 569 493 368 78 750 1819 506 114 1748 507 Future Volume (vph) 558 182 569 493 368 78 750 1819 506 114 1748 507 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3515 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3515 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 587 192 599 519 387 82 789 1915 533 120 1840 534 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 0 16 0 0 0 314 0 0 232
Lane Group Flow (vph) 587 192 574 519 453 0 789 1915 219 120 1840 302 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 39.0 51.0 9.0 38.0 12.0 44.0 44.0 6.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 39.0 51.0 9.0 38.0 12.0 44.0 44.0 6.0 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.45 0.08 0.33 0.11 0.39 0.39 0.05 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 307 1235 779 276 1171 368 2002 623 184 1729 538 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.05 c0.08 0.15 0.13 c0.23 0.37 0.03 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.14 0.19
v/c Ratio 1.91 0.16 0.74 1.88 0.39 2.14 0.96 0.35 0.65 1.06 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 52.0 26.1 26.0 52.5 29.1 51.0 34.1 24.9 53.0 38.0 31.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 422.4 0.1 3.7 409.7 0.2 523.8 11.5 0.3 8.0 41.0 1.3 Delay (s) 474.4 26.1 29.6 462.2 29.3 574.8 45.5 25.2 61.0 79.0 32.5 Level of Service F C C F C F D C E E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 218.6 256.7 171.2 68.2
Approach LOS F F F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 158.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6369
Meredith Specific Plan
33: Archibald Avenue & I-10 Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1239 0 540 193 0 815 804 948 487 939 891 952 Future Volume (vph) 1239 0 540 193 0 815 804 948 487 939 891 952 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 2842 3502 2842 3502 6536 1615 3502 5187 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1304 0 568 203 0 858 846 998 513 988 938 1002 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1304 0 568 203 0 858 846 998 513 988 938 1002 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Over Prot Over Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Protected Phases 7 5 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 27.2 38.0 31.0 27.2 18.7 99.7 31.0 22.5 99.7 Effective Green, g (s) 38.0 27.2 38.0 31.0 27.2 18.7 99.7 31.0 22.5 99.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.27 0.38 0.31 0.27 0.19 1.00 0.31 0.23 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1334 775 1334 883 955 1225 1615 1088 1170 1615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 0.20 0.06 c0.30 0.24 0.15 0.28 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 c0.62
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.73 0.15 0.97 0.89 0.81 0.32 0.91 0.80 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 32.9 20.3 33.9 34.8 38.8 0.0 33.0 36.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.2 3.6 0.1 23.4 9.9 4.3 0.5 10.9 4.0 1.8 Delay (s) 49.7 36.5 20.3 57.4 44.7 43.1 0.5 43.9 40.5 1.8 Level of Service D D C E D D A D D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 45.7 50.3 34.4 28.4
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 36.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6370
Meredith Specific Plan
40: Project Driveway C & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 1107 94 263 1083 81 66 0 169 44 0 37 Future Volume (vph) 67 1107 94 263 1083 81 66 0 169 44 0 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3568 1805 3572 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.53 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3568 1805 3572 1390 1615 1015 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 500% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 353 1165 99 277 1140 85 69 0 178 46 0 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 134 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 1258 0 277 1220 0 69 44 0 46 10 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.3 43.4 20.4 39.5 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 Effective Green, g (s) 24.3 43.4 20.4 39.5 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.43 0.20 0.39 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 434 1533 364 1396 346 402 253 402
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.35 0.15 c0.34 0.03 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.82 0.76 0.87 0.20 0.11 0.18 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 25.4 38.0 28.4 29.9 29.3 29.8 28.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 3.7 9.1 6.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 47.3 29.0 47.1 34.8 30.2 29.4 30.1 28.6
Level of Service D C D C C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.0 37.1 29.6 29.5
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 34.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6371
Meredith Specific Plan
41: Project Driveway D & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 1140 111 211 1309 102 78 0 138 56 0 39 Future Volume (vph) 70 1140 111 211 1309 102 78 0 138 56 0 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3562 1805 3610 1615 1805 1615 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.59 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 3562 1805 3610 1615 1388 1615 1127 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 1200 117 222 1378 107 82 0 145 59 0 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 49 0 107 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 1311 0 222 1378 58 82 38 0 59 11 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 48.2 20.2 54.5 54.5 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 48.2 20.2 54.5 54.5 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.44 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 1579 335 1809 809 361 420 293 420 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.37 c0.12 0.38 0.02 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.06 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.83 0.66 0.76 0.07 0.23 0.09 0.20 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 43.1 26.6 41.1 21.9 14.0 31.6 30.4 31.4 29.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 3.9 4.9 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 43.9 30.5 46.0 23.8 14.1 31.9 30.5 31.7 30.0
Level of Service D C D C B C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.2 26.1 31.0 31.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 108.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6372
With Mitigation Improvements 6373
Meredith Specific Plan
20: Vineyard Avenue & 4th Street Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 226 451 176 543 509 158 192 1307 362 135 1518 138 Future Volume (vph) 226 451 176 543 509 158 192 1307 362 135 1518 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3458 5090 3482 1805 5187 1615 1805 5122 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3458 5090 3482 1805 5187 1615 1805 5122 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 238 475 185 572 536 166 202 1376 381 142 1598 145 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 629 0 572 680 0 202 1376 381 142 1735 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 35.0 15.0 37.0 15.9 49.2 129.7 14.5 47.8 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 35.0 15.0 37.0 15.9 49.2 129.7 14.5 47.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.27 0.12 0.29 0.12 0.38 1.00 0.11 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 933 588 993 221 1967 1615 201 1887 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.18 c0.11 c0.20 c0.11 0.27 0.08 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.67 0.97 0.68 0.91 0.70 0.24 0.71 0.92
Uniform Delay, d1 56.3 42.3 57.1 41.2 56.2 34.0 0.0 55.5 39.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 1.9 30.1 2.0 37.6 1.1 0.3 10.8 7.7 Delay (s) 61.5 44.2 87.3 43.1 93.8 35.1 0.3 66.3 46.8
Level of Service E D F D F D A E D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 48.8 63.0 34.4 48.3
Approach LOS D E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 46.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 129.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6374
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 122 437 238 297 443 188 209 1329 254 131 1231 158 Future Volume (vph) 122 437 238 297 443 188 209 1329 254 131 1231 158 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3419 3502 5187 1615 3502 5062 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3419 3502 5187 1615 3502 5062 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 460 251 313 466 198 220 1399 267 138 1296 166 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 63 0 0 0 27 0 25 0 0 0 67
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 648 0 313 466 171 220 1641 0 138 1296 99 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 31.0 12.7 35.9 47.3 9.0 42.0 11.4 44.4 52.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 31.0 12.7 35.9 47.3 9.0 42.0 11.4 44.4 52.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.27 0.11 0.32 0.42 0.08 0.37 0.10 0.39 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 937 393 1646 732 278 1879 181 1417 802 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.19 c0.09 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.32 c0.08 c0.36 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.69 0.80 0.28 0.23 0.79 0.87 0.76 0.91 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 36.8 48.9 28.9 21.2 51.1 33.1 49.5 32.6 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 2.2 10.7 0.1 0.2 14.2 4.8 17.2 9.4 0.1 Delay (s) 53.1 39.0 59.6 29.0 21.4 65.3 37.9 66.7 41.9 17.5 Level of Service D D E C C E D E D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.1 37.3 41.1 41.5
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 40.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6375
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 332 162 448 398 212 98 477 1463 512 128 1587 329 Future Volume (vph) 332 162 448 398 212 98 477 1463 512 128 1587 329 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3439 5090 5187 1615 3502 6536 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3439 5090 5187 1615 3502 6536 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 349 171 472 419 223 103 502 1540 539 135 1671 346 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 40 0 0 0 356 0 0 197
Lane Group Flow (vph) 349 171 449 419 286 0 502 1540 183 135 1671 149 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.1 45.0 59.9 17.7 45.6 14.9 43.9 43.9 7.0 36.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s) 17.1 45.0 59.9 17.7 45.6 14.9 43.9 43.9 7.0 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.35 0.46 0.14 0.35 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 462 1253 796 478 1210 585 1757 547 189 1815 448 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.05 c0.06 c0.12 0.08 c0.10 c0.30 0.04 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.11 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.14 0.56 0.88 0.24 0.86 0.88 0.33 0.71 0.92 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 29.0 25.4 54.9 29.7 56.3 40.3 31.9 60.3 45.4 37.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 0.0 0.9 16.4 0.1 11.9 5.3 0.4 12.1 8.2 0.4 Delay (s) 61.1 29.0 26.3 71.2 29.8 68.2 45.6 32.3 72.4 53.6 37.7 Level of Service E C C E C E D C E D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 39.0 53.1 47.2 52.2
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 48.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 129.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6376
Meredith Specific Plan
20: Vineyard Avenue & 4th Street Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 242 407 183 725 441 181 240 1813 543 197 1419 177 Future Volume (vph) 242 407 183 725 441 181 240 1813 543 197 1419 177 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3442 5090 3452 1805 5187 1615 1805 5101 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3442 5090 3452 1805 5187 1615 1805 5101 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 255 428 193 763 464 191 253 1908 572 207 1494 186 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 581 0 763 621 0 253 1908 572 207 1668 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 35.0 18.0 39.3 18.0 47.0 130.0 14.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 35.0 18.0 39.3 18.0 47.0 130.0 14.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.27 0.14 0.30 0.14 0.36 1.00 0.11 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 369 926 704 1043 249 1875 1615 194 1687 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.17 c0.15 c0.18 c0.14 c0.37 0.11 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.63 1.08 0.60 1.02 1.02 0.35 1.07 0.99
Uniform Delay, d1 56.1 41.8 56.0 38.6 56.0 41.5 0.0 58.0 43.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 1.3 58.9 0.9 61.2 25.3 0.6 83.5 19.0 Delay (s) 61.6 43.1 114.9 39.5 117.2 66.8 0.6 141.5 62.3 Level of Service E D F D F E A F E
Approach Delay (s/veh) 48.5 80.1 57.6 71.0
Approach LOS D F E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 64.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6377
Meredith Specific Plan
23: Archibald Avenue & 4th Street Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 298 495 271 420 850 186 295 1696 262 194 1374 219 Future Volume (vph) 298 495 271 420 850 186 295 1696 262 194 1374 219 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3419 3502 5187 1615 3502 5083 1805 3610 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3419 3502 5187 1615 3502 5083 1805 3610 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 314 521 285 442 895 196 311 1785 276 204 1446 231 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 59 0 0 0 29 0 17 0 0 0 21
Lane Group Flow (vph) 314 747 0 442 895 167 311 2044 0 204 1446 210 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 31.0 14.0 31.3 42.3 13.0 53.0 11.0 51.0 64.7 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 31.0 14.0 31.3 42.3 13.0 53.0 11.0 51.0 64.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.25 0.34 0.10 0.42 0.09 0.41 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 847 392 1298 598 364 2155 158 1472 887 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.22 c0.13 0.17 0.02 0.09 c0.40 c0.11 0.40 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.88 1.13 0.69 0.28 0.85 0.95 1.29 0.98 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 54.4 45.2 55.5 42.4 30.2 55.1 34.7 57.0 36.6 16.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.8 10.6 84.9 1.5 0.3 17.4 9.8 170.0 19.2 0.1 Delay (s) 67.3 55.9 140.4 44.0 30.5 72.5 44.5 227.0 55.8 16.7 Level of Service E E F D C E D F E B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 59.1 70.0 48.2 69.6
Approach LOS E E D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 60.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 125.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6378
Meredith Specific Plan
28: Archibald Avenue & Inland Empire Boulevard Buildout with Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 558 182 569 493 368 78 750 1819 506 114 1748 507 Future Volume (vph) 558 182 569 493 368 78 750 1819 506 114 1748 507 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3515 5090 5187 1615 3502 6536 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1615 3502 3515 5090 5187 1615 3502 6536 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 587 192 599 519 387 82 789 1915 533 120 1840 534 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 22 0 14 0 0 0 299 0 0 275
Lane Group Flow (vph) 587 192 577 519 455 0 789 1915 234 120 1840 259 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 45.0 62.0 16.0 42.0 17.0 47.0 47.0 6.0 36.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 45.0 62.0 16.0 42.0 17.0 47.0 47.0 6.0 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.35 0.48 0.12 0.32 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 511 1249 819 431 1135 665 1875 583 161 1809 447 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.05 c0.09 0.15 0.13 c0.16 c0.37 0.03 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.15 0.16
v/c Ratio 1.15 0.15 0.70 1.20 0.40 1.19 1.02 0.40 0.75 1.02 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 55.5 29.4 26.8 57.0 34.2 56.5 41.5 31.0 61.2 47.0 40.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 87.7 0.1 2.8 112.1 0.2 98.6 26.3 0.5 17.0 25.5 1.8 Delay (s) 143.2 29.4 29.6 169.1 34.5 155.1 67.8 31.5 78.2 72.5 42.3 Level of Service F C C F C F E C E E D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 77.9 105.2 83.1 66.3
Approach LOS E F F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 79.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
6379
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report

APPENDIX E

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
6380
W.O. 2025-0111.02
-

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND

WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER
SUPPLY
PLANNING AREA 3 OF THE MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE

SPECIFIC PLAN

CITY OF ONTARIO
Prepared for:

November 4, 2025
www.webbassociates.com
6381
6382
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 Law ________________________________________________________________ 1

1.1 Purpose ______________________________________________________________ 3

1.2 Background___________________________________________________________ 3

1.3 Proposed Project ______________________________________________________ 3

1.4 Prior Water Supply Assessment ________________________________________ 11 Law _______________________________________________________________ 11

1.5 Project Relation to the Urban Water Management Plan ____________________ 12 Relation of Water Supplier to other Urban Water Management Plans ________ 12 Law _______________________________________________________________ 13

1.6 Statewide and Local Water Conservation Efforts__________________________ 14

1.7 Methodology of Analysis_______________________________________________ 15 SECTION 2 - WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS ............................................................... 16 Law _______________________________________________________________ 16

2.1 Citywide Factors _____________________________________________________ 16 Climate______________________________________________________________ 17 Population ___________________________________________________________ 17

2.2 City of Ontario’s Current and Future Water Demand_______________________ 18

2.3 Project Site Land Use Assumed in the UWMP____________________________ 22

2.4 Proposed Project Water Demand _______________________________________ 23 Conclusion __________________________________________________________ 23 SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS................................................................. 25 Law _______________________________________________________________ 25

3.1. Documenting Wholesale Water Supplies_________________________________ 26 Wholesale Supplies Received __________________________________________ 26 Dry Year Yield Storage Program ________________________________________ 28

3.2. Documenting Water Supplies __________________________________________ 30 6383
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan ii
Water Supply Capacities ______________________________________________ 33

3.3. Descriptions of All Water Supply Projects________________________________ 36 City Well Production __________________________________________________ 36 Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) Groundwater Production_____________ 37 Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Recycled Water Supply ______________ 38 San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo) Potable Water Supply ______________ 39

3.4 Documenting Normal Year Water Supply and Demand ______________ 40

3.5 Documenting Dry Year Water Supply and Demand________________________ 41

3.6 Documenting Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand______________________ 42

3.7 Comparison of Available Water Supply and Demand ______________________ 42 SECTION 4 - GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS................................................................ 44 Law _______________________________________________________________ 44

4.1 Review of Urban Water Management Plan (CWC Section 10910(f)(1))________ 46

4.2 Groundwater Basin Descriptions (CWC Section 10910(f)(2)) ________________ 46 Chino Groundwater Basin Description___________________________________ 46 Legal Right to Pump from the Chino Basin_______________________________ 49

4.3. Recorded Use of Groundwater by City of Ontario (CWC Section 10910 (f)(3))_ 55

4.4. Projected Use of Groundwater by the City of Ontario (CWC Section 10910(f)(4)) __________________________________________________________________ 55

4.5. Sufficiency of Groundwater Basin (CWC Section 10910(f)(5)) _______________ 56 Conclusion __________________________________________________________ 62 SECTION 5 - PRIMARY ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT.................................................. 63 Law _______________________________________________________________ 63

5.1 Findings _____________________________________________________________ 64 SECTION 6 - REFERENCES........................................................................................ 67 SECTION 7 - SPREADSHEETS................................................................................... 70 6384
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan iii

APPENDICES
A City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) B City of Ontario 2020 UWMP Appendices
C City of Ontario Demand Factor Technical Memorandum
D The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2020 UWMP E Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) 2020 UWMP
F Water Facilities Authority (WFA) 2020 UWMP
G Chino Basin Desalter Authority 2020 UWMP
H San Antonio Water Company 2020 UWMP
I IEUA Resolution No. 2024-12-4
J 1985 Installment Purchase Agreement Relating to WFA Water Treatment Plan by and between WFA and the City of Ontario
K WFA Ordinance No. 99-07-02
L Dry Year Yield Local Agency Agreement by and between IEUA and the City of Ontario and between City of Ontario and JCSD
M Chino Basin 1978 Judgment and amendments thereto.

N City of Fontana 2008 Agreement Regarding Transfer of Right of First Purchase of Recharged Reclaimed Water
O MWD Call for Stored Water in Chino Basin CUP

FIGURES
Figure 1 – Regional Map ................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2 – Aerial View...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 - Land Use Plan used in 2020 UWMP Projections............................................ 8 Figure 4 –Specific Plan used in 2020 UWMP Projections............................................... 9 Figure 5 – Proposed Land Use Plan.............................................................................. 10 Figure 6 – Existing (2017) Land Uses in the City (acres) ............................................... 21 Figure 7 – Land Use in the City at Buildout (acres) ....................................................... 21 Figure 8 – Chino Basin Management Zones ................................................................. 48 6385
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan iv
CHARTS
Chart 4-1 - Annual OMUC Groundwater Production, FY 2000 - 2025, (AFY) ............... 55 TABLES
Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Plan........................................................................... 4 Table 2-1 OMUC Service Area Population Projections, 2010-2040 ........................ 18 Table 2-2 Recorded Citywide Water Demand ......................................................... 19 Table 2-3 Future Citywide Water Demand (AFY) ..................................................... 20 Table 2-4 Water Demand of the Project Site Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP... 22 Table 2-5 Proposed Project Water Demand............................................................ 23 Table 3-1 Wholesale Water Supplies Available to WFA (AFY) ................................. 28 Table 3-2 Recorded OMUC Water Supplies (AF per Fiscal Year)............................ 32 Table 3-3 2020 Projections of OMUC Water Supplies (AFY)................................... 33 Table 3-4 Existing (2020) Supply Capacities ........................................................... 34 Table 3-5 Ultimate Supply Capacities ..................................................................... 35 Table 3-6 Recorded Groundwater Production, FY 2016-2025 (AFY) ...................... 36 Table 3-7 Recorded and Future Recycled Water Supply (AFY)............................... 39 Table 3-8 OMUC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY) ..................... 41 Table 3-9 OMUC Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY)................. 41 Table 3-10 OMUC Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY).............. 42 Table 4-1 Ontario Groundwater Rights Summary.................................................... 54 6386
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan v
Acronyms Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ADD Average Day Demand
AF Acre-Feet
AFY Acre Feet Per Year
CBWM Chino Basin Watermaster
CDA Chino Basin Desalter Authority
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CWC California Water Code
CY Cubic Yards
DWR California Department of Water Resources
DU Dwelling units
DYY Dry Year Yield
EVA Emergency vehicle access
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FY Fiscal Year
GPCD Gallons Per Capita Per Day
GPD Gallons per day
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
JCSD Jurupa Community Services District
JPA Joint Project (or Powers) Authority
MDD Maximum Day Demand
MGD Million gallons per day
MI Manufacturing/Industrial
MWD The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OBMP Optimum Basin Management Program
OMC Old Model Colony
OMUC Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
OR Ontario Ranch
OSY Operating Safe Yield
PA Planning Area
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAWCo San Antonio Water Company
SB Senate Bill
SF Square Feet
SP Specific Plan
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TM Technical Memorandum
TOP The Ontario Plan
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WFA Water Facilities Authority
WMP Water Master Plan
WSA or Assessment Water Supply Assessment
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WTP Water Treatment Plant
6387
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 1 SB 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was signed into California state law with an effective date of January 1, 2002. SB 610 amended existing legal requirements for confirmation of water supply sufficiency as a condition of approval for development projects. The confirmation of water supply sufficiency is achieved through an assessment of the water supplier's existing and future water sources, and existing and projected water demand in relation to a "project" as defined by California Water Code (CWC) section 10912, resulting in the production of a project-specific Water Supply Assessment (“WSA” or “Assessment”).

Additional analysis is required in the WSA if any portion of the water supply includes groundwater. The WSA is prepared and adopted by the water supplier and included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for the project. The CEQA Lead Agency must then independently determine, based on the entire record, whether water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses (CWC section 10911). The WSA is not a commitment by the water supplier to serve the proposed project.

Law
CWC section 10910:
(a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part.

CWC section 10912:

For the purpose of this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) "Project” means any of the following:
6388
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 2 (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision.
(7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.

CWC section 10914:
(a) Nothing in this part is intended to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service.
(b) Nothing in this part is intended to either impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of a public water system to provide certain service to its existing customers or to any future potential customers.
(c) Nothing in this part is intended to modify or otherwise change existing law with respect to projects which are not subject to this part.
(d) This part applies only to a project for which a notice of preparation is submitted on or after January 1, 1996.
6389
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 3 1.1 Purpose
The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) is a department of the City of Ontario (City) and the City’s water supplier (see Figure 1 – Regional Map). OMUC commissioned this Assessment from Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) on September 2, 2025, to answer the following key question pursuant to SB 610: whether the projected supply for the next 20 years, based on normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, will meet the water demand that is projected for the project plus existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

1.2 Background
The original Meredith International Centre Specific Plan was approved by City Council in 1981 and was most recently amended in 2015. The Specific Plan has six Planning Areas (PA 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, and 5) but this Assessment pertains only to PA 3. Currently, PA 3 has a land use designation of “Urban Commercial” and the approved Specific Plan allows for 480,000 square feet of industrial/commercial uses, which includes up to 400 overnight lodging (hotel) rooms on 25.3 acres.

1.3 Proposed Project
The City is preparing a CEQA document for a proposed amendment to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan which would allow for a Mixed-Use Overlay across PA 3 (“Project”). This would allow for the development of up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses.

The Project is located within the Old Model Colony region of the City (Figure 1 – Regional Map). The Project encompasses approximately 25-acres that are bounded by Inland Empire Boulevard to the north, Archibald Avenue to the east, Interstate 10 to the south, and Deer Creek Channel to the west (Figure 2 – Aerial View).

The City’s current water demand projections are based on the City’s Land Use Plan from June 2020 as shown in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 6390
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 4 and appendices (Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively). The June 2020 Land Use Plan is shown on Figure 3-Land Use Plan used in 2020 UWMP Projections and Figure 4 – Specific Plan used in 2020 UWMP Projections. As shown on Figures 3 and 4, the following land use designations are within the Project limits: Hospitality (400 overnight lodging rooms) and Commercial (General/Neighborhood) for up to 480,000 square feet including the 400 rooms.

The Project proposes splitting PA 3 into eight parcels with a maximum of 50,000 square feet of non-residential space and a maximum of 1,400 dwelling units as shown on Figure 5 - Proposed Land Use Plan and in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Plan
Proposed
Parcel
Proposed
Land Use
Proposed
Area (acres)
Proposed
Maximum
Dwelling
Units
Proposed
Maximum
NonResidential
Square
Footage
Proposed
Maximum
Density or
Intensity
A(1)
Mixed Use
Overlay with
Commercial

3.64 0 50,000 0.55 FAR
B(2)
Mixed Use
Overlay with
High Density
Residential

3.73 330 + 19 0 88 du/ac
C
Mixed Use
Overlay with
High Density
Residential

4.04 330 0 82 du/ac
D
Mixed Use
Overlay with
High Density
Residential

3.77 353 0 94 du/ac
E
Mixed Use
Overlay with
Open Space
(Central Park)

0.75 0 0 -
F
Mixed Use
Overlay with
High Density
Residential

3.91 368 0 94 du/ac
6391
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 5 Proposed Land Use Plan (cont’d)
Proposed
Parcel
Proposed
Land Use
Proposed
Area (acres)
Proposed
Maximum
Dwelling
Units
Proposed
Maximum
NonResidential
Square
Footage
Proposed
Maximum
Density or
Intensity
G
Mixed Use
Overlay with
City-Owned
Parking Lot

4.23 0 0 -
H
Mixed Use
Overlay with
Emergency
Vehicle
Access with
Jogging Path

1.93 0 0 -
Total - 25.3 1,400 50,000 -
Source: KTGY, Brickstone Companies, Density Study, Overall Site Plan A1-0, March 10, 2025. (1) Although the site plan shows less, this Assessment assumes the maximum non-residential square footage is 50,000 SF.
(2) Although the site plan shows less, this Assessment assumes the maximum number of units is 1,400, Parcel B was randomly selected to have the additional 19 units to reach the maximum number of units.

This Project is considered to be “subject to CEQA” pursuant to CWC section 10910.

The Project is also considered a “project” under SB 610 pursuant to the following CWC section 10912 definitions:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.

The City has determined that recycled water will be available for outdoor irrigation at the Project. City Ordinance No. 2689 requires all new developments to connect to and use recycled water for all approved uses (codified in City Municipal Code Chapter 8C). “Recycled water uses may include agricultural irrigation, commercial uses, construction uses, industrial processes, landscape irrigation, landscape and/or recreational impoundments, wildlife habitat, and groundwater recharge, as approved by the SWRCB and RWQCB” (Municipal Code Section 6-8.703). 6392
San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.

Los Angeles Co.

San Bernardino Co.

Orange Co.

Prado
Lake Basin
Santa Ana River

ONTARIO
CHINO
CORONA
NORCO
UPLAND

MONTCLAIR

CLAREMONT
YORBA
LINDA

FONTANA

EASTVALE
JURUPA
VALLEY
CHINO
HILLS
RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
§¨¦10
·|þ}71 ·|þ}60
·|þ}210
£¤66
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
§¨¦10
·|þ}60
·|þ}71
·|þ}91
·|þ}142 ·|þ}71
·|þ}83 ·|þ}60
·|þ}210
·|þ}241
·|þ}91
H:\2025\25-0111\Task Order .02 Meredith\GIS\Pro\Pro.aprx Map created 25 Sep 2025 Source: OMUC service area, 2019; Meredith International Center; San Bernardino Co., 2023.

WSA for Meredith International Center Specific Plan
Figure 1 - Regional Map
0 2 4 6
Miles
LEGEND
OMUC Service Area
Project Site
Project Site
6393
Cucamonga Creek
Deer Creek
Qvc Wa
y
Deer
Creek
Deer Creek
10 10
E Date Palm Paseo
Inland Empire Blvd
55 E Date Palm Paseo
E Date Palm Paseo
N Archibald Ave
Paseos at
Ontario
Burgertow
USA
10 10 N Archibald Ave
N Archibald A
ve
Inland Empire Blvd
Los Jalapeñ
H:\2025\25-0111\Task Order .02 Meredith\GIS\Pro\Pro.aprx Map created 25 Sep 2025 Source: Nearmap 2025. Meredith International Center
WSA for Meredith International Center Specific Plan
Figure 2 - Aerial View
0 300 600 900
Feet
LEGEND
Project Site
6394
H:\2025\25-0042\GIS\Pro\WSA Walker Ranch\WSA Walker Ranch.aprx Map created 19 Mar 2025 Source: Ontario 2020 UWMP, O
Figure 3 - Land Use Plan Used in 2020 UWMP Projections
I

SIXTH ST

FIFTH ST
G ST

HOLT BLVD

MISSION BLVD

FRANCIS ST

PHILADELPHIA ST

RIVERSIDE DR

FERN ST

EUCL DI AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

HAVEN AVE

RIVERSIDE DR
M
B
ISSION
LVD

PHILADELPHIA ST

AIRPORT DR
I-10 FWY

ONTARIO MILLS
PKWY

FOURTH ST ETIWANDA AVE
I-15 FWY

TURNER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

EIGHTH ST

GROVEAVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

SAN ANTONIO AVE

MOUNTAIN AVE
I-10 FWY

STATE ST

PHILLIPS ST

JURUPA ST

HAVEN AVE

MILLIKEN AVE

SIXTH ST

BAKER AVE

VINEYARDAVE

FOURTH ST
I ST

BENSON AVE BENSON AVE

MAGNOL AI AVE

CYPRESS AVE WALNUT ST

CUCAMONGA CREEK

TURNER AVE
SR-60
SR-60
Ontario Ranch
Ontario International
Airport
Landfill

VINTAGE AVE

WINEVILLE AVE
I-15 FWY
City of
Rancho Cucamonga
City of
Upland
City of
Montclair
City of
Fontana
City of
Jurupa Valley
City of
Chino
Original Model
Colony

CHINO AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE

EUCL DI AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

SULTANA AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

GROVE AVE

BAKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

CUCAMONGA CREEK

HAMNER AVE

HAVEN AVE

MILLCREEK AVE
8 9
1 3
4 6
7 2
12 11
10 10
10 5
San Bernardino
County
City of
Eastvale
City of
Chino

CHINO AVE

ONTARIO RANCH ROAD

EDISON AVE
³
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Feet
Legend
City Boundary
Ontario Ranch Boundary
Outside City of Ontario Water Service Area
Rural Residential
Low Density Residential
Low-Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Office Commercial
Hospitality
Business Park
Industrial
Open Space - Non-Recreational
Open Space - Recreational
Open Space - Water
Public Facility
Public School
Airport
Rail
Land Fill
# Mixed Use Area
1 Downtown
2 Euclid & Francis
3 Holt
4 Meredith
5 Hospitality
6 Ontario Festival
7 Guasti
8 Ontario Center
9 Mills
10 NMC South
11 NMC East
12 SR-60 & Haven
Landuses
PROJECT NO: 1001398.00
DATE: June 2020

CITY OF ONTARIO

POTABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Future Land Use Map
Figure 2-5
Project Site
WSA for Meredith International Center Specific Plan
6395
Figure 4 - Specific Plan Used in 2020 UWMP Projections Sources: City of Ontario, Meredith International Center Specific Plan \\chqpan01.webb.lan\WO4\2025\25-0111\Task Order .02 Meredith\GIS\Pro\Pro.aprx; Map created 08 Oct 2025 WSA for Meredith International Center Specific Plan
Project Site
6396
Figure 5 - Proposed Land Use Plan Sources: City of Ontario, Meredith International Center Specific Plan H:\2025\25-0111\Task Order .02 Meredith\GIS\Pro\Pro.aprx; Map created 25 Sep 2025 WSA for Meredith International Center Specific Plan
58 Parking Spaces
Fitness Room
1764 SQ. FT. Double Height
Club Room
1717 SQ. FT. Double Height Bike & Resident Storage
Trash Term
Trash Term
Fan Room
Fan Room
Mechanical Room
Electrical Room
Mail Room
Single Height Lobby Double Height
Pool Equipment Room
Elevator Lobby
Single Height
Restrooms
Single Height
Leasing Office Storage Restroom Leasing
Single Height
Gate
Gate Loading Access
60 Parking Spaces
Bike & Resident Storage Trash Term
Trash Term
Fan Room
Fan Room
Mechanical Room
Club Room
1984 SQ. FT. Double Height
Electrical Room
Pool Equipment Room
Restrooms
Single Height
Fitness Room
1945 SQ. FT. Double Height
Storage
Portal Connection
to Pool Courtyard
Single Height Gate
Leasing Office Storage Restroom Lobby Double Height Mail Room Single Height Elevator Lobby
Single Height Lobby Connection
to Central Park
Loading Access
58 Parking Spaces
Bike & Resident Storage Trash Term
Trash Term
Fan Room
Fan Room
Mechanical Room Lobby Connection
to Central Park Electrical Room
Restrooms
Single Height Club Room
1800 SQ. FT. Double Height Fitness Room
1833 SQ. FT. Double Height
Gate Pool Equipment Room
Leasing Office Storage Restroom Portal Connection
to Pool Courtyard
Single Height Mail Room
Single Height Lobby Double Height Elevator Lobby
Single Height Open to Above
Double Height Loading Access
Inland Empire Boulevard
San Bernardino FWY - 10 Archibald Avenue
Parcel A

3.64 Acres
26,000 SF Commercial Area (Up to 50,000 SF) 40 Parking Spaces Bakery & Cafe 17322 SQ. FT. Loading
Dog Park Central Park
Bandstand / Amphitheater Parcel D

3.77 Acres
353 Dwelling Units (93.6 DU/AC) 530 Parking Spaces (1.5 SP/DU) Parcel F

3.91 Acres
368 Dwelling Units (94.1 DU/AC) 530 Parking Spaces (1.44 SP/DU) Parcel B

3.73 Acres
330 Dwelling Units (88.5 DU/AC) 490 Parking Spaces (1.48 SP/DU) Parcel C X.XX Acres
330 Dwelling Units (XX.X DU/AC) 490 Parking Spaces (X.XX SP/DU) Parcel E

0.75 Acres Open Space
48'-9" 66'-0"
200'-0" 140'-6"
Amenity Amenity Garage Entry 100'-0" Garage Entry 115'-11" 88'-4" 66'-0" Right-In and Right-Out ONLY Right-In and Right-Out ONLY Parcel G

4.23 Acres
City-Owned Parking Lot 393 Parking Spaces Parcel H

1.93 Acres
EVA with Jogging Path
E.V.A.

E.V.A. E.V.A.
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c 88'-1" 45'-11"
Retail 4714 SQ. FT. Retail 2410 SQ. FT. Retail 2410 SQ. FT.

Existing Easement Proposed Easement Existing Curb Proposed Curb Existing Easement Proposed Easement Existing Curb Proposed Curb Loading
Loading Loading
Deer Creek Channel
Cucamonga Creek Channel
Project Summary
Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald Avenue Zoning: PA 3 - Urban Commercial Area: 26.0 Acres (1,132,952 SF) Units: +/- 1,381 DU Density: 53.1 DU/AC
Unit Mix
1-Bed: 808 Units (59%) 2-Bed: 573 Units (41%)
------------------------- Total: 1,381 Units (Up to 1,400 Units) Avg. Size: 755 SF Construction Type 5 Stories Type III Wrap Apartments around
6 Stories Type I Garage Residential Building Areas Net Area Interior Rentable Area +/- 1,040,849 SF Patio or Balcony Area +/- 109,127 SF Total Net Rentable Area +/- 1,149,976 SF Gross Area
Interior Building Area +/- 1,249,019 SF
Total Gross Building Area +/- 1,358,146 SF Efficiency +/- 80% Total Commercial Area +/- 26,000 SF Parking Commercial On Grade: 440 Spaces Residential Garage: 2,040 Spaces On Grade: 80 Spaces Total: 2,120 Spaces (1.54 SP/DU) 6397
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 11 1.4 Prior Water Supply Assessment
WEBB prepared a prior WSA dated September 2014 for the “Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment” (WEBB 2014). The WSA analyzed each Planning Area of the entire Specific Plan (PA 1 through PA 5) covering 257.7 acres, including PA

3. The WSA estimated a water demand of 55,660 gpd for the Urban Commercial piece plus 60,000 gpd for the 400 hotel rooms for a total potable water demand of 115,660 gpd (130 AFY) (WEBB, p. 1-16).

Law
CWC Section 10910:
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, if a project has been the subject of a water supply assessment that complies with the requirements of this part, no additional water supply assessment shall be required for subsequent projects that were part of a larger project for which a water supply assessment was completed and that has complied with the requirements of this part and for which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has concluded that its water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses, unless one or more of the following changes occurs:
(1) Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project.
(2) Changes in the circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the ability of the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), to provide a sufficient supply of water for the project.
6398
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 12 (3) Significant new information becomes available that was not known and could not have been known at the time when the assessment was prepared.

1.5 Project Relation to the Urban Water Management Plan On June 15, 2021, the City adopted its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) by Resolution No. 2021-059, a copy of which is located in Appendix A.1 The projected
water demands in the 2020 UWMP are based on the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan and Sewer Master Plan updates (pertinent excerpts of the master plans are located in Appendix E and K of the 2020 UWMP). The City land use plan that was used in the 2020 UWMP is shown on Figure 3.

Instead of using the unit water demand factors from the 2020 master plans, this WSA will rely on the unit water demand factors from the December 2024 Demand Factor Technical Memorandum (TM) prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers, as well as updated Fiscal Year 2024-25 data from OMUC where possible. The City has determined the unit water demand factors in the TM rather than the 2020 master plan to be a more timely and accurate resource.

Pursuant to Water Code, if a project’s water demand has been accounted for in the water supplier’s most recent UWMP, then the WSA may use the UWMP as the source of the information required in the WSA. The determination as to whether the Project’s water demand has been accounted for in the most recent UWMP is located in Section 2 – Water Demand Analysis.

Relation of Water Supplier to other Urban Water Management Plans The City is a member agency of several water suppliers: Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Water Facilities Authority (WFA), Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA), and San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo). IEUA obtains water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). In addition, WFA obtains MWD water through 1 The City Council also passed on June 15, 2021, Resolution No. 2021-061 to amend the 2015 UWMP to reflect consistency with the Delta Plan, and Resolution No. 2021-060 to adopt the 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. 6399
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 13 IEUA. Each of these water suppliers has adopted individual 2020 UWMPs (copies of said plans are provided in Appendix D through Appendix H). Further, each of these agencies documented coordination with the City for preparation of said UWMP’s and included the City’s projected water demands into their individual UWMPs (MWD (p. 1- 9), IEUA (p. 2-7), SAWCO (p. 4-6), WFA (p. 4-10), and CDA (p. 4-8)).

Law
CWC Section 10910:
(c) (1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code [CEQA], shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
6400
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 14 (4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

1.6 Statewide and Local Water Conservation Efforts
On September 1, 2015, the Ontario City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3027 in response to the statewide Emergency Conservation Regulations mandated at that time by the State Water Resources Control Board. Ordinance 3027 updated the City’s Water Conservation Plan that is codified in Chapter 8A, Title 6 of the City’s Municipal Code (“Water Conservation Plan”).

The City Council adopted its 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan in June 2021, which describes the methods to achieve and the implications of reducing water supplies to at least 50 percent (the plan is located in Chapter 8 of the 2020 UWMP).

The City and OMUC implement various programs to reduce customer water consumption, including stringent use restrictions, actions, and penalties, as well as public outreach, education, and communication programs.

As of November 2025, the City is in a Voluntary Conservation Stage where the public is encouraged to voluntarily conserve water by reducing the amount of potable water used through various water saving strategies. This includes the following actions (WSCP, p. 8-8):
• Avoid hose-washing of sidewalks, driveways, and other parking/paved surfaces. • Cars and other vehicles should be washed by hand, rinsed with a hose with a positive shutoff nozzle, at a commercial car wash, or with recycled water. 6401
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 15 • Avoid using water to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains or ponds unless it has a water recycling system.
• Encourage restaurants to serve drinking water only to customers who request it. • Promptly repair leaks from indoor and outdoor plumbing fixtures. • Avoid watering lawns, and the like, between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. • Prevent water from running off from landscaped areas due to incorrectly directed or maintained sprinklers or excessive watering.

With the signing of Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and SB 606, the state has set an Indoor Residential Standard of 47 GPCD until January 1, 2030 (CWC section 10609.4(a)). For reference, the per person unit water use factors used by the City in the 2020 UWMP for water demand planning purposes are based on a range of demands, from 60 gpd/person for high density residential with recycled water, up to 172 gpd/person for rural residential (WMP, p. 4-10).

1.7 Methodology of Analysis
This Assessment follows DWR’s, Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 (DWR 2003). Water Code citations contained herein are current as of January 1, 2025. Section 1 of this Assessment describes the existing and proposed land use designations of the Project site, the proposed Project’s relation to a previous WSA and the water supplier’s most recent UWMP. Section 2 provides the water demand analysis of the Project; Section 3 reviews the projected water supplies for the Project; Section 4 contains the required discussion of the water supplier’s groundwater supplies; and Section 5 concludes the Assessment by answering the primary question at hand.

The City is preparing the 2025 update to the 2020 UWMP, which will be delivered to DWR by July 1, 2026 with newer data and projections. In addition, the City is preparing an update to its 2020 water master plan. However, until the City adopts the 2025 UWMP, the 2020 UWMP is still the appropriate document to reference in this document.
6402
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 16 SECTION 2 - WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate whether the proposed Project was considered in the water supplier’s planning for water demand. This section will: 1) identify the various water use sectors, 2) identify water demand by those sectors for the next twenty years, and 3) compare the calculated water demand of the proposed Project to the water demand assumed in the most recent UWMP for the same property.

Law
CWC Section 10910:
(c) (2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

2.1 Citywide Factors
In addition to climate, a variety of factors may affect water use. The UWMP Act requires several factors including climate, current and projected population, density, 6403
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 17 income, and the mix of customer types (CWC sections 10631(e)(1)-(2)). As suggested by DWR, these data are provided herein and are taken generally from City’s 2020 UWMP (Appendix A).

Climate
The climate of the City including the Project site can be described as generally mediterranean-like weather, with mild temperatures and virtually no days below freezing. Summers in the City are dry with average maximum daily temperatures in the high 80s to low 90s. The average annual rainfall is roughly 10.7 inches. (UWMP, p. 3-5) Population
The City is divided into two distinct areas: Ontario Ranch and Old Model Colony (OMC), which is where the Project is located (Figure 1). The OMC mostly consists of residential, commercial, and industrial developments including the Ontario Airport.

Ontario Ranch is currently in the process of a planned conversion from agriculture to residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses.

According to the 2020 UWMP, the OMUC water service area population as of 2020, including both OMC and Ontario Ranch, was estimated at 178,409 persons (UWMP, p. 3-6). The population as of 2022 was approximately 178,564 (TM, p. 2-6). The anticipated population at citywide buildout in 2040 according to the 2020 UWMP is estimated at 362,903 persons as shown in Table 2-1, which is an increase of more than 103 percent over 20 years. Most of the anticipated growth will occur through infill, densification in the OMC, and development in Ontario Ranch. 6404
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 18 Table 2-1 OMUC Service Area Population Projections, 2010-2040 Population
Served(a)
2010 2015 2020 2022(c) 2025 2030 2035 2040(b)
163,924 168,777 178,409 178,564 232,583 266,339 300,095 362,903 Source: OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 3-7.
(a) Does not include the portion of the City that receives water service from Cucamonga Valley Water District. (b) The City estimates buildout by 2040.
(c) From TM prepared by AKM, 2024.

The City has considered certain demographic factors in its water management planning, including special housing needs (e.g., low-income earners, single-parent families, large families, seniors, people with disabilities, and homeless persons) (UWMP, p. 3-7).

2.2 City of Ontario’s Current and Future Water Demand
As shown in Table 2-2 (next page), OMUC serves at least 40,519 potable water connections and 598 non-potable connections as of June 2025. The total potable water demand in FY 2024/2025 in the OMUC service area was 31,353.5 AF and the recycled water demand was 11,406.5 AF.

Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
6405
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Demand Analysis 19 Table 2-2 Recorded Citywide Water Demand
Customer Type
2005(a) 2010(a) 2015(b) 2020(d) Current
FY 24/25(e)
Volume
(AF)
No. of Connections
Volume
(AF)
No. of Connections
Volume
(AF)
No. of Connections (c)
Volume
(AF)
No. of Connections
Volume
(AF)
No. of Connections
Single-Family Residential 16,421 28,932 13,253 29,473 10,941 26,838 12,502 31,626 12,729.4 33,113 Multi-Family Residential 6,147 2,244 5,425 2,069 4,839 1,968 5,068 2,164 5,483.5 2,246 Commercial 8,369 3,095 6,692 3,285 6,584 3,201 5,359 3,255 4,859.8 3,002 Industrial 2,402 327 2,044 278 1,471 268 2,078 332 2,266.9 341 Governmental 1,178 320 0 - - - 538 - 595.3 57
Landscape 6,813 1,246 7,170 1,245 4,564 1,100 4,631 1,469 4,908.9 1,430 Agriculture 0 0 0 - - - - - - -
Other 378 161 819 308 340 66 368 - 509.7 330
Loss 3,154 - - - - - 1,565 - -
S/T/E 0 - 0 - 206 - - - -
Subtotal Potable 44,863 36,325 35,403 36,658 28,945 33,441 32,109 38,846 31,353.5 40,519 Recycled Water 1,829 - 1,547 178 7,208 279 7,812 444 11,406.5 598 Total Potable and
Recycled 46,692 36,325 36,950 36,836 36,153 33,720 39,921 39,290 42,760.0 41,117 Note: AFY = acre feet; S/T/E = sales/transfers/exchanges. (a) AKM 2011, pp. 3-2, 3-5.
(b) OMUC UWMP 2016, pp. 2-1, 4-2, Appendix B.
(c) CY 2015 Annual Report to Division of Drinking Water. (d) OMUC 2020 UWMP, pp. 4-3 and 4-5. These values represent data from fiscal year 19/20. (e) From OMUC(e), 2025.
6406
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Demand Analysis 20 For comparison with the recorded water demands in Table 2-2, the OMUC water demands from 2025 to 2045 as forecasted in the 2020 UWMP are shown in Table 2-3 (UWMP, p. 4-3).

Table 2-3 Future Citywide Water Demand (AFY)
Customer Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family
Residential 15,723 17,540 19,109 22,431 22,431
Multifamily
Residential 6,374 7,110 7,746 9,093 9,093
Commercial 6,740 7,519 8,191 9,615 9,615
Industrial 2,613 2,915 3,176 3,728 3,728
Institutional /
Governmental 677 755 822 965 965
Landscape 5,824 6,497 7,078 8,309 8,309
Losses 1,968 2,196 2,392 2,808 2,808
Other 463 5156 562 660 660
Subtotal Potable
Demand(a) 40,382 45,048 49,076 57,609 57,609
Recycled Water
Demand(b) 12,168 13,465 14,762 16,059 16,059
Total Water
Demand 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668
Notes: AFY = acre-feet per year; Does not include areas within the City that are not served by OMUC.

Buildout assumed for 2040.
(a) OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 4-4.
(b) OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 4-5. Agricultural water demands are included in recycled water retail demands.

The water demands in Table 2-3 represent “normal” years; however, water use patterns change during dry years. The expected changes to water demand and water supply during dry years are provided in Section 3 – Water Supply Analysis.

The City’s 2020 UWMP and 2020 Water Master Plan assume the same trends in future land use changes within the City, which are shown on Figure 6 and Figure 7. In 2017, the City land use was a nearly equal balance of residential, commercial / industrial, and agricultural as shown in Figure 6. Agricultural use is projected to be completely 6407
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Demand Analysis 21 replaced with residential, commercial, and industrial by buildout (2040) as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6 – Existing (2017) Land Uses in the City (acres) Source: OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 3-8.

Figure 7 – Land Use in the City at Buildout (acres)
Source: OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 3-8.
30%
37%
1%
32%
Residential (6,124 ac)
Commercial and Industrial (7,508 ac)
Agricultural (Original Model Colony) (184
ac)
Agricultural (Ontario Ranch) (6,556 ac)
50% 50% Residential (10,869 ac)
Commercial and Industrial (11,017 ac)
6408
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Demand Analysis 22 2.3 Project Site Land Use Assumed in the UWMP
The projected water demands in the City’s 2020 UWMP are based on the General Plan land use plan that is shown in Figure 3. The land use plan for the approved Meredith International Centre Specific Plan from 2015 is shown on Figure 4. According to the approved Meredith Specific Plan, the overnight lodging rooms square footage is included in the maximum square footage allowed in PA 3 (480,000 square feet) (SP, p. 2-4). However, the size of each hotel room was not defined in the Specific Plan.

Therefore, to calculate the water demand of the remaining square footage, this Assessment will assume 300 square feet for each hotel room. With this assumption, the estimated potable and recycled water demands for PA 3 that was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP are shown in Table 2-4 based on the City’s current unit water demand factors from the 2024 Demand Factor Technical Memorandum (AKM, 2024).

Refer to Spreadsheet 1 located at the end of the report for detailed calculations.

Table 2-4 Water Demand of the Project Site Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP Area
(acres)
Land Use
Designation
(a)
Potable Water
Demand
(AFY)(b)
Recycled Water
Demand
(AFY)(c)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
Meredith Mixed
Use Area,
Planning Area 3

25.3 Urban
Commercial
– Hospitality

53.8 39.7 93.4
Urban
Commercial -
Commercial 49.2 0 49.2
Total 25.3 103.0 39.7 142.6
Notes: AFY = acre feet per year
Refer to Spreadsheet 1. Values are rounded.
(a) Source: “Future Land Use Map Figure 2-5" and “Table 2-2 Future Study Area Land Uses” located in Appendix E of the OMUC 2020 UWMP.
(b) Unit water demand factors from AKM 2024, Tables 3-2, 3-4, 3-5. 6409
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Demand Analysis 23 2.4 Proposed Project Water Demand
The proposed Project is shown on Figure 5. The potable and recycled water demands of the proposed Project using the City’s current unit water demand factors for potable and recycled water from the 2024 Demand Factor Technical Memorandum (AKM, 2024) are detailed in Spreadsheet 2 and summarized in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5 Proposed Project Water Demand
Land Use
Designation
Area
(acres)
Potable Water
Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water
Demand
(AFY)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
Mixed Use Overlay
with Commercial 3.64 6.83 4.89 11.73
Mixed Use Overlay
with High Density
Residential 14.75 243.07 2.35 245.42
Mixed Use Overlay
with Open Space
(Central Park) 0.75 0.08 2.10 2.18
Mixed Use Overlay
with City-Owned
Parking Lot or
EVA/Jogging Path(b) 6.16 0.0 0.48 0.48
Total 25.3 249.9 9.82 259.8
Notes: AFY = acre feet per year; EVA = emergency vehicle access.

Refer to Spreadsheet 2. Values are rounded.
(a) Unit water demand factors from AKM 2024, Tables 4-2, 4-3. (b) This Assessment assumes no potable water demand for the parking lot or EVA/jogging path in Parcels G and H.

Conclusion
The Project analyzed by this WSA is the proposed addition of a Mixed Use Overlay to Planning Area 3 of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan in the Old Model Colony. The estimated total water demand (potable plus recycled water) of the Project 6410
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Demand Analysis 24 area as presented in the 2020 UWMP is approximately 143 AFY (Table 2-4). The estimated total water demand of the Project as currently proposed is approximately 260 AFY (Table 2-5), which is an increase of approximately 117 AFY compared to what was assumed in the demand projections of the UWMP. Because the City’s water demand projections in the 2020 UWMP were based on a land use scenario with a lower water demand than that which is proposed by the Project, it can be deduced that the water demand for the proposed Project was not fully accounted for in the most recently adopted 2020 UWMP.

It is worth noting two things: first, the unit water demand factor for the high density residential component of the Project is considered by the City to be a highly conservative value for the Project and the potable water demand in these areas is likely overestimated (see Spreadsheet 2; 155 gpd/du based on 56 gpd/person plus 10 gpd/du of potable irrigation water). This is because the City’s unit water demand factors for high density residential assume only up to 45 units per acre (AKM, 2024), which is only about half of the densities proposed by Parcels B-D, and F of the Project, which range from 88 du/acre to 94 du/acre. Because the City does not have water consumption data from existing high density residential developments with an equivalent density as the Project, the only option available at this time is the factor of 155 gpd/du. For reference, a study published in 2024 in the Urban Water Journal about residential water demands in a Mediterranean city found the average daily per-capita potable water consumption at 26 gpd/person (not including potable irrigation water) (UWJ, p. 524).

Second, the City’s forthcoming water master plan update (and presumably the forthcoming 2025 UWMP) will account a total water demand for the Project area of 274 AFY (243 AF potable water and 31 AF recycled water) (OMUC(e), 2025). 6411
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 25 SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
This section identifies the sources of potable water that are available to the water supplier of the proposed Project. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the water supplies that could be used by the proposed Project during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during a 20-year projection.

OMUC is the City’s water supplier and the water supplier for the proposed Project.

OMUC has the following sources of water supply: City wells in the Chino Groundwater Basin; treated groundwater from the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA); recycled water from Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA); purchased water from San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo); and imported water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA).

Law
CWC Section 10910:
(d) (1) The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
(2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. 6412
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 26 (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
(C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.

3.1. Documenting Wholesale Water Supplies
Many retail water suppliers in California including OMUC, receive supplies from one or more water wholesalers. SB 610 requires the WSA to document wholesale supplies by:
1) describing the quantities of water received from each wholesaler in prior years; 2) identifying existing entitlements, water rights, and/or water service contracts held by the City for the wholesale supply; 3) provide proof of entitlements, water rights, service contracts, relevant capital outlay programs, and construction permits for necessary infrastructure to deliver wholesale supplies, if any; and 4) regulatory approvals required to convey or deliver the wholesale supply.

Wholesale Supplies Received
OMUC receives wholesale water from WFA who purchases untreated imported water from IEUA, who in turn obtains it from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). WFA and IEUA are both wholesale water suppliers and IEUA is a member agency of MWD. MWD is a wholesaler and contractor for State Water Project water imported from northern California. State Water Project water is available as stipulated by DWR in response to the hydrology and environmental regulations that can change available supply.2
Therefore, imported water supplies to southern
California can be highly variable; in December 2021 for example, the allocation of State Water Project water to all contractors was temporarily reduced to 0 percent due to 2 DWR, State Water Project Delivery Capability Report, published every 2 years, as well as “Notice to State Water Project Contractors” issued as often as needed. 6413
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 27 persistent drought conditions.3 And on April 20, 2023, DWR announced 100 percent of requested water supplies throughout the year would be available.

The current SWP allocation is 50 percent.4 Nonetheless, MWD has projected 100 percent water supply reliability over the next 20 years (2025-2045) during average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years in its 2020 UWMP (MWD UWMP, pp. ES-6 and ES7).

For the 10-year period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2024, the amount of imported water purchased by IEUA from MWD was limited by a purchase order agreement that allowed IEUA to purchase up to 932,830 acre-feet at its lowest rate (Tier I) (IEUA Resolution no. 2014-12-4 located in Appendix I); however, upon expiration of said purchase order, MWD has elected to forgo renewed purchase order agreements with member agencies because all MWD imported water sales during said 10-year period were within maximum Tier 1 supply allocations. Nonetheless, IEUA has reaffirmed access to MWD imported water Tier 1 purchase allocations for CWD, Fontana Water Company, and WFA according to IEUA Resolution No. 2024-12-4 (Appendix I).

The WFA was formed in 1980 as a Joint Powers Authority by the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, Upland, and the Monte Vista Water District in order to construct and operate water treatment facilities for providing supplemental potable water to the member agencies. In 1985, the City established an agreement to purchase capacity in the WFA water treatment plant; a copy of which is located in Appendix J. Then, in 1988 the WFA finished construction of the Agua de Lejos Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in Upland to treat the imported water from IEUA and MWD to meet drinking water standards.
3 Source: State Water Project Historical Table A Allocations (available at https://water.ca.gov/programs/statewater-project/management/swp-water-contractors) 4 Department of Water Resources, Notice to State Water Project Contractors No. 25-05, April 29, 2025 (https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/State-WaterProject/Management/SWP-Water-Contractors/Files/25-05-042925.pdf ). 6414
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 28 Currently, the Agua de Lejos WTP has the capacity to treat and disinfect 81 million gallons per day (mgd). Recorded flows through the Agua de Lejos WTP have ranged from 40 to 50 mgd during the peak summer months and can be as low as 9-12 mgd during winter months.5 As documented in WFA Ordinance No. 99-07-02 (located in Appendix K), the City owns 31.4 percent of the plant capacity of the Agua de Lejos WTP. As of 2020, that proportion is equivalent to approximately 25 mgd (28,004 AFY) (AKM 2020, p. 3-2). OMUC can purchase up to 9,915 AFY (8.9 mgd) of imported supply through WFA at Tier 1 rates. Beyond that amount, OMUC could continue to purchase at Tier 2 rates.6
In FY 24/25, OMUC purchased 5,348.3 AF of wholesale water from WFA (OMUC(e), 2025). For reference, the actual and projected wholesale water supplies available to WFA for distribution to all of its member agencies including the City through 2045 are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Wholesale Water Supplies Available to WFA (AFY) Wholesale
Water
2015(a) 2020(b) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Actual Projected in 2020 UWMP(b)
WFA
(potable) 14,864 25,492 30,651 31,997 33,435 34,829 36,280 Note: WFA = Water Facilities Authority; AFY = acre feet per year. (a) Data for 2015 Actual from IEUA and WFA 2015 UWMP, pp. 3-9 – 3-10. (b) Data for 2020 Actual and 2025 through 2045 Projected from WFA 2020 UWMP (p. 6-18, (Appendix F)).

Dry Year Yield Storage Program
To reduce dependence on imported water supplies, OMUC joined the “Dry Year Yield” Storage Program. The Dry Year Yield (DYY) storage program is a cooperative Conjunctive Use Program Agreement between MWD, IEUA, Chino Basin Watermaster, 5 Source: (http://www.wfajpa.org/#Facilities) 6 As of January 1, 2025, MWD has a single, unified supply rate for its member agencies and removing the distinction between Tier 1 and Tier 2.
6415
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 29 Three Valleys Municipal Water District, and the Chino Basin groundwater producers (Agreement No. 49960 [DYY 2014]). Under the DYY Program, MWD can store up to 100,000 AFY of water in the Chino Groundwater Basin during wet years when surplus water is available, and to reduce imported water deliveries up to 33,000 AFY in dry, drought, or emergency periods, but not to exceed the amount of water in the MWD storage account (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-18). The program expires in 2028.

In 2003, the City executed an agreement with IEUA to participate in the DYY program.

The DYY Agreement was amended in September 2014 to clarify storage measurement and extraction from the MWD storage account, define baseline conditions in calculations of performance targets, define procedures for variances in performance targets, revise administrative milestones, and make miscellaneous updates (refer to Appendix L for original agreement and amendments). The 2014 DYY amendments also provided for a minimum imported water delivery of 40,000 AFY during “call” years, establishing minimum needs for direct deliveries from MWD. As of July 11, 2025, the storage balance in the DYY account is 63,844 AF (DYY Call Letter, 2025 [Appendix O]).

Participation in the DYY program obligates OMUC to reduce its use of imported water from WFA by a fixed amount, known as the “shift obligation” when MWD makes a “call” for their water stored in the Chino Basin. OMUC’s shift obligation is 8,076 AFY, which is the amount OMUC purchases from WFA during a baseline year (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-33). OMUC purchases an additional 2,000 AFY from WFA that is then sold to neighboring water supplier Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) who does not have an imported water connection.

In 2014, JCSD entered into an agreement with the City to participate in the DYY program (a copy of which is located in Appendix L). During years when MWD makes a “call” for the water in their storage account, OMUC will decrease its purchase of WFA imported water by a combined total of 10,076 AF (8,076 AF plus 2,000 AF) compared 6416
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 30 to the previous year. To meet its obligation in the DYY program during a “call” year, JCSD will deliver 2,000 AF to OMUC from the CDA.
7 DYY funds from DWR local assistance grants were used for the construction of three OMUC groundwater wells (Wells 45, 46, and 47) and an ion-exchange facility located at John Galvin Park to treat water extracted from Wells 44 and 52. When MWD makes a “call” for its stored water, OMUC can operate these facilities to meet its shift obligation. MWD will then pay for the cost of operations and OMUC would pay MWD (through IEUA) the full-service water rate. OMUC can use the DYY facilities to meet its normal water demands during other periods, but OMUC is responsible for the well operation and maintenance costs (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-33).

The additional groundwater capacity provided by this program allows OMUC to increase the percentage supply used to meet peak demands and allow OMUC to be less reliant upon imported water supplies (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-33). MWD requested a full call of 33,000 AF beginning January 1, 2026, and OMUC is expected to perform (DYY Call Letter, 2025 [Appendix O]).

3.2. Documenting Water Supplies
The 2020 Ontario UWMP states approximately 46 percent of OMUC’s water supply comes from groundwater, 34 percent from imported water, and 20 percent of supply is from recycled water (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-37). The recorded water supplies available to OMUC from 2000 through FY 24/25 are provided in Table 3-2 (next page) and the projected water supplies available to OMUC from 2025 through 2045 according to the 2020 UWMP are provided in Table 3-3. Each water supply source is identified as a water supply entitlement, water right, or water service contract per SB 610 guidance. Appropriative rights to groundwater are discussed in Chapter 4 – Groundwater Analysis.
7 Assuming JCSD’s imported water baseline is 2,000 AFY (JCSD 2014). 6417
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 31 Note: The City’s records in Table 3-2 are through FY 24/25 but the Chino Basin Watermaster records for FY (Production Year) 24/25 have not been published yet and therefore this Assessment reflects Watermaster records from Production Year 23/24 as the most recent data available.
6418
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 32 Table 3-2 Recorded OMUC Water Supplies (AF per Fiscal Year) Source 2000(a) 2005(b) 2010(c) 2015(d) 2020(e) 2021(f) 2022(f) 2023(j) 2024(k) 2025( l
) Form of
Right
Amount
of Right
Wells
36,862 28,799 20,955 19,544 18,395 17,171 14,390 16,933 14,231 18,768 Appropriative Varies
(see Sec.
4)
Purchased

WFA 9,258 13,406 8,923 6,413 6,513 5,851 5,687 4,056 5,505 5,348 Capacity
Ownership
25 mgd
(31.4% of
plant
capacity)

CDA - - 5,000 3,543 6,636 7,337 8,927 8,668 8,680 8,353 Capacity
Ownership 8,533 AFY

SAWCo - - - 443 565 500 430 413 485 490
Share-holder
Entitlement 600 AFY
Subtotal
Potable 46,120 42,205 34,878 29,943 32,109 30,859 29,434 30,070 28,901 32,959 -- -- Recycled
Water
700(g) - 1,547 3,859(h) 7,812(i) 8,557(i) 9,593(i) 8,790(i) 9,180(i) 11,406 Contract Ontario’s
share of
sewage
flows.

Total
Supply 46,820 42,205 36,425 33,802 39,921 39,416 39,027 38,860 38,081 44,365 -- -- Notes: WFA = Water Facilities Authority; CDA = Chino Basin Desalter Authority; SAWCo = San Antonio Water Company; FY = fiscal year; AFY = acre-feet per year; mgd = million gallons per day.
(a) Webb 2004, p. 21.
(b) AKM 2011, pp. 3-8 and 5-12.
(c) AKM 2011, p. 4-2.
(d) OMUC UWMP 2016, p. 6-16.
(e) OMUC 2020 UWMP, Table 6-8. These values represent fiscal year 19/20. (f) Provided by OMUC(b). These values represent fiscal year 20/21 and fiscal year 21/22, respectively. (g) Webb 2004, p. 29.
(h) Does not include recycled water for agriculture deliveries (3,349 AF). (i) The City’s recycled water usage.
(j) Provided by OMUC(d), 2023.
(k) CBWM 2024 and OMUC(e), 2024.
(l) OMUC(e), 2025.
6419
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 33 Table 3-3 2020 Projections of OMUC Water Supplies (AFY) Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Form of
Right
Amount of
Right
Wells 20,249 22,915 24,943 31,476 31,476 Appropriative
Varies
(see Sec. 4)
Purchased
WFA 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000 17,000
Capacity
ownership
25 mgd
(31.4% of
plant
capacity)
CDA 8,533 8,533 8,533 8,533 8,533
Capacity
Ownership 8,533 AFY
SAWCo(a) 600 600 600 600 600
Shareholder
entitlement 600 AFY
Subtotal
Potable 40,382 45,048 49,076 57,609 57,609 -- --
Recycled 12,168 13,465 14,762 16,059 16,059 Contract
Ontario’s
share of
sewage
flow.

Total
Supply 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668 -- --
Note: AFY = acre feet per year; FY = fiscal year; mgd = million gallons per day.

Source: OMUC 2020 UWMP, Table 6-9, p. 6-38.
(a) According to SAWCo’s 2020 UWMP, the estimated projected annual water demands for OMUC for 2025 through 2045 is 601 AFY.

OMUC anticipates increasing its total water supply by pursuing: 1) full utilization of OMUC’s groundwater rights in the Chino Basin allowed under the Chino Basin Groundwater Adjudication Judgment (including increased groundwater recharge with stormwater and recycled water described in Section 4); 2) expanding use of recycled water; and 3) expanding use of desalter water (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-38).

Water Supply Capacities
The capacity of the supply system refers to the maximum production or conveyance rate based on the pumps and infrastructure. For example, the capacity of groundwater wells refers to a pumping rate based on running the pumps at full utilization, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. Although this maximum rate of pumping is assumed in terms of comparing capacities, pumps are rarely used at more than two-thirds capacity.

Knowing the system capacity is important to ensure OMUC can meet all demands imposed upon the system, specifically meeting “average day demand” and “maximum 6420
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 34 day demand.” Demand can be met with multiple supply sources, storage, or a combination of both. OMUC’s reservoirs are not discussed in this Assessment, however, according to the master plan reservoirs are used to regulate hourly fluctuations in demand, provide fire flow, and supplement supply during an extended outage of a source including emergency storage (AKM 2020, p. 7-3). The City’s emergency storage capacity criterion is set at one average day demand (AKM 2020, p. 10-2).

The capacity of each source of water supply available to OMUC is provided in the 2020 Water Master Plan (AKM 2020).8 According to the 2020 Water Master Plan, OMUC is required to meet the following water supply criterion from the California Code of Regulations Related to Drinking Water: “a minimum source of supply equal of one maximum day demand of the service area” (AKM 2020, p. 10-1). Further, OMUC has set a design criterion in its 2020 Water Master Plan that “requires a source of supply equal to one average day demand (19,280 gpm) from local sources” (AKM 2020, p. 10- 1). As the land uses and population change in OMUC service area, so do the average and maximum day demands. The existing (2020) maximum capacities of existing sources of supply available to OMUC are provided in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Existing (2020) Supply Capacities
Source AFY mgd gpm
Existing Wells(a) 62,269 55.6 38,604
WFA at Aqua de Lejos WTP 17,259 15.4 10,700
CDA from Chino I & II Desalter 8,533 7.62 5,290
Total Existing Capacity(a) 88,061 78.62 54,594
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year; mgd = million gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute.

Source: Table 10-2 of AKM 2020. OMUC confirmed for this Assessment that these capacities have not changed.
(a) Assuming wells operate 24 hours per day for 365 days per year. 8 The City is currently in the process to update the water master plan data. 6421
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 35 The maximum capacities of the ‘ultimate’ sources of supply available to OMUC according to the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan, are provided in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 Ultimate Supply Capacities
Source AFY mgd gpm
Existing Wells 62,269 55.6 38,604
Future Wells 48,068 42.9 29,800
Subtotal(a) 110,337 99 68,404
WFA at Aqua de Lejos WTP 17,259 15.4 10,700
CDA from Chino I & II Desalter 8,533 7.62 5,291
Total 136,129 121.52 84,395
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year; mgd = million gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute.

Source: Table 12-2 of AKM, 2020.
(a) Assuming wells operate 24 hours per day for 365 days per year.

As described in the 2020 Water Master Plan, the combined ultimate capacity of existing and future wells is approximately 68,404 gpm (Table 3-5), which is about 192% of the future average day demand (35,716 gpm) and therefore meets the City and state supply criterion for average day demand coming from local sources (p. 12-1).

OMUC confirmed for this Assessment that the capacities shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 have not changed since the 2020 Water Master Plan (OMUC 2025).

In addition, the ultimate supply capacity is equivalent to 84,395 gpm, which is about 154% of the City’s future maximum day demand (54,778 gpm); therefore, the City is capable of providing the full projected maximum day demand (AKM 2020, p. 12-1).

However, under ultimate conditions the supply capacity will require additional future wells, as shown in Table 3-5 to meet the water supply criterion for maximum day demand.
6422
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 36 3.3. Descriptions of All Water Supply Projects
City Well Production
OMUC currently owns 17 active groundwater wells in the Chino Basin (AKM 2020, p. 6- 1). The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California, with an estimated 5 million AF, with another 1 million AF in additional storage capacity.9 OMUC is planning future wells in the 925 Pressure Zone serving Ontario Ranch with a combined additional supply capacity of 29,800 gpm (48,068 AFY) (Table 3-5) (AKM 2020, p. 12-1).

During FY 24/25, OMUC wells produced approximately 18,768 AF from the Chino Basin (OMUC(e), 2025), which is the highest production rate since 2019. OMUC’s existing well capacity is approximately 62,269 AFY (Table 3-4).10 The recorded extractions from OMUC wells between FY 2016 and 2025 are shown in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6 Recorded Groundwater Production, FY 2016-2025 (AFY) Supply 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021(a) 2022(b) 2023(c) 2024(d) 2025 City
wells in
Chino
Basin 22,751 24,672 26,109 19,604 18,395 17,171 14,390 16,933 14,231 18,768 Note: AFY = acre feet per year. Data shown are Fiscal Years.

Source (2016-2020): OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-19, Table 6-1 (Appendix A). (a) CBWM 2021, p. 9.1.
(b) CBWM 2022, p. 9.1
(c) CBWM 2023, p. 9.1
(d) CBWM 2024, p. 9.1.

As of FY 24/25, approximately 57 percent of the OMUC water supply came from groundwater pumped by OMUC wells in the Chino Basin. OMUC strives to maximize local water supplies and minimize the need for imported water from other regions 9 The 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report (May 15, 2020) indicates the estimated total volume of water in storage was 12.6 million AF in July 2018 (WEI 2020, p. 6-15). The 2025 Safe Yield reevaluation is currently underway.
10 Assuming wells operate 24 hours per day for 365 days per year. 6423
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 37 (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 1-5). A thorough description of the City’s groundwater rights pursuant to SB 610 guidance is provided in Section 4 – Groundwater Analysis.

Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) Groundwater Production OMUC is a member of the CDA, a joint exercise of powers agency created on September 25, 2001, along with JCSD, Santa Ana River Water Company, IEUA, and the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Norco. Western Municipal Water District joined CDA on April 2, 2009. The goals of the CDA are:
• Achieve hydraulic control of the Chino Basin to prevent contaminated Chino Basin groundwater from entering Santa Ana River;
• Remove contamination (primarily nitrates, as well as TCE, PCE, and TCP) from groundwater in the southern portion of the Chino Basin; and • Deliver the treated water to member agencies to offset the need for imported water.

CDA provides high-quality drinking water to CDA members through “take or pay” contracts. CDA operates 30 wells and two desalters (salt removers) that treated approximately 35,003 AF of Chino Basin groundwater in 2020 (CDA 2020 UWMP, p. 6- 27). In the future, “CDA will pump up to 40,000 AFY of contaminated groundwater from the Chino Basin for water quality management purposes, groundwater cleanup, and hydraulic control required by the Santa Ana RWQCB. CDA will provide up to 35,200 AFY of treated water to its member agencies” (CDA 2020 UWMP, p. 6-27). Capacity ownership by member agencies is a percentage based on the CDA capacity, of which 40,000 AFY correlates to 8,533 AFY for Ontario; therefore, when CDA’s capacity increases (or decreases), OMUC can purchase more (or less) than 8,533 AFY.

The Chino I Desalter, located at 6905 Kimball Avenue in Chino, was completed in 2000 and expanded in August 2005 to its current rated capacity of 14.2 mgd (CDA 2020 UWMP p. 6-8). However, the Chino I Desalter cannot provide this rated capacity due to the high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the raw groundwater supply. The Chino II Desalter was completed in 2006 and is located at 11202 Harrel Street in the City of 6424
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 38 Jurupa Valley. The current rated capacity of Chino II Desalter is 33 mgd (CDA 2020 UWMP, p. 6-8).

Although the treatment capacity of the Chino Desalter I capacity will not increase, additional raw water capacity is provided by five new CDA wells in the Chino Creek Well Field. All five wells have been drilled and equipped.

In FY 24/25, OMUC purchased approximately 8,353 AF from CDA (Table 3-2). As shown in Table 3-3, the water supply from CDA to OMUC is projected to stay at the City’s current capacity ownership amount of 8,533 AFY. The City’s capacity rights to CDA are described in Section 4 – Groundwater Analysis.

Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Recycled Water Supply OMUC purchases recycled water supplies from IEUA. IEUA treats the City’s wastewater at its four regional wastewater reclamation plants. IEUA provides wastewater treatment services to seven Contracting Agencies, including the City of Ontario. OMUC has been using recycled water produced by IEUA since 1972.

Currently, recycled water is used in the City for agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, golf course irrigation, and industrial purposes.

As stated in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City has the right to first purchase of their Base Entitlement. “Base Entitlement is defined as the total quantity of sewage delivered into the Regional Sewerage System by the Contracting Agency less normal processing losses resulting from the treatment of sewage” (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6- 21). In FY 24/25, this amount was 14,063 AF (OMUC(e), 2025). OMUC’s utilization of the recycled water available to them (proportion of their base entitlement) has varied between 62 percent in FY 19/20 to 73 percent in FY 21/22 to 81 percent in FY 24/25 (Table 3-2). Recorded and projected supplies of recycled water available to OMUC are listed in Table 3-7.
6425
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 39 Table 3-7 Recorded and Future Recycled Water Supply (AFY) Beneficial Use
Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Agricultural
irrigation 2,905 1,704 1,136 568 0 0
Landscape
irrigation 3,290 7,088 8,612 10,136 11,659 11,659
Golf course
irrigation 631 660 680 700 720 720
Industrial use 986 2,716 3,037 3,358 3,680 3,680
Total 7,812 12,168 13,465 14,762 16,059 16,059
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
Source: OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-28 (Appendix A). Ontario reports in Fiscal Years. Buildout estimated for 2040.

Between 2020 and 2045, landscape irrigation is projected to have the greatest increase in demand for recycled water followed by industrial use within the OMUC service area.

Agricultural properties are expected to convert to more urban land uses, while supplies to golf courses are expected to remain relatively stable. (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-28).

IEUA has prepared recycled water studies, plans, and strategy documents to bring a regional recycled water delivery system to fruition. OMUC updated their Recycled Water Master Plan in 2020 to fully coordinate with IEUA’s recycled water planning efforts.

San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo) Potable Water Supply
SAWCo is a mutual water company and corporation located in Upland. SAWCo has provided water service to its active shareholders for over 135 years. Although SAWCo does not technically meet the threshold as a water supplier that needs to prepare an UWMP, they have done so nonetheless in 2020.

SAWCo supplies water based on entitlement only, which is based on the number of shares held. The number of shares is finite and considered a commodity that can be divided or sold. The “entire water of the company” and the current entitlement for 6426
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 40 2020 is equivalent to 12,570 AFY, which distributed among the 6,178 shares. The volume per share is subject to change (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-8).

The City owns 295 shares of SAWCo, which equates to a current entitlement of 600 AFY of potable water to OMUC (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-8). In FY 24/25, OMUC received an actual volume of 490 AF (Table 3-2). OMUC has forecasted that future available supplies will be 600 AFY from 2025 to 2045 (Table 3-3). The City receives water from SAWCo indirectly through a connection made in 2015 from SAWCo to the WFA.

SAWCo water supplies are a mixture of potable and non-potable water from San Antonio Creek, the San Antonio Tunnel and three groundwater basins: Chino Basin, Cucamonga Basin, and Six Basins (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-9). No new sources of supply are expected to be developed by SAWCo over the planning horizon. Actual supply available to SAWCo in 2020 totaled 2,584 AF of potable supply and 13,762 AF of non-potable supply. In their 2020 UWMP, SAWCo estimates for 2025 and 2030 that reasonably available supplies will be 15,260 AFY (SAWCo 2020 UWMP, p. 5-10).

In terms of future reliability, SAWCo has stated the following in its 2020 UWMP (p. 6-4):
“SAWCo expects to meet demands under all water year scenarios with existing supply sources.” In addition, SAWCo has future transfer and exchange projects planned to mutually benefit certain shareholders during an emergency, including OMUC. SAWCo has completed projects in 2022 to increase storage and capture all raw water released through the Frankish Tunnel (SAWCo 2020 UWMP, p. 5-7).

3.4 Documenting Normal Year Water Supply and Demand
OMUC has assumed in its 2020 UWMP that customer water demand and available water supply are equal during “normal” precipitation years. The normal year water supplies available to OMUC, as well as the normal year water demand projections are compared in Table 3-8, which are based on the City’s 2020 Water Use Target of 196 GPCD for potable water demands (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 7-9). OMUC has estimated 6427
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 41 that sufficient supply will be available during any normal year occurring between 2025 and 2045.

Table 3-8 OMUC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668
Demand 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 7-10 (Appendix A).

3.5 Documenting Dry Year Water Supply and Demand
The following assumptions are made in OMUC’s 2020 UWMP to estimate future water supplies and demands during a single dry year:
• The ratio of total water supplies (including potable and recycled water supplies) available to the City during a historical normal year in FY 19/20 (39,921 AF) and during a historical single dry year in FY 17/18 (43,346 AF) were used to estimate the City’s projected water demands during single dry years (p. 7-9). • Water losses have been included in the potable water demands as 7 percent of the annual demand.

OMUC has determined that the water demands during single dry years over the next 25 years will be met, as shown in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9 OMUC Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 57,058 63,534 68,847 79,989 79,989
Demand 57,058 63,534 68,847 79,989 79,989
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 7-10 (Appendix A).
6428
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 42 3.6 Documenting Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand
OMUC has projected that the City can meet water demands during future five consecutive year drought periods, as shown in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10 OMUC Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First
Year
Supply 56,080 62,445 67,667 78,618 78,618
Demand 56,080 62,445 67,667 78,618 78,618
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second
Year
Supply 56,248 62,632 67,870 78,853 78,853
Demand 56,248 62,632 67,870 78,853 78,853
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third
Year
Supply 59,493 66,246 71,786 83,403 83,403
Demand 59,493 66,246 71,786 83,403 83,403
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth
Year
Supply 54,268 60,428 65,481 76,078 76,078
Demand 54,268 60,428 65,481 76,078 76,078
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth
Year
Supply 47,436 52,820 57,237 66,500 66,500
Demand 47,436 52,820 57,237 66,500 66,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year
From OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 7-11, Table 7-4 (Appendix A).

3.7 Comparison of Available Water Supply and Demand
As shown in Table 3-8 - Table 3-10, the future water supplies available to OMUC are projected to meet the projected water demands for the service area. OMUC can purchase up to 9,915 AFY (8.9 mgd) of imported supply through WFA at Tier 1 rates.

Beyond that amount, OMUC could continue to purchase at Tier 2 rates up to the City’s capacity rights of 15.4 mgd [Table 3-5]). In FY 24/25, OMUC purchased about 5,348 AF from the WFA plant (Agua de Lejos WTP), which is well within their conveyance 6429
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Analysis 43 capacity of 15.4 mgd and within their rights of approximately 25 mgd. There is ample availability for OMUC to purchase additional imported water from the WFA that is within their rights to meet the needs of their service area.

In regard to future agricultural water needs, agricultural properties within the OMUC service area are expected to convert to urban land uses, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Plan. Many agricultural operations in the City are on private wells and/or use recycled water. As shown in Table 3-7, recycled water deliveries for agricultural irrigation are projected to decrease to zero in less than 20 years. In regard to future industrial water needs, industrial land uses (which may include some manufacturing uses) are the third most common type in the City (Table 3- 7) and they are planned by the City General Plan to increase (Table 2-3).

Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 show that OMUC projects water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry years in volumes sufficient to meet the demand of the service area over the next 20 years. Section 4 will describe the supply available to OMUC through rights held to Chino Basin groundwater that are greater than the amount currently extracted. OMUC can also bank water and pump more than their rights in the Chino Basin with payment of a replenishment fee.

Section 4 will discuss the City’s water rights considering this water supply and capacity analysis.
6430
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 44 SECTION 4 - GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS
SB 610 requires specific groundwater information to be included in the WSA if groundwater is a source of water for the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3, groundwater is one of the sources of supply for OMUC and therefore part of the water supply for the proposed Project.

Law
CWC Section 10910:
(f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment:
(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. (2)(A) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied.
(B) For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater in the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. (C) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as a highor medium- priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information regarding the following: (i) Whether the department has identified the basin as being subject to critical conditions of overdraft pursuant to Section 12924. (ii) If a groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan or has an approved alternative, a copy of that alternative or plan. 6431
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 45 (D) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as low- or very low priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the longterm overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied.

The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water 6432
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 46 demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by subparagraph D, paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.

4.1 Review of Urban Water Management Plan (CWC Section 10910(f)(1)) The 2020 UWMP prepared by AKM on behalf of OMUC was adopted by City Council Resolutions 2021-036 and 2021-037 on June 1, 2021 (located in Appendix A). The UWMP includes information relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed Project and is incorporated herein. Relevant information includes: 1) current and projected groundwater demands (Water Use Characterization) through year 2045; 2) a description of the Chino Groundwater Basin (Water Supply Characterization); 3) the reliability of the groundwater supply, projected groundwater supply and demand comparisons, and water shortage plans (Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment and Water Shortage Contingency Plan); and 4) water demand management efforts (Demand Management Measures).11

4.2 Groundwater Basin Descriptions (CWC Section 10910(f)(2)) The Chino Groundwater Basin is the major source of groundwater for OMUC. Although water supplied to OMUC from SAWCo may include a combination of groundwater from other basins (i.e., San Antonio Tunnel, Cucamonga Basin, and Six Basins), the amount is minimal, and the basins are described in the 2020 SAWCo UWMP (located in Appendix H).

Chino Groundwater Basin Description
The Chino Basin covers approximately 240 square miles in the upper Santa Ana River Watershed, and underlies parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. DWR identifies the Chino Basin as Basin No. 8-002.01, which is a sub-basin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin (Bulletin 118).12 It is estimated the Chino Basin 11 Words and phrases italicized in parentheses are in reference to chapters so titled in the 2020 UWMP. 12 DWR collects, summarizes, and evaluates groundwater data in the “Bulletin 118” series, which present the results of basin evaluations and defines the boundaries of California’s 515 alluvial groundwater basins. An update was provided in 2016. In Bulletin 118, DWR identifies each basin and sub-basin with a number code. 6433
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 47 has approximately 5 million AF of water in storage, and an estimated 1 million AF of additional unused storage capacity.13 While still considered a single basin for hydrologic purposes, the Chino Basin is divided into five management zones by the Santa Ana RWQCB based on similar hydrologic conditions (Figure 8). Geographically speaking, the City is located in the approximate center of the Chino Basin. DWR Bulletin 118 (2016 update, p. 1) describes the Chino Basin as follows:

The subbasin [Chino Basin] is bound on the northwest by the San Jose fault, on the north by the Cucamonga fault and impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains, and on the east by the Rialto-Colton fault. The basin is bound on the southeast by the Jurupa Mountains, Pedley Hills, La Sierra Hills, and the approximate location of the Santa Ana River. The Chino fault and impermeable rocks of the Chino Hills and Puente Hills bound the southwest side of the basin. In some areas, the basin boundary coincides with the Chino Basin (1978) groundwater adjudication boundary.

Remainder of page intentionally left blank
13 The 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report (May 15, 2020) indicates the estimated total volume of water in storage was 12.6 million AF in July 2018 (WEI 2020, p. 6-15). 6434
83 60
71 142
10 15
66 91
60 Chino-North
Chino-East
Chino-South
Prado Basin
San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.

San Bernardino Co.

Orange Co.
210
Los Angeles Co.

San Bernardino Co.

MZ-5
MZ-4
MZ-2
M
Z
-
1 MZ-3
H:\2025\25-0111\Task Order .02 Meredith\GIS\Pro\Pro.aprx Map created 25 Sep 2025 Source: SAWPA, 2016.

WSA for Meredith International Center Specific Plan
Figure 8 - Chino Basin Management Zones
0 2 4 6
Miles
LEGEND
OMUC Service Area
Project Site
Project Site
6435
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 49 The Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin and has been studied extensively by the court-appointed Chino Basin Watermaster (CBWM), with reports available at www.cbwm.org. The following is an excerpt that describes the Chino Basin geology from the Chino Basin Watermaster’s management plan called the “Optimum Basin Management Program” or “OBMP” (1999, p. 2-2):

Chino Basin was formed when eroded sediments from the San Gabriel Mountains, the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and the San Bernardino Mountains filled a structural depression…The bottom of the Basin – the effective base of the freshwater aquifer – consists of impermeable sedimentary and igneous rocks. The base of the aquifer is overlain by older alluvium of the Pleistocene period followed by younger alluvium of the Holocene period.

The younger alluvium varies in thickness from over 100 feet near the mountains to a just few feet, south of Interstate 10 and generally covers most of the north half of the Basin in undisturbed areas. The younger alluvium is not saturated and thus does not yield water directly to wells.

Water percolates readily in the younger alluvium and most of the large spreading basins are located in the younger alluvium.

The older alluvium varies in thickness from about 200 feet thick near the southwestern end of the Basin to over 1,100 feet thick southwest of Fontana, and averages about 500 feet throughout the Basin.

Legal Right to Pump from the Chino Basin
Water rights to the Chino Basin were adjudicated by the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino in 1978 (a copy of the Judgment and amendments thereto are provided in Appendix M). The court’s Judgment declared the Safe Yield of the Chino Basin at 140,000 AFY.14 Withdrawal in excess of Safe Yield is 14 Judgment (1978) defines Safe Yield as, “The long-term average annual quantity of groundwater (excluding replenishment or stored water but including return flow to the Basin from use of replenishment or stored water), which can be produced from the basin under cultural conditions of a particular year without causing an undesirable result.”
6436
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 50 termed Overdraft. The Chino Basin Watermaster may determine that the Operating Safe Yield (OSY) can be higher from year-to-year depending on factors including favorable precipitation and management efforts that maximize the beneficial use of the groundwater Basin.15 In July 2020, the court ordered that the safe yield be reduced by 3% and reset to 131,000 AFY for the period of July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2030.16 The Chino Basin Watermaster is comprised of three stakeholder groups (or “pools”):

Overlying Agricultural Pool Committee (representing dairymen, farmers, and the State of California); the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool Committee (representing businesses and industries); and the Appropriative Pool Committee (representing local cities, public water districts, and private water companies). The Chino Basin Watermaster carries out the provisions of the Judgment including monitoring of the Chino Basin and files an annual report on pumping and replenishment.

The City is a member of both the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool and the Appropriative Pool. The Judgment allocates a portion of the Safe Yield to the Overlying NonAgricultural Pool and a portion of the OSY to the Appropriative Pool. Pursuant to the Judgment, the City has appropriative rights to 20.742% of the OSY allocated to the Appropriative Pool (CBWM 2024, p. 10.1). The City has gained 53.338% of the Safe Yield assigned to the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool (CBWM 2024, p. 4.1). The assigned share of the Safe Yield and OSY change depending on the Safe Yield set by the court.

The Judgment allocates the Safe Yield of the Chino Basin according to the three pools as described above (Appendix M, Paragraph 13). The members of each pool are then enjoined from producing water from the Chino Basin in excess of such allocated 15 Judgment (1978) defines Operating Safe Yield (OSY) as, “The annual amount of groundwater which Watermaster shall determine, pursuant to criteria specified in Exhibit “I”, can be produced from Chino Basin by the Appropriative Pool parties free of replenishment obligation under the physical solution herein.” 16 The court previously reset the safe yield in 2017from its initial 140,000 AFY to 135,000 AFY for the period of 2010 to 2020.
6437
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 51 amount "except pursuant to the provisions of the Physical Solution" (Appendix M, Paragraph 13(a)-(c)).

The Physical Solution of the Judgment is described in broad terms by Paragraphs 39 through 57 of the Judgment. Paragraph 45 provides the Chino Basin Watermaster with the authority to levy and collect assessments for the purchase of water necessary to balance the production by any party in excess of that party's allocated share of Safe Yield of the Chino Basin. Paragraphs 49 and 50 then describe the sources of water which are authorized to function as sources of replenishment water and methods by which water can be replenished to the Chino Basin. Exhibit H, Paragraph 7, of the Judgment describes the way in which costs for replenishment water will spread among the members of the Appropriative Pool.

The afore-cited paragraphs of the Judgment evince a clear expectation that parties, including the City/OMUC, would produce water in excess of their adjudicated production rights. The injunction in Paragraph 13 of the Judgment should thus be interpreted to mean that parties are enjoined from producing water in excess of their adjudicated rights except to the extent that they will pay a replenishment assessment.

The ability to produce water from the Chino Basin is accordingly not a matter of availability, as contemplated and sanctioned by the Judgment for the reasons discussed above, but rather a matter of cost. Water produced in excess of production rights will cost more than water produced within a party's production rights. Thus, the quantity and reliability of groundwater supplies under the Judgment for purposes of this Assessment is a matter of cost of the water produced from the Chino Basin rather than limitations on production which may otherwise operate to reduce the sufficiency of the groundwater supply.

In addition to the water supplies described in Section 3, OMUC has rights to groundwater held in the Chino Basin as described below and in Table 4-1:
6438
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 52 • Appropriative Right. The City has appropriative rights to 20.742 percent of the OSY that is allocated to the Appropriative Pool. As of Production Year 2023- 24,
17 the OSY is 40,834 AF; therefore, the City’s assigned share is 8,469.8 AF (CBWM 2024, p. 20.1). To supplement the 2017 decrease in safe yield, the City currently receives an additional 1,866.8 AFY transferred from unproduced Agricultural Pool rights (“Safe Yield Reduction”) (CBWM 2024, p. 16.1). • Overlying Non-Agricultural Right. The City has purchased and has rights to

53.338 percent of the Safe Yield assigned to the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool. The Safe Yield is 7,350.3 AF and as of Production Year 2023-24, the City’s assigned share is 3,920.6 AF (CBWM 2024, p. 4.1).
• Land Use Conversions. The City gains rights to additional Chino Basin groundwater as a result of land use conversions from agricultural to nonagricultural uses in the Ontario Ranch area. This is expected to increase from development of Ontario Ranch; the total of which is adjusted annually by the Watermaster. As of Production Year 2023-24, the City received 6,531.5 AF from land use conversions (CBWM 2024, p. 15.1).
• Annual Early Transfers. Pursuant to the Peace Agreement,18 the Chino Basin Watermaster can approve an “Early Transfer” of water to the Appropriative Pool that is equal to the quantity of water not produced by the Overlying Agricultural Pool that is remaining after all land use conversions are satisfied. The Early Transfer Water is annually allocated among the Appropriative Pool members in 17 The Chino Basin Watermaster’s records are based on “Production Years,” which are the same time period as Fiscal Years. Where the data is taken from Watermaster’s annual report, we refer to the time period in Production Years. Currently, Production Year 2023/24 data is available from Watermaster. 18 In 2007, the parties to the Chino Basin Judgement approved the “Peace Agreement” which is a set of measures proposed by Chino Basin Watermaster to supplement the OBMP Implementation Plan. Focus for the measures were placed on achieving hydraulic control (reduction of groundwater discharge from the Chino North Management Zone to the Santa Ana River). To achieve hydraulic control, re-operation (controlled overdraft) of the groundwater basin is proposed. Strategically placed wells would be constructed in the basin and the groundwater would be pumped to the Desalter to improve the longterm reliability of the basin. 6439
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 53 accordance with their pro-rata share of the initial Safe Yield. For the City, this is

20.742 percent of the “early transfer” water that the Watermaster may transfer from the Overlying Agricultural Pool (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-10). The amount available for transfer changes from year to year but is projected to increase. In Production Year 2023-24, the City received 4,456.8 AF as its share of Early Transfer (CBWM 2024, p. 16.1).
• Groundwater Recharge Credits. The City is entitled to water rights due to groundwater recharge with stormwater and recycled water in the Chino Basin.

The credited amount is based on the volume recharged and therefore varies annually but is projected to increase over time. For example, in Production Years 2019-20 and 2020-21, no recharge was credited; however, in Production Year 2021-22, 6,400.7 AF of recycled water was credited and most to the City and included as part of the City’s local supplemental storage account. In Production Year 2023-24, 5,838.2 AF was credited. (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6- 11; CBWM 2024, p. 12.1; OMUC(c), 2023).
• Fontana Recycled Water Rights. The City has a long-term contract to purchase up to 3,000 AFY of recharged recycled water rights from the City of Fontana (a copy of which is in Appendix N). The City of Fontana does not operate a water system and the amount purchased by OMUC each year will vary. For example, in Production Years 19/20 and 20/21, no recharged water rights were purchased (OMUC 2020 UWMP p. 6-12; CBWM 2021, p. 12.1).

However, in Production Year 23/24, the City purchased 2,751 AF from City of Fontana (OMUC(e), 2025).
• Groundwater Storage Accounts. The City has rights to store water in the Chino Basin (Appropriative and Overlying Non-Agricultural) and has been increasing its various storage accounts in recent years. The City holds water in both local storage accounts (excess carryover accounts) and supplemental accounts. Excess carryover accounts hold un-pumped OSY groundwater rights 6440
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 54 and stormwater that has been recharged into the Chino Basin. Supplemental accounts hold both imported water and recycled water that has been recharged into the Chino Basin. As of June 30, 2024, the City has 136,940 AF (63,483.6 AF + 73,456.5 AF) in storage pursuant to Appropriative rights (CBWM, 2024).

Table 4-1 Ontario Groundwater Rights Summary
Right
Current
Watermaster Data
FY 2023-2024 (AF)
Future (AFY) Notes
Carryover Beginning
Balance 8,469.8 Varies Varies annually.

Assigned Share of OSY 8,469.8
(20.742% of OSY)
8,470
(20.742% of OSY)
OSY determined by
Watermaster.

Safe Yield Reduction 1,866.8 Varies
Part of New Ag Pool
Reallocation.

Land Use Conversions 6,531.5 16,602
Varies annually. Part of
New Ag Pool Reallocation.

Annual Early Transfer a
4,456.8

20.742% of Early
Transfer
Subject to change. Part of
New Ag Pool Reallocation.

Annual Production Right
for Appropriative Pool
Subtotal (AFY) 29,794.6 Varies
Annual Production Right
for Overlying NonAgricultural Pool (AFY) 1,066.3
At least 3,920.6
(53.338% of SY)
SAWCo (AFY) 484.9 At least 600
Entitlement. Volume per
share is subject to change.

Groundwater Storage
Accounts
63,483.6
(Excess Carry Over
Account)
Varies
(Excess Carry Over
Account) Dependent on annual
availability of un-pumped
OSY water, stormwater,
imported water, and
recharged recycled water.
73,456.5
(Local Supplemental
Account)
Varies
(Local Supplemental
Account)
Total Storage (AF) 136,940 ±85,000
Note: AF = acre-feet; AFY = acre-feet per year; OSY = operating safe yield; SY = safe yield.

Source: CBWM 2024.
6441
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 55 4.3. Recorded Use of Groundwater by City of Ontario (CWC Section 10910 (f)(3)) As of FY 24/25, 18,768 AF was produced from City wells (OMUC(e), 2025). The recorded groundwater production has generally decreased from 36,842 AFY in 2000, as shown in Chart 4-1.

Chart 4-1 - Annual OMUC Groundwater Production, FY 2000 - 2025, (AFY) (Sources: 2000-2009 from the 2012 Ontario Water Master Plan; 2010 from OMUC 2010 UWMP; 2011-2020 from OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-3; 2021 from CBWM 2021, p. 8.1; 2022 from CBWM 2022, p. 8.1; 2023 from OMUC(d), 2023; 2024 from CBWM 2024, p. 9.1, 2025 from OMUC(e) 2025)

4.4. Projected Use of Groundwater by the City of Ontario (CWC Section 10910(f)(4)) The proposed Project will receive water from a combination of the City's supply sources including groundwater wells, imported water from WFA, treated groundwater from CDA, and recycled water from IEUA.

Projected groundwater use by OMUC will continue as noted in Table 3-3. The use of groundwater will continue to be dependent upon the cost of extracting, treating, and transporting the water to customers. Groundwater from the Chino Basin will be utilized by OMUC either directly by pumping into its distribution system or by treating the 6442
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 56 groundwater (Wells 44 and 52) at the John Galvin Ion Exchange Plant and then pumping the treated groundwater into the City distribution system. The current and ultimate production capacity of OMUC wells is sufficient to meet current and ultimate demand (Table 3-4).

As shown in Table 4-1, the amount of water that OMUC expects to withdraw from the Chino Basin is well within appropriate right pursuant to the Chino Basin Adjudication of 1978 (Appendix M). In addition to its well production, OMUC will also purchase treated Chino Basin groundwater from CDA. OMUC has 1,500 AFY capacity rights in the Chino I Desalter and 7,033 AFY capacity rights in the Chino II Desalter. Projected use of groundwater via CDA is projected to remain at 8,533 AFY (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6- 6).

4.5. Sufficiency of Groundwater Basin (CWC Section 10910(f)(5)) The City’s legal right to pump water in an amount necessary to meet all demands as sanctioned and protected by the Judgment as discussed above, is buttressed by several programs and projects directed at ensuring the sufficiency of groundwater supplies from the Chino Basin, particularly during dry years. An adjudicated water right has perhaps the most substantial indicia of reliability of any water right that currently exists in California. An adjudicated right is based upon long-term studies whose purpose is to protect the long-term functionality of the water source. These rights are coordinated in an established and binding manner with all the other users of the Chino Basin and are overseen by Chino Basin Watermaster which has the authority to mandate and proscribe activities whose purpose is to protect the water source and maximize its long-term beneficial use.

All Chino Basin Watermaster processes are governed by Rules and Regulations and receive active oversight from the Court which, as noted above, retains continuing jurisdiction over the administration of the Judgment. Consequently, the sufficiency of the groundwater is not only directed by rigorous Chino Basin Watermaster management processes but validated and ensured by continuing Court oversight. 6443
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 57 The OBMP for the Chino Basin has guided the Chino Basin Watermaster’s activities since its adoption in 1998. Chino Basin Watermaster-led basin management activities to ensure the maximization of safe yield and OSY of the Chino Basin include objectives, projects, and programs identified in the Peace Agreement and the OBMP.

Progress is reported in annual reports, biennial, and triennial reports. The key programs include:
1) a comprehensive monitoring program.
2) a comprehensive recharge program.
3) development and implementation of a water supply plan for impaired areas of the Chino Basin.
4) development and implementation of a comprehensive groundwater management plan for Management Zone 1.
5) development and implementation of a regional supplemental water program. 6) development and implementation of cooperative programs with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region and other agencies to improve Basin management.
7) development and implementation of a salt management program. 8) development and implementation of a groundwater storage program; and 9) development and implementation of storage and recovery programs.

As stated, the referenced elements of the OBMP collectively comprise a comprehensive regimen directed to ensuring and maximizing the long-term beneficial use of water in the Chino Basin. In particular, and specific to the location of current and future groundwater production facilities upon which the City relies or will rely to provide water to meet water demands within its service area, OBMP Program Element No. 3, “Develop and Implement Water Supply Plan for the Impaired Areas of the Chino Basin” and Program Element No. 5, “Develop and Implement Regional Supplemental Water Program”, address the sufficiency of groundwater from the Chino Basin. The goals of Program Elements 3 and 5 are (2020 OBMP, p. 6):
6444
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 58 To maintain and enhance Safe Yield with a groundwater desalting program that is designed to replace declining agricultural groundwater pumping in the southern part of the basin with new pumping to meet increasing municipal water demands in the same area, to minimize groundwater outflow to the Santa River, and to increase Santa Ana River recharge into the basin.

To improve the regional conveyance and availability of imported water and recycled waters throughout the basin.

The achievements from the implementation of the 2000 OBMP for Elements 3 and 5 are summarized below (2020 OBMP, Appendix A, pp. 5 – 6).

Program Element 3 Develop and Implement Water Supply Plan for Impaired Areas (Groundwater Desalting): The objectives of this Program Element are to maintain and enhance the Safe Yield of the basin. The groundwater desalting program was designed to replace declining agricultural groundwater pumping in the southern part of the basin with new groundwater pumping to meet increasing municipal water demands in the same area. The new wells used in the groundwater desalting program were constructed in strategic locations to minimize groundwater outflow to the Santa Ana River and to increase the Santa Ana River recharge into the basin.

In 2000, the groundwater desalting program included a 6,000 AFY treatment plant and a series of wells constructed in the southern part of the Chino Basin near the Chino Airport. Under the OBMP, as of 2018, the desalting program has grown to two treatment plants and additional wells that in aggregate pump and treat about 30,000 AFY degraded groundwater, and the program will reach the OBMP objective of 40,000 AFY in 2019. The groundwater desalting program facilities are owned by the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA).

Program Element 5: Develop and Implement Regional Supplemental Water Program (Recycled Water Reuse): The objective of this Program Element is to improve the regional conveyance and availability of imported and recycled waters throughout the basin. Since 2000, the IEUA has constructed and operated a 6445
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 59 recycled water conveyance system throughout the basin enabling it to provide recycled water to its member agencies. Recycled water deliveries grew from about 3,400 AFY in 2000 to about 34,000 AFY in 2017. The recycled water provided by the IEUA has replaced a like amount of groundwater and imported water that would have been otherwise been used for non-potable purposes. Much of the post-2000 increase in supplemental water storage in the Chino Basin is attributable to the increased availability of recycled water. Recycled water is more reliable than imported water, and thus using it in lieu of imported water has improved the sustainability of the Chino Basin and water supply reliability.

Improvements in the regional conveyance and availability of imported water were not achieved.

As indicated in the foregoing OBMP text, the City overlies groundwater supplies in the southern part of the Chino Basin which must be pumped for purposes of meeting new demands, maintaining safe yield, and to protect water quality in the Santa Ana River.

As agricultural production in the southern part of the Chino Basin has declined, it is necessary for these reasons to increase production for municipal uses. This is being achieved through CDA’s Chino I and Chino II Desalters, of which the City has a contractual right to purchase 8,533 AFY pursuant to the 2001 “Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the Chino Basin Desalter Authority” and subsequent agreements. Thus, not only was increased Chino Basin water production by the City foreseen in the OBMP but sanctioned and encouraged for purposes of achieving OBMP objectives.

The sufficiency of the groundwater supply that is available to OMUC is assured due to the abundance of groundwater in the central and southern portion of the Chino Basin, OBMP objectives that prioritize and assure production from the southern Chino Basin, coupled with desalting and ion-exchange treatment facilities that enable the use of this abundant supply for municipal (potable) purposes. As indicated in the quoted text of the OBMP, southern basin production, where the City is partially located, is the linchpin of several critical OBMP objectives. Thus, the sufficiency of groundwater is 6446
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 60 heightened and prioritized by the necessity of continued pumping from the southern Chino Basin under the OBMP which is administered by the Chino Basin Watermaster and ultimately enforced by continuing court jurisdiction over the Judgment.

The other referenced OBMP Program Elements are collectively directed to ensuring the sufficiency of Chino Basin groundwater supplies, particularly during dry years, and comprehensively address water quality and quantity, thus maximizing beneficial use over the long-term. Sufficiency of groundwater from the Chino Basin is further assured for the following reasons:
• IEUA is a member agency of MWD, which provides imported water from the State Water Project for direct use by parties to the Judgment in the Chino Basin and for Chino Basin recharge purposes (when supplies are available). IEUA has also reviewed the sufficiency of supplies for its service territory that includes the City in connection with its 2020 UWMP.
• IEUA’s UWMP is consistent with, and reiterative of, OBMP projects and programs (see Section 4 of IEUA 2020 UWMP in Appendix E). IEUA anticipates increased limitations for imported water for direct and recharge use while noting reductions during dry years (due to increased reliance on groundwater from the Chino Basin) and in the higher amount otherwise required in the absence of OBMP projects and programs. The UWMP also analyzes the sufficiency of water supplies for single and multiple year drought scenarios and concludes the region is expected to meet 100 percent of its dry year demand under every scenario. Key assumptions included:
• Reliance on assurances provided by MWD in its 2020 UWMP that it could meet 100 percent of projected supplemental full-service water supply demands through 2040;
• Implementation of MWD’s Chino Basin DYY Storage Program consistent with the contractual shift obligations of the participating agencies of up to 33,000 AF in a twelve-month period; and
6447
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 61 • Sustain per capita water use reductions of 20 percent.

IEUA concluded in its 2020 UWMP that the projected available water supply will meet projected water demand due to diversified water supply and water conservation measures. Based on IEUA water supply projections, there are sufficient water supplies to meet normal year water demands, single dry year and multiple dry year demands (IEUA 2020 UWMP, p. 7-7).

CWC section 10631(j) provides that urban water suppliers that rely upon a wholesale agency for a source of water, such as IEUA, may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling UWMP informational requirements.

IEUA’s independent analysis of contemporary regional water conditions in conjunction with MWD’s most recent report, provide additional and reliable assurances concerning the sufficiency of imported water supplies that comprise a portion of overall Chino Basin supply sufficiency.

The City’s participation in the DYY Storage Program described in Section 3, along with future water storage and recovery projects will drought-proof the Chino Basin and all other appropriative pool members from imported water shortages. This program is consistent with OBMP Program Element No. 9, “Develop and Implement Storage and Recovery Program.” Benefits to the Chino Basin associated with this program include the construction of facilities to enhance imported water deliveries and the production of water from the Chino Basin. Further demonstrating the sufficiency of Chino Basin groundwater is MWD’s DYY program to use the Chino Basin for dry year supply purposes, thus underscoring that sufficient Chino Basin groundwater is available during dry years not only for local use by agencies such as the City but also in connection with MWD’s regional reliability programs.

The sufficiency of groundwater supplies available to OMUC is assured because of the OBMP programs overseen by the Chino Basin Watermaster and conducted under the auspices of continuing Court jurisdiction that specifically direct and assure the long6448 Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Groundwater Analysis 62 term production of water pursuant to the City’s legal rights to produce such water necessary to meet ultimate water demands.

Conclusion
Between 2010 and 2020, the City’s total annual groundwater production held relatively stable at roughly 20,000 AFY (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-3). FY 24/25 groundwater production was 18,768 AF. The City’s water production capacity meets water demands and is projected to increase to meet ultimate water demand. The current (FY 24/25) water supply utilized by the City totals approximately 32,959 AFY (potable) and 11,406.5 AFY (recycled water) (Table 3-2). Currently, the City’s water rights in the Chino Basin as recorded by the Chino Basin Watermaster total approximately 30,861 AF (Annual Production Rights for Non-Ag Pool plus Appropriative Pool), with an additional 136,940 AF in storage (Table 4-1). Although annual fluctuations will occur, the City’s rights are projected to increase over the next 20 years due to more land use conversions and credits from recharge.

The water supplies available to OMUC currently meet and exceed citywide water demands. Groundwater production by OMUC is currently less than their existing rights and within their production capacity. Regardless, OMUC has the means and right to exceed their groundwater allocation in the Chino Basin when required to meet demand pursuant to the Judgment. Further, OMUC has rights to water held in storage that would supply all City demands for more than two years. In addition to groundwater, OMUC can supply water to the Project purchased from the WFA that is within their existing entitlements and capacities.

Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
6449
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Primary Issue 63 SECTION 5 - PRIMARY ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT
The lead agency for a proposed project …shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses (CWC section 10911). The lead agency is expected to approve or disapprove the project based on several factors, including but not limited to the WSA.

Law
CWC Section 10910:
(g) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting.
(2) Prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, if the public water system intends to request an extension of time to prepare and adopt the assessment, the public water system shall meet with the city or county to request an extension of time, which shall not exceed 30 days, to prepare and adopt the assessment. (3) If the public water system fails to request an extension of time, or fails to submit the assessment notwithstanding the extension of time granted pursuant to paragraph (2), the city or county may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body of the public water system to comply with the requirements of this part relating to the submission of the water supply assessment.

CWC Section 10911:
(b) The city or county shall include the water assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision (a), in any 6450
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Primary Issue 64 environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (c) The city or county may include in any environmental document an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document provided pursuant to subdivision (b). The city or county shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the city or county determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the city or county shall include that determination in its findings for the project.

The lead agency is expected to review the WSA and decide whether additional water supply information is needed for its consideration of the proposed Project.

5.1 Findings
Whereas:

1. The City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) has been identified as the water supplier for the proposed Planning Area 3 of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan project (“Project”). The Project proposes adding a MixedUse Overlay across the 25-acre Planning Area to allow for up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses allowed by the existing land use designation of Urban Commercial.

2. A WSA was prepared for the Specific Plan dated September 2014 with an estimated potable water demand for PA 3 of 130 AFY; however, this WSA has been prepared pursuant to CWC section 10910(3) as a result of the increased water demands of the proposed Project and to reflect updated water consumption rates and water supply information from OMUC.

3. The City’s 2020 UWMP included projections of the water demand of the property according to the TOP Land Use Plan approved at the time, which this report estimates as 103 AFY of potable water and 40 AFY of recycled water for a total water demand of approximately 143 AFY (Table 2-4). 6451
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Primary Issue 65 4. The estimated potable water demand for the proposed Project is 250 AFY and the recycled water demand is approximately 10 AFY for a total water demand of approximately 260 AFY, which is an additional 117 AFY from that which was accounted for in the most recent UWMP (Table 2-5).

5. Because the water demand of the Project is more than the water demand according to the prior land use plans for the site, it can be assumed the Project was not fully accounted for in the 2020 UWMP dated July 2021 and adopted by the Ontario City Council by Resolution 2021-059 on June 15, 2021 (Appendix A).

6. The City will not receive a land use conversion credit to its water supply portfolio from the Chino Basin Watermaster because the Project is located outside of the Land Use Conversion Area 1 (see page 15.1 of the CBWM Assessment Package).

7. OMUC has an Annual Production Right of 29,794.6 AF currently in the Chino Groundwater Basin as a member of the Appropriative Pool, as well as groundwater storage accounts that total 136,940 AF (Table 4-1). The water supply production capacity from City wells is currently 62,269 AFY,19 which is projected to increase to 110,337 AFY to meet demand (Table 3-4 and 3-5).

OMUC produced 18,768 AF of groundwater in FY 24/25 (Table 3-2).

8. In addition to Chino Basin production rights, OMUC holds capacity rights to imported water from the WFA in the amount of approximately 28,000 AFY and shareholder entitlements to potable water from SAWCo in the amount of 600 AFY. OMUC also has capacity rights to potable water from the CDA in the amount of 8,533 AFY (Table 3-2 and 3-4). In FY 24/25, OMUC purchased 490 AF from SAWCo, 5,348 AF from WFA, and 8,353 AF from CDA (Table 3-2).

9. OMUC is entitled to the recycled water generated by IEUA from the City’s annual share of sewer flows. In FY 24/25, the City delivered 14,063 AF of 19 Assuming wells operate 24 hours per day for 365 days per year. 6452
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Primary Issue 66 wastewater to IEUA wastewater treatment plants, of which 11,406.5 AF was put to recycled water use by the City (Table 3-2).

10.Between FY 23/24 and FY 24/25, Citywide potable water demand decreased 2.4 percent while the number of potable water connections increased 4.3 percent.

Recycled water use increased 46 percent between FY 23/24 and FY 24/25 along with the number of recycled water connections from 444 to 598 (Table 2-2).

Ultimate potable and recycled water demands are projected to be 57,609 AFY and 16,059 AFY, respectively (Table 2-3).

11.The current production capacities are greater than needed to meet the average day demands under citywide buildout conditions. Additional wells are planned to supply the anticipated ultimate maximum day demand.

12.OMUC has forecasted excess water supplies will be available to meet citywide demand during single-dry and multiple dry water years over the next 20 years (Table 3-9 and Table 3-10).

13.Water demands for agricultural land uses in Old Model Colony are nearly zero, and water demands for industrial uses in Old Model Colony, which may include some manufacturing, are expected to increase.

14.Based on the evidence provided herein, the total projected potable and recycled water supplies available to the OMUC during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years over a 20-year projection will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project in addition to the water supplier’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
6453
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Primary Issue 67 SECTION 6 - REFERENCES
AKM 2011 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.

April 2011.

AKM 2020 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario 2020 Water Master Plan Update. June 2020.

AKM 2024 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario Demand Factor Technical Memorandum (TM). December 2024.

CBWM 2021 Chino Basin Watermaster, Approved 2021/2022 Assessment Package (Production Year 2020/2021), Nov. 18, 2021.

CBWM 2022 Chino Basin Watermaster, Approved 2022/2023 Assessment Package (Production Year 2021/2022), Nov. 17, 2022.

CBWM 2023 Chino Basin Watermaster, Approved 2023/2024 Assessment Package (Production Year 2022/2023), Nov. 16, 2023.

CBWM 2024 Chino Basin Watermaster, Approved 2024/2025 Assessment Package (Production Year 2023/2024), November 21, 2024.

CBWM 47th
Annual Report Chino Basin Watermaster, 47th Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

CDA 2020 Stetson Engineers, Inc. Chino Basin Desalter Authority 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. (Appendix G)
DWR 2003
California Department of Water Resources, Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use planning. October 8, 2003.

DWR Bulletin
118
Department of Water Resources. 8-002.01 Upper Santa Ana Valley – Chino Bulletin 118 Basin Boundaries. Dated March 5, 2018.

DYY 2014
Amendment No. 8 to Groundwater Storage Program Funding Agreement No. 49960 By and Among The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Chino Basin Watermaster. September 17, 2014. (Appendix L)
DYY Call Letter
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Office of the General Manager. Notification of Intent to Halt Deliveries in the Chino Basin Conjunctive Use Program (CUP) and Call for Stored Water, July 22, 2025. (Appendix O).

Fontana 2008
Agreement by and between the City of Ontario and the City of Fontana regarding transfer of right of first purchase of recharged reclaimed water. Dated Jan. 15, 2008. (Appendix N)
IEUA 2016
IRWP
Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Integrated Water Resources Plan: Water Supply & Climate Change Impacts 2015-2040. Dated 2016. (Located in Appendix B to the IEUA 2020 UWMP.)
IEUA/WFA 2015 Arcadis. Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Water Facilities Authority 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Final. June 2016. (Appendix E)
IEUA 2020 Kennedy Jenks. Inland Empire Utilities Agency 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021 (Appendix E)
6454
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company References
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 68 IEUA Resolution
No. 2014-12-1
Purchase Order for System Water to be Provided by The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Purchaser: Inland Empire Utilities Agency) and IEUA Resolution No. 2014-12-1. Effective January 1, 2015. (Appendix I) IEUA Resolution
No. 2024-12-4
Reaffirming the Ability to Purchase Imported Water within the IEUA Service Area.

December 18, 2024.

JCSD 2014
Amendment Number 1 to Agreement by and between City of Ontario and Jurupa Community Services District Establishing an Operational Plan for Metropolitan Water District/Chino Basin Groundwater Storage Program, Providing for Water Supply to Ontario’s New Model Colony and Interconnection to Increase Water Supply Reliability. November 21, 2014. (Appendix L)
Judgment
Judgment, Chino Basin Municipal Water District v. City of Chino, et al., San Bernardino Ct. No. 164327 (filed Jan. 30, 1978). Includes amendments thereto. (Appendix M)
MWD The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. (Appendix D)
OBMP 1999 Wildermuth Environmental, Optimum Basin Management Program Phase I report prepared for Chino Basin Watermaster. August 19, 1999.

OBMP 2020 Wildermuth Environmental, 2020 Optimum Basin Management Program Update Report, January 2020.

OMUC 2020
UWMP
Stetson Engineers, City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (Appendix A)
OMUC(a)
Ontario Municipal Utility Company. Personal communication with Christopher Quach, P.E., Senior Associate Engineer, information from “FY 20/21 Production Spreadsheet”. May 2, 2022.

OMUC(b)
Ontario Municipal Utility Company. Personal communication with Christopher Quach, P.E., Senior Associate Engineer, information from “FY 20/21 IEUA RW Reconciliation Spreadsheet”. May 2, 2022.

OMUC(c) Ontario Municipal Utility Company. Personal communication with Alexis Mascarinas, Associate Engineer, September 11, 2023.

OMUC(d)
Ontario Municipal Utility Company. FY 2022-23 Exhibit for Recycled Water Reconciliation from IEUA from Alexis Mascarinas, Associate Engineer. September 11, 2023.

OMUC(e)
Ontario Municipal Utility Company. FY 2023-23 Exhibit for Recycled Water Reconciliation from IEUA from Alexis Mascarinas, Associate Engineer. October 10, 2024.

OMUC(e) 2025 Ontario Municipal Utility Company. Personal communication with Alexis Mascarinas, P.E., Associate Engineer, September 18, 2025.

OMUC 2023
Ontario Municipal Utility Company. Personal communication with Alexis Mascarinas, EIT, Associate Engineer, information from “OMUC 2022 Internal Billing System Data and internal IEUA recycled water reconciliation document”. March 15, 2023.

OMUC 2024 Ontario Municipal Utility Company. Personal communication with Alexis Mascarinas, P.E., Associate Engineer, October 10, 2024.

Ord. 2689 Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 8C: Recycled Water Use, effective Jun. 17, 1999.

Ord. 3027 Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 8A: Water Conservation Plan, effective Oct. 1, 2015.
6455
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company References
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 69 Ord. 99-07-02 Ordinance No. 99-07-02 Ordinance of the Water Facilities Authority-JPA Repealing Ordinance 96-09-01. (Appendix K)
Project KTGY, Brickstone Companies, Density Study, Overall Site Plan A1-0, March 10, 2025.

SAWCO 2021 Water Systems Consulting. San Antonio Water Company 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. September 2021. (Appendix H)
SP
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, Section 5: Development Standards, December 17, 2019. (Available at
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/governing-documents/specific-plans) UWJ
Urban Water Journal, 21:4, 521-537. Understanding residential water demand:
insights from a survey in a Mediterranean city. S. Costa, I. Meireles & V. Sousa (2024).

WEBB 2004 Albert A. Webb Associates, Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the New Model Colony. October 27, 2004.

WEBB 2014 Albert A. Webb Associates, Water Supply Assessment for the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment. September 18, 2014.

WEI 2020 Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report prepared for the Chino Basin Watermaster. May 15, 2020.

WFA 1985
Installment Purchase Agreement Relating to Water Facilities Authority Water Treatment Plant by and between Water Facilities Authority, as Seller and City of Ontario, as Purchaser. Dated as of October 1, 1985. (Appendix J) WFA 2020 Stetson Engineers. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Water Facilities Authority. June 2021 (Appendix F)
6456
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Water Supply Assessment for PA 3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 70 SECTION 7 - SPREADSHEETS
6457
Water Supply Assessment Project Area Accounted for in the 2020 UWMP Spreadsheet 1 Meredith Mixed
Use Area Land Use(1) Area (acres)
Maximum
Overnight
Lodging (rooms)
Maximum
Industrial /
Commercial Area
(SQ FT) (3)
Corresponding General Plan (TOP) Land
Use
General Plan Max
Density or
Intensity
Ontario Indoor
(Potable Water)
Demand Factor
(GPD/room) or
(gpd (TSF)
Ontario Outdoor
(Recycled Water)
Demand Factor
(GPD/AC)
Potable Water
Demand (GPD)
Potable Water
Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water
Demand (GPD)
Recycled Water
Demand (AFY)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
400 -
Hospitality

1.00 FAR 120 1,400 48,000 53.8 35,420 39.7 93.4
- 360,000
Commercial (General, Neighborhood)

0.30 FAR 122 0 43,920 49.2 0 0.0 49.2
400 25.30 360,000 - - - - 91,920.0 103.0 35,420.0 39.7 142.6 Planning Area 3
Future Land Use Map, Appendix E of 2020 UWMP (1) Current Water Demand Factors for Areas Where Recycled Water is Available(2) Potable and Recycled Water Demands (GPD and AFY)

4. This Assessment assumes each room is 300 square feet. Since the maximum non-residential square footage is 480,000 and it includes the hotel rooms, the remaining non-residential without the hotel rooms would be (480,000 - (400*300)) = 360,000 sq. ft. w/RW = with recycled water; UWMP = Urban Water Management Plan; WMP = Water Master Plan; TOP = The Ontario Plan; DU = dwelling unit; AC = acre; gpd = gallons per day; AFY = acre-feet per year.

1. Sources: Future Land Use Map Figure 2-5, Table 2-2 Future Study Area Land Uses.

2. Sources for Unit Water Demand Factors are City of Ontario Demand Factor Technical Memorandum prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers, December 2024. Because the recycled water demand factor for the Hospitality land use is greater than the factor for Commercial land use, the higher value of 1400 gpd/ac for Hospitality is used herein.

3. Overnight lodging rooms are included in the non-residential square footage (p. 2-4 of the December 17, 2019 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan).

Total
Urban Commercial 25.30
H:\2025\25-0111\Task Order .02 Meredith\Calculations\PD2_25-0111.02 Calculations 6458 Water Supply Assessment Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment - Planning Area 3 Spreadsheet 2 Proposed Parcel Proposed Land Use Proposed Area (acres) Proposed Maximum Dwelling Units (DU)
Proposed Maximum NonResidential Square
Footage (SF)
Proposed Maximum
Density (DU/ac)
Proposed Maximum
Intensity
(FAR)
Corresponding General
Plan Land Use (3) General Plan Max Density
or Intensity (3)
Ontario Indoor (Potable
Water) Demand Factor
(GPD/1000 SF, GPD/DU, or
GPD/ac)(5)
Ontario Outdoor (Recycled
Water) Demand Factor
(GPD/ac)
Minimum 10% Landscape
Coverage for Urban
Commercial (acres)
Minimum 15% Landscape
Coverage for Urban
Residential (acres)
Potable Water Demand
(GPD)
Potable Water Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water Demand
(GPD)
Recycled Water Demand
(AFY)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
A Mixed Use Overlay with
Commercial 3.64 0 50,000 - 0.55 MU-Meredith 125 du/ac and 3.0 FAR 122 1,200 - - 6,100 6.83 4,368 4.89 11.73 B
(7) Mixed Use Overlay with High
Density Residential

3.73 349 0 94 - MU-Meredith 125 du/ac and 3.0 FAR 155 950 - 0.56 54,095 60.59 532 0.60 61.19 C Mixed Use Overlay with High
Density Residential

3.34 330 0 99 - MU-Meredith 125 du/ac and 3.0 FAR 155 950 - 0.50 51,150 57.30 476 0.53 57.83 D Mixed Use Overlay with High
Density Residential

3.77 353 0 94 - MU-Meredith 125 du/ac and 3.0 FAR 155 950 - 0.57 54,715 61.29 537 0.60 61.89 E Mixed Use Overlay with Open
Space (Central Park)

0.75 0 0 - - MU-Meredith 125 du/ac and 3.0 FAR 100 2,500 - - 75 0.08 1,875 2.10 2.18 F Mixed Use Overlay with High
Density Residential

3.91 368 0 94 - MU-Meredith 125 du/ac and 3.0 FAR 155 950 - 0.59 57,040 63.89 557 0.62 64.52 G Mixed Use Overlay with CityOwned Parking Lot

4.23 0 0 - - MU-Meredith 125 du/ac and 3.0 FAR - 700 0.423 - 0 0.00 296 0.33 0.33 H
Mixed Use Overlay with
Emergency Vehicle Access
with Jogging Path 1.93 0 0 - - MU-Meredith 125 du/ac and 3.0 FAR - 700 0.193 - 0 0.00 135 0.15 0.15 Total 25.3 1,400 50,000 55.3 - - - - - - - 223,175.00 249.99 8,776.08 9.83 259.82 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment - Planning Area 3 Project (1) Current Water Demand Factors for Areas Where Recycled Water is Available(2) Potable and Recycled Water Demands (GPD and AFY)(8)

4. Parcels G and H are assumed to have some minimal landscape irrigation needs; therefore the smallest unit demand factor for recycled (irrigation) water was chosen. No potable water demand is expected in these parcels. w/RW = with recycled water; UWMP = Urban Water Management Plan; WMP = Water Master Plan; TOP = The Ontario Plan; DU = dwelling unit; AC = acre; gpd = gallons per day; AFY = acre-feet per year.

3. According to the Adopted August 16, 2022 TOP Land Use Designations Summary Table (Table LU-02), "Mixed Use - Meredith (MU-Meredith) is "envisioned as amixture of mid-rise buildings, regional-serving retail and office centers, and stand alone high density residential projects." With a residential density of 14.0 to 125.0 du/acre and 3.0FAR for office and retail uses.

1. Source: OMUC email dated Septmeber 18, 2025.

2. Sources for Unit Water Demand Factors are City of Ontario Demand Factor Technical Memorandum prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers, December 2024. "For areas with recycled water available, all future outdoor water use is recycled water and indoor water use is potable water" (p. 4-1).

8. According to OMUC, the City's forthcoming Water Master Plan update anticipates 274 AF of total water usage in the Project area, consisting of 243 AF potable water and 31 AF recycled water.

7. By direction of the City, this assessment evaluates a maximum of 1400 units; therefore, 19 additional units were randomly added to Parcel B.

6. Refer to the Development Standards Section of the Project's Specific Plan, pages 5-10 (Minimum Landscape Coverage for Urban Commercial interior lots) and 5-14 (Minimum Landscape Coverage for Urban Residential). (https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/governing-documents/specific-plans)

5. The duty factor of 155 gpd/du is a highly conservative value due to the densities proposed being significantly higher than the highest density used to generate the duty factors.

Adjustments to Recycled Water Demand from the
Meredith Specific Plan Development Standards Section(6) H:\2025\25-0111\Task Order .02 Meredith\Calculations\PD2_25-0111.02 Calculations 6459 6460
W.O.: 2025-0111.01

WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY
FOR PLANNING AREA 3 OF MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN NOVEMBER 4, 2025
6461
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1

1.2 Purpose ____________________________________________________________________ 1

1.3 Project Description and Water Demand _________________________________________ 2

1.4 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply __________________________________________ 3 20-Year Water Supply Availability _____________________________________________________3 Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis (Plan) _____________________________________4 Supply Reduction for Specific Water Use Sector________________________________________5 Amount of Water That Can Be Reasonably Relied Upon from Specific Supply Project(s) _____5

1.5 Substantial Evidence of Verification of Sufficient Water Supply_____________________ 5

1.6 Impacts to Agricultural and Industrial Users _____________________________________ 6

1.7 Priority to Proposed Lower Income Housing Projects _____________________________ 7

1.8 Verification That Relies on Groundwater_________________________________________ 8

1.9 Finding of Sufficient Water Supply______________________________________________ 8 References _____________________________________________________________________ 10 6462
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 1 SB 221 Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply

1.1 Introduction
Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) was enacted in 2001 and became effective as of January 1, 2002. SB 221 establishes the relationship between the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for a project pursuant to Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), and the project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. SB 221 amends Section 11010 of the Business and Professional Code, and amends Section 65867.5 to add Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7 to the California Government Code (Gov. Code).

Pursuant to Gov. Code Section 66473.7, the public water supplier must provide a written verification of sufficient water supply (WV) prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of the subdivision or similar type of improvement.

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the WV is to provide the legislative body of a city, county, or the designated advisory agency with written verification from the applicable public water supplier that a sufficient water supply is available, or, in addition, a specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion of the project.

The WV shall be supported by substantial evidence, which may include relevant portions of an applicable Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) or a WSA prepared per SB 610. Many of the requirements for SB 610 compliance will satisfy the requirements of SB 221. There are four factors to be considered in a WV which are not required in a WSA as specified by Gov. Code Section 66473.7. Those four factors, which are specifically addressed in this WV are as follows:
6463
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 2 1. Historical water supplies for at least 20 years;

2. Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis prepared for the water supplier’s UWMP;

3. Supply reduction for “specific water use sector” per water supplier’s resolution, ordinance, or contract; and

4. Amount of water that can be reasonably relied upon from specific supply projects, subject to the determinations outlined in Government Code Section 66473.7.

1.3 Project Description and Water Demand
This WV has been prepared in conjunction with a WSA for the proposed Planning Area 3 of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan (“Project”). The Project is located within the City of Ontario’s Old Model Colony region. The Project site is currently vacant but has a land use designation of Urban Commercial according to the approved Specific Plan.

The Project proposes to add a Mixed-Use Overlay over Planning Area 3 of the existing Specific Plan to allow for up to 1,400 dwelling units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses (WSA, p. 3). Refer to WSA Figure 3 – Land Use Plan used for 2020 UWMP Projections, Figure 4 – Specific Plan used for 2020 UWMP Projections, and Figure 5 – Proposed Land Use Plan.

The City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC)1 is the water supplier for the Project and for the City. OMUC commissioned a WSA and WV from Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) on September 2, 2025. The purpose of preparing this WV for the Project is to preclude the need for individual “Written Verification” letters being prepared for the individual residential development projects that will qualify for a WV within the Project area. Because the Project has more than 500 units, which is the criteria set in 1 OMUC is a department of the City of Ontario and the terms may be used interchangeably herein. 6464
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 3 Gov. Code Section 66473.7(a), a WV per SB 221 can be prepared concurrently with the WSA.

The key question for this WV to address per SB 221 is whether the water supplier is able to provide a sufficient water supply based upon an analysis as to whether water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision(s), in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture and industrial uses (DWR 2003).

1.4 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply
A detailed evaluation of OMUC’s water supply was performed under the attached WSA for the Project. Attached to the WSA is the adopted City of Ontario 2020 UWMP which addresses normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions over the 20-year period from 2020 through 2040 (WSA Appendix A and Appendix B). The 2020 UWMP determined that sufficient water supply exists to support the demands of the OMUC service area. The attached WSA determined that the estimated total water demand of the Project (potable plus recycled water demand) is approximately 117 acre-feet per year (AFY) more water than the water demand for the same site that was assumed in the 2020 UWMP; therefore, the water demand for the Project was not fully accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. However, through evaluation of the City’s water supply capacities, rights/entitlements, and water use trends, the WSA concludes that sufficient water supply exists to support the additional demands of the Project. 20-Year Water Supply Availability
OMUC has been able to meet all water demands with its available water supplies for the past 20 years. Table 3-2 of the attached WSA shows the recorded water supplies from 2000-2025 that were utilized to meet the demand within OMUC’s service area. A supply source that is available to OMUC but is not included in Table 3-2 are the groundwater storage accounts to which OMUC has rights to store water in the Chino Basin. As of FY 6465
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 4 23/24, the City has approximately 136,940 AF held in groundwater storage (WSA Table 4-1).2
Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis (Plan)
The urban water shortage contingency analysis (aka Water Shortage Contingency Plan [WSCP]) prepared for the most recent UWMP is contained within Chapter 8 of Ontario’s 2020 UWMP (Appendix A). The WSCP is based on the City’s Water Conservation Plan located in Appendix N of the 2020 UWMP and codified in Chapter 8A of the City Municipal Code is an update of the City’s Ordinance No. 3027 (adopted September 1, 2015). The WSCP includes stages of action, prohibitions on end uses, penalties and enforcement measures, determination of water shortage reductions, revenue and expenditure impacts, and catastrophic supply interruption.

The 2020 WSCP and Water Conservation Plan are consistent with the stringent emergency conservation regulations mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board in response to statewide drought conditions.3 The purpose of the ordinance and the Water Conservation Plan are to minimize the potential for a water shortage through the practice of water conservation, and to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on the water customers of the City. In addition, it is the intent of the ordinance and the Water Conservation Plan to adopt provisions that will significantly reduce the inefficient consumption of water, thereby extending the available water resources necessary for domestic, sanitation, and fire protection of the community to the greatest extent possible (Municipal Code Sec. 6-8.21).

The 2020 WSCP and Water Conservation Plan describe the methods to respond to a water supply shortage of more than 50 percent. Six stages of conservation are described (Stages 1-6) with increasing conservation requirements and penalties depending on the 2 Data from fiscal year ending 23/24 is the most recent data available from the Chino Basin Watermaster. 3 Per U.S Drought Monitor, the area is in a severe drought as of March 27, 2025. 6466
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 5 severity of the shortage (UWMP, p. 8-8). As of October 2025, the City is in the Voluntary Conservation Stage where customers are encouraged to voluntarily conserve water.4 Supply Reduction for Specific Water Use Sector
OMUC’s 2020 WSCP and Water Conservation Plan establish voluntary and mandatory water conservation requirements which shall take effect upon implementation. During a water shortage crisis, certain mandatory restrictions on water use will be imposed on the public. The voluntary water use prohibitions apply at all times. Stage 1 to 6 prohibitions will be progressively implemented according to the severity of the water crisis (OMUC 2020 UWMP, Appendix N). The restrictions and prohibitions on end users that correspond to Stages 1 to 6 are outlined in Table 8-2 of the City’s 2020 UWMP (p. 8-3).

OMUC does not have a water supply allocation plan. No single water use sector is identified in the 2020 WSCP or Water Conservation Plan for supply reductions in the event of a water shortage crisis.

Amount of Water That Can Be Reasonably Relied Upon from Specific Supply Project(s)
This requirement of the WV pertains to projected water supplies that the water supplier can reasonably rely on that are not currently available to the public water system. All projected water supplies are currently available to OMUC but may not be fully utilized to date. Descriptions of the supplies available to OMUC are in Section 3 of the attached WSA.

1.5 Substantial Evidence of Verification of Sufficient Water Supply This WV does not rely on projected water supplies that are not currently available to OMUC. The water supplies that OMUC will continue to rely on are projected to be sufficient to meet current and future needs are described in Section 3 of the attached WSA. Because projected supply sources are currently available to OMUC, supporting information pursuant to Gov. Code section 66473.7 is not provided herein. This would 4 City of Ontario Drought Updates Website: https://www.ontarioca.gov/ontariowaterwise/droughtupdates 6467
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 6 include written contracts or other proof of valid rights to supplies under development, an adopted capital outlay program to finance delivery of supplies under development, permits to construct supply infrastructure for supplies under development, and regulatory approvals for conveyance or delivery of supplies under development. Copies of the rights, contracts, and other entitlements to water supplies available to OMUC are provided in the appendices to the attached WSA.

1.6 Impacts to Agricultural and Industrial Users
Gov. Code section 66473.7 requires this WV to contain a description of reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed subdivision on the availability of water resources for agricultural and industrial uses within the water supplier’s service area that are not currently receiving water from the water supplier but are utilizing the same sources of water.

Water used by industrial and agricultural users that is not provided to them by OMUC would come from their private wells to access the Chino Groundwater Basin, which OMUC also utilizes. Adverse impacts to such entities because of the Project is not anticipated because the Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin with a court appointed Watermaster who monitors and enforces the provisions of the 1978 Judgment and subsequent orders of the court. As discussed in Section 4 of the attached WSA, the Watermaster develops and implements an Optimum Basin Management Program to sustainably manage the basin for all users.

There is very little agricultural use left in the Old Model Colony, which is mostly built out and consists of existing residential, commercial, and industrial developments. As planned for by the City and discussed in the attached WSA, existing agricultural properties are projected to convert to non-agricultural activities (WSA Figures 6 and 7).

Table 3-7 of the attached WSA also forecasts declines in recycled water use by agriculture, reaching zero use by 2040. As of 2020, there are 20 agricultural recycled water irrigation sites in the City (2020 Annual Report to DDW). The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the shared water supply source because 6468
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 7 the 2020 UWMP has incorporated planned future declines in agricultural use in the water demand projections, which includes declines in private wells and conversion to OMUC supplies.

In regard to industrial uses, they are the third most common land use type in the City (after Agricultural Multi-Use at 21.2 percent, and Residential at 19.3 percent), making up approximately 5,498 acres or 17.3 percent of the total area (AKM 2020, p. 2-5). The ultimate citywide land use plan on which the current water master plan and UWMP are based (The Ontario Plan 2010), plans for an increase of business parks and industrial uses to cover about 7,818 acres or 24.6 percent at buildout (AKM 2020, p. 2-7). Further, the 2020 UWMP citywide projections in the attached WSA show potable water use by industrial uses increasing from 2,078 AFY in 2020 (WSA Table 2-2) to 3,728 AFY in 2040 (WSA Table 2-3) and industrial use of recycled water is projected to increase from 986 AFY in 2020 to 3,680 AFY in 2045 (WSA Table 3-7). As of 2020, there are three industrial recycled water sites in the City (2020 Annual Report to DDW). The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the shared water supply source because the 2020 UWMP water demand projections have accounted for future increases in potable and recycled water use by industrial uses, in addition to other uses.

For each acre of qualifying agricultural land within the Chino Basin that converts to urban use, the initial Safe Yield of the appropriative pool member serving the converted land is increased by 2 acre-feet. In addition, properties that were on private wells are expected to connect to OMUC infrastructure. Therefore, OMUC’s share of the Safe Yield will continue to increase as Ontario Ranch develops, concurrent with a decline in private wells in the Chino Basin, including wells within the Project that will be decommissioned.

1.7 Priority to Proposed Lower Income Housing Projects
Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65589.7, the determinations made by the WV shall be consistent with the obligation of a public water system to grant a priority for the provision of available and future water resources or services to proposed housing developments 6469
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 8 that help meet the City’s (or County’s) share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for lower income households.

The 2020 UWMP states that the City has considered the demographic factors of severely low-income earners, single-parent families, large families, seniors, people with disabilities, and homeless persons “which can affect the City’s water management planning” (p. 3-7). Further, the 2020 UWMP indicates that lower income residential demands are included in water use projections (ibid, p. 4-12).

If the Project or a portion thereof helps meet the City’s share of the RHNA for lower income households, the City is obligated to grant priority to supply water thereto.

1.8 Verification That Relies on Groundwater
Law
Gov. Code Sec. 66473.7 (h)
Where a water supply for a proposed subdivision includes groundwater, the public water system serving the proposed subdivision shall evaluate, based on substantial evidence, the extent to which it or the landowner has the right to extract the additional groundwater needed to supply the proposed subdivision.

Nothing in this subdivision is intended to modify state law with regard to groundwater rights.

Section 4 of the attached WSA describes OMUC’s legal right to extract groundwater from the Chino Basin.

1.9 Finding of Sufficient Water Supply
The estimated potable water demand for the proposed Project is 246 AFY and the recycled water demand is 28 AFY for a total water demand of approximately 274 AFY.

As depicted in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 of the attached WSA, the City’s current and ultimate total water supply are sufficient to meet the existing and anticipated water 6470
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 9 demands from its service area including the proposed Project’s potable and recycled water demands. Based on the analysis herein and the attached WSA, OMUC finds that “sufficient water supply” is available to support the projected subdivisions within the Project as they are currently described herein.
6471
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for PA3 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan 10 References
AKM 2024 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario Demand Factor Technical Memorandum (TM).

December 2024.

AKM 2020 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario 2020 Water Master Plan Update. June 2020. (WSA Appendix B)
Judgment Judgment, Chino Basin Municipal Water District v. City of Chino, et al., San Bernardino Ct. No. 164327 (filed Jan. 30, 1978). Includes amendments thereto. (WSA Appendix M)
OMUC Ontario Municipal Utilities Company. Personal communication with Alexis, Mascarinas, Associate Engineer. October 10, 2025
Project KTGY, Brickstone Companies, Density Study, Overall Site Plan A1-0, March 10, 2025.

UWMP Stetson Engineers. City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. (WSA Appendix A)
WSA Albert A. Webb Associates. Water Supply Assessment for Planning Area 3 of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan. Draft October 2025. 6472
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PSPA25-005, AN AMENDMENT TO

THE MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN TO
ESTABLISH A MIXED-USE OVERLAY DISTRICT (PLANNING AREA 3A) ON 25.38 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA 3 (URBAN

COMMERCIAL) LAND USE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST

CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND INLAND EMPIRE
BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —
APNS: 0110-321-74, 0110-321-75, 0110-321-76, 0110-321-29, AND 0110-321-77.

WHEREAS, CITY OF ONTARIO (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA25-005, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 25.38 acres of land generally located on the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard, within the Urban Commercial land use district of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, and is currently vacant; and
WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Project site are within the Planning Area 4 (Urban Residential) land use district of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan and are improved with residential development. The properties to the east are within the High Intensity Office (OH) zoning district and are developed with a gasoline station and is currently under construction for a dual hotel (Hyatt Hotel). Additionally, the Project site is bounded by Interstate 10 to the south, and a flood control channel and Planning Area 2 (Urban Commercial) of the Specific Plan to the west; and WHEREAS, the Project consists of an Amendment to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan to establish a Mixed-Use Overlay district (Planning Area 3A) on

25.38 acres of land including associated development standards, and modifications to the land use map, land use table, updated exhibits, and text changes to reflect the proposed Overlay; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Mixed-Use Overlay (Planning Area 3A) over the Planning Area 3 (Urban Commercial) land use district that would include up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses. The intent of the Project is to create parameters for future development that are distinguished and high quality, providing opportunities for high-end dining, retail, and resort-style residential living; and
WHEREAS, the amendment will revise several sections of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan including Section 2 – Development Plan and Section 5 – Development Standards; and
6473
WHEREAS, there is no development plan associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. All future development within the Specific Plan will require a separate review process in compliance with the Ontario Development Code and the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2014051020), certified by City Council on April 7, 2015, in conjunction with File Nos. PGPA13-005 and PSPA14-003. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this project were thoroughly analyzed in the EIR Addendum, which concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an EIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 6474
(hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the EIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC25-056, recommending the City Council adopt the EIR Addendum, and voting to issue Resolution No. PC25-057, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on June 16, 2026, the City Council issued a Resolution adopting the EIR Addendum, finding that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts and applying all previously adopted mitigation measures to the Project, which were incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

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

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

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses 6475
and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 3: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan, in that it contributes toward the legislative framework for the implementation of The Ontario Plan, guiding growth and development mixed-use land use district, and achieving optimum results from the City's physical, economic, environmental, and human resources.
(2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed standards and guidelines within the Mixed-Use Overlay land use district were established with the intent to safeguard and further the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and general welfare, and to ensure that the purposes of The Ontario Plan and Meredith International Centre Specific Plan are maintained. (3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and the conditions under which it will be implemented and maintained, is consistent with the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan and the design criteria of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, and, therefore, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. (4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment has been thoroughly vetted by City agencies and departments, which have established that the affected properties are physically suitable for the proposed signage in terms of parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities.
6476
SECTION 4: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described amendment to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, attached hereto as "Attachment A," subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports, and incorporated herein by this reference.

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

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2026. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
6477

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held June 16, 2026, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2026- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held June 16, 2026. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
6478
ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PSPA25-005
Amendment to the Meredith International Centre
Specific Plan
6479
ATTACHMENT B:

File No. PSPA25-005
Departmental Conditions of Approval
6480
Page iv April 7, 2015
FIGURESFigure 1-1 Regional Map ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-2 Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-4 Figure 1-3 Aerial Photograph (2015) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Figure 1-4 Ontario International Airport Influence Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1-9 Figure 2-1 Land Use Plan .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Planning Area 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-3 Planning Area 1A .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-4 Planning Area 2/2A .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-10 Figure 2-5 Planning Area 3/3A .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-6 Planning Area 4 .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-14 Figure 2-7 Planning Area 5 .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-16 Figure 2-8 Conceptual Grading Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-18 Figure 2-9 Landscaping and Green Space Plan ..............................................................................................................................................................................................2-20 Figure 3-1 Conceptual Vehicular Circulation and Mobility Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Conceptual Non-Vehicular Circulation and Mobility Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 4-1 Domestic Water Infrastructure Plan .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-2 Figure 4-2 Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-3 Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4-5 Figure 4-4 Storm Drain Infrastructure Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-5 Dry Utility Infrastructure Plan .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-8 Figure 6-1 Inland Empire Boulevard Entry Monument .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6-13 Figure 6-2 Corner Monument ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6-14 Figure 6-3 Primary Parcel Entry Monument ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-15 Figure 6-4 Inland Empire Boulevard Streetscape ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-17 6481
Page
2‐2
April 7, 2015
This Specific Plan specifies three land use districts: Industrial, UrbanCommercial, and Urban Residential. For planning purposes, the257.7-acre MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE Specific Plan property is divided into six planning areas.

Planning Area 1 – Industrial Planning Area 1A – Industrial Planning Area 2 – Urban Commercial Planning Area 3 – Urban Commercial Planning Area 4 – Urban Residential Planning Area 5 – Urban Commercial Figure 2-1, Land Use Plan, depicts the physical arrangement of land uses on the Specific Plan property. Table 2-1, Land Use Plan Statistical Summary, lists each planning area and their respective land use district, acreage, and development intensity. Buildout intensity of this Specific Plan is shown in the table below.

Planning Area boundaries were determined by natural and manmade physical divisions formed by drainage channels, roads, andexisting development. The Cucamonga Creek Channel and DeerCreek Channel (not a part of the Specific Plan area) divide theSpecific Plan property in a north-south direction. The channelscreate a physical separation between the Industrial land uses inPlanning Area 1 and the Urban Residential land uses in PlanningArea 4. The channels also divide the two largest Urban CommercialPlanning Areas (Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3). In a similarmanner, the alignment of Inland Empire Boulevard separates theIndustrial land uses in Planning Area 1 from the Urban Commercialland uses in Planning Area 2 and separates Planning Area 4 andPlanning Area 5 from Planning Area 3.

The boundaries of Planning Area 1A and Planning Area 5 weredetermined by uses that were present in those areas at the timeSpecific Plan Amendment No. 1 was prepared (2015). Planning Area1A (2.0 acres) was developed with an elementary school and publicwater utility use and Planning Area 5 (2.7 acres) was developed as a small retail commercial shopping center.

LAND
USE
PLAN
Planning Area boundaries were determined by natural and manmade physical divisions formed by drainage channels, roads, and existing development. The Cucamonga Creek Channel and Deer Creek Channel (not a part of the Specific Plan area) divide the Specific Plan property in a north-south direction. The channels create a physical separation between the Industrial land uses in Planning Area 1 and the Urban Residential land uses in Planning Area 4. The channels also divide the two largest Urban Commercial and Mixed-Use Planning Areas (Planning Area 2/2A and Planning Area 3/3A). In a similar manner, the alignment of Inland Empire Boulevard separates the Industrial land uses in Planning Area 1 from the Urban Commercial and Mixed-use land uses in Planning Area 2/2A and separates Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 5 from Planning Area 3/3A. The boundaries of Planning Area 1A, and Planning Area 5 were determined by uses that were present in those areas at the time Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 was prepared (2015). Planning Area 1A (2.0 acres) was developed with an elementary school and public water utility use and Planning Area 5 (2.7 acres) was developed as a small retail commercial shopping center. The Planning Area 2A Mixed-Use Overlay 22.39 acres was determined by the remainder of the Planning Area 2 Urban Commercial.

Refer to Figure 2-1, Land Use Plan, and Table 2-1, Land Use Plan Statistical Summary, for more detailed Additionally, refer to Page 2-3 of the MICSPA EIR Addendum for a thorough analysis of the building area determination.

Use Category Development Intensity Planning Area(s)
Industrial 3,007,000 SF 1 and 1A
Urban Commercial 1,143,000 SF 2, 3, and 5 Mixed‐Use Overlay 925 units / 5,000 SF 2,325 units/55,000 SF 2A and 3A Urban Residential 800 units 4
This Specific Plan specifies three land use districts: Industrial, UrbanCommercial, Mixed-Use, and Urban Residential. For plannin g
purposes, the 257.7-acre MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRESpecific Plan property is divided into six planning areas. Planning Area 1 Industrial Planning Area 1A Industrial Planning Area 2 Urban Commercial Planning Area 2A Mixed-Use Overlay Planning Area 3 Urban Commercial Planning Area 3A Mixed-Use Overlay Planning Area 4 Urban Residential Plannin g Area 5 Urban Commercial
Figure 2-1, Land Use Plan, depicts the physical arrangement of landuses on the Specific Plan property. Table 2-1, Land Use PlanStatistical Summary, lists each planning area and their respectiveland use district, acreage, and development intensity. Buildout intensity of this Specific Plan is shown in the table below. 6482
N
O
R
T
H
V
N
I
E
YA
R
D
AV
E

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
N
O
R
T
H
A
R
C
H
I
BA
L
D
AV
E
DEER
CREEK

CHANNEL
CUCAMO
N
GA
CRE
E
K C
H
AN
N
E
L
EAST 4TH ST

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
%&'(10

EAST JAY ST
D
E
L
R
O
I
P
L
H
E
L
L
M
A
N
AV
E
PA 1

INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL
146.6 AC
PA 2

URBAN COMMERCIAL URBAN COMMERCIAL

43.7 AC
PA 3

URBAN COMMERCIAL URBAN COMMERCIAL

25.3 AC
PA 4

URBAN RESIDENTIAL URBAN RESIDENTIAL

21.4 AC
!
PA 5
URBAN

COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

2.7 AC
hg!
PA 1A

INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL

2.0 AC

LAND USE PLAN
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE III. LAND USE PLAN
0 150 300 600
Feet

Page 2 ends

Ontario City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026