Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.01 Addendum No. 1 to the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan EIRTRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2017031020) ADDENDUM NO. 1 MABURY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 18163 Lead Agency: City of Orange Community Development Department Planning Division 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866-1591 (714) 744 7220 (714) 744 7222 (Fax) www.cityoforange.org Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 (714) 508-4100 Date: July 1, 2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Sections Page # INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 EXISTING SETTING ...................................................................................................................6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................8 CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUES .....................................................22 AESTHETICS....................................................................................................................22 AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES ....................................................................25 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................28 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................49 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................59 ENERGY ...........................................................................................................................63 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................71 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................77 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..............................................................81 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................87 LAND USE/PLANNING ..................................................................................................97 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................99 NOISE ..............................................................................................................................101 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................... 110 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................ 112 RECREATION ................................................................................................................. 115 TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................... 117 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................126 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................128 WILDFIRE ......................................................................................................................132 PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .......................................................................135 Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map .................................................................................................13 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map Aerial Base ....................................................................................15 Exhibit 3: Site Plan ........................................................................................................................17 Exhibit 4: Zoning Map ...................................................................................................................19 Exhibit 5: General Plan Land Use Map .........................................................................................21 Tables Table 1 – Land Use Matrix Comparison ..........................................................................................6 Table 2 – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance...............28 Table 3 – Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Acres Disturbed per Day ...........30 Table 4 – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance .............................................31 Table 5 – Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions ........................................35 Table 6 – Construction-related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Prior to Mitigation ................38 Table 7 – Mitigated Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................39 Table 8 – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions .......................................................40 Table 9 – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards ..............................................................41 Table 10 – Project’s Contribution to Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin .................42 Table 11 – Operations-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions...............................................44 Table 12 – Biological Development Standards ..............................................................................50 Table 13 – Off-Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ..........................................................................................................................67 Table 14 – On-Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ..........................................................................................................................67 Table 15 – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ....................................................78 Table 16 – Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Homes ......................................................102 Table 17 – Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions .............................................................103 Table 18 – Opening Year 2022 Project Traffic Noise Contributions ...........................................104 Table 19 – Long-term Year 2040 Project Traffic Noise Contributions ........................................105 Table 20 – Noise Level Measurements on June 15-16, 2009 ......................................................106 Table 21 – Noise Level Measurements On September 21-22, 2011 ............................................106 Table 22 – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ...............................................108 Table 23 – Population Growth ..................................................................................................... 110 Table 24 – Estimated Water Demand ...........................................................................................129 Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Appendix B: Supplemental Biological Resources Technical Memorandum Appendix C: Hydrological Reports C-1: Preliminary WQMP C-2: Hydrology Study C-3: Sewer Capacity Report C-4: Water Demand Report Appendix D: Noise Impact Analysis Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APN Assessor’s Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMP Best Management Practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CDFW California Department Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs cubic feet per second CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DTSC Department of Toxic Substances DPM diesel particulate matter EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program GHG Greenhouse Gas gpm gallons per minute HAP hazardous air pollutant HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HRA health risk assessment HVAC heating/ventilating/air conditioning ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Leq equivalent sound level LID Low Impact Development LDR Low Density Residential LOS level of service LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds MM Mitigation Measure MRZ Mineral Resources Zone MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MWD Metropolitan Water District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OS Open Space OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PPV peak particle velocity PRC Public Resources Code PM particulate matter ppm parts per million R-1-8 Single Family Residential 8,000 square feet R-1-10 Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet R-1-20 Single Family Residential 20,000 square feet R-1-40 Single Family Residential 40,000 square feet R-O Recreation Open Space RA Resource Area RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board S-G Sand and Gravel SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coast Information Center SCE Southern California Edison SCH State Clearinghouse SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company SR State Route SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant TIA traffic impact analysis USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VMT vehicle miles traveled 1 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE TRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2017031020) MABURY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18163 Project Title: Addendum to the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan EIR Mabury Tentative Tract Map No. 18163 Reference Application Numbers: TTM No. 0050-20-MABURY SITE TTM, MNSP No. 1016-20, and ENV No. 1871-20 Lead Agency: City of Orange Contact Person and Telephone No.: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner (714) 744-7231 Project Proponent and Address: Milan REI X LLC 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, CA 92802 Contact Person and Telephone No.: Christopher Nichelson, President (714) 687-0000 ext. 101 Project Location: Southern side of Mabury Avenue, between Orange Park Boulevard and Cannon Street Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 370-011-21, 093-280-31, 370-011-18 Existing Zoning Classification: Single Family Residential 8,000 square feet (R- 1-8) Existing General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 2-6 Dwelling Units per Acre (LDR) INTRODUCTION Milan REI X LLC (Applicant) is proposing to subdivide and construct 22 detached single-family dwelling units on a 10.9-acre site north of Santiago Creek in the City of Orange, California. The project site is located on the southern side of Mabury Avenue between Orange Park Boulevard and Cannon Street. The proposed project would involve the subdivision and eventual construction of 22 detached single-family dwelling units by a master builder or as custom homes and open space dedication of approximately 4.3 acres along the Santiago Creek corridor on the portion of the site designated as LDR. Residential lots would comprise of approximately 5.4 acres and the remaining acreage would be used for infrastructure. The project would include grading activities; development and improvements to streets, sidewalks, and an equestrian/bicycle trail; storm drain and water quality improvements; and relocation of an existing equestrian trail. Lot sizes for residential units would range from 8,315 square feet to 18,821 square feet. Access to the project site would be provided via Mabury Avenue. 2 This document, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000, et seq., is an Addendum to the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the City of Orange on October 22, 2019 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2017031020). This Addendum, along with the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Certified EIR (Certified EIR) and other documents incorporated by reference herein, serve as the environmental review of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Orange is the lead agency with principal responsibility for considering the proposed project for approval. Format and Content of this Addendum This Addendum includes the following primary components: a) Introduction, Existing Setting, and Project Description for Addendum No. 1 to the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Certified EIR. b) The completed Environmental Checklist and its associated analyses, which conclude that the proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of environmental impacts beyond the levels disclosed in the Certified EIR. c) Supporting materials including References, Preparers and Persons Consulted, and technical studies that evaluate the proposed project and/or project site and which are appended to this Addendum. d) Other documents that are incorporated by reference. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15150 and 15168(c)(3) and (d)(2) permit and encourage an environmental document to incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. The Orange General Plan, the City of Orange Zoning Code, the Certified EIR, technical appendices, Findings and Statement of Facts, and associated City Council Resolutions, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, are available for review at the following locations: In Person: City of Orange, Planning Division 300 E. Chapman Ave. Orange, CA 92866 Online: https://www.cityoforange.org/292/Project-NoticesRelated-Environmental-Doc CEQA Requirements for the Preparation of an Addendum CEQA requires that public agencies identify the potential environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and consider alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts when avoidance or reduction is feasible. It also gives other public agencies and the general public an opportunity to comment on the information provided. 3 The CEQA Guidelines allow for updating and using a previously certified EIR for projects that have changed or are different from the previous project or conditions analyzed in the certified EIR. Where those changes require major revisions to an environmental document as a result of new environmental impacts (or involve new information that could not have been included in the originally certified EIR), a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that, once an EIR has been certified for a project, then in connection with proposed changes to that project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared unless one of the following sets of criteria are satisfied: a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: 1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; or 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Where, as in this case, none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present, and some changes or additions are necessary to update the previously certified EIR, an addendum may be prepared, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Section 15164 establishes the following requirements for EIR Addenda: a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. 4 b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. As discussed in detail in the Checklist of Environmental Impact Issues of this document, none of the above circumstances that warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and therefore the preparation of an Addendum to the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Certified EIR for the proposed project is appropriate for purposes of CEQA. Initial Study Checklist The City prepared a Checklist of Environmental Impact Issues for this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063(d)(3) and 15168(c)(4). The Environmental Checklist indicates whether the conditions requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met and identifies whether there would be new significant impacts resulting from the proposed project that were not examined in the Certified EIR. For this Addendum, four possible responses to each of the individual environmental issue areas are included in the checklist: 1. New Significant Impact. This response is used to indicate when the proposed project has changed to such an extent that major revisions of the Certified EIR are required due to the presence of new significant environmental effects. 2. Substantially More Severe Impact. This response is used to indicate when the circumstances under which the proposed project is undertaken have changed to such an extent that major revisions of the Certified EIR are required because the severity of previously identified significant effects would substantially increase. 3. New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact. This response is used in two types of situations. First, this response may be used when new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan EIR was certified indicates that there are new mitigation measures or alternatives available to substantially reduce significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Second, this response is used when an impact was found to be significant and unavoidable 5 in the Certified EIR, but is now found to be less than significant based upon the application of mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR. 4. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. This response is used to indicate that the proposed project would not create a new impact or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified environmental impact disclosed in the Certified EIR. The Environmental Checklist and accompanying explanations of the checklist responses provide the information and analysis necessary to assess the relative environmental impacts of the proposed project in the context of the environmental impacts addressed in the Certified EIR. In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional environmental review, if any, for the proposed project. TRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR The project site is located within the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan area. The Trails at Santiago Specific Plan prescribes the land uses and circulation patterns proposed for the Specific Plan area, as well as the infrastructure improvements, design guidelines, development standards and implementation criteria necessary to develop the Trails at Santiago Creek. The purpose of the Specific Plan is the systematic implementation of the Orange General Plan as amended by the proposed project, including amendments to the East Orange General Plan and Orange Park Acres Plan to incorporate the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan. It allows for planning issues to be addressed through site‐specific criteria and development standards that apply only to the Specific Plan area, as well as additional criteria and standards available through the City of Orange Zoning Code. The Specific Plan process enables the development of the property and implementation of the proposed improvements, both short-term and long-term, while also addressing infrastructure improvements, community services and recognition/sensitivity to the importance of the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and natural areas of Orange Park Acres. As shown in Table 1, the Certified EIR analyzed the impacts of the construction of up to 129 detached single-family dwelling units, which was later reduced to 128 detached single-family dwelling units, on approximately 40.7 acres of the 109.2 acre site on the south side of Santiago Creek, with the proposed project site dedicated as open space. Most of the environmental impacts identified in the Certified EIR were determined to be less than significant or were reduced to a less than significant level through either the adoption of migration measures or the incorporation of project revisions that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts. However, impacts related to Air Quality and Transportation were identified as significant and unavoidable impacts in the Certified EIR. For those environmental topical areas, the City of Orange City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Certified EIR included the evaluation of four alternatives to the project. As shown in Table 1, Alternative 1 consisted of new residential development and the continuation of existing sand and 6 gravel operations in accordance with the existing Orange General Plan designations and Land Use Designations. Alternative 1 contained the following description:1 This alternative consists of new residential development and the continuation of existing sand and gravel operations in accordance with the existing Orange General Plan designations. Residential uses would be developed north of Santiago Creek (40-50 dwelling units), with sand and gravel activities occurring on 77.3 acres on both sides of the waterway. 40-50 dwelling units would be consistent with the General Plan’s density range of 2.1 to 6.0 units per acre and the existing R-1-8 Zoning. The General Plan allows 15.4 acres of residential uses north of Santiago Creek. The Santiago Creek corridor would be designated for open space (16.5 acres). Potential environmental impacts of Alternative 1 were analyzed in the Certified EIR Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The Certified EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of developing 40-50 units with 16.5 acres of open space along the Santiago Creek corridor, as proposed under Alternative 1. The proposed 22 detached single-family dwelling units would be at least 18 units less than what was analyzed under Alternative 1. Table 1 – Land Use Matrix Comparison Proposed Project Certified EIR Alternative 1 Proposed Number of Units 22 128 40-50 Permitted Density (dwelling units per acre) 2.1 to 6.0 2.1 to 6.0 2.1 to 6.0 Range of Lot Sizes in square feet 8,315 to 18,821 8,000 to 10,000 8,000 minimum Open Space Acreage 4.3 68.5 16.51 Residential Use Acreage 5.4 40.7 15.4 Infrastructure Acreage 1.2 unknown unknown Impervious Surfaces Acreage 3.03 unknown unknown Total Project Site Acreage 10.9 109.2 15.4 1 Note that this open space acreage included the Santiago Creek corridor. EXISTING SETTING Regional Setting The project site is located in the City of Orange, east of the City of Villa Park, in the north-central portion of Orange County, California. The City of Orange is surrounded by the City of Anaheim to the north and west, the City of Garden Grove to the southwest, the cities of North Tustin and 1 City of Orange. 2018. Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Recirculated Draft EIR, Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/7956/Trails-at-Santiago-Creek-RDEIR. Accessed April 13, 2020. 7 Santa Ana to the south, and Irvine Regional Park, Santiago Canyon, and unincorporated Orange County to the east (Exhibit 1). Santiago Creek, which bisects the site, originates at Irvine Lake and is a tributary to the Santa Ana River. Project Site Location and Setting The project site (APN No. 370-011 -21, 093-280-31, and 370-011 -18) is in the northeast portion of the City of Orange, in Orange County, California. The project site is located on the Orange, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, Township 4 South, Range 9 West, Section 23 (Latitude 33° 48’ 55” North; Longitude 117° 47’ 17” West). The site is generally located to the east of State Route (SR) 55 and the City of Villa Park; to the west of SR-261; approximately 2 miles north of Chapman Avenue; on the south side of Mabury Avenue, between Orange Park Boulevard on the east and Cannon Street on the west; and north of East Santiago Canyon Road. The site is currently vacant. Aerial photographs show riparian vegetation along the southern border of the site near Santiago Creek, disturbed surface soils, and an unpaved road (Exhibit 2). The project site is predominantly comprised of disturbed, non-native habitat on previously disturbed ground. The site is approximately 430 feet at the northeastern end of the site sloping to approximately 390 feet at the southwestern side of the site. Natural communities on the site consist primarily of non-native grassland and non-native herbaceous cover. Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and some coastal sage scrub exist along the Santiago Creek corridor. Disturbed/coastal sage scrub was also observed on the southwestern side of the site. The existing equestrian trail is adjacent to Mabury Avenue. The Allen-McCulloch Pipeline, operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), traverses through the center of the project site in a northwest-southeast direction. The pipeline traverses the site within a 50-foot-wide easement. The easement crosses through the site, entering the site from the north at the intersection of Mabury Avenue and Yellowstone Boulevard. The pipe measures 109 inches in diameter and is part of the MWD transmission system that supplies potable water to southern Orange County.2 Surrounding Land Uses The project site is located near predominantly residential areas of the City. Land uses adjacent to the site include privately owned undeveloped land that historically supported mining activities. A sand and gravel operation exists in the surrounding parcels in the area zoned for sand and gravel land use. Other surrounding land uses include the following: North: Mabury Avenue, a two-lane undivided roadway oriented in the east-west direction, and the Santiago Creek Trail, which is parallel to Mabury Avenue, are located north of the project site. Single-family residences are located to the north of the project site across the Santiago Creek Trail and East Mabury Avenue. These include Creekside Ranch (typical lot size 9,200–12,000 square feet), The Colony-North (typical lot size 8,600–12,000 square feet), Mabury Ranch (typical lot 2 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2018. Memorandum: Allen McColloch Pipeline OC-76 Turnout Relocation, January 25. Website: http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_In_The_Community/Allen%20McColloch%20Pipeline%20OC- 76%20Turnout%20Relocation%20Project%20Jan%202018.pdf#search=Allen%2Dmccolloch. Accessed April 3, 2020. 8 size 7,600–11,000 square feet), Hidden Creek (typical lot size 20,000–24,500 square feet), Serrano Heights (typical lot size 4,500–9,000 square feet), and Parkridge (typical lot size 8,000–12,000 square feet). Zoning designation for the areas to the north of the site is R-1-8, Single Family Residential. South: The site is bordered on the southern side by land designated as Open Space (OS) (16.5 acres) and Resource Area (RA) (77.3 acres). Santiago Creek flows in an east-west direction to the south of the site. The area directly south of the project site is the site of the Trails at Santiago Specific Plan area, which was recently certified in October 2019 for construction of 128 detached single- family units on approximately 40.7 acres of the 109.2-acre site, with 68.5 acres of the site used for open space. Beyond the OS and RA areas is Santiago Canyon Road, which is a four-lane, divided roadway. East: The site is bordered on the east by Santiago Creek, and land designated RA, as well as single- family residential areas (R-1-40). The residential area is associated with The Reserve (typical lot size 20,000–44,000 square feet). Santiago Oaks Regional Park is approximately 3,800 feet from the project site and is accessible to the site via the Santiago Creek Trail. The regional park contains the Santiago Creek corridor, which consists of the waterway and dense vegetation. The areas east of the site are zoned S-G, Recreation Open Space (R-O), and R-1-40. West: The site is bordered on the western side by land designated RA and by the Santiago Creek corridor. Beyond the land designated as RA are single-family residences that are adjacent to Cannon Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Addendum to the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Certified EIR (project) analyzes the proposed development of 22 new detached single-family residential units on 10.9 acres (Exhibit 3) given the fact that a refined development concept has evolved for the proposed project site since the certification of the EIR. The proposed project would also include open space and landscaping dedication of approximately 4.3 acres along the perimeter of the site and Santiago Creek corridor. The project site would be limited to the portion of the site designated LDR, located on the southern side of Mabury Avenue at the terminus of Yellowstone Boulevard. The lot sizes of the proposed project are equal to or larger than the lot sizes of existing neighborhoods to the north of the project site. The project would also include grading activities in compliance with the City of Orange Manual of Grading; development and improvements to streets, sidewalks, and existing trail; and installation of an equestrian/bicycle trail. Access to the project site would be provided via Mabury Avenue. As shown in Table 1, the building footprints, patios, driveways, and pools would comprise approximately 132,000 square feet of impervious surfaces; streets and sidewalks would comprise approximately 48,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. A combination 8- to 10-foot sound wall and retaining wall would be constructed along the southern boundary of the residential lots, with a landscaped slope and trail providing a transitional area to the creek. The proposed trail would be situated between the sound wall and Santiago Creek. 9 The project site is zoned as R-1-8 (Exhibit 4). The R-1-8 zoned parcels total 11.6 acres, however, the proposed project plans to develop only on 10.9 acres. The portion of the site that is within the S-G zoning does not propose any residential development. The Orange General Plan designates the site’s land use as LDR (Exhibit 5). Consistent with the Orange General Plan’s density range of 2.1 to 6.0 units per acre for areas designated LDR and the existing R-1-8 zoning,3 the site would be permitted to accommodate 40 to 50 single-family residential homes on this residential land use parcel. The proposed 22 detached single-family residential units on 10.9 acres would be at least 18 units below the target density range. Site Access and Circulation Access to the project would be via provided via Mabury Avenue. Two new streets that would share a single access point from Mabury Avenue– “A” Street and “B” Street – would be constructed. Each street would terminate in a cul-de-sac. The streets would be 36 feet wide and on-street parking would be permissible on only on one side of the roadway, consistent with the Orange City Fire Department requirements. Open Space and Landscaping The project would include the relocation of Santiago Creek Trail. The existing trail runs parallel to Mabury Avenue within the public right of way. The project would reroute the trail through the development site between the proposed single family lots and the creek edge. The trail would be accessible to the sidewalk along proposed “A” Street and would rejoin the existing trail and sidewalk along Mabury Avenue at the northeastern and northwestern boundaries of the project site. An open space buffer would be located between the creek and trail and the lots. Except for the equestrian/bicycle trail, the open space area would be planted with native landscaping suitable for fuel modification. Utilities and Infrastructure Improvements The project would be served by domestic water and sanitary sewer service. The project would connect to existing facilities. Water would be provided by the City of Orange. Sewage services would tie into the existing sewer system in Mabury Avenue. Gas would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Electrical service would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Construction and Phasing Construction of the proposed project, which includes the dwelling units and infrastructure, is anticipated to begin in 2021. The duration of the construction is expected to be 12 to 18 months, with a prospective completion date by December 2022. During construction of the project, a temporary impact permit would be needed to construct a bridge over Santiago Creek. The bridge would be located on the south-central portion of the site and would connect to a construction access road on the other side of the bridge. The temporary bridge would allow construction equipment to 3 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Land Use. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/570/General-Plan--- Land-Use-PDF. Accessed April 3, 2020. 10 access the site and would prevent construction impacts to public streets during earthmoving activities. Additionally, construction parking would be allowed on-site. The proposed temporary bridge would require approval from resource agencies. Proposed Project Summary and Objectives The proposed project includes the development of 22 detached single-family residential units, development and improvement of streets, sidewalks, and existing trail, installation of an equestrian/bicycle trail, and open space dedication. The project would fulfill the following objectives that were outlined in the Certified EIR: OBJ-1. Locate single-family detached residential units in the most suitable areas of the project site and preserve other areas for open space and greenway. OBJ-3. Promote land use compatibility with neighboring residential uses through the use of locating landscaped setbacks, and the development of a compatible housing product and lot size to the adjoining uses. OBJ-6. Provide a circulation system that will minimize adverse effects on local residential neighborhoods and encourage pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle circulation. OBJ-7. Provide an infrastructure system, including sewer, water, and storm drain systems that will adequately serve full build-out of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures All mitigation measures included in this Addendum are consistent with and originate from the Certified EIR. There are no new mitigation measures proposed for the development of 22 detached single-family residential units. Findings The project does not propose substantial changes to the Certified EIR. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the proposed project will be undertaken. There are no new significant environmental effects, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Therefore, major revisions to the Certified EIR or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required. As described herein, the proposed project is consistent with the previous EIR and would involve only minor changes; therefore, an addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA compliance for the proposed project. Conclusions The City of Orange may approve the proposed project based on this Addendum. The impacts of the proposed project are consistent with the impacts previously analyzed in the Certified EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). 11 Responsible or Trustee Agencies: A number of other agencies in addition to the City of Orange were identified in the Certified EIR as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15381 and 15386, respectively. This Addendum will provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project implementation. These agencies may include but are not limited to the following: • United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) • California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) • Santa Ana River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Possible actions that may be necessary to implement the project that must be taken by other agencies are: • Issuance of Section 404 Permits (USACE) • Issuance of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (CDFW) • Issuance of Section 401 Water Quality Certification (RWQCB) Scheduled Public Meetings or Hearings: Planning Commission Hearing on July 20, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Council Chamber, 300 East Chapman Boulevard, Orange, CA 92866 ! SanBernardinoCountyLosAngelesCounty ·|}þ91 ·|}þ83 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ57 ·|}þ241 ·|}þ261 ·|}þ241 ·|}þ74 !"#$5 O ra n g e C o u nty Riversid e C o u nty ·|}þ60%&'(605 %&'(10 %&'(5 %&'(405 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ133 %&'(15 ·|}þ1 ·|}þ1 ·|}þ210 %&'(15 Villa Park Tustin ·|}þ73 %&'(10 Prado FloodControlBasin IrvineLake ClevelandNationalForest RanchoCucamongaSan Dimas Covina El Monte Pomona Ontario Walnut Chino Whittier NorcoNorwalk Yorba LindaFullerton Anaheim Orange Garden Grove Seal Beach Santa Ana FountainValleyHuntingtonBeach Costa Mesa Irvine Lake Forest Newport Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel San JuanCapistrano Corona Chino Hills UplandClaremont Montclair Laguna Woods Exhibit 1Regional Location Map 5 0 52.5 Miles ! Text Project Site Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL I MILAN REI X LLCTRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN EIRADDENDUM 54070001 • 04/2020 | 1_regional.mxd Project Site THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 54070001 • 04/2020 | 2_local_aerial.mxd Exhibit 2Local Vicinity MapAerial Base Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. MILAN REI X LLCTRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN EIRADDENDUM I 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet Legend Project Site THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 54070001 • 04/2020 | 3_site_plan.cdr Exhibit 3 Site Plan MILAN REI X LLC TRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM Source: Fuscoe Engineering, March 13, 2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 54070001 • 04/2020 | 4_zoning.cdr Exhibit 4 Zoning Map MILAN REI X LLC TRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM Source: City of Orange, March 2016. Project Site THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 54070001 • 04/2020 | 5_general_plan_land_use.cdr Exhibit 5 General Plan Land Use MILAN REI X LLC TRAILS AT SANTIAGO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM Source: City of Orange, March 2016. Project Site THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 22 CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUES 1. AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Orange General Plan contains provisions for the preservation of scenic views and open space areas, including Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Orange General Plan goals related to scenic views include protecting views of significant ridgelines, protections for scenic highways, landscaping roads and highways, installing underground utility lines, and the retention and enhancement of scenic corridors and visual focal points. The Orange General Plan designates the current trail along the north bank of Santiago Creek as OS.4 The project would protect scenic vistas along the Santiago Creek corridor by designating open space along a proposed equestrian trail that would be installed between the proposed development and the Santiago Creek corridor and an open space buffer between the creek, trail, and residences, which would be landscaped with native species. The landscaping would be compatible with the adjacent open space area and habitat. The trail would connect to Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Thus, impacts associated with open spaces and scenic vistas would be protected and enhanced. Therefore, consistent with the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan and EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 4 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Natural Resources Element. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/391/General-Plan. Accessed April 13, 2020. 23 b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The nearest state scenic highway is a segment of California SR 91 that stretches from SR 55 to the eastern city limit of Anaheim, 2.5 miles from the project site.5 The project site is not located on or adjacent to a scenic highway. Due to the project site’s distance from the nearest state scenic highway, the project would not affect the scenic resources within the state scenic highway system. The Orange General Plan Natural Resources Element Policy 7.2 is a goal to designate Santiago Canyon Road east of Jamboree Road, located approximately 1,270 feet from the project site, as a city scenic highway; however, this road is not part of the state scenic highway system. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would result in new residential units on currently vacant lands and preservation of open space along the Santiago Creek corridor for use as a trail connecting to Santiago Oaks Regional Park. The proposed development would alter the existing character of the site; however, the changes would not substantially degrade the quality of the site and would be consistent with the existing residential land uses that surround the project site. The proposed development is consistent with the Orange General Plan residential land use designation for the site, as well as policies and objectives related to aesthetics. For instance, the Orange General Plan’s objectives include the use of a trail system that provides a source of aesthetic beauty and recreational opportunities and protection of watersheds such as Santiago Creek.6 Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Orange Zoning Code. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would result in new development, which would include new sources of light and glare on residential property and potentially from illumination of public sidewalks and streets. The proposed project would install exterior lighting fixtures for safety and security purposes. Lighting would consist of building-mounted and freestanding fixtures around buildings, along drive aisles, and along pedestrian routes. Light sources from the proposed project would be consistent with the existing communities surrounding the project site. Additionally, lighting would be 5 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed April 15, 2020. 6 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan, Introduction. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/391/General-Plan. Accessed April 15, 2020. 24 designed to reduce and minimize light impacts on adjacent open space areas supporting sensitive biological resources. Night lighting will be minimized while remaining compliant with City ordinances related to street lighting. Any necessary lighting adjacent to the open space areas of the project will be shielded or directed away from conserved areas. Windows and construction materials would have the potential to increase light and glare. The proposed project has the potential to use construction materials, solar panels, and window glazing that have the potential to increase light and glare. However, the proposed project’s lighting shall be controlled to prevent glare and illumination within outside areas of the project site. The project would be required to comply with all applicable lighting requirements. The City of Orange establishes restrictions on outdoor lighting that require fixtures to be directed downward, and of appropriate intensity. Orange Municipal Code Chapter 17.12.030 regulates the installation of new exterior lighting fixtures and requires that they be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in such a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding premises. Furthermore, lighting on any residential property must be controlled to prevent glare or direct illumination of any public sidewalk or thoroughfares. This would ensure that outdoor lighting associated with the proposed project would not create adverse impacts, spillover, or interfere with aviation activities. Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-3 from the Certified EIR requires the Applicant to prepare and submit a lighting plan to the City of Orange for approval. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM AES-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall prepare and submit lighting plans to the City of Orange for review and approval. The plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures comply with Orange Municipal Code Chapter 17.12.030, which requires that new light fixtures be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in such a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding premises. Additionally, lighting on any residential property must be controlled so as to prevent glare or direct illumination of any public sidewalk or thoroughfares. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 25 2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduc ed Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. According to the California Department of Conservation, there are no lands classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the project site or surrounding areas.7 The site of the proposed project is classified as Other Land, which is a nonagricultural category defined as, “Land not included in any other mapping category…Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.” The areas surrounding the project site to the north and west are classified as Urban and Built-up Land. Urban and Built-up Land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, and other development purposes.8 Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. 7 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/. Accessed April 13, 2020. 8 California Department of Conservation, 2019. Important Farmland Categories: Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx. Accessed April 13, 2020. 26 Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Williamson Act, or the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, is a 10-year voluntary agreement that provides landowners a property tax relief in exchange for conserving their private farmlands or open space lands and not converting it to another use. As discussed in Impact Question 2(a), the California Department of Conservation designated the site as a nonagricultural category. Since the project site does not support agricultural activities, the site is not eligible for a Williamson Act contract. The project site’s R-1-8 zoning allows agricultural and horticultural activities, as well as tree and shrub farms with a conditional use permit. The project would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designation. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is zoned R-1-8. The project site is not currently zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production as defined by PRC 1220(g), 4526, and 51104(g). Additionally, the project would be consistent with existing zoning and does not propose rezoning. Thus, the project would not conflict with or result in rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. The site consists of disturbed and vacant lands that previously supported mining activities. The project site does not contain forest lands. PRC 12220 defines forest land as, “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” Some trees exist on the project site and along Mabury Avenue and along the riparian corridor; however, the site does not meet the definition of forest lands. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. 27 Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. e) No substantial change from previous analysis. As discussed above, in Impact Questions 2(a) and 2(b), the project site does not contain lands used for agriculture. The project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 28 3. AIR QUALITY (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Environmental Setting: The analysis in this section is based, in part on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Analysis Report prepared by Vista Environmental on April 8, 2020. The report is provided in its entirety in Appendix A of this Addendum. Regional Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominant pollution generators in the Air Basin, often occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of this analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 2. Table 2 – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 29 Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions and local air quality impacts in the project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final LST Methodology, July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The Final LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. 9 The Final LST Methodology provides look-up tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. The project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 17, which covers Central Orange County. The look-up tables include site acreage sizes of 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres. The Fact Sheet for Applying California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to LSTs (Fact Sheet) prepared by SCAQMD provides guidance on how to determine the significance of emissions based on site acreage for a project.10 The Fact Sheet details the site acreage should be based on the maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day of construction that is calculated on the construction equipment list utilized in the CalEEMod model. According to the Fact Sheet table, crawler tractors, graders, and rubber-tired dozers are all assumed to disturb 0.5 acre in an 8-hour day, and scrapers are assumed to disturb 1.0 acre in an 8-hour day. The methodology in the Fact Sheet was developed from the CalEEMod User Guide Appendix A, page 9. The same acres disturbed per equipment type is detailed and is utilized in the CalEEMod model in order to determine the acres per day disturbed during site preparation and grading phases. Table 3 lists all of the construction equipment modeled in CalEEMod and utilizes the methodology in the Fact Sheet to calculate the acres disturbed per day. It should be noted that fewer acres disturbed per day results in the use of a more stringent threshold, since the smaller area in which the work is performed would allow for less area for disturbance and result in higher pollutant concentrations. As such, it is likely that some of the equipment listed in Table 3 would disturb more area than what is detailed, however in order to provide a conservative analysis, the minimum acreage disturbed per equipment was utilized. 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed May 11, 2020. 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2020. 30 Table 3 – Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Acres Disturbed per Day Construction Activity Equipment Type Equipment Quantity Acres Disturbed per piece of Equipment per Day1 Operating Hours per Day Acres Disturbed per Day Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 0 8 0 Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Site Preparation 1.5 Grading Excavators 2 0 8 0 Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5 Scrapers 2 1.0 8 3.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0 8 0 Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Grading 4.0 Building Construction Cranes 1 0 7 0 Forklifts 3 0 8 0 Generator Sets 1 0 8 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 0 7 0 Welders 1 0 8 Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Building Construction 0 Paving Pavers 2 0 8 0 Paving Equipment 2 0 8 0 Rollers 2 0 8 0 Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Paving 0 Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 0 6 0 Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Architectural Coating 0 Maximum Acres Disturbed during All Construction Activities 4.0 Notes: 1 Based on the Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to LSTs where crawler tractors, graders, and rubber-tired dozers disturb 0.5 acre in an 8-hour day, and scrapers disturb 1.0 acre in an 8-hour day. All other equipment disturbs <0.5 acres per 8-hour day. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; SCAQMD, 2015. As shown in Table 3, the maximum disturbed per day would occur during the grading phase when 4 acres would be disturbed. As such, the 2 acre and 5 acre project site thresholds shown in the look-up tables has been utilized to interpolate the 4-acre thresholds in this analysis. The nearest sensitive receptors are homes located as near as 80 feet north of the project site. According to LST Methodology, impacts to any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be assessed based on the 25-meter thresholds. Table 4 below shows the LSTs for NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities. 31 Table 4 – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Activity Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction 160 1,074 11 6 Operation 160 1,074 3 2 Notes: 1 The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are homes located 80 feet (24 meters) north of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2 acres and 5 acres interpolated to 4 acres in Air Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange County. Toxic Air Contaminants Thresholds of Significance According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants (TACs) in excess of the following thresholds would have a significant air quality impact: • If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or • TACs from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater. In order to determine if the proposed project may have a significant impacts related to TACs, the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD recommends that if the proposed project is anticipated to create TACs through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the source of the TAC and the toxicity of the Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility-wide Health Risk Assessment (HRA).11 Odor Impacts Thresholds of Significance The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the proposed project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states the following: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, August 2003. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis.doc?sfvrsn=2. Accessed May 11, 2020. 32 If the proposed project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the proposed project would create a significant impact. Impact Analysis: a) New ability to substantially reduce significant impact/reduced impact. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The following discusses the proposed project’s consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines § 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP. The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states, "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: 1. Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. 2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. However, short-term local construction emissions would exceed the thresholds of significance for PM10 and PM2.5. MM AIR-1c from the Certified EIR requires the Applicant to prepare a dust control plan that includes measures to meet the requirements of 33 SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 was found to be adequate to reduce the local PM10 and PM2.5 impacts to less than significant level. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The analysis for long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, a less than significant long-term impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, based on the information provided above, with implementation of MM AIR-1c, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by Federal and State requirements placed on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long-range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use the RTP/SCS and FTIP as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the Orange General Plan Land Use Element defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP. The Certified EIR determined that the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan project, which proposed the development of 128 dwelling units, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. However, the project, as currently proposed in this Addendum, proposes the development of 22 detached single-family residential units, which is over 80 percent reduction in the number of dwelling units. The Orange General Plan land use designation for this site is LDR and the site is currently zoned R-1-8. Consistent with the Orange General Plan’s density range of 2.1 to 6.0 units per acre for areas designated LDR,12 the project site would be allowed to accommodate a maximum of 92 residential homes based on acre density for a 15.4-acre residential land use parcel. The proposed 22 detached single-family residential units on 10.9 acres would be 70 units below the allowable density range. Since the proposed project is an allowed land use under the current General Plan land use designation and zoning, the proposed project is consistent with the current 12 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Land Use. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/570/General-Plan--- Land-Use-PDF. Accessed April 3, 2020. 34 land use designation and zoning, is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site, and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, with implementation of MM AIR-1c, which was set forth in the Certified EIR and is provided to meet Criterion 1, the proposed project would not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM AIR-1c Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, the Applicant shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan shall include measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such basic measures may include but are not limited to the following: a) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. b) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut. c) Water exposed surfaces at least three times a day under calm conditions, and as often as needed on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction site. d) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation. e) Use street sweepers that comply with SCAQMD Rules 1186 and 1186.1. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Reduced impact compared to the previous analysis in the Certified EIR. b) New ability to substantially reduce significant impact/reduced impact. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards. Construction Emissions The construction activities for the proposed project would include site preparation and grading, building construction, paving of the on-site driveways and parking lots, and application of 35 architectural coatings. The construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts. Construction-related Regional Impacts The Certified EIR determined that the project may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Regional air quality impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable during the project construction phase. The Certified EIR required implementation of MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1g. The proposed project would have a reduced impact compared to the previous analysis in the Certified EIR. The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related regional emissions from the proposed project. The worst-case summer or winter daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project for each phase of construction activities are shown below in Table 5. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently towards the end of the building construction phase, Table 5 also shows the combined regional criteria pollutant emissions from year 2022 building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction. Table 5 – Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation – – – – – – On-site1 3.89 40.50 21.15 0.04 20.11 11.81 Off-site2 0.09 0.60 0.70 0.00 0.24 0.07 Total 3.98 41.10 21.85 0.04 20.35 11.88 Grading – – – – – – On-site 4.19 46.40 30.88 0.06 14.90 5.88 Off-site 0.11 0.62 0.85 0.00 0.30 0.08 Total 4.30 47.02 31.73 0.06 15.20 5.96 Building Construction (Year 2021) – – – – On-site 1.90 17.43 16.58 0.03 0.96 0.90 36 Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Off-site 0.43 3.19 3.37 0.02 1.16 0.32 Total 2.33 20.62 19.95 0.05 2.12 1.22 Building Construction (Year 2022) On-site 1.71 15.62 16.36 0.03 0.81 0.76 Off-site 0.41 3.01 3.17 0.02 1.16 0.32 Total 2.12 18.63 19.53 0.05 1.97 1.08 Paving On-site 1.25 11.12 14.58 0.02 0.57 0.52 Off-site 0.06 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.17 0.05 Total 1.31 11.15 15.01 0.02 0.74 0.57 Architectural Coating On-site 15.10 1.41 1.81 0.00 0.08 0.08 Off-site 0.07 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.19 0.05 Total 15.17 1.45 2.29 0.00 0.27 0.13 Combined Building Construction (Year 2022), Paving and Architectural Coatings On-site 18.06 28.15 32.75 0.05 1.46 1.36 Off-site 0.54 3.08 4.08 0.02 1.52 0.42 Total 18.60 31.23 36.83 0.07 2.98 1.78 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 18.60 47.02 36.83 0.07 20.35 11.88 SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 37 Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 On-site emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 2 Off-site emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Table 5 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds during either site preparation, grading, or the combined building construction, paving, and architectural coatings phases. Therefore, regional air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. Construction-Related Local Impacts The Certified EIR found that unmitigated on-site emissions during construction would not exceed the LSTs and that the project would not expose receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations from construction activities prior to the implementation of mitigation. The proposed project would have a reduced impact compared to the previous analysis in the Certified EIR. Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the methodology described in the LST Methodology prepared by SCAQMD revised July 2008.13 The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern are NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables.14 The look-up tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily on-site emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 6 shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently towards the end of the building construction phase, Table 6 also shows the 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed May 11, 2020. 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up- tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed May 11, 2020. 38 combined local criteria pollutant emissions from year 2022 building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction. Table 6 – Construction-related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Prior to Mitigation Phase Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 40.58 21.24 20.14 11.82 Grading 46.48 30.99 14.94 5.89 Building Construction (Year 2021) 17.83 17.00 1.11 0.94 Combined Building Construction (Year 2022), Paving and Architectural Coatings 28.54 33.26 1.65 1.41 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 46.48 30.99 20.14 11.82 SCAQMD Local Construction Thresholds2 160 1,074 11 6 Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes Yes Notes: 1 The Pollutant Emissions include 100 percent of the On-Site emissions (off-road equipment and fugitive dust) and 1/8 of the Off-Site emissions (on road trucks and worker vehicles), in order to account for the on-road emissions that occur within 0.25- mile of the project site. 2 The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are homes located 80 feet (24 meters) north of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2 acres and f5 acres interpolated to 4 acres in Air Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange County. The data provided in Table 6 shows that the site preparation and grading phases would exceed the local PM10 construction threshold and the site preparation phase would exceed the local PM2.5 construction threshold. This would be considered a significant impact. The Certified EIR included MM AIR-1c, which requires the Applicant to prepare a dust control plan that includes measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Measures would include covering all haul trucks, watering all exposed surfaces at least three times per day, stabilizing all exposed soil with a soil conditioner or vegetation, utilizing street sweepers to remove track out on the adjacent public roads, limiting idling to 5 minutes in any hour, providing temporary power poles to minimize generator use, and restricting traffic speeds on on-site unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less. The available mitigation listed in MM AIR-1c that is also provided in CalEEMod was selected in the CalEEMod model run. A summary of the CalEEMod model results with implementation of MM AIR-1c is shown in Table 7. 39 Table 7 – Mitigated Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Phase Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 40.58 21.24 9.12 5.76 Grading 46.48 30.99 7.06 3.42 Building Construction (Year 2021) 17.83 17.00 1.11 0.94 Combined Building Construction (Year 2022), Paving and Architectural Coatings 28.54 33.26 1.65 1.41 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 46.48 30.99 9.12 5.76 SCAQMD Local Construction Thresholds2 160 1,074 11 6 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 The Pollutant Emissions include 100 percent of the On-Site emissions (off-road equipment and fugitive dust) and 1/8 of the Off-Site emissions (on road trucks and worker vehicles), in order to account for the on-road emissions that occur within 0.25- mile of the project site. 2 The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are homes located 80 feet (24 meters) north of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2 acres and 5 acres interpolated to 4 acres in Air Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange County. Table 8 shows that with implementation of MM AIR-1c, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the SCAQMD’s local thresholds of significance for any phase of construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of MM AIR-1c, local air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. Operational Emissions The ongoing operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project-generated vehicle trips, emissions from energy usage, and on-site area source emissions created from the ongoing use of the proposed project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the ongoing operations of the proposed project. Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations-related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model. The worst-case summer or winter VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the proposed project’s long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table 8. 40 Table 8 – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources1 1.03 0.39 1.99 0.00 0.04 0.04 Energy Usage2 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources3 0.32 1.33 4.42 0.02 1.59 0.43 Total Emissions 1.37 1.86 6.47 0.02 1.64 0.48 SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of emissions from natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. Source: Calculated from CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. The data provided in Table 8 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, regional air quality impacts from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (also referred to as “Friant Ranch”), the California Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that when a project would have significant impacts to air quality, an EIR should “make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” In order to determine compliance with this case, the California Supreme Court developed a test that includes the following: 1. The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant, including diesel particulate matter (DPM). This analysis details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant from the Federal government and specifically in Table 8. In addition, the specific health risks created from DPM are in Appendix A. As such, this analysis meets the part 1 requirements of the Friant Ranch case. 2. The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the project. The ruling details how to identify the magnitude of the health risks. Specifically, on page 24 of the ruling it states, “The Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision makers of possible adverse health effects. The County could have, for example, identified the Project’s impact on the days of nonattainment per year.” 41 Table 8 above shows that the primary source of operational air emissions would be created from mobile source emissions that would be generated throughout the Air Basin. As such, any adverse health impacts created from the proposed project should be assessed on a basin-wide level. As indicated below in Table 9, the Air Basin has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM2.5, and partial non-attainment for lead. Table 9 – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards Air Pollutant Concentration / Averaging Time Most Relevant Effects California Standards Federal Primary Standards Ozone (O3) 0.09 ppm / 1-hour 0.07 ppm / 8-hour 0.070 ppm, / 8-hour (a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (e) Vegetation damage; and (f) Property damage. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 20.0 ppm / 1-hour 9.0 ppm / 8-hour 35.0 ppm / 1-hour 9.0 ppm / 8-hour (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; and (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 0.18 ppm / 1-hour 0.030 ppm / annual 100 ppb / 1-hour 0.053 ppm / annual (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.25 ppm / 1-hour 0.04 ppm / 24-hour 75 ppb / 1-hour 0.14 ppm/annual (a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma. Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) 50 µg/m3 / 24-hour 20 µg/m3 / annual 150 µg/m3 / 24- hour (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in pulmonary function growth in children; and (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in elderly. Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 12 µg/m3 / annual 35 µg/m3 / 24-hour 12 µg/m3 / annual Sulfates 25 µg/m3 / 24-hour No Federal Standards (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c ) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; and (f) Property damage. Lead 1.5 µg/m3 / 30-day 0.15 µg/m3 /3- month rolling (a) Learning disabilities; and (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction. Visibility Reducing Particles Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer - visibility of ten No Federal Standards Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. 42 Air Pollutant Concentration / Averaging Time Most Relevant Effects California Standards Federal Primary Standards miles or more due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf . In addition, PM10 has been designated by the State as non-attainment. It should be noted that VOC and NOX are ozone precursors. As such, they have been considered as non-attainment pollutants. According to the 2016 AQMP, in 2016 the total emissions of VOC was 500 tons per year, NOX was 522 tons per year, SOX was 18 tons per year, and PM2.5 was 66 tons per year. Since the 2016 AQMP did not calculate total PM10 emissions, the total PM10 emissions were obtained from The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by California Air Resources Board (CARB), for the year 2020. The project contribution to each criteria pollutant in the South Coast Air Basin is shown in Table 10. Table 10 – Project’s Contribution to Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Project Emissions1 1.37 1.86 6.47 0.02 1.64 0.48 Total Emissions in Air Basin2 1,000,000 1,044,000 4,246,000 36,000 322,000 132,000 Project’s Percent of Air Emissions 0.0001% 0.0002% 0.0002% 0.0001% 0.0005% 0.0004% SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 From the project’s total operational emissions shown above in Table 8. 2 VOC, NOx, CO, SO2 and PM2.5 from 2016 AQMP and PM10 from the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition. As shown in Table 10, the project would increase criteria pollutant emissions by as much as 0.0005 percent for PM10 in the South Coast Air Basin. Due to these nominal increases in the Air Basin- wide criteria pollutant emissions, no increases in days of non-attainment are anticipated to occur from operation of the proposed project. As such, this analysis meets the part 2 requirements of the Friant Ranch case, and therefore, no further analysis is required. As such, operation of the project is not anticipated to result in a quantitative increase in premature deaths, asthma in children, days children would miss school, asthma-related emergency room visits, or an increase in acute bronchitis among children due to the criteria pollutants created by the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. 43 Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from on-site operations. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 parts per million (ppm) over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours. At the time of the 1993 Handbook,15 the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. According to the SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables, in 2007 Central Orange County had maximum CO concentrations of 4.0 ppm for 1 hour and 2.9 ppm for 8 hours, and in 2018 Central Orange County had maximum CO concentrations of 2.3 ppm for 1 hour and 1.9 ppm for 8 hours, which represent decreases in CO concentrations of 43 percent and 34 percent, respectively, between 2018 and 2007. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles 16 during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the proposed project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, and since the CO concentrations are now at least 34 percent lower than when CO was designated in attainment in 2007, no local CO hot spots are anticipated to be created from the proposed project and no CO hot spot modeling was performed. Therefore, long-term impacts to local air quality with the ongoing use of the proposed project would be less than significant. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from On-site Operations Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings and landscaping equipment, and on-site usage of natural gas appliances, may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity even though 15 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCQAMD). 1993 Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook#. Accessed May 12, 2020. 16 The four intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the evening peak hour. 44 these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The look-up tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 11 shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model, which includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table 11 – Operations-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions On-site Emission Source Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.39 1.99 0.04 0.04 Energy Usage 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources 0.17 0.55 0.20 0.05 Total Emissions 0.70 2.60 0.25 0.10 SCAQMD Local Operational Thresholds1 160 1,074 3 2 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are homes located 80 feet (24 meters) north of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2 acres and 5 acres interpolated to 4 acres in Air Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange County. The Certified EIR determined that the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan project, which proposed the development of 128 dwelling units, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. However, the project site, as currently proposed in this Addendum, proposes the development of 22 detached single-family residential units, which is over an 80 percent reduction in the number of dwelling units. The data provided in Table 11 shows that the ongoing operations of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds. Therefore, ongoing operations-related impacts to local air quality due to on-site emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Based on the above, with implementation of MM AIR-1c, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM AIR-1c. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Reduced impact compared to the previous analysis in the Certified EIR. 45 c) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR found that the project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. These impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of MM AIR-1a through MM AIR- 1g. The impact level of the proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations, have been calculated for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from TAC emissions. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family homes located as near as 80 feet north of the project site. Construction-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The construction activities for the proposed project would include site preparation and grading, building construction, paving of the on-site driveways and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from TAC emissions created from on-site construction equipment, which are described below. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction The local air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed, and it was found that the site preparation and grading phases would exceed the local PM10 construction threshold, and the site preparation phase would exceed the local PM2.5 construction threshold. This would be considered a significant impact. The Certified EIR included MM AIR-1c, which requires the Applicant to prepare a dust control plan that includes measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 and to cover all haul trucks, water all exposed surfaces at least three times per day, stabilize all exposed soil with a soil conditioner or plant with vegetation, utilize street sweepers to remove track out on the adjacent public roads, limit idling to 5 minutes in any hour, provide temporary power poles to minimize generator use, and restrict traffic speeds on on-site unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less. The analysis found that with implementation of MM AIR-1c, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the SCAQMD’s local thresholds of significance for any phase of construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of MM AIR-1c, construction-related impacts to local air quality would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to DPM emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. Individual cancer risk is the likelihood that a person exposed to 46 concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime would contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30-year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors.17 Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30- or 70-year) substantial source of TAC emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment, and by January 2023 no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. As of January 2019, 25 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Therefore, no significant short-term TAC impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project. As such, impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Operations-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The ongoing operations of the proposed project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emissions from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local criteria pollutant impacts from on-site operations, and TAC impacts. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis shows that no local CO hot spots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of off-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from On-site Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the proposed project would occur from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, natural gas-only hearths, landscaping equipment, and on- 17 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2020. 47 site usage of natural gas appliances. The analysis provided above CEQA Checklist Question Air Quality-B found that the operation of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, the ongoing operations-related impacts to local air quality due to on-site emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas, and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips would be generated by the proposed project, TAC impacts during the ongoing operations of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM AIR-1c. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The impact level of the proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor. Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that would elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the 48 project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality; this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below. Construction-Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints, and solvents, and from emissions from diesel equipment. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site’s boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, odor impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operations-Related Odor Impacts The proposed project would consist of the development of 22 detached single-family residential units. Single-family homes are not typical odor-generating land uses. Land uses typically associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste-disposal facilities, specialized industrial uses that include chemical manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing, and painting/coating operations, or agricultural operations. As such, the project’s long-term operational activities would not create odor emissions that would generate numerous odor complaints. Therefore, odor impacts from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 49 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact Analysis: No substantial change from previous analysis. A project-specific Supplemental Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (2020 BRA) was prepared to address potential project-related impacts to special-status species (Appendix B).18 The results of the 2020 BRA related to potential impacts to special status species are generally consistent with the results of the analysis presented in the Certified EIR. Project Design Features The Applicant proposes to include the following project design features, which would reduce impacts to special-status wildlife species. PDF BIO -1: The proposed project will permanently retain a landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail located along the perimeter of the site and Santiago Creek corridor. 18 ESA Associates. 2020. Supplemental Biological Resources Technical Memorandum for the Trails at Santiago Creek Project Site, City of Orange, Orange County, California. May 7. 50 PDF BIO -2: The majority of the southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest within the project site will be avoided. The project will also avoid the majority of jurisdictional waters supporting USACE/RWQCB “waters of the U.S./State,” including wetland, and CDFW streambed and associated riparian habitat. Impacts to jurisdictional features will be limited to 0.02 acre of permanent impact resulting from the installation of a storm drain and 0.13 acre of temporary impact resulting from a temporary construction access bridge. PDF BIO -3: The proposed project will avoid the majority of Santiago Creek and its associated native riparian habitat (e.g., southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest) as well as native upland habitat (e.g., coastal sage scrub). This includes sensitive plant communities, including coastal sage scrub, coastal sage scrub/non-native herbaceous cover, southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, blue elderberry scrub, California brittlebush scrub, and yerba santa scrub within and/or adjacent to Santiago Creek. PDF BIO -4: The proposed project will provide a landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail adjacent to the southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest within Santiago Creek, which provides habitat for the least Bell’s vireo. PDF BIO -5: The proposed project will provide selective landscaping, including native species, within the landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail (to the north of Santiago Creek) that is compatible with the adjacent open space area, and habitat. PDF BIO -6: The proposed project establishes development standards to reduce sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals) to the adjacent open space area supporting sensitive biological resources (i.e., least Bell’s vireo and sensitive natural communities), as demonstrated in the Biological Development Standards in Table 12 the below. Table 12 – Biological Development Standards Lighting: The project has been designed to minimize night lighting while remaining compliant with City ordinances related to street lighting. Any necessary lighting adjacent to the open space areas of the project will be shielded or directed away from conserved areas. Noise: The project has been designed to comply with City ordinances related to noise. Short-term construction-related noise impacts will be reduced by the implementation of a number of measures during the breeding season (i.e., March 15 through September 15) including the following: • All construction work shall occur during the daylight hours. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that 51 would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours to be determined by the City. • During all excavation and grading on-site, the construction contractors shall equip construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards to reduce construction equipment noise to the maximum extent possible. To the maximum extent possible that does not lengthen the construction period, the construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors. • The construction contractor shall stage equipment in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. • Noise from construction activities shall be limited to the extent possible through the maximum use of technology available to reduce construction equipment noise. Project-generated noise, both during construction and after the development has been completed, shall be in compliance with the requirements outlined in the City of Orange General Plan Noise Element. Exotic Plant and Animal Infestations: To the maximum extent possible, native plants will be used in the landscape plans for the common areas of the project adjacent to conserved areas. The plant palette will avoid the species listed in the California Invasive Plant Council’s California Invasive Plant Inventory (2006 and 2007). Educational Materials: As a part of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the Homeowners Association (HOA) will be responsible for providing educational materials to the homeowners describing the sensitivity of the avoided habitat areas. Signage will be posted adjacent to the avoided riparian areas and conservation areas to alert the public as to the sensitivity of the habitat. Public trails are designed outside of the riparian area to minimize trespassing. PDF BIO -7: The proposed project will limit uses within the landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail to passive uses (e.g., trail). In summary, and consistent with the analysis of the Certified EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to special-status plant species. Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur that would potentially be impacted significantly, are not covered under the Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), and require specific mitigation as described below, include California gnatcatcher and white-tailed kite. Impacts specific to Bell’s vireo are addressed and mitigated for as described in the Mitigation Measures section, below. Impacts to other potentially occurring special- status species are considered less than significant and/or mitigation is adequately addressed through the implementation of the NCCP/HCP. These species include yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, willow flycatcher, coyote, coast range newt, red-diamond rattlesnake, coast horned lizard, Coronado skink, orange-throated whiptail, long-eared owl, western mastiff bat, coastal whiptail, sharpshinned hawk, rough-legged hawk, red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, Southern California 52 rufous-crowned sparrow, prairie falcon, American peregrine falcon, loggerhead shrike, southwestern willow flycatcher, pallid bat, and gray fox. No California gnatcatchers were observed during focused surveys conducted in 2020; therefore, no impacts to the California gnatcatcher would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified impact as identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-2a Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for areas supporting least Bell’s vireo habitat (such as southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest), the project Applicant shall obtain federal and state take authorizations via regulatory permits (such as a CWA Section 404 permit issued by the USACE), which will require that the USFWS be consulted as provided for by Section 7 of FESA (for the federally listed least Bell’s vireo). The federal regulatory permits (such as CWA Section 404 permit issued by the USACE) provide a “federal nexus” by which Section 7 consultation can occur. This statute imposes the obligation on federal agencies to ensure that their actions (such as issuing federal CWA permits for this project) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. This obligation is enforced through the procedural requirement that agencies such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers initiate consultation with the USFWS on any actions that may affect a threatened or endangered species. During the FESA Section 7 consultation anticipated for this project, the USFWS will gather all relevant information concerning the proposed project and the potential project-related impacts on the least Bell’s vireo (i.e., the project Applicant will submit a species-specific Biological Assessment), prepare its opinion with respect to whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species (i.e., the USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion), and recommend mitigation/conservation measures where appropriate. Additionally, the need for State regulatory permits (i.e., Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFW) will require a Consistency Determination from the CDFW for the State-listed least Bell’s vireo under CESA. In addition, the following BMPs will ensure that indirect impacts will not occur to the least Bell’s vireo within 300 feet of occupied habitat as monitored by a certified biologist: 53 1. Construction limits in and around least Bell’s vireo potential habitat shall be delineated with flags and fencing prior to the initiation of any grading or construction activities. 2. Prior to grading and construction a training program shall be developed and implemented to inform all workers on the project about listed species, sensitive habitats, and the importance of complying with avoidance and minimization measures. 3. All construction work shall occur during the daylight hours. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours determined by the City of Orange. 4. During all excavation and grading on-site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards to reduce construction equipment noise to the maximum extent possible. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors (i.e., least Bell’s vireo territory within Santiago Creek) nearest the project site. 5. The construction contractor shall stage equipment in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 6. Noise from construction activities shall be limited to the extent possible through the maximum use of technology available to reduce construction equipment noise. Project-generated noise, both during construction and after the development has been completed, shall be in compliance with the requirements outlined in the City of Orange General Plan Noise Element to ensure that noise levels to which the riparian area is exposed do not exceed noise standards for residential areas. 7. The project shall be designed to minimize exterior night lighting while remaining compliant with City of Orange ordinances related to street lighting. Any necessary lighting (e.g., to light up equipment for security measures), both during construction and after the development has been completed, will be shielded or directed away from Santiago Creek and are not to exceed 0.5 foot- candles. Monitoring by a qualified lighting engineer (attained by the project Applicant and subject to spot checking by City Staff) shall be conducted as needed to verify light levels are below 0.5 foot-candles required within identified, occupied least Bell’s vireo territories, both during construction and at the onset of operations. If the 0.5 foot-candles requirement is exceeded, the lighting engineer shall make operational changes or install a barrier to alleviate light levels during the breeding season. 54 Two brown-headed cowbird traps shall be installed and maintained within the general vicinity of the habitat for 5 years. If equestrian trails are proposed within the project site, which may result in increased horse manure and the potential for increased foraging resources for brown-headed cowbirds, an ongoing manure management receptacle/maintenance plan shall be prepared and implemented. MM BIO-2b The following shall be incorporated into the Biological Assessment as proposed mitigation for potential impacts to least Bell’s vireo, subject to USFWS and CDFW approval: 1. On‐ or off‐site restoration or enhancement of least Bell’s vireo habitat at a ratio no less than 3:1 for permanent grading impacts. MM BIO-2c All construction, grading, and fuel modification activities (i.e., thinning) shall take place outside of the least Bell’s vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15) to the greatest extent feasible. If any construction, grading, and fuel modification activities are required during the breeding season within 300 feet of potential least Bell’s vireo habitat, and pre‐construction surveys determine least Bell’s vireo are present, activities may continue in the presence of a biological monitor who will confirm that no work will occur within a 300-foot buffer of least Bell’s vireo, and that any least Bell’s vireo are not being disturbed by project activities. If any disturbance to the least Bell’s vireo is detected by the biological monitor, the buffer will be increased, other disturbance minimizing measures may be implemented (e.g., visual and/or noise barrier), and/or work will cease as recommended by the monitor. Additional measures to be taken for all construction activities within 300 feet of potential least Bell’s vireo habitat during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15): 1. Pre‐construction surveys shall be conducted within 1 week prior to initiation of construction activities and all results forwarded to the USFWS and CDFW. Focused surveys shall be conducted for least Bell’s vireo during construction activities. 2. If at any time least Bell’s vireo are found to occur within 300 feet of construction areas, the monitoring biologist shall inform the appropriate construction supervisor to cease such work and shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine if work shall commence or proceed during the breeding season and, if work may proceed, what specific measures shall be taken to ensure least Bell’s vireos are not affected. 55 3. Installation of any noise barriers and any other corrective actions taken to mitigate noise during the construction period shall be communicated to the USFWS and CDFW. MM BIO-2d Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would remove habitats containing raptor and songbird nests, the project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that either of the following have been or will be accomplished. 1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. 2. Any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete, or as determined appropriate by the biological monitor, to minimize impacts. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. f) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR identified 0.14 acre of permanent and 0.05 acre of temporary impacts to Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest, a sensitive natural community. Based on the 2020 BRA, the proposed project will result in 0.05 acre of permanent impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and 0.12 acre of temporary impacts to Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest for a temporary construction access bridge. The proposed project would reduce permanent impacts by 64 percent. Additionally, MM BIO-3 from the Certified EIR requires the Applicant to restore or enhance sensitive riparian communities either on- or off-site which would further reduce impacts to the Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified impact as identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-3 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in the areas designated as sensitive riparian communities (e.g., southern cottonwood‐willow riparian forest or black 56 willow scrub/ruderal), the project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that either of the following have been or will be accomplished: On‐ or off‐site restoration or enhancement of sensitive riparian communities (e.g., southern cottonwood‐willow riparian forest) at a ratio no less than 1:1 for permanent impacts. Temporary impacts will be restored to pre‐project conditions (i.e., pre‐project contours and revegetate with native species, where appropriate). Off‐site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 1:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency‐approved off‐site mitigation bank (e.g., Soquel Canyon Mitigation Bank). If mitigation is to occur on-site and/or off-site (i.e., not an in-lieu fee program), a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be prepared. The plan shall focus on the creation of equivalent habitats within disturbed habitat areas of the project site and/or off-site. In addition, the plan shall provide details as to the implementation of the plan, maintenance, and future monitoring. Mitigation for impacts to sensitive riparian communities shall be accomplished by on- or off-site restoration and/or enhancement (e.g., transplantation, seeding, and/or planting/staking of sensitive riparian species; salvage/dispersal of duff and seed bank; removal of large stands of giant reed within riparian areas). Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. g) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR identified impacts to approximately 170 linear feet (50 linear feet permanent, 120 linear feet temporary) and 0.01 acre (0.01 acre permanent, and less than 0.01 acre temporary) of USACE/RWQCB- jurisdictional waters of the United States/State, of which less than 0.01 acre is wetland; as well as 0.07 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat. Based on the 2020 BRA, the proposed project will result in 0.07 of USACE/RWQCB- jurisdictional waters of the United States/State, of which 0.01 acre is wetland, as well as 0.15 acre of CDFW-regulated watercourse and associated riparian habitat. Mitigation for impacts to State and federally protected aquatic resources are provided in Certified EIR and have been adjusted to the specific proposed project as MM-BIO-4. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified impact as identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. 57 Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-4 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for permanent impacts in the areas designated as jurisdictional features on Figure 18, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features, the Project Applicant shall obtain a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE, a CWA Section 401 permit from the RWQCB, and Streambed Alteration Agreement permit under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code from the CDFW. The following would be incorporated , as a minimum, into the permitting, subject to approval by the regulatory agencies: 1. On- or off-site restoration or replacement of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters of the United States/waters of the State at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts, restore impact area to pre- project conditions (i.e., pre-project contours and revegetate with native species, where appropriate). Off-site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 2:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved off- site mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program (e.g., SAWA). 2. On- or off-site restoration or enhancement of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts, restore impact area to pre-project conditions (i.e., pre-project contours and revegetate with native species, where appropriate). Off-site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 2:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved off-site mitigation bank (e.g., Soquel Canyon Mitigation Bank). Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. h) No substantial change from previous analysis. Similar to the Certified EIR, the proposed project was designed to avoid Santiago Creek and associated native habitat that is best suited to support local and regional wildlife movement along the creek to the maximum extent feasible. Impacts are limited to 0.05 acre of permanent impacts to southern cottonwood- willow riparian forest (associated with impacts to overhanging canopy from the 22-lot development and from the proposed storm drain), which will not inhibit local or regional movement, and 0.12 acre of temporary impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest for a temporary construction access bridge, which will be returned to pre-project conditions once the project is complete. This is a similar impact as outlined in the Certified EIR, which included 0.04 acre of permanent impacts and 0.05 acre of temporary impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest habitat with the installation of an on-site storm drain, and 0.10 acre of permanent impacts to an isolated patch of southern cottonwood- willow riparian forest on-site. The proposed project has overall less permanent impacts, and temporary impacts will be returned to pre-project conditions. Thus, the proposed impacts will not inhibit wildlife movement through the project site nor their use of the Santiago 58 Creek wildlife corridor (similar to the Certified EIR). Therefore, for species which utilize the habitat associated with Santiago Creek, impacts to wildlife movement would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. i) No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Both the 2020 BRA and Certified EIR recognize and address the potential for project-related impacts to regulated trees. Both analyses conclude that the project shall be required to be in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, Title 12 Streets and Sidewalks and Public Places, Chapter 12.32 Tree Preservation (Tree Preservation Ordinance). The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires applicants for subdivision maps or grading permits to identify the location of trees proposed for removal and affords City staff discretion in imposing conditions on tree removal activities and replanting. Removed trees would be conditioned on being replaced on-site at no less than a 1:1 ratio. With implementation of these requirements, the project would not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Level of Significance Before Mitigation. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is necessary. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. j) No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The project site is within the boundaries of the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP. Both the 2020 BRA and Certified EIR conclude that the proposed project is considered consistent with the goals and objectives of the County of Orange Central/Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP. Level of Significance Before Mitigation. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is necessary. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 59 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. A records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on November 28, 2017, for the Certified EIR. The current conditions of the project site have not significantly changed since 2017. Based on the results of the records search, it was determined that there was a high probability that significant, intact subsurface deposits could be uncovered during project development, especially in undisturbed areas of the project site. As such, archaeological monitoring during grading and construction is required under MM CUL-1. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified impact as identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL-1 In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within a 50-foot radius of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist and shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor in accordance with Public Resource Code Section 21083.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 and recommended to the Lead Agency. 60 Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. As previously discussed, a records search was conducted at the SCCIC on November 28, 2017, for the Certified EIR. The records search indicated that eight prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within a one- mile radius of the property. One of those, CA-ORA-369, was recorded immediately south of Maybury Street. The site was tested for subsurface deposits and found to be ineligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Another site, CA-ORA-1172, is recorded southeast of the site, outside the property boundary. None of the remaining six are located on or within 0.5 mile of the project site. Three historic homes are recorded within one mile of the project site, but none are on the project site. Additionally, the surrounding region, including the Santiago Creek corridor, exhibits prehistoric sites. There are 11 known cultural resources within a 1-mile search radius, including eight prehistoric-age and three historic-age resources. Two of the historic-age resources are NR listed properties located more than 0.25 mile from the project site. Based on the results of the archaeological records search, it was determined that there is a high probability that significant, intact subsurface deposits could be discovered during grading or construction. As such, MM CUL-2 was required, which includes consultation with a qualified archaeologist in the event that an archaeological resource is discovered. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL-2 During the ground disturbing activities in the areas depicted in Exhibit 3.5 1 of the Certified EIR, a qualified archaeological and paleontological monitor shall be present on-site to observe earthwork activities. In the event of a discovery of an archaeological or paleontological resource, the monitor shall have the discretion to halt all ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find until it has been evaluated for significance. If the find is determined to have archaeological or paleontological, the procedures in Mitigation Measure CUL-1 or Mitigation 61 Measure CUL-3 shall be implemented. Monitoring may cease once all of the areas depicted in Exhibit 3.5 1 of the Certified EIR have been thoroughly disturbed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. No known cemeteries or human remains exist on the project site or in areas adjacent to the project site. In the event that previously unknown human remains are accidentally discovered during grading or construction, the project would be required to comply with notification requirements pursuant to PRC 5097.98 and MM CUL-4. Implementation of MM CUL-4 would reduce impacts in the event of an accidental discovery of human remains. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL-4 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 must be followed. In this instance, once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the Commission; 62 • The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 63 6. ENERGY Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Environmental Setting The analysis in this section is based in part on the Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Analysis Report prepared by Vista Environmental on April 8, 2020. The report is provided in Appendix A of this Addendum. Energy Conservation Thresholds of Significance The 2018 amendments and additions to the CEQA Checklist included an Energy Section to analyze the proposed project’s energy consumption in order to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Since the Energy Section was recently added, no State or local agencies have adopted specific criteria or thresholds to be utilized in an energy impact analysis. However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 provides the following direction on how to analyze a project’s energy consumption: “If analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use. This analysis should include the project’s energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation-related energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include, among others, the project’s size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project. This analysis is subject to the rule of reason and shall focus on energy use that is caused by the project. This analysis may be included in related analyses of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation or utilities in the discretion of the lead agency.” If the proposed project creates inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation activities or conflicts with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, then the proposed project would create a significant energy impact. 64 Impact Analysis: a) and b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would potentially be impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum-based fuel supplies and distribution systems. This analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the proposed project, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. A general definition of each of these energy resources is provided below. Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on-site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands. In 2018, SCE, which provides electricity to the project vicinity, provided 85,276 gigawatt-hours per year of electricity.19 Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas satisfies almost one-third of the State’s total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet. In 2018, Orange County consumed 575.133 million therms of natural gas.20 Petroleum-based fuels currently account for a majority of California’s transportation energy sources and primarily consist of diesel and gasoline types of fuels. However, the state has been working on developing strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade California has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency; increase the development and use of alternative fuels; reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation sector; and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Accordingly, petroleum-based fuel consumption in California has declined. In 2015, 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline was sold in the 19 California Energy Commission. 2016. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. Accessed May 12, 2020. 20 California Energy Commission. 2016. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed May 12, 2020. 65 State.21 Diesel represents 17 percent of total fuel sales after gasoline, and in 2015, 4.2 billion gallons of diesel was sold in California.22 The following section calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and determines if any energy utilized by the proposed project is a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Construction Energy The construction activities for the proposed project would include site preparation and grading, building construction, paving of the on-site driveways and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. The proposed project would consume energy resources during construction in three general forms: 1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off-site reuse and disposal facilities); 2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and, 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Construction-Related Electricity During construction the proposed project would consume electricity to construct the new structures and infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the project site by SCE and would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the project site. The use of electricity from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators would minimize impacts on energy use. Electricity consumed during project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary and nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the proposed project would require limited electricity consumption that would not be expected to 21 California Energy Commission. 2019. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/. Accessed May 12, 2020. 22 California Energy Commission. 2019. Diesel Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/diesel.html. Accessed May 12, 2020. 66 have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Since there are existing electrical lines running underground in Mabury Avenue adjacent to the project site, it is anticipated that only nominal improvements would be required to SCE distribution lines and equipment with development of the proposed project. Where feasible, the new service installations and connections would be scheduled and implemented in a manner that would not result in electrical service interruptions to other properties. Compliance with City guidelines and requirements would ensure that the proposed project fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure installation, coordinates any electrical infrastructure removals or relocations, and limits any impacts associated with construction of the project. Construction of the project’s electrical infrastructure is not anticipated to adversely affect the electrical infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity. Construction-Related Natural Gas Construction of the proposed project typically would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Natural gas would not be supplied to support construction activities; thus, there would be no demand generated by construction. Since there are currently underground gas lines in Mabury Avenue adjacent to the project site, construction of the proposed project would be limited to installation of new natural gas connections within the project site. Development of the proposed project would likely not require extensive infrastructure improvements to serve the project site. Construction-related energy usage impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to place the lines below surface. In addition, prior to ground disturbance, the proposed project would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depth of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. Therefore, construction-related impacts to natural gas supply and infrastructure would be less than significant. Construction-Related Petroleum Fuel Use Petroleum-based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed during construction, which would utilized by both off-road equipment operating on the project site and on-road automobiles transporting workers to and from the project site and on-road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the project site. The off-road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off-road equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown on Table 13, which shows that the off- road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed Project would consume 69,098 gallons of fuel. The on-road construction trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the construction vehicle trip assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown on Table 14, which shows that the on-road trips generated from construction of the proposed Project would consume 24,520 gallons of fuel. As such, the combined fuel used from off-road construction equipment and on- road construction trips for the proposed project would result in the consumption of 93,617 gallons of petroleum fuel. This equates to 0.00049 percent of the gasoline and diesel consumed in the State 67 annually. As such, the construction-related petroleum use would be nominal when compared to current petroleum usage rates. Table 13 – Off-Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project Equipment Type Equipment Quantity Horse- power Load Factor Operating Hours per Day Total Operational Hours1 Fuel Used (gallons) Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 247 0.40 8 240 1,224 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 97 0.37 8 320 659 Grading Excavators 2 158 0.38 8 960 2,976 Grader 1 187 0.41 8 480 1,900 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 247 0.4 8 480 2,448 Scrapers (default) 2 367 0.48 8 960 8,730 Scraper (added for import) 1 860 0.48 6 360 7,672 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 97 0.37 8 960 1,977 Building Construction Cranes 1 231 0.29 7 2,100 7,263 Forklifts 3 89 0.2 8 7,200 7,355 Generators 1 84 0.74 8 2,400 8,562 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97 0.37 7 6,300 12,977 Welders 1 46 0.45 8 2,400 2,851 Paving Pavers 2 130 0.42 8 320 902 Paving Equipment 2 132 0.36 8 320 785 Rollers 2 80 0.38 8 320 558 Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 78 0.48 6 120 258 Total Off-Road Equipment Fuel Used during Construction (gallons) 69,098 Notes: 1 Based on: 10 days for Site Preparation; 60 days for Grading; 300 days for Building Construction; 20 days for Paving; and 20 days for Painting. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (see Appendix A); CARB, 2017. Table 14 – On-Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project Vehicle Trip Types Daily Trips Trip Length (miles) Total Miles per Day Total Miles per Phase1 Fleet Average Miles per Gallon2 Fuel Used (gallons) Site Preparation Worker Trips 18 14.7 265 2,646 25.3 105 Vendor Truck Trips 6 6.9 41 414 8.0 52 Grading Worker Trips 20 14.7 294 17,640 25.3 698 Vendor Truck Trips 6 6.9 41 2,484 8.0 312 Building Construction Worker Trips 84 14.7 1,235 370,440 25.3 14,668 Vendor Truck Trips 20 6.9 221 66,240 8.0 8,312 Paving Worker Trips 15 14.7 221 4,410 25.3 175 68 Vehicle Trip Types Daily Trips Trip Length (miles) Total Miles per Day Total Miles per Phase1 Fleet Average Miles per Gallon2 Fuel Used (gallons) Architectural Coating Worker Trips 17 14.7 250 4,998 25.3 198 Total Fuel Used from On-Road Construction Vehicles (gallons) 24,520 Notes: 1 Based on: 10 days for Site Preparation; 60 days for Grading; 300 days for Building Construction; 20 days for Paving; and 20 days for Painting. 2 From EMFAC 2017 model (see Appendix A). Worker Trips based on entire fleet of gasoline vehicles and Vendor Trips based on only truck fleet of diesel vehicles. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; CARB, 2018. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment and on-road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant. Development of the project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete; it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete and steel would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Operational Energy The ongoing operation of the proposed project would require the use of energy resources for multiple purposes including but not limited to heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment, and vehicle trips. Operations-Related Electricity Operation of the proposed project would result in consumption of electricity at the project site. The proposed project would consume 58,759 kilowatt-hours per year of electricity. This equates to 0.0001 percent of the electricity consumed annually by SCE. As such, the operations-related electricity use would be nominal when compared to current electricity usage rates in the area. It should be noted that the proposed project would be required to meet the 2019 Title 24, Part 6 building energy efficiency standards that have been developed to meet the State’s goal of zero-net- energy use for new homes. The zero net energy use would be achieved through a variety of measures to make new homes more energy efficient and by also requiring installation of photovoltaic systems of adequate size to generate enough electricity to meet the zero-net energy use standard. The size of the PV system required for the project pursuant to the 2019 Title 24 standards was calculated, and it was found that the proposed project would need to install at least 48.2 kilowatts of photovoltaic panels within the proposed project. The CalEEMod model found that with implementation of the 2019 Title 24 Part 6 standards, the proposed project would continue to utilize a nominal amount of power. However, it should be noted that the electricity 69 usage and emission rates utilized by the CalEEMod model are based on regional average usage rates for existing homes, which were not all built to the most current Title 24 Part 6 standards, so the CalEEMod model provides a conservative or worst-case analysis of electricity use from the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be designed and built to minimize electricity use, and existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s electricity demand. Thus, impacts with regard to electrical supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. Operations-Related Natural Gas Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of natural gas at the project site. The proposed project would consume 536,000 British thermal unit per year of natural gas. This equates to 0.0001 percent of the natural gas consumed annually in Orange County. As such, the operations-related natural gas use would be nominal when compared to current natural gas usage rates in the County. It should be noted that the proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and County requirements related to the consumption of natural gas, which includes California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed structures, including enhanced insulation as well as use of efficient natural gas appliances and HVAC units. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project would be designed and built to minimize natural gas use and that existing and planned natural gas capacity and natural gas supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s natural gas demand. Thus, impacts with regard to natural gas supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. Operations-Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of petroleum-based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the project site. The proposed project would consume 27,393 gallons of petroleum fuel per year from vehicle travel. This equates to 0.0001 percent of the gasoline and diesel consumed in the State annually. As such, the operations-related petroleum use would be nominal when compared to current petroleum usage rates. It should be noted that the proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 10 California Green Building Standards, which requires all new homes to include a dedicated circuit in the garage to be utilized for electric car charging. Therefore, the proposed project would be designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of electric-powered vehicles, and existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation fuels would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s demand. Thus, impacts 70 with regard transportation energy supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. In conclusion, the proposed project would comply with regulatory compliance measures outlined by the State and City related to Air Quality, GHG Emissions, Transportation/Circulation, and Water Supply. Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable City Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 71 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Impact Analysis: a) (i) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the development of the proposed project would not expose persons or structures to fault rupture hazards and that impacts would be less than significant. The impact level of the proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone as indicated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area.23 The El Modeno and Peralta Hills faults are located less than 0.5 mile from the project site; however, both are considered to be inactive. As such, the risk of rupture from a known earthquake fault is low. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. (ii) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that based on the proximity of the site to known active seismic sources, it should be expected that the site will experience moderately strong to strong seismic ground shaking during the project’s 23 California Department of Conservation. 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed April 23, 2020. 72 lifetime. The Certified EIR proposed implementation of MM GEO-1 to ensure that impacts related to strong ground shaking hazards would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The impact level of the proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project site is located in Southern California, where seismic ground shaking is common and can be expected to occur. To mitigate the ground-shaking effects, all structures shall be designed using sound engineering judgment and the latest Building Code requirements as a minimum. Consistent with the Certified EIR, MM GEO-1 would require the Applicant to submit a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared by a qualified engineer containing recommendations on the appropriate level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground-shaking hazards. Accordingly, the Applicant would be required to submit such a study to Orange County for review and approval prior to proceeding with development consistent with the Certified EIR. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that impacts related to strong ground shaking hazards would be less than significant. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (iii) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that although the 1997 Seismic Hazard Zone prepared for the project site and its surrounding area concluded that the liquefaction potential for the project site is nominal, the potential for liquefaction should be further explored and addressed during a design-level geotechnical exploration. According to the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, the site is not within a liquefaction zone. Therefore, the risk of seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction at the site of the proposed project is low. Surrounding parcels in the Santiago Creek Specific Plan area are at a low to moderate risk of liquefaction; however, the proposed project site is limited to the portion of the Specific Plan area that is outside of the liquefaction zone.24 Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is lower than the level of impacts identified in the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Certified EIR. Impacts would be less than significant. (iv) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that there would be no impacts associated with landslides. The impact level of the proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. According to the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, the site is not within a landslide zone. The site is relatively flat and is not near steep slopes. As such, the risk of landslides is low. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, there would be no impact.25 Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. 24 California Department of Conservation. 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed April 23, 2020. 25 Ibid. 73 Mitigation Measures: MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to City of Orange for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code’s geologic, soils, and seismic requirements. The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the Project plans. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. Soils on the project site were previously disturbed from sand and gravel activities that historically occurred on the site. Development activities would involve vegetation removal, grading, soil engineering, and other activities that have the potential to result in erosion. If left unabated, the accumulation of sediment in downstream waterways could result in the blockage of flows, potentially causing increased localized ponding or flooding. Soil erosion has the potential to occur during grading activities. Since the project site is greater than 1 acre, the project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to prevent soil erosion. BMPs would include measures to control runoff through bioretention and bio-filtration areas, nonstructural source control BMPs, and structural source control BMPs. Consistent with the Certified EIR, the project would be subject to the City’s existing regulations requiring implementation of stormwater quality control measures during construction activities. Some pollution prevention practices include erosion control measures such as backflow prevention devices and vegetating disturbed areas, which would prevent soil and sediment from entering downstream waterways. These pollution prevention measures are incorporated into MM HYD-1a. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and HYD-1a would ensure that impacts from erosion would be less than significant with mitigation. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM GEO-1. MM HYD-1a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent with and obtain a facility identification number from the State Water Resources Control Board. The project Applicant shall also submit an SWPPP to the California State Water Resources Control Board/Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP that identifies specific actions and BMPs to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, site restoration, contingency 74 measures, responsible parties, and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements: • Comply with the requirements of the State of California’s most current Construction Stormwater Permit. • Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented on all disturbed areas. • Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other BMPs. • The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate discharge of materials to storm drains. • BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine adequacy of the measure. • In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the wet season. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. As discussed in Impact Question 7(a), the site is not located within a liquefaction zone and is not at risk of landslides. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with all grading and engineering standards to ensure that building foundations are not at risk from unstable geologic units or soil. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. Expansive soils are soils that have the potential to swell and shrink due to the presence of clay, which can damage building 75 foundations. Consistent with the Certified EIR, the project site is underlain by Modjeska gravelly loam (2 to 9 percent slopes), which is well-drained in mixed alluvium on terraces; Soboba gravelly loam (0 to 5 percent slopes), an excessively drained soil formed in alluvium from granitic rocks; and Botella clay loam (2 to 9 percent slopes), a well-drained soil formed in alluvial material from sedimentary rocks. The majority of the soils on-site consist of gravelly and stony sands with low clay content. Moreover, the project site previously supported aggregate mining (sand and gravel). As such, these soil types do not retain water in a manner such that they would have a substantial shrink-swell potential. Standard grading and soil engineering practices would be performed in accordance with state and local building code standards to ensure that expansive soils do not pose a risk to structures developed under the Specific Plan. The proposed project would incorporate BMPs that would minimize the effects of expansive soil. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. e) No substantial change from previous analysis. The project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project would connect to the municipal sanitary sewer system provided by Orange County Sanitation District. There would be no new or more severe impacts associated with adequate soils and alternative wastewater disposal systems than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, there would be no impact. Significance Determination: No impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. f) No substantial change from previous analysis. Based on the paleontological records search conducted for the site on November 28, 2017, the project has the potential to encounter previously unknown paleontological resources in the Santiago Creek area. As such, consistent with the Certified EIR, mitigation includes a paleontological monitoring program. Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL-3 If the subsurface excavations for this project are proposed to exceed depths of 15 feet below surface, a qualified paleontological monitor should be retained to observe such excavations, which may breach the older Quaternary Alluvium deposits. In this situation, a detailed Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) or 76 Paleontological Resource Impact Management Plan (PRIMP) should be prepared in order to set forth the observation, collection, and reporting duties of the paleontological monitor. Additional mitigation measures and procedures shall be outlined in the MMP or PRIMP as needed. In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during construction activities that are shallower than 10 feet in depth, excavations within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The project contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The plan shall be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval prior to implementation, and the Applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the plan. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 77 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Environmental Setting The analysis in this section is based, in part on the Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Analysis Report prepared by Vista Environmental on April 8, 2020. The report is provided in its entirety in Appendix A of this report. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds of Significance The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a working group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010, working group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, as of November 2017, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the working group’s recommended thresholds. It should be noted that the SCAQMD working group’s thresholds were prepared prior to the issuance of Executive Order B-30-15 on April 29, 2015, which provided a reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This target was codified into statute through passage of AB 197 and SB 32 in September 2016. However, to date no air district or local agency within California has provided guidance on how to address AB 197 and SB 32 with relation to land use projects. In addition, the California Supreme Court’s ruling on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (Cleveland v. SANDAG), filed July 13, 2017, stated the following: SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or implementation measures to achieve its goal. In its response to comments, the EIR said: “It is uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should play in achieving the EO’s 2050 emissions reduction target. A recent California Energy Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major ‘decarbonization’ of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency. 78 Although, the above court case was referencing California’s GHG emission targets for the year 2050, at this time it is also unclear what role land use strategies can or should play in achieving the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. As such, this analysis has relied on the SCAQMD working group’s recommended thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would create a significant cumulative GHG impact if the proposed project would exceed the annual threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e. Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and that impacts would therefore be less than significant. The proposed project’s level of impacts is consistent with the Certified EIR. The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would consist of development of 22 detached single-family residential units. The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment. The project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model based on the construction and operational parameters. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 15. Table 15 – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area Sources1 5.66 0.00 0.00 5.70 Energy Usage2 47.35 0.00 0.00 47.59 Mobile Sources3 261.02 0.01 0.00 261.29 Solid Waste4 2.62 0.15 0.00 6.50 Water and Wastewater5 8.13 0.04 0.00 9.35 Construction6 23.54 0.00 0.00 23.66 Total GHG Emissions 348.32 0.20 0.00 354.09 SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 Exceed Thresholds? No Notes: 1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, hearths, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 6 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. 79 The data provided in Table 15 shows that the proposed project would create 354.09 MT CO2e per year. According to the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the ongoing operations would exceed 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions from development of the proposed project would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and that impacts would therefore be less than significant. The proposed project’s level of impacts is consistent with the Certified EIR. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The applicable plan for the proposed project is the Orange General Plan, where the Natural Resources Element includes the following goals and policies related to reducing GHG emissions and responding to climate changes:26 GOAL 3.0: Prepare for and adapt to the effects of climate change and promote practices that decrease the City’s contribution to climate change. Policy 3.1: Evaluate the potential effects of climate change on the City’s human and natural systems and prepare strategies that allow the City to appropriately respond and adapt. Policy 3.2: Develop and adopt a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gasses within Orange by at least 15 percent from current levels by 2020. The proposed project would be consistent with the current Orange General Plan Land Use Element designations for the project site of LDR and would preserve the adjacent land use designations of OS and RA. Thus, the project would help preserve areas of the City designated OS and RA, which would be consistent with Goal 3.0 to decrease the City’s contribution to climate change. In other words, by preserving a majority of the surrounding area for open space and recreational uses, the project would avoid additional GHG emissions from those areas and provide alternative transportation and recreational opportunities to the proposed and nearby existing residents through development of a trail along Santiago Creek. Furthermore, the project site is located in an infill area, which would add residential density to the local area. The increased density of the local neighborhood would help support the SCAG regional land use and transportation GHG reduction 26 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Natural Resources Element. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/391/General-Plan. Accessed April 13, 2020. 80 goals mandated by SB 375, which relies on additional residential density coupled with nearby amenities to reduce VMT and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Given that the project would comply with the land use designations of the project site, increase residential density in a developed area, and preserve open space and recreational land—which would reduce GHG emissions produced on those areas—the project would be consistent with the goals and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs contained within the Orange General Plan. Furthermore, the project’s combined long-term operational and amortized construction GHG emission of 354.09 MT CO2e per year would be well below the applicable SCAQMD threshold of significance of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the climate change goals and policies in the Orange General Plan and would not conflict with the applicable plan adopted for reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 81 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and that impacts would therefore be less than significant. The proposed project’s level of impacts is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project site is currently vacant. The proposed project would include construction of new roadways, sidewalks, and residential structures. During construction of the residential area and related infrastructure, staging areas, trail, and other proposed improvements, hazardous materials would be handled on the project site. These hazardous materials would include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products used to operate and maintain construction equipment and vehicles. This handling of hazardous materials would be a temporary activity and coincide with the short-term construction phase of the proposed project. Although hazardous materials associated with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles may be stored on the project site, it is expected that only the amounts needed would be kept on-site, and any handling of such materials would be limited in both quantities and concentrations. Removal and disposal of hazardous materials from the project site would be conducted by a permitted and licensed contractor. Any handling, transporting, use, or disposal would comply with 82 applicable laws, policies, and programs set forth by various federal, State, and local agencies and regulations. The proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 to minimize exposure to asbestos and with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Rule 29 and Code of Federal Regulations Part 1926 to minimize the risk of exposure to lead-based paint and lead exposure. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 22 Division 4.5 for appropriate management of hazardous materials, as well as the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), which is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA ) for Orange County, and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), would ensure that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Required compliance with applicable hazardous material laws and regulations would ensure that construction-related hazardous material use would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, new or more severe impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not occur. During the operational phase of the project, hazardous materials may be handled on the project site. Because of the nature of the project, hazardous materials used on-site may vary, but would likely be limited to fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, solvents, cleaning agents, and similar materials used for daily residential operations and maintenance activities. These types of materials are common and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used as intended. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant. Consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM HAZ-2a through MM HAZ 2c. The proposed project’s impacts would be less than those analyzed in the Certified EIR. The project would not result in upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and 83 local policies, regulations, and ordinances set forth by the EPA, DTSC, Cal/OSHA, Caltrans, RCRA, OCHCA, and the OCFA. These include the following: • Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507; • Vehicle Code Section 23112.5; • Public Utilities Code Section 7673 (PUC General Orders #22-B, 161); • California Government Code Sections 51018, 8670.25.5 (a); • Water Codes Sections 13271, 13272; and • California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b)10. The project boundaries are not immediately adjacent to the Villa Park Landfill. However, the project is adjacent to former mining activities. The former site of the Villa Park Landfill is located at 5545 East Santiago Canyon Road, south of Santiago Creek on the northeast corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon Street. The 18-acre Villa Park Landfill property occupies the northeast quadrant of the intersection of East Santiago Canyon Road/North Cannon Street to the west of the site. The landfill operated from 1962 through 1966 and is owned by the County of Orange. The site is enclosed with a fence and contains groundwater monitoring wells and a landfill gas disposal system. OC Waste & Recycling conducts groundwater monitoring, vadose zone perimeter gas probe monitoring, and site maintenance. The Certified EIR determined that the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan project, which is adjacent to the Villa Park Landfill, would result in potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, the project site, as currently proposed in this Addendum, which is located immediately south of Mabury Avenue, is located more than 0.25 mile from the former Villa Park Landfill site. As such, there would be no new or more severe impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Impacts would be less than those that were analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. However, the proposed project is not adjacent to a landfill or within close proximity of a landfill and would not need additional mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and that impacts would therefore be less than significant. The proposed project’s level of impacts would be consistent with the Certified EIR. The project would not emit hazardous 84 emissions or involve handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the site. The nearest school is a private K-8 school, Salem Lutheran Church and School, located 0.30 mile from the site at 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road. Additionally, the proposed project’s activities, which include development of residential units, streets, sidewalks, and a trail, would not involve routine use of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. Additionally, construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project would not involve routine emissions of TACs . Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project may be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM HAZ-2a. The proposed project’s level of impacts would be less than those analyzed in the Certified EIR. The project site is not listed on a hazardous materials database.27 The nearest site of concern indicated on the EnviroStor database is an active site cleanup program in Irvine Regional Park, approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site.28 The nearest site of concern indicated on the GeoTracker database is the site of the former Villa Park Landfill, approximately 0.30 mile from the project site.29 As discussed in the response to Impact Question 9(b), there would be no new or more severe impacts associated with the Villa Park Landfill than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. However, the proposed project is not adjacent or within close proximity to a landfill and would not need additional mitigation. As discussed in the Certified EIR, development and operation of the proposed project would not expose persons to residual hazardous materials from past uses of the Villa Park Landfill because the undeveloped areas adjacent to the landfill would provide a buffer between the landfill and residential units. Therefore, due to the proposed project’s distance from the former landfill, there would be no significant hazards to the public or the environment. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR; impacts would be less than significant. 27 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. EnviroStor. Website: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=6500+E.+Santiago+Canyon+Road%2C+Orange%2C+CA. Accessed April 21, 2020. 28 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. EnviroStor: Irvine Park – Army Camp (80000831). Website: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=80000831. Accessed April 21, 2020. 29 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2020. GeoTracker. Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=East+Mabury+Avenue%2C+Orange%2C+CA%2C+USA. Accessed April 21, 2020. 85 Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. e) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that there would be no impacts associated with an airport or an airport land use plan. The proposed project’s impact level is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project site is not in an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public or public use airport. The nearest public or public use airports are the Orange County John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, located 10.25 miles southwest of the site, the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located 11 miles to the northwest, and the Corona Municipal Airport, located 11.5 miles to the northeast. Therefore, consistent with the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan and EIR, there would be no impact related to a public airport or public use airport. Significance Determination: No impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. f) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project may impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM HAZ-5. The proposed project’s impact level is consistent with the Certified EIR. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would not modify any surrounding roadways in a manner that could impair emergency response or evacuation (road closures, lane narrowing, etc.). Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with all applicable codes and regulations, including the Fire Code. The Certified EIR included MM HAZ-5, which requires the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with all Fire Code emergency access requirements, prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM HAZ-5 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Orange for review and approval demonstrating compliance with all applicable emergency access provisions of the Fire Code. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. 86 Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. g) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR found that the project may expose persons or property to wildland fire hazards. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of MM HAZ-6 would reduce impacts to less than significant. The proposed project’s impact level is consistent with the Certified EIR. Consistent with the Certified EIR, the proposed project is located at the wildland/urban interface and would be subject to the City’s fuel modification requirements. The project would include the relocation of Santiago Creek Trail. The existing trail runs parallel to Mabury Avenue within the public right of way. The project would reroute the trail through the development site between the proposed single family lots and the creek edge. There is also an open space buffer between the creek and the lots. Except for the trail, the area would be planted with native landscaping suitable for fuel modification. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with all applicable federal and State regulations as well as the Orange City Fire Department provisions and regulations, and would be required to implement MM HAZ-6 which would require the Applicant to prepare a Fuel Modification Plan and submit to the City of Orange for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. The nearest City fire evacuation route would be via westbound Serrano Avenue to northbound Cannon Street.30 No new or more severe impacts associated with wildland fires would occur, and the level of impact would not change from the level identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM HAZ-6 Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified fire safety consultant to prepare a Fuel Modification Plan for the proposed project. The plan shall identify defensible space around dwelling units in accordance with City requirements. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Orange for review and approval. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 30 City of Orange. 2020. Fire Evacuation Area Maps. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/1916/Evacuation-Information. Accessed June 9, 2020. 87 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding in- or off-site; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (f) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? (g) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? (h) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (i) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (j) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (k) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? The following analysis in this section is based in part by the Hydrology Study, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering for the project in March 2020, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), prepared for the project by Fuscoe Engineering on April 6, 2020. Both studies are 88 included as Appendix C. The Hydrology Study determined that based on the proposed land use changes and project design features, no significant hydrology-related impacts are anticipated.31 Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project may potentially degrade water quality in downstream water bodies. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of MM HYD-1a and MM HYD-1b would reduce impacts to less than significant. The proposed project's impact level is consistent with the Certified EIR. Project implementation would require grading, building construction, and paving activities. During construction activities, there would be the potential for surface water to carry sediment from on-site erosion and other pollutants into the stormwater system and local waterways. Construction of the proposed project would also require the use of gasoline- and diesel- powered heavy equipment such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air compressors. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances would be utilized during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the water quality of the surface water runoff and add additional sources of pollution into the drainage system. NPDES stormwater permitting is required by the State Water Board’s Construction General Stormwater Permit (General Permit). The General Permit regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites. Under the General Permit, the preparation and implementation of SWPPPs are required for construction activities more than one acre in area. The SWPPP must identify potential sources of pollution that may be reasonably expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharges as well as identify and implement BMPs that ensure the reduction of these pollutants during stormwater discharges. MM HYD-1a is proposed, which would require the project Applicant to prepare and implement an SWPPP. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that potential, short-term, construction water quality impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The project would implement structural source control BMPs such as efficient irrigation and hillside landscaping, as well as non-structural source control BMPs such as street sweeping, facility inspection, common area landscape management, and employee training. On-lot infiltration BMPs and biofiltration BMPs would be implemented as well. BMPs would follow guidelines from the EPA’s Green Streets Manual, as discussed in the Preliminary WQMP.32 The project would comply with NPDES stormwater permitting requirements and implement a SWPPP in accordance with MM HYD-1a. Implementation of MM HYD-1a 31 Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2020. Hydrology Report. March. 32 Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2020. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). April 6. 89 would ensure that stormwater quality measures are implemented to mitigate any associated generated pollutants and runoff peak flows and volumes. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM HYD- 1a. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM HYD-1a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent with and obtain a facility identification number from the State Water Resources Control Board. The project Applicant shall also submit an SWPPP to the California State Water Resources Control Board/Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP that identifies specific actions and BMPs to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, site restoration, contingency measures, responsible parties, and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements: • Comply with the requirements of the State of California’s most current Construction Stormwater Permit. • Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented on all disturbed areas. • Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other BMPs. • The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate discharge of materials to storm drains. • BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine adequacy of the measure. • In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the wet season. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not contribute to groundwater overdraft or impair groundwater recharge and that impacts would therefore be less than significant. The proposed project’s impact level is 90 consistent with the Certified EIR. Based on a geotechnical report conducted by Ginter & Associates, Inc. in 2011, significant subterranean groundwater flows were present south of Santiago Creek.33 The direction of subterranean flow is generally east to west and parallel to the Santiago Creek and approximately 34-52 feet below the surface. The proposed project would result in a net increase in demand for potable water from the City of Orange. The proposed project is anticipated to demand 17.19 acre-feet of water annually; refer to Section 19 Utilities/Service Systems for further detail regarding the demand estimate. The City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan indicates that groundwater constitutes approximately 72 percent of the City’s potable water supply.34 The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan contemplates up to 20,650 acre-feet of groundwater production from the OC Basin annually through 2040. Thus, the proposed project’s demand would be a nominal percentage (0.0008) of the total volume of city groundwater production contemplated by the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Moreover, the proposed project’s demand is accounted for by the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and, thus, reflected in the demand estimates. The Preliminary WQMP determined that the project would not impact groundwater quality and that infiltration BMPs would not pose a significant risk to groundwater quality. The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management. The project site is adjacent to Santiago Creek, which provides for groundwater recharge within its channels. The Santiago Creek corridor would be available for continued groundwater recharge. As the project site is located in close proximity to the Villa Park landfill site, no infiltration for groundwater recharge would be promoted on-site, and only incidental infiltration would occur on landscaped areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge efforts. The Certified EIR determined that impacts associated with groundwater supplies, groundwater recharge, and sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be less than significant. The proposed project would not have new or greater impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 33 Ginter & Associates, Inc. 2011. Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Grading Plan Review for Tentative Tract 17344, Rio Santiago Development Site. October. 34 Arcadis U.S., Inc. 2016. City of Orange Urban Water Management Plan. June. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/Archive/ViewFile/Item/171. Accessed May 8, 2020. 91 c) f), and g) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not contribute runoff to downstream storm drainage facilities that would result in the potential for flooding, and that impacts would therefore be less than significant. The Certified EIR also determined that Construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project may potentially degrade water quality in downstream water bodies, and that implementation of MM HYD-1 would be needed to reduce impacts to less than significant. The proposed project’s impact levels are consistent with the Certified EIR. The project proposes alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site in accordance with the Preliminary WQMP. Under current conditions, the site sheet flows to the south and west before draining directly to Santiago Creek. All runoff into Santiago Creek then discharges to the Santa Ana River. Under proposed conditions, runoff would be conveyed to a proposed storm drain system. Each of the proposed lots would be graded to direct stormwater towards the proposed streets and into the proposed storm drain system. Flows within the proposed streets would drain to a Modular Wetland Unit for treatment prior to discharging to Santiago Creek. Low-flows and first-flush runoff from each of the lots would be intercepted by on-lot infiltration BMPs. High flows would bypass the BMP and drain to Santiago Creek via the proposed storm drain system. The project does not propose intentional alteration of the course of the creek. The project has the potential to affect the creek through the addition of impervious surfaces that creates runoff. The Santiago Creek corridor forms the southern boundary of the project site. The addition of impervious surfaces would be a necessary feature of the project. Site design BMPs would be implemented to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces. These site design BMPs include minimizing directly connected impervious areas through landscaping design; creating reduced discharge or “zero discharge” bioretention areas to reduce runoff volume; maximizing permeability with landscape design and infiltration areas; and conserving natural undeveloped areas and promoting natural drainage patterns where feasible. Grading and construction activities could potentially result in on-site erosion or siltation. Erosion-control BMPs and sediment-control BMPs would be implemented during construction. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. These BMPs would ensure that potential construction impacts related to soil erosion, siltation, and sedimentation remain less than significant and ensure compliance with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The project would potentially create stormwater runoff from construction and post- construction activities. The project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Under current conditions, the site sheet flows to the south and west before draining to Santiago Creek. All runoff into Santiago Creek then discharges to the Santa Ana River. Under the proposed conditions, runoff would be conveyed to a proposed storm drain system. 92 Grading of the site would direct storm water towards the center of the site to the proposed streets and into the proposed storm drain system. Infiltration BMPs and a Modular Wetland Unit would be implemented. Under final buildout conditions, low-flows and first flush runoff from each of the lots would be intercepted by on-lot infiltration BMPs. As discussed in Impact Question 10(e), the project would comply with all stormwater permitting and would implement the BMPs outlined above and submit a SWPPP to the regional water quality control board in accordance with MM HYD-1a and Mitigation Measure HYD-1b. Implementation of MM HYD-1a would ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities and to remove pollutants before entering the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). MM HYD- 1b would ensure that a WQMP is submitted to the City of Orange for approval, and that pollution prevention measures, Low Impact Development (LID) features, and BMPs are implemented to control stormwater pollution from operational activities. Therefore, impacts related to erosion and siltation, surface runoff resulting in flooding; runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; or impediment or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant. There would be no new or greater impacts than were analyzed in the Certified EIR. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM HYD-1a. MM HYD-1b Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall submit a WQMP to the City of Orange for review and approval. The plan shall be developed using the Orange County Model Water Quality Management Plan and Technical Guidance Document. The WQMP shall identify pollution prevention measures, LID features, and BMPs necessary to control stormwater pollution from operational activities and facilities, identify hydromodification flow controls, and provide for appropriate maintenance over time. The WQMP shall include design concepts and BMPs that are intended to address the Design Capture Volume, more commonly referred to as the “first flush,” and remove pollutants from the design system event before entering the MS4. In accordance with the Regional MS4 Permit and City of Orange WQMP requirements, the use of LID features shall be consistent with the prescribed hierarchy of treatment provided in the Permit: including techniques to infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, or retain runoff close to the source of runoff. For those areas of the project where infiltration is not recommended or acceptable and harvest/reuse demands are insufficient, biofiltration features shall be designed to treat runoff and discharge controlled effluent flows to downstream receiving waters. The project WQMP shall also include an operations and maintenance plan for the prescribed LID features, structural BMPs, and any hydromodification controls to ensure their long-term performance. A funding mechanism for operations and maintenance shall also be prescribed. 93 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project may be susceptible to inundation from dam failure. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of HYD-5 would reduce these impacts to less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project site is not in a tsunami or seiche zone. The project site is not at risk of tsunami or seiche because the nearest body of water is the Pacific Ocean, 16 miles west of the project site. The project site is fairly flat and level and does not contain steep slopes. Therefore, the project site is not at risk of mudflows. The project site is not located in a flood hazard zone. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps, the project is located in Zone X: Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, which is outside of the 100-year flood hazard area.35 Santiago Dam is located 1.3 miles upstream of the project site. The dam was completed in 1931 and impounds Irvine Lake. Santiago Dam is an earth/rock-fill structure that is 136 feet tall and 1,425 feet long. The dam designed to contain up to a 50-year flood and withstand a 500-year flood of over 30,000 cubic feet per second. Villa Park Dam is located approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the project site and is owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District. The dam was completed in 1963 and is used for flood control purposes; it does not store water for municipal use. Villa Park Dam is an earth/rock-fill structure that has a capacity of 15,600 acre-feet. In the interests of promoting awareness about the potential for dam failure and making future residents aware of evacuation procedures, MM HYD-5 requires the Applicant to prepare and implement an emergency evacuation plan. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, there would be less than significant impact. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: MM HYD-5 Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall retain a qualified consultant to prepare and implement an Emergency Evacuation Plan. The plan shall identify the various types of emergency that could affect the proposed project (e.g., dam failure, earthquake, flooding, etc.) and identify procedures for the safe and orderly evacuation of the project. The plan shall require that streets be identified with clear and visible signage and, if necessary, wayfinding signage be provided to identify exit points. 35 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Mabury %20Avenue%2C%20Orange%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor. Accessed April 22, 2020. 94 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. e) No substantial change from previous analysis. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The project would comply with all applicable permitting requirements. Construction activities would be subject to the NPDES stormwater program, which includes obtaining coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and ground disturbances. The Applicant is required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Board or the RWQCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. In addition, the NPDES Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP, which would include BMPs designed to prevent erosion and protect the quality of stormwater runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. f) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would be required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit which is required by the State Water Board’s Construction General Stormwater Permit (General Permit). The General Permit regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites. Under the General Permit, the preparation and implementation of SWPPPs are required for construction activities more than 1 acre in area. The SWPPP must identify potential sources of pollution that may be reasonably expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharges as well as identify and implement BMPs that ensure the reduction of these pollutants during stormwater discharges. Consistent with the Certified EIR, implementation of MM HYD-1a require the project applicant to prepare and implement an SWPPP. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that potential, short-term, construction water quality impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. According to the Preliminary WQMP, the project would not include outdoor material storage areas or waste enclosures, vehicle or equipment wash areas, outdoor processing areas, or fueling areas, and that the project does not propose the use of loading docks or maintenance bays. Nonetheless, other construction activities could create the potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants. LID BMPs would be implemented in addition to site design measures and source controls to prevent pollutant discharge into stormwater drain systems. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. LID features would use the following hierarchy of treatment: infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvest/reuse, and biotreatment. Examples of infiltration LID BMPs that would be implemented include infiltration trenches, bioretention without underdrains, drywells, permeable pavement, and underground infiltration galleries. Biotreatment BMPs would include implementation of a single proprietary biotreatment system known as a Modular Wetland System for water 95 quality treatment to treat pollutants of concern. Through the biotreatment system, pollutants are filtered, absorbed, biodegraded, and sequestered by the soil and plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges back into the storm drain system. Additionally, nonstructural source point BMPs would be implemented, such as storm drain system signage that would be provided on all major storm drain inlets to alert the public. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM HYD-1a. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. g) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR found that construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project may potentially degrade water quality in downstream water bodies. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of HYD-1a and HYD-1b would reduce these impacts to less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project has the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. Under the current conditions, the site sheet flows into Santiago Creek. Under the proposed conditions, runoff would be conveyed to a proposed storm drain system. Grading of the site would direct stormwater towards the center of the site to the proposed streets and into the proposed storm drain system. Infiltration BMPs and a Modular Wetland Unit would be implemented. Implementation of MM HYD-1a would ensure that stormwater quality measures are used to mitigate any associated generated pollutants and runoff peak flows and volumes during construction. Additionally, the implementation of MM HYD-1b would ensure that stormwater quality measures are used to mitigate any pollutants generated by stormwater and runoff peak flows and volumes during operation of the project, which would reduce impacts to Santiago Creek. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Consistent with the Certified EIR, implementation of the applicable mitigation measures and BMPs as discussed throughout this section would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM HYD-1a and MM HYD-1b. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. h) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR found that impacts associated with stormwater runoff were potentially significant. The Certified EIR determined that these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM HYD-1b. The proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project would create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of 96 stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm. The hydrology analysis conducted pursuant to the Preliminary WQMP found that implementation of the proposed project would result in a 33.9 percent increase in volume. The additional volume of stormwater runoff would be detained and infiltrated through on-lot infiltration systems. The project Applicant would be required to comply with MM HYD-1b, which would require the project Applicant to prepare and submit a WQMP to the City of Orange for review and approval to ensure that stormwater quality measures are implemented to mitigate any pollutants generated by stormwater and runoff peak flows and volumes during operation of the project. In accordance with MM HYD-1b. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM HYD-1b. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. i) k) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR found that the project may have substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of MM HYD-1a and MM HYD-1b would reduce these impacts to less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project would potentially create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. The Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Certified EIR determined that construction activities could result in substantial erosion. The project would be required to obtain an NPDES permit and to prepare a SWPPP. The project would implement MM HYD-1a and MM HYD-1b. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. Additionally, operational impacts Additionally, the project would implement BMPs to reduce operational impacts related to erosion. These BMPs would include the use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, rain sensors, and source control to prevent excess runoff. The irrigation systems would comply with City water efficiency guidelines. Therefore, consistent with the Trails at Santiago Creek Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM HYD-1a and MM HYD-1b. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 97 11. LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Physically divide an established community? (b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would construct 22 detached single-family homes, as well as streets, sidewalks, and trails on a currently vacant site. These activities would not involve removal of a connection or the construction of a barrier that would divide an established community. The improvements to the site, including the addition and improvement of streets, sidewalks, and trails, would provide greater connectivity in the general area. No new or more severe impacts associated with division of an established community would occur, and the level of impact would not change from the level identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, there would be no impact. Significance Determination: No impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed development activities would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designations on the site. The site is zoned R-1-8 and the Orange General Plan designates the site’s land use as LDR. These uses would be consistent with the zoning and land use regulations. The current land use designations are consistent with the proposed residential uses. No land use or zoning changes are proposed. The Certified EIR, which evaluated the impacts of constructing up to 128 detached single- family dwelling units, determined that impacts related to land use and planning would be insignificant. The current project proposes the development of 22 detached single-family dwelling units, which is more than an 80 percent reduction to the number of dwelling units. Additionally, Alternative 1 of the Certified EIR evaluated constructing 40-50 detached single- family dwelling units on 15.4 acres on the proposed project site and maintaining the existing resource extraction activities on 77.3 acres of the project site, as well as maintaining the existing General Plan and zoning for the project site. The Certified EIR found that development within the existing land use designations (Alternative 1) would have fewer land use and planning impacts than the 128-unit project as proposed in the Certified EIR. The project site that was previously analyzed in the Certified EIR constituted approximately 2 percent of the overall East Orange General Plan acreage. The East Orange General Plan 98 designates the previous project site as “Regional Park.” Additionally, approximately 39 acres of the previous project site was located within the boundaries of the existing Orange Park Acres Plan. There are approximately 1,794 total acres in the Orange Park Acres Plan. The project site is approximately 3 percent of the overall Orange Park Acres Plan acreage. The OPA Plan designates this area as “Open Space.” The current proposed project site is not within the boundaries of the East Orange Plan, nor the Orange Park Acres Plan. No new or more severe impacts associated with land use plans, policies, or regulations would occur, and the level of impact would not change from the level identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 99 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is designated LDR and zoned R-1-8. The State Mining and Geology Board designates the site within the Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2).36 MRZ-2 is defined as areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. Parcels adjacent to the project site on the south, east, and west are zoned S-G in the Orange General Plan; however, there are no active surface mining operations adjacent to the project site. In 2003, the Office of Mine Reclamation concluded that surface mining operations ceased on the project site prior to January 1, 1976.37 The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Specific Plan area indicates that it has been mined of economic aggregate deposits, and the remaining deposits that are of potential economic value are infeasible to mine because of the limited volume of the localized deposits, expense of removing the overburden (pond deposits), and difficulty associated with excavation logistics.38 Thus, resuming aggregate mining operations in the Specific Plan area would not be economically feasible and the resource is effectively depleted. The project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts associated with mineral resources would be less than significant. No new or more severe impacts would occur, and the level of impact would not change from the level identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 36 Miller, R. and Corbaley, R. 1981. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Orange County-Temescal Valley Production-Consumption Region. Orange Quadrangle, Special Report 143, Plate 3.19. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. Accessed April 9, 2020. 37 Armstrong, William. Assistant Director, Office of Mine Reclamation, California Department of Conservation. Personal communication: memorandum. May 5, 2003. 38 Ginter & Associates, Inc. 2011. Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Grading Plan Review for Tentative Tract 17344, Rio Santiago Development Site. October. 100 b) No substantial change from previous analysis. Portions of the Specific Plan area are mapped as RA by the Orange General Plan and the City of Orange Zoning Code zones a portion of the site as S-G. However, the Orange General Plan does not designate the project site as a mineral resource recovery site, the project site is designated LDR. Therefore, impacts associated with a mineral resource recovery site would be less than significant. No new or more severe impacts would occur, and the level of impact would not change from the level identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 101 13. NOISE Would the project result in: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The analysis in this section is based, in part on the Noise Impact Report prepared by Vista Environmental on April 8, 2020. The report is provided in its entirety in Appendix D of this Addendum. Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The following section calculates the potential noise emissions associated with the temporary construction activities and long-term operations of the proposed project and compares the noise levels to the City standards. Construction-related Noise The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of the project site, building construction, paving of the on-site driveways and roadways, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family homes located as near as 80 feet north of the project site. Section 8.24.050(E) of the Orange Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the City noise standards that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby residents and off-site workers. 102 In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds have been utilized, which shows that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise exceeds 90 A-weighted decibel (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq) at any of the nearby sensitive receptors. The calculated construction noise results are shown below in Table 16. Table 16 – Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Homes Construction Phase Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) at Nearest Homes to North FTA Construction Noise Threshold1 Exceed Threshold? Site Preparation 77 90 No Grading 77 90 No Building Construction 76 90 No Paving 75 90 No Painting 68 90 No 1 FTA Construction Noise Threshold obtained from Source: RCNM, Federal Highway Administration, 2006. Table 16 shows that the greatest noise impacts would occur during the site preparation and grading phases of construction, with a noise level as high as 77 dBA Leq at the nearest homes to the north of the project site. Table 16 also shows that none of the construction phases would exceed the FTA construction noise standard of 90 dBA for residential uses. Therefore, through adherence to allowable construction times provided in 8.24.050(E) of the Orange Municipal Code, the construction activities for the proposed project would not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of applicable noise standards. Impacts would be less than significant. Operational-related Noise The proposed project would consist of the development of 22 detached single-family homes. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project would be from project-generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways as well as from on-site noise sources associated with the operation of the proposed project. Roadway Vehicular Noise Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors, including (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips, and the proposed project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential off- site noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed project. According to the Orange General Plan, an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following: 103 • Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA, a project-related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater. • Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project-related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater. The potential off-site traffic noise impacts created by the ongoing operations of the proposed project have been analyzed through utilization of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA ) model and parameters. The proposed project’s potential off-site traffic noise impacts have been analyzed for the Existing With Project, Opening Year 2022, and Long-Term Year 2040 scenarios that are discussed separately below. Existing Conditions The proposed project’s potential off-site traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the Existing scenario to the Existing With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 17. Table 17 – Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1 Increase Threshold2 Roadway Segment Existing Existing Plus Project Project Contribution Cannon Street North of Serrano Avenue 68.0 68.0 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Serrano Avenue 70.7 70.7 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Taft Avenue 73.0 73.0 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Santiago Canyon Road 64.4 64.4 0.0 +3 dBA MT McKinley Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 50.9 51.3 0.4 +5 dBA Yellowstone Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 51.7 52.1 0.4 +5 dBA Serrano Avenue West of Mt McKinley Boulevard 67.6 67.6 0.0 +3 dBA Serrano Avenue West of Yellowstone Boulevard 70.8 70.8 0.0 +3 dBA Serrano Avenue East of Yellowstone Boulevard 68.6 68.8 0.2 +3 dBA Taft Avenue West of Cannon Street 58.2 58.2 0.0 +5 dBA Santiago Canyon Road West of Cannon Street 70.2 70.2 0.0 +3 dBA Santiago Canyon Road East of Cannon Street 69.6 69.6 0.0 +3 dBA Notes: 1 Distance to nearest residential use does not take into account existing noise barriers. 2 Increase threshold based on the significance thresholds defined in the General Plan, which is derived from the threshold of human perception. Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108. 104 Table 17 shows that the proposed project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase thresholds detailed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. Opening Year 2022 Conditions The proposed project’s potential off-site traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the Opening Year 2022 scenario to the Opening Year 2022 With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 18. Table 18 – Opening Year 2022 Project Traffic Noise Contributions dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1 Increase Threshold2 Roadway Segment Year 2022 Year 2022 Plus Project Project Contributio n Cannon Street North of Serrano Avenue 68.2 68.2 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Serrano Avenue 70.9 70.9 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Taft Avenue 73.1 73.1 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Santiago Canyon Road 64.5 64.5 0.0 +3 dBA MT McKinley Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 50.9 51.3 0.4 +5 dBA Yellowstone Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 51.7 52.1 0.4 +5 dBA Serrano Avenue West of Mt McKinley Boulevard 67.6 67.7 0.1 +3 dBA Serrano Avenue West of Yellowstone Boulevard 70.9 70.9 0.0 +3 dBA Serrano Avenue East of Yellowstone Boulevard 68.7 68.9 0.2 +3 dBA Taft Avenue West of Cannon Street 58.3 58.3 0.0 +5 dBA Santiago Canyon Road West of Cannon Street 70.5 70.5 0.0 +3 dBA Santiago Canyon Road East of Cannon Street 69.9 69.9 0.0 +3 dBA Notes: 1 Distance to nearest residential use does not take into account existing noise barriers. 2 Increase threshold based on the significance thresholds defined in the General Plan, which is derived from the threshold of human perception. Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108. Table 18 shows that the proposed project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase thresholds detailed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the Opening Year 2022 conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. 105 Long-term Year 2040 Conditions The proposed project’s potential off-site traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario to the Long-term Year 2040 With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 19. Table 19 – Long-term Year 2040 Project Traffic Noise Contributions dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1 Increase Threshol d2 Roadway Segment Year 2040 Year 2040 Plus Project Project Contributio n Cannon Street North of Serrano Avenue 69.7 69.7 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Serrano Avenue 72.4 72.4 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Taft Avenue 74.7 74.7 0.0 +3 dBA Cannon Street South of Santiago Canyon Road 65.9 65.9 0.0 +3 dBA MT McKinley Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 50.9 51.3 0.4 +5 dBA Yellowstone Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 51.7 52.1 0.4 +5 dBA Serrano Avenue West of Mt McKinley Boulevard 69.1 69.1 0.0 +3 dBA Serrano Avenue West of Yellowstone Boulevard 72.4 72.4 0.0 +3 dBA Serrano Avenue East of Yellowstone Boulevard 70.2 70.3 0.1 +3 dBA Taff Avenue West of Cannon Street 59.8 59.8 0.0 +5 dBA Santiago Canyon Road West of Cannon Street 71.8 71.8 0.0 +3 dBA Santiago Canyon Road East of Cannon Street 71.6 71.7 0.1 +3 dBA Notes: 1 Distance to nearest residential use shown does not take into account existing noise barriers. 2 Increase threshold based on the significance thresholds defined in the General Plan, which is derived from the threshold of human perception. Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108. Table 19 shows that the proposed project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase thresholds detailed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the Long-term Year 2040 conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. Noise Impacts to Proposed Homes The proposed project would consist of the development of a residential community with 22 detached single-family homes. According to the Orange General Plan, noise levels at new residential uses shall be limited to 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for 106 exterior living areas and 45 dBA CNEL for interior living areas. Additionally, the proposed project includes an 8- to 10-foot sound wall along the entire length of the southern project boundary. The sound wall would ensure that the project would meet the City’s daytime non-transportation noise standard of 55 dba Leq (City of Orange Zoning Code § 8.24.040) The existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project site, and in particular, Table 20 and Table 21, show that the noise level at Site A measured 54.3 dBA CNEL in 2009 and 52.6 dBA CNEL in 2011. Site A is located near the intersection of Mount McKinley Boulevard and Mabury Avenue, approximately 500 feet west of the proposed project, and provides a reasonable representation of the anticipated noise levels at the project site. A noise level of 54.3 dBA CNEL is well below the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. In addition, Table N-5 of the Orange General Plan details that a typical home with windows open provides a minimum of 15 decibel (dB) of exterior to interior noise reduction. As such, the interior noise would be 39.3 dBA CNEL or less, which would be well below the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the exterior and interior noise impacts to the proposed homes would be less than significant. Table 20 – Noise Level Measurements on June 15-16, 2009 Site No. Primary Noise Source Measured Noise Levels dBA Leq dBA CNEL Minimum (Leq 10 min) Maximum (Leq 10 min) A Mt McKinley Boulevard and Aircraft 50.6 54.3 32.3 at 2:57 a.m. 59.7 at 8:00 a.m. B Santiago Canyon Road 62.9 66.8 48.0 at 3:41 a.m. 68.2 at 5:49 p.m. C Materials recycling facility and Santiago Canyon Road 57.6 59.2 32.8 at 2:58 a.m. 66.1 at 11:10 a.m. Source: Noise measurements taken by Vista Environmental on June 15 and 16, 2009. Table 21 – Noise Level Measurements On September 21-22, 2011 Site No. Primary Noise Source Measured Noise Levels dBA Leq dBA CNEL Minimum (Leq 10 min) Maximum (Leq 10 min) A Mt McKinley Boulevard and aircraft. 50.0 52.6 37.1 at 3:59 a.m. 61.2 at 3:04 p.m. B Santiago Canyon Road and on-site backfilling 67.4 70.4 38.3 at 3:00 a.m. 73.4 at 8:14 a.m. C On-site backfilling and Santiago Canyon Road 56.4 58.9 38.1 at 2:59 a.m. 65.5 at 12:06 p.m. D On-site backfilling and aircraft. 50.7 53.3 37.1 at 4:12 a.m. 62.1 at 8:41 a.m. Source: Noise measurements taken by Vista Environmental on September 21 and 22, 2011. The Certified EIR determined that the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan project, which proposed the development of 128 dwelling units, would result in potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, the project site, as currently proposed in this Addendum, proposes the development of 22 detached single-family dwelling units, which is over 80 percent reduction in the number of dwelling units. The proposed 22 dwelling 107 units would be located on an area previously proposed as open space in the Certified EIR. The change of location could potentially affect the level of impacts; however, the Certified EIR discussed development in this location under the proposed Alternative 1. Alternative 1 of the Certified EIR evaluated constructing 40-50 detached single-family dwelling units on a 15.4-acre portion of the site located on the north side of Santiago Creek, where the currently proposed project is located. The Certified EIR found that under Alternative 1, the north bank of Santiago Creek would see an increase in noise levels from construction compared with the proposed 128-unit project, which did not propose development in this location. The Certified EIR found that overall, Alternative 1 represented a net decrease in development activity relative to the proposed 128-unit project, and thus, less construction noise would occur. Additionally, this alternative would generate 839 fewer daily trips, which would result in slightly less roadway noise. Therefore, the Certified EIR found that development on the north side of Santiago Creek would have fewer noise impacts than those analyzed in the proposed 128-unit project. As such, the proposed project would not have any new or more severe impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Impacts would be less than those that were analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated under the proposed 128-unit project. Additionally, the Certified EIR found that development of 40-50 units on the north side of Santiago Creek pursuant to Alternative 1 would have fewer noise impacts. However, the current project only proposes the development of 22 detached single-family dwelling units, which would reduce noise impacts below the level of those analyzed under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project’s impact level is consistent with the Certified EIR. The proposed project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The following section analyzes the potential vibration impacts associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project. Construction-related Vibration Impacts The construction activities for the proposed project would include site preparation and grading, building construction, paving of the on-site driveways and roadways, and application of architectural coatings. Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed 108 project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off-road equipment. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family homes located as near as 80 feet north of the project site. Section 5.10.3 of the City of Orange General Plan Program EIR (General Plan EIR), March 2010, determined that a significant vibration impact would occur if vibration levels exceed 0.2 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at any nearby building.39 The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. Table 22 shows a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest homes to the north (60 feet away) would be 0.034 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV). The vibration level at the nearest homes would be below the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold detailed above. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 22 – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second) Approximate Vibration Level (Lv)at 25 feet Pile driver (impact) Upper range typical 1.518 0.644 112 104 Pile driver (sonic) Upper range typical 0.734 0.170 105 93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drill 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018. Operations-related Vibration Impacts The proposed project would consist of the development of 22 detached single-family homes. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources other than typical on-site vehicle operations for a residential development. Therefore, a vibration impacts from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. 39 City of Orange. 2010. City of Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. March 2010. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/584/General-Plan-Environmental-Impact-Report-EIR-PDF. Accessed May 11, 2020. 109 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR found that the distance to the nearest airport would preclude the possibility of exposing persons residing or working in the project vicinity to excessive aviation noise. The proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 10 miles south of the project site, and the typical landing pattern is directly over the project vicinity. In order to determine aircraft noise impacts to the project site, a noise measurement was taken of a commercial aircraft overflight on the project site at 8:46 a.m. on Sunday, January 15, 2012. The noise measurement recorded noise levels of 55.3 dBA Leq and 61.1 dBA L max, and the aircraft flyby lasted approximately one minute. According to the County of Orange General Plan Noise Element, there are 73 commercial jet landings per day that occur between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.40 This results in aircraft operating over the site 8 percent of the time between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The noise at the project site from an aircraft flyover is less than the City’s transportation- related residential exterior noise threshold of 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the proposed project would create a less than significant impact related to exposure of persons to aircraft noise. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 40 County of Orange. 2012. Chapter VIII Noise Element. Website: http://www.ocpublicworks.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8616. Accessed May 12, 2020. 110 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would involve the construction of 22 detached single-family housing units and therefore has the potential to induce population growth. The Certified EIR, which evaluated the impacts of constructing up to 128 dwelling units, determined that the population growth induced by the project would be insignificant. Table 23 reflects the population growth attributable to 22 detached single-family housing units based on current population projection from the United States Census Bureau. As shown in Table 23, the proposed project would increase the City’s population by 68 persons, which would represent a 0.0005 percent increase relative to the most recent population estimate. This increase would be considered nominal and is consistent with growth projections in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region and Orange County sub-region. Furthermore, because the project site has an existing General Plan designation of LDR and zoning classification of R-1-8, the population growth induced by the project has already been anticipated in the City’s population growth projections. Therefore, the project would not induce any unplanned population growth. Because of the reduction in the number of housing units, as well as the project’s consistency with General Plan and zoning designations and the City’s population growth projections, impacts from the proposed project would be substantially less than the level of impacts identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Table 23 – Population Growth Dwelling Units Persons Per Dwelling Unit Project Population Growth City of Orange’s Population Project Population Growth as a Percentage of City Population 22 3.07 68 139,484 0.0005% Source: United States Census Bureau. 2019. QuickFacts: Orange city, California. Population estimates, July 1, 2019. Website: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/orangecitycalifornia. Accessed April 22, 2020. 111 Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR found that there are no dwelling units on the project site, which precludes the possibility of displacement of persons or housing. The Certified EIR determined that no impacts would occur. The proposed project’s impact level is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project site is currently vacant and does not contain any housing or other residential units. Therefore, the project site does not currently support a residential population, and the project would not displace people or housing. The level of impact would not change from the level identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, there would be no impact. Significance Determination: No impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 112 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection ? ii) Police Protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Impact Analysis: a) i) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project is located in the Orange City Fire Department service area. The Orange City Fire Department provides fire prevention, hazardous materials response, public safety, emergency medical services, urban search and rescue, and specialty incident response services. According to the Orange City Fire Department 2018 Annual Report, the Orange City Fire Department responded to over 15,500 calls for service in 2018 and anticipated having the capacity to respond to over 16,000 calls in 2019. Calls for medical assistance comprise the greatest volume of emergency responses by the Orange City Fire Department. There were 12,592 emergency medical services incidents (EMS) in 2018, which equated to 81 percent of the department’s total recorded incidents.41 The closest fire department is the Orange City Fire Department Station No. 8, located at 5725 Carver Lane, which is 1.2 miles, or an approximately 3- minute drive, from the site. The proposed project would introduce new structures, which would include new workers to the site during construction and new residents during operation of the proposed project. According to the Certified EIR, the fire department would be able to accommodate the increase in calls associated with proposed buildout of the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan. The proposed project would introduce an estimated 68 persons, which would represent a 0.0005 percent increase in the population of the City of Orange. This increase would be considered nominal. Additionally, the population increase is substantially less than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. As such, impacts from the proposed project would be less than the level of impacts identified in the Certified EIR. Additionally, the project would implement MM HAZ-5 and MM HAZ-6. MM HAZ-5 would require the Applicant to 41 City of Orange. 2018. Orange City Fire Department 2018 Annual Report. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/10288/2018-Annual-Report. Accessed April 27, 2020. 113 demonstrate compliance with all Fire Code emergency access requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. MM HAZ-6 would require the Applicant to prepare a Fuel Modification Plan and submit it to the City of Orange for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits, consistent with the Fire Department’s recommendation. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-5 and HAZ-6. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. ii) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would be served by the Orange Police Department. The Orange Police Department headquarters is located at 1107 N. Batavia Street, 4.2 miles from the project site, or an approximately 13-minute drive from the project site. The proposed project would introduce an estimated 68 persons to the City of Orange, which would represent a 0.0005 percent increase in the population of the City of Orange. This increase would be considered nominal. Additionally, the population increase is substantially smaller than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. As such, impacts from the proposed project would be less than the level of impacts identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. iii) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project site is located within the Orange Unified School District. Linda Vista Elementary School, Santiago Middle School, and El Modena High School are the nearest schools. The proposed project would subdivide land to allow for the development of 22 detached single-family dwelling units and would introduce an estimated 68 persons to the City of Orange. Using the student generation rate consistent with the Certified EIR of 0.5 student/dwelling unit, the proposed project would add 11 new students to the School District’s enrollment. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project’s impacts would be less than those analyzed in the Certified EIR. Consistent with the Certified EIR, the Applicant would pay the required school district development fees, and impacts would be less than significant. 114 Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. iv) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not result in a need for new or expanded park facilities. The proposed project’s impact level is consistent with the Certified EIR. The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) allows local governments to require developers to dedicate land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees to fund parkland development. The Quimby Act has a standard of 3.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Orange General Plan Policy 6.3, which is to establish and maintain greenways, and pedestrian and bicycle connections that complement the residential, commercial, and open space areas they connect.42 The proposed project would introduce an estimated 68 persons to the City of Orange, which would represent a 0.0005 percent increase in the population of the City of Orange. Additionally, the proposed project would include open space and landscaping dedication of approximately 4.3 acres along the perimeter of the site and Santiago Creek corridor. The provision of the open space dedication would be expected to offset demand for additional parkland facilities. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. v) No substantial change from previous analysis. The closest library is the Charles P. Ta ft Library, located at 740 E. Taft Avenue, which is 3.26 miles, or an approximately 10 minute drive, from the site. The proposed project would introduce an estimated 68 persons, which would represent a 0.0005 percent increase in the population of the City of Orange. This increase would be considered nominal. Additionally, the population increase is substantially smaller than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. As such, impacts from the proposed project would be less than the level of impacts identified in the Certified EIR. This increase in population would not require the construction or expansion of library facilities. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 42 City of Orange. 2015. Orange General Plan, Land Use Element. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/570/General- Plan---Land-Use-PDF. Accessed May 12, 2020. 115 16. RECREATION Would the project New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduc ed Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The Orange General Plan Policy 5.6 has established a minimum park dedication of 3 acres per 1,000 population.43 The proposed project would increase the City’s population by an estimated 68 persons, which would not significantly increase the need for park acreage dedication. Additionally, the proposed project would preserve approximately 4.3 acres of recreational trails along the Santiago Creek corridor. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. The Certified EIR determined that the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR. The project would include the relocation of Santiago Creek Trail to be consistent with the City’s original intent that the trail would abut open space. The existing trail runs parallel to Mabury Avenue within the public right of way. The project would reroute the trail through the development site between the proposed single family lots and the creek edge. The trail would be accessible to the sidewalk along proposed “A” Street and would rejoin the existing trail and sidewalk along Mabury Avenue at the northeastern and northwestern boundaries of the project site. There is also an open space buffer between the creek and the lots. Except for the trail, the area would be planted with native landscaping suitable for fuel modification. The project would not include the construction or the expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The project would not require the construction of new off-site recreational facilities or the expansion of existing 43 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Natural Resources Element. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/391/General-Plan. Accessed April 22, 2020. 116 facilities. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 117 17. TRANSPORTATION Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Impact Analysis: a) No ability to substantially reduce significant impact/reduced impact. The following analysis is based in part on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared on April 17, 2020, by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (Appendix E).44 According to the TIA, the proposed project is expected to generate 208 daily trips. The TIA analyzed the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed project. The TIA evaluates the existing operations at five key study intersections and five key roadway segments within the project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed project, and forecasts future operating conditions without and with the proposed project. The project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed by LLG. Existing traffic information has been collected at five key study intersections and five key roadway segments on a “typical” weekday for use in the preparation of intersection and roadway segment level of service calculations. Information concerning cumulative projects (planned and/or approved) in the vicinity of the proposed project has been researched at the City of Orange and the City of Villa Park. There are five cumulative projects in the City of Orange and one cumulative project in the City of Villa Park in the project vicinity. The cumulative projects list is located in Table 6-1 of Appendix E. These six planned and/or approved cumulative projects were considered in the cumulative traffic analysis for the project. This list is consistent with the cumulative projects analyzed in the Certified EIR with two additional projects which are related to the ongoing sand and gravel operations immediately south of the proposed project. The TIA analyzed existing and future weekday daily, AM peak-hour, and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for a near-term (Year 2022) traffic setting upon completion of the proposed project. Daily and peak-hour traffic forecasts for the Year 2022 horizon year have been project by increasing existing traffic volumes by an annual growth rate of one percent per year and adding traffic volumes generated by the six cumulative projects. Year 2040 Buildout traffic conditions 44 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis Tentative Tract No. 18163. April 17. 118 were also analyzed in the TIA, utilizing buildout traffic data from the previous TIA prepared for the Certified EIR.45 The five key study intersections and five key roadway segments selected for evaluation were determined based on application of the “51 or more peak hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.46 The intersections and roadway segments listed below provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation. All study intersections and study roadway segments are located within the City of Orange. Key Study Intersections 1. Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road 2. Cannon Street at Taft Avenue 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue 4. Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue 5. Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue Key Roadway Segments 1. Cannon Street, north of Serrano Avenue 2. Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue 3. Cannon Street, between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road 4. Santiago Canyon Road, between Hewes Street and Cannon Street 5. Santiago Canyon Road, between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard The Levels of Service (LOS) investigations at these five key study intersections and five key roadway segments were used to evaluate potential traffic-related impacts associated with area growth, cumulative projects, and the proposed project. According to the Orange General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element, LOS characterizes traffic congestion on a scale of A to F with LOS A representing a free-flow condition and LOS F representing extreme congestion. The Orange General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element minimum acceptable LOS is D.47 Existing Conditions Based on the results of the analysis in the TIA, the below two of the five key study intersections currently do not meet the minimum acceptable LOS under the existing conditions. 2. Cannon Street at Taft Avenue 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue Additionally, under existing conditions, one of the five key roadway segments currently operates at an unacceptable LOS. 45 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. 2018. The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report. September 13. 46 City of Orange. 2007. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. August 15. 47 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/391/General-Plan. Accessed April 29, 2020. 119 2. Cannon Street, between Serrano and Taft Avenue The TIA determined that although there are intersections and roadways that are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F on a daily basis with the addition of project traffic under various scenarios, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on the LOS for each of the scenarios. Project Traffic Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 48 The trip generation potential for the project was estimated using ITE Land Use 210: Single-Family Detached Housing trip rates. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 208 daily trips, with 16 trips (4 inbound, 12 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 22 trips (14 inbound, 8 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Impact Criteria and Thresholds Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Orange are considered significant if: Intersections • An unacceptable peak hour LOS at any of the key intersections is projected. According to the City’s Circulation Element and City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours at all intersections;49,50 and • The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1 percent of capacity (ICU increase 0.010) or greater, causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (ICU > 0.900). Roadway Segments • An unacceptable daily LOS at any of the key roadway segments is projected. According to the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element and City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments;51,52 and • The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1 percent of capacity (V/C increase 0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900). 48 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2017. Trip Generation, 10th Edition. 49 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/391/General-Plan. Accessed April 29, 2020. 50 City of Orange. 2007. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. August 15. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 120 Existing Plus Project Conditions The TIA indicates that traffic associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the five key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified above. Although the intersections of Cannon Street/Taft Avenue and Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak-hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining three key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak-hours with the addition of project-generated traffic to existing traffic. The TIA indicates that traffic associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the five key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified above. Although the roadway segment on Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining four key roadway segments currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of project generated traffic to existing traffic. Year 2022 Without Project Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2022) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic would adversely impact two of the five (5) key study intersections. The remaining three key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak-hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic. AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Cannon Street at Taft Avenue 1.036 F 0.917 E 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue -- -- 0.956 E An analysis of future (Year 2022) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic, two of the five key roadway segments are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS. The roadway segment on Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue, and the roadway segment on Cannon Street, between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road, are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F on a daily basis in the Year 2022. The remaining three key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS on a daily basis with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic. Year 2022 With Project Conditions The TIA indicates that traffic associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the five key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified above. Although the intersections of Cannon Street/Taft Avenue and Cannon 121 Street/Serrano Avenue are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak-hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining three key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2022. The TIA indicates that traffic associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the five key roadway segments, when compared to the LOS standards and significance criteria specified above. Although the roadway segment on Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue, and the roadway segment on Cannon Street, between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road, are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining three key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2022 traffic condition. Year 2040 Buildout Without Project Conditions The projected Year 2040 buildout without project traffic would adversely impact one of the five key study intersections. The remaining four key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS under Year 2040 buildout without project traffic conditions. The location projected to operate at an adverse LOS is as follows: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue 0.960 E 1.314 F An analysis of future (Year 2040) buildout traffic conditions indicates that one of the five key roadway segments is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS. The roadway segment on Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue, is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F on a daily basis in the Year 2040. The remaining four key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS on a daily basis in the Year 2040. Year 2040 Buildout With Project Conditions The TIA indicates that traffic associated with the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the five key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significance criteria specified in this report. Although the intersection of Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak-hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining four key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2040. The proposed project would not significantly impact any of the five key roadway segments, when compared to the LOS standards and significance criteria specified in this report. Although the 122 roadway segment on Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue, is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F on a daily basis in the Year 2040 with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining four key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2040 traffic condition. Planned Improvements The following improvements are included in the Year 2040 Buildout traffic analysis and reflect the City’s MPAH. It should be noted that the improvements listed below are consistent with those contained in The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report.53 • No. 1 – Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a second northbound left-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe the southbound approach of Cannon Street to provide three southbound left-turn lanes, three southbound through lanes, and a southbound free right turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a third eastbound through lane and an exclusive eastbound right turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a second westbound left-turn lane and a third westbound through lane. • No. 2 – Cannon Street at Taft Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Canon Street to provide a third northbound through lane and a third southbound through lane. • No. 3 – Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a third southbound through lane. • Roadway Segment A – Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. • Roadway Segment B – Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. • Roadway Segment C – Cannon Street, between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. • Roadway Segment D – Santiago Canyon Road, between Hewes Street and Cannon Street: Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. • Roadway Segment E – Santiago Canyon Road, between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard: Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian circulation is provided via existing public sidewalks along Mabury Avenue, Yellowstone Boulevard, Mt. McKinley Boulevard, and other key roadway segments in the project 53 Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. 2018. The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report. September 13. 123 vicinity. Additionally, the Santiago Creek Trail, a multi-purpose equestrian and bike trail, is provided along the south side of Mabury Avenue. The project would include the relocation of Santiago Creek Trail. The existing trail runs parallel to Mabury Avenue within the public right of way. The project would reroute the trail through the development site between the proposed single family lots and the creek edge. The trail would be accessible to the sidewalk along proposed “A” Street and would rejoin the existing trail and sidewalk along Mabury Avenue at the northeastern and northwestern project boundaries. The Santiago Creek Trail is considered a commuter bikeway. The relocation of the Santiago Creek Trail would be constructed consistent with the City of Orange Bikeways Master Plan Update.54 Bicycle Circulation Class II bike lanes (on-road bike lanes delineated by painted strips and other features) exist along the following roadway segments within the project vicinity: • Santiago Canyon Road • Taft Avenue • Cannon Street Additionally, Class I bike paths (off-road bike paths) exist west of Jamboree Road, extending from Chapman Avenue to the Irvine Park; west of Hewes Street, extending from Bond Avenue to Villa Park Road; north of Villa Park Road, extending from Hewes Street to Cannon Street; and west of Cannon Street, extending approximately 1,000 feet north of Santiago Canyon Road. Construction Traffic The construction traffic activities associated with the proposed project, which primarily include site grading/excavation, building foundation/framing/construction, and paving/concrete/landscaping, would be temporary and would not have any significant traffic- related impacts on the surrounding transportation system. The Certified EIR determined that the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan project, which proposed the development of 128 dwelling units, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. However, the project site, as currently proposed in this Addendum, proposes the development of 22 detached single-family dwelling units, which is over 80 percent reduction in the number of dwelling units, and would therefore generate fewer daily trips than analyzed in the Certified EIR; thus, impacts would be less than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and a reduced impact compared to the previous analysis in the Certified EIR. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Reduced impact compared to the previous analysis in the Certified EIR. 54 City of Orange. 2001. City of Orange Bikeways Master Plan Update. January. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/1598/Bikeways-Master-Plan-PDF. Accessed June 10, 2020. 124 b) No substantial change from previous analysis. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Per Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non‐motorized travel. Except as provided in Section 15064.3(b)(2) regarding roadway capacity, a project’s effect on automobile delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. The City does not have adopted VMT thresholds. Currently, the provisions of Section 15064.3 and the determination of impacts based on VMT is not required by the City or mandated Statewide until July 1, 2020. Therefore, there is no conflict with Section 15064.3. Significance Determination: No impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project includes the following project design features: • “A” Street/Yellowstone Boulevard at Mabury Avenue: Construct the south leg of the intersection and provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane (i.e., one shared left/through/right-turn lane). Install a stop sign and stop bar on the south leg. The installation of these features is subject to the approval of the City of Orange. The TIA found that the proposed project design features and access points would not result in unsafe conditions or inadequate access to the site. The project design features were recommended to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the project site. Additionally, the on-site circulation layout of the proposed project is adequate and does not create significant vehicle-pedestrian conflict points. According to the TIA, motorists entering and exiting the project site would be able to do so comfortably and safely. The Certified EIR determined that the project may substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; however, impacts from the proposed project would be less intensive than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. There are no applicable mitigation measures, and no additional mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. The TIA provided a site access evaluation. According to the TIA, the on-site circulation layout of the proposed project is adequate and 125 does not create significant vehicle-pedestrian conflict points. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are generally adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash trucks, as well as fire trucks. Access to the site would be provided via “A” Street, located directly opposite Yellowstone Boulevard, along Mabury Avenue. The addition of “A” Street would include construction of the south leg of the intersection, one inbound lane, and one outbound lane (i.e., one shared left/through/right-turn lane), as well as installation of a stop sign and stop bar on the south leg. These improvements would ensure adequate ingress and egress to the project site are maintained and are subject to approval by the City of Orange. According to the TIA, this location would operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak-hours for Year 2022 plus Project and Year 2040 plus Project traffic conditions. As such, project access would be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Therefore, adequate emergency access would be provided and consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 126 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. Based on a records search and literature review conducted at the SCCIC on July 24, 2018, as well as a site visit conducted by FCS staff on July 24, 2018, no known historical resources are present on the site. The site is not listed on any national, State, or local registers of historic resources. The soils on the site have been previously disturbed, thus it is unlikely that historical resources would be encountered during grading or construction. No new or more severe impacts would occur. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. On March 3, 2017, the City contacted three tribes pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 for the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan. Each tribe was notified in writing of the proposed project and invited to consult with the City. The letters were sent via certified mail, but to date the City has not received any responses. In addition to these consultations, 12 tribes were contacted in 2008 by consultants in connection with scoping for the Certified EIR, as reflected in the Certified EIR Appendix H. Based on a records search and literature review conducted at the SCCIC on July 24, 2018, no archaeological resources have been recorded on the site. Eight archaeological resources were recorded within an 0.5-mile radius of the site. Additionally, FCS submitted a written request to the NAHC to check its Sacred Lands File for Native American resources that may be affected by the project. The search was negative for cultural and Native American resources. No cultural materials were observed during a site visit conducted by FCS staff on July 24, 2018. Because the site contains previously disturbed 127 soils, it is unlikely that archaeological resources would be encountered during grading or construction. Consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 128 19. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. Water Potable water would be provided by the City of Orange. The determined that based on an assumed 128 new residential units, there would be a less than significant impact associated with water demand. The proposed project would subdivision of land to allow the development of 22 detached single-family residential units and would therefore have a lower impact level than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Using the Average Baseline Per Capital water demand rate set forth in Table 2-9 of the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 55, project water demand is estimated in Table 24. As shown in the table, the proposed project would demand 17.19 acre-feet on an annual basis. Future demand of the project has been projected in the City of Orange 2015 Urban Water Management Plan; there is sufficient capacity to meet the demand of the project. Furthermore, the Water Demand Report includes as Appendix C estimated a maximum peak demand of 30 gallons per minute (gpm) for each home.56 The total peak domestic water demand associated with the project would be 660 gpm. The preliminarily estimates for fire flow demand are 2,000 gpm for the proposed project. Therefore, the Water Demand Report determined that the 55 Arcadis U.S., Inc. 2016. City of Orange Urban Water Management Plan. June. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/Archive/ViewFile/Item/171. Accessed May 8, 2020. 56 Fuscoe Engineering. 2020. Water Demand Report TTM 18163. June. 129 existing 8-inch DIP public watermain in Mabury Avenue has adequate capacity to supply water to the proposed development. Table 24 – Estimated Water Demand Dwelling Units Population Demand Rate Water Demand Daily Annual 22 68 226 gallons/capita/day 15,368 gallons 0.05 acre-foot 5.6 million gallons 17.19 acre-feet Note: Population estimate derived from Table 23 in Section 14, Population and Housing. Source: City of Orange 2016; FirstCarbon Solutions 2020. Wastewater Wastewater collected from the project site would be treated by Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and would connect to the existing sewage system in Mabury Avenue and would be served by a wastewater treatment plant with adequate capacity. The Certified EIR determined that based on an assumed 128 new residential units, the project would have less than significant impacts associated with wastewater. As analyzed in greater detail below in Impact Question 19(c), the proposed project would have a lower level of impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR and would not require new or expanded facilities. Stormwater The project would connect with the existing municipal storm drainage system operated by the Orange County Flood Control District. According to the Preliminary WQMP, the site sheet flows to the south and west before draining to Santiago Creek. Runoff into Santiago Creek then discharges to the Santa Ana River. Under proposed conditions, runoff would be conveyed to a proposed storm drain system. Each of the lots would be graded to direct stormwater towards the proposed streets and into the proposed storm drain system. Flows within the proposed streets would drain to a Modular Wetland Unit for treatment prior to discharging to Santiago Creek.57 The project would not require new or expanded facilities to accommodate stormwater. Power, Gas, and Telecommunication Power would be provided by SCE, a unit of Edison International. SoCalGas would provide natural gas service to the site. The proposed project would include 22 detached single-family residential units. As discussed in Impact Question 14(a), the proposed project would increase the City’s population by an estimated 68 persons, which would represent a 0.0005 percent increase relative to the most recent population estimate. This increase would be considered nominal. The nominal increase in population would not require new power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities to be constructed. The level of impact would not change from the level identified in the Certified EIR. Because of the reduction in the number of housing units from the Certified EIR, impacts from 57 Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2020. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). April 6. 130 the proposed project would be substantially less than the level of impacts identified in the Certified EIR; no new or expanded facilities would be required. The project would not require new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. The project would not cause any new or more severe impacts. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. As discussed in Impact Question 19(a), the proposed project would be served with potable water by the City of Orange. The Certified EIR determined that daily water use of the project, based on an estimated 393 new residents, would be 88,818 gallons per day and 32.4 million gallons per year. Based on an estimated 68 new residents, the water demand would be reduced to an estimated 15,368 gallons per day and 5.6 million gallons per year. The proposed project would therefore have a much lower impact level than analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR found that the project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Future demand of the project has been projected in the City of Orange 2015 Urban Water Management Plan; there is sufficient capacity to meet the water demand of the project.58 Because of the reduction in water demand, the project would not cause any new or more severe impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. Wastewater services in the City of Orange is provided by the city of Orange Public Works Department, which provides local collection services; and OCSD, which provides regional collection, treatment, and disposal services. The project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. According to the Certified EIR, using the single-family residential wastewater rate based on 40.7 acres, the project would have a daily effluent generation of 60,562 gallons per day (0.060 million gallons per day [mgd]), or less than 0.01 percent of the primary treatment capacity. Using this same wastewater generation rate, the proposed project 58 Arcadis U.S., Inc. 2016. City of Orange Urban Water Management Plan. June. Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/Archive/ViewFile/Item/171. Accessed May 8, 2020. 131 would generate an estimated 16,219 gallons per day (0.016 mgd), which is a significantly lower percentage of the treatment capacity than accounted for in the Certified EIR. According to the Preliminary Sewer Capacity Report located in Appendix C, the proposed project will increase peak wastewater flow to the existing public sewer system by 0.0298 cubic foot per second (cfs).59 Thus, the proposed project would have a lower impact than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. The project would not cause any new or more severe impacts. Consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The Certified EIR determined that based on 128 dwelling units at a generation rate of 1,586 pounds per year per dwelling unit, operational solid waste generation would be 101.5 tons of waste per year. Using the same methodology based on 22 detached single-family dwelling units, the estimated operational solid waste generation of the proposed project would be 17.4 tons per year. The proposed project would generate significantly less solid waste per year than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. As stated on the Orange County Waste and Recycling website, the Olinda Alpha Landfill located in the City of Brea has enough project capacity to serve residents and business until 2030.60 The project would not cause any new or more severe impacts. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. e) No substantial change from previous analysis. The project would comply with all federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. 59 Fuscoe Engineering. 2020. Preliminary Sewer Capacity Report TTM 18163. June. 60 County of Orange Waste and Recycling. Olinda Alpha Landfill. Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/olindalandfill. Accessed May 9, 2020. 132 20. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: New Significant Impact Substantially More Severe Impact New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact/Reduced Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (b) Due to slope prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Impact Analysis: a) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project would be required to comply with all applicable codes and regulations, including the Fire Code. The Certified EIR included MM HAZ-5, which requires the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with all Fire Code emergency access requirements. As discussed in Impact Question 17(d), the proposed roadway improvements would ensure that adequate ingress and egress to the project site are maintained and are subject to approval by the City of Orange. Based on the findings of the TIA, this location would operate at an acceptable level of service, and site access would be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Thus, the proposed project would not impair emergency access or physically interfere with implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of MM HAZ-5. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. b) No substantial change from previous analysis. This question was not previously included in the Certified EIR. However, the Certified EIR analyzed wildland fire hazards in the Hazards Section and determined that impacts would be less than significant impacts with MM HAZ-6 incorporated. Consistent with the Certified EIR, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a 133 wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. As discussed in Impact Question 9(g), the proposed project is located at the wildland/urban interface and would therefore be required to comply with the City’s fuel modification requirements. Santiago Creek Trail would provide an open space buffer between the creek and the residential lots, and the landscaped areas would be planted with native landscaping suitable for fuel modification. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the Orange Fire Department provisions and regulations and would be required to implement MM HAZ-6, which would require the Applicant to prepare a Fuel Modification Plan and submit to the City of Orange for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of MM HAZ-6. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. c) No substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. As discussed in Impact Question 20(a), the TIA determined that the proposed project would not impair emergency access or physically interfere with implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project would not include installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is needed. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. d) No substantial change from previous analysis. The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The project is flat and level, and therefore would not expose people or structures to the risk of landslides. As discussed in Impact Question 9(g), the proposed project is located at the wildland/urban interface and would be subject to the City’s fuel modification requirements. Santiago Creek Trail would provide an open space buffer between the creek and the lots, and the landscaped areas would be planted with native landscaping suitable for fuel modification. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the Orange Fire Department provisions and regulations and would be required to implement MM HAZ-6, which would require the Applicant to prepare a Fuel Modification Plan and submit to the City of Orange for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. No new or more severe impacts would occur, and the level of impact would not change from the level identified in the Certified 134 EIR. Therefore, consistent with the Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of MM HAZ-6. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than significant impact. Conclusion: No substantial change from previous analysis. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 135 PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED FirstCarbon Solutions 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 Phone: 714.508.4100 Fax: 714.508.4110 Senior Director .......................................................................................................... Kerri Tuttle Project Manager .......................................................................................................... Cecilia So Environmental Analyst................................................................................... Stephanie Shepard Senior Editor ............................................................................................................ Susie Harris GIS/Graphics................................................................................................. Karlee McCracken Reprographics ....................................................................................................... Octavio Perez Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) 2 Executive Circle, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949.825.6175 Vista Environmental 1021 Didrickson Way Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Phone: 949.510.5355 Fuscoe Engineering 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, CA 92802 Phone: 949.474.1960 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix A: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK       AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS  EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS  TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18163 PROJECT  CITY OF ORANGE      Lead Agency:     City of Orange  300 E Chapman Ave  Orange, CA 92866         Prepared by:     Vista Environmental   1021 Didrickson Way  Laguna Beach, California 92651  949 510 5355  Greg Tonkovich, AICP      Project No. 20042    May 8, 2020      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page i    TABLE  OF CONTENTS  1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1  1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives ................................................................................. 1  1.2 Site Locations and Study Area .................................................................................................... 1  1.3 Proposed Project Description .................................................................................................... 1  1.4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2  1.5 Mitigation Measures from the Certified EIR .............................................................................. 3  1.6 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 7  2.0 Air Pollutants ......................................................................................................................... 11  2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors ................................................................................ 11  2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern .................................................................................................... 13  3.0 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................. 15  3.1 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................... 15  3.2 Global Warming Potential ........................................................................................................ 17  3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ...................................................................................... 18  4.0 Air Quality Management ....................................................................................................... 19  4.1 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 19  4.2 State – California Air Resources Board .................................................................................... 22  4.3 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 23  4.4 Local – City of Orange .............................................................................................................. 26  5.0 Energy Conservation Management ........................................................................................ 27  5.1 State ......................................................................................................................................... 27  5.2 Local ‐ City of Orange ............................................................................................................... 29  6.0 Global Climate Change Management ..................................................................................... 31  6.1 International ............................................................................................................................ 31  6.2 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 31  6.3 State ......................................................................................................................................... 32  6.4 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 37  6.5 Local – City of Orange .............................................................................................................. 38  7.0 Atmospheric Setting .............................................................................................................. 39  7.1 South Coast Air Basin ............................................................................................................... 39  7.2 Local Climate ............................................................................................................................ 39  7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 40  7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels in the Air Basin ......................................................................... 42  8.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ................................................................................. 43  8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters ........................................................................................ 43  8.2 Energy Use Calculations ........................................................................................................... 47      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page ii    9.0 Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................................................... 51  9.1 Regional Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 51  9.2 Local Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 51  9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants ............................................................................................................ 53  9.4 Odor Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 53  9.5 Energy Conservation ................................................................................................................ 53  9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 54  10.0 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 56  10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 56  10.2 Air Quality Compliance .......................................................................................................... 56  10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non‐Attainment Pollution ......................................................... 58  10.4 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................ 65  10.5 Odor Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 67  10.6 Energy Consumption .............................................................................................................. 68  10.7 Energy Plan Consistency ........................................................................................................ 73  10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 74  10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency ......................................................................................... 75  11.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 76       APPENDIX  Appendix A – CalEEMod Model Daily Printouts  Appendix B – EMFAC2017 Model Printouts   Appendix C – CalEEMod Model Annual Printouts                Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page iii    LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1 – Project Local Study Area .............................................................................................................. 9  Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 10    LIST OF TABLES   Table A – Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs ......................... 17  Table B – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards ........................................................................... 19  Table C – South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................................................... 20  Table D – Monthly Climate Data ................................................................................................................. 40  Table E – Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................................... 41  Table F – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters ................................................................................................. 43  Table G – Project Daily Trip Rates and Total Generated Trips .................................................................... 45  Table H – Off‐Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ........ 48  Table I – On‐Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ....... 49  Table J – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance ................................. 51  Table K – Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Acres Disturbed per Day .......................... 52  Table L – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ................................................................ 53  Table M – Construction‐Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions ..................................................... 59  Table N – Construction‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Prior to Mitigation ............................. 60  Table O – Mitigated Construction‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions ........................................... 61  Table P – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions ..................................................................... 62  Table Q – Project’s Contribution to Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ................................. 63  Table R – Operations‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions ............................................................... 64  Table S – Proposed Project Compliance with City General Plan Energy Policies ........................................ 73  Table T – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions .................................................................... 74        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page iv    ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS  AB  Assembly Bill  Air Basin South Coast Air Basin  AQMP  Air Quality Management Plan   BACT  Best Available Control Technology  BSFC  Brake Specific Fuel Consumption  CAAQS  California Ambient Air Quality Standards  CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model  CalEPA  California Environmental Protection Agency  CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association  CARB  California Air Resources Board  CCAA  California Clean Air Act  CEC  California Energy Commission  CEQA  California Environmental Quality Act  CFCs  chlorofluorocarbons  Cf4  tetrafluoromethane  C2F6  hexafluoroethane  C2H6  ethane  CH4  Methane  CO  Carbon monoxide  CO2  Carbon dioxide  CO2e  Carbon dioxide equivalent  City  City of Orange  CPUC  California Public Utilities Commission  DPM  Diesel particulate matter   EPA  Environmental Protection Agency   ºF  Fahrenheit  FTIP  Federal Transportation Improvement Program  GHG  Greenhouse gas   GWP  Global warming potential  HAP  Hazardous Air Pollutants  HFCs  Hydrofluorocarbons      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page v    IPCC  International Panel on Climate Change  kWhr  kilowatt‐hour  LCFS  Low Carbon Fuel Standard  LST  Localized Significant Thresholds   MATES  Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study  MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent  MPO  Metropolitan Planning Organization  MSAT  Mobile Source Air Toxics  MWh  Megawatt‐hour  NAAQS  National Ambient Air Quality Standards  NOx  Nitrogen oxides  NO2  Nitrogen dioxide   O3  Ozone  OPR  Office of Planning and Research  Pb  Lead  Pfc  Perfluorocarbons  PM  Particle matter  PM10  Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter  PM2.5  Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter  PPM  Parts per million  PPB  Parts per billion  PPT  Parts per trillion  RTIP  Regional Transportation Improvement Plan  RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy  SB  Senate Bill  SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District  SCAG  Southern California Association of Governments  SF6  Sulfur Hexafluoride  SIP  State Implementation Plan  SOx  Sulfur oxides  TAC  Toxic air contaminants  UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change  VOC  Volatile organic compounds      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 1    1.0 INTRODUCTION  1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives  This Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Impact Analysis has been completed to  determine the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed Tentative  Tract No. 18163 project (proposed project).  The following is provided in this report:   A description of the proposed project;    A description of the atmospheric setting;   A description of the criteria pollutants and GHGs;   A description of the air quality regulatory framework;    A description of the energy conservation regulatory framework;   A description of the GHG emissions regulatory framework;   A description of the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions thresholds including the California  Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds;   An analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with the South Coast Air Quality  Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP);    An analysis of the short‐term construction related and long‐term operational air quality, energy,  and GHG emissions impacts; and    An analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with all applicable energy and GHG  emissions reduction plans and policies.  1.2 Site Locations and Study Area  The project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Orange (City).  The approximately 10.9‐acre  project site is currently vacant and is bounded by Mabury Avenue and single‐family homes to the north,  Santiago Creek and vacant land to the east, Santiago Creek and a Sand and Gravel Pit to the south, and  Santiago Creek and vacant land to the west.  The project study area is shown in Figure 1.    Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity  The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located on the north side of Mabury Avenue,  which are as near as 80 feet east of the project site.    The nearest school is Linda Vista Elementary School,  which is located as near as 0.6 mile southwest of the project site.  1.3 Proposed Project Description  The proposed project is expected to break ground in June 2021 and be completed by December 2022.   The proposed project would consist of development of 22 single‐family residential lots. Lot sizes for  residential units would range from 9,112 square feet 14,092 to square feet. The proposed project would  include development and improvements to streets, sidewalks, and trails; and installation of an equestrian  trail. Access to the project site would be provided via Mabury Avenue. The building footprints, patios,  driveways, and pools would comprise approximately 132,000 square feet of impervious surfaces; streets      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 2    and sidewalks would comprise approximately 48,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. The proposed  site plan is shown in Figure 2.  1.4 Executive Summary  Standard Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Regulatory Conditions  The proposed project will be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the  SCAQMD and State of California (State).    South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules  The following lists the SCAQMD rules that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project.     Rule 402 Nuisance – Controls the emissions of odors and other air contaminants;    Rule 403 Fugitive Dust – Controls the emissions of fugitive dust;   Rule 445 Fireplaces – Controls the emissions of fireplaces and restricts all new fireplaces to natural  gas only;   Rules 1108 and 1108.1 Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt – Controls the VOC content in asphalt;   Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings – Controls the VOC content in paints and solvents; and   Rule 1143 Paint Thinners – Controls the VOC content in paint thinners.    State of California Rules  The following lists the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are  applicable, but not limited to the proposed project.    CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 – In use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicles;    CCR Title 13, Section 2025 – On‐Road Diesel Truck Fleets;    CCR Title 24 Part 6 – California Building Energy Standards; and   CCR Title 24 Part 11 – California Green Building Standards.  Summary of Analysis Results  The following is a summary of the proposed project’s impacts with regard to the State CEQA Guidelines  air quality, energy, and GHG emissions checklist questions.  Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  Potentially significant impact.  Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1c has been provided to reduce this impact  to less than significant levels.  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is  non‐attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?  Potentially significant impact.  Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1c has been provided to reduce this impact  to less than significant levels.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 3    Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  Potentially significant impact.  Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1c has been provided to reduce this impact  to less than significant levels.  Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of  people?  Less than significant impact.  Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary  consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation;  Less than significant impact.  Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy;  Less than significant impact.  Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the  environment?  Less than significant impact.  Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing  the emissions of GHGs?  Less than significant impact.  1.5 Mitigation Measures from the Certified EIR  The proposed project is being analyzed as an addendum to the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact  Report Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan City of Orange, Orange County, California State Clearinghouse  No: 2017031020 (Certified EIR), prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, November 14, 2018.  The Air Quality‐ Related Mitigation Measures from the Certified EIR are provided below.  It should be noted that the  proposed project is a much less intensive project than the preferred alternative analyzed in the Certified  EIR.  As such, not all listed mitigation is required to meet less than significant impacts for the proposed  project.  MM AIR‐1a  During construction, all equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to  reduce emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is  properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.  Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification.   MM AIR‐1b  All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113.  To ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, the following volatile organic compound (VOC)  control measures shall be implemented during architectural coating activities:  a) Use paints with a VOC content of no more than 50 grams per liter for both interior and exterior  coatings.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 4    b) Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and  excessive odors.  c) Use compliant low VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.  d) Keep all paint and solvent laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.  MM AIR‐1c  Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, the project applicant shall include a dust  control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan  shall include measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such basic  measures may include but are not limited to the following:  a) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the  surrounding areas.  b) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.  c) Water exposed surfaces at least three times a day under calm conditions, and as often as  needed on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and  minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction site.  d) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or  temporarily plant with vegetation.  e) Use street sweepers that comply with SCAQMD Rules 1186 and 1186.1.  MM AIR‐1d  Prior to and during grading activities, the project applicant shall comply with South Coast Air  Quality Management District Rule 403 as follows:  • The applicant shall submit a fully executed Large Operation Notification (Form 403 N) to the  SCQAMD Executive Officer within 7 days of qualifying as a large operation. The form shall include  the name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of the person(s) responsible for the submittal,  and a description of the operation(s), including a map depicting the location of the site.  • Maintain daily records to document the specific dust control actions taken, maintain such  records for a period of not less than three years; and make such records available to the Executive  Officer upon request  • Install and maintain project signage with project contact signage that meets the minimum  standards of the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, prior to initiating any earthmoving activities  • Identify a dust control supervisor that (1) is employed by or contracted with the property owner  or developer; (2) is on the site or available on‐site within 30 minutes during working hours; (3)  has the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure  compliance with all Rule requirements; (4) has completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class  and has been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class; and (5) will notify the Executive  Officer in writing within 30 days after the site no longer qualifies as a large operation.  MM AIR‐1e  Prior to and during grading activities, the project applicant shall implement the following dust  control measures for large operations, as applicable, pursuant to South Coast Air Quality  Management District Rule 403:      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 5    Earth Moving (except construction cutting and filling areas, and mining operations)  1a.  Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method  D‐2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air  Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the  first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations each  subsequent four‐hour period of active operations; or  1a‐1. For any earth‐moving which is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct watering  as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction.   Earth Moving—Construction Fill Areas  1b.  Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method  D‐2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air  Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. For areas which have an optimum moisture content for  compaction of less than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM Method 1557 or other equivalent  method approved by the Executive Officer and the California Air Resources Board and the U.S.  EPA, complete the compaction process as expeditiously as possible after achieving at least 70  percent of the optimum soil moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted  during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations  during each subsequent four‐hour period of active operations.  Earth Moving—Construction Cut Areas and Mining Operations  1c. Conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible emissions from extending more than 100  feet beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area is inaccessible to watering vehicles due  to slope conditions or other safety factors.  Disturbed Surface Areas—Completed Grading Areas  2a/b. Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface.  Any areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by wind driven fugitive dust must have an  application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized area.  2c. Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion; OR  2d. Take actions (3a) or (3c) specified for inactive disturbed surface areas.  Inactive Disturbed Surface Areas  3a. Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas on a daily basis when  there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, excluding any areas which are inaccessible to  watering vehicles due to excessive slope or other safety conditions; or  3b. Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface;  or  3c. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased.  Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground  within 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; OR  3d. Utilize any combination of control actions (3a), (3b), and (3c) such that, in total, these actions  apply to all inactive disturbed surface areas.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 6    Unpaved Roads  4a. Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of active  operations [3 times per normal 8‐hour work day]; or  4b. Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles  per hour; or  4c. Apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to  maintain a stabilized surface.  Open Storage Piles  5a. Apply chemical stabilizers; or  5b. Apply water to at least 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles on a daily basis  when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust; or  5c. Install temporary coverings; or  5d. Install a three‐sided enclosure with walls with no more than 50 percent porosity which extend,  at a minimum, to the top of the pile. This option may only be used at aggregate‐related plants or  at cement manufacturing facilities.  All Categories  6a. Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent  to the methods specified in this mitigation measure may be used.  MM AIR‐1f  Prior to and during grading activities, the project applicant shall implement the following  contingency control measures for large operations, as applicable, pursuant to and when required  by South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403:  Earth Moving  1A. Cease all active operations; or  2A. Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil.  0B. On the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or any other period when  active operations will not occur for not more than four consecutive days: apply water with a  mixture of chemical stabilizer diluted to not less than 1/20 of the concentration required to  maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six months;  OR  1B. Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; or  2B. Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas 3 times per day. If there is any evidence of wind  driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of four times per day; or  3B. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased.  Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground  within 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; or  4B. Utilize any combination of control actions (1B), (2B), and (3B) such that, in total, these actions  apply to all disturbed surface areas.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 7    Unpaved Roads  1C. Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; or  2C. Apply water twice per hour during active operation; or  3C. Stop all vehicular traffic.  Open Storage Piles  1D. Apply water twice per hour; or  2D. Install temporary coverings.  Paved Road Track Out  1E. Cover all haul vehicles; or  2E. Comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle  Code for both public and private roads.  All Categories  1F. Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent  to the methods specified in this mitigation measure may be used.  MM AIR‐1g  During construction activities, all off‐road equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower  shall meet either EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off‐road emission standards. The construction  contractor shall maintain records concerning its efforts to comply with this requirement, including  equipment lists. Off‐road equipment descriptions and information may include but are not limited  to equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model  year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.  If engines that comply with Tier IV Final off‐road emission standards are not commercially  available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off‐road equipment  (e.g., Tier IV Interim) available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available”  shall mean the availability of Tier IV Final engines taking into consideration factors such as (i)  critical‐path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the project site of equipment.  The contractor can maintain records for equipment that is not commercially available by providing  letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of offroad equipment where the Tier IV  Final engine is not available.  1.6 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project  This analysis found that implementation of the State and SCAQMD air quality, energy, and GHG emissions  reductions regulations listed above as well as implementation of the following mitigation would limit  criteria pollutants, odors, energy, and GHG emissions from the proposed project to less than significant  levels.    MM AIR‐1c  Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, the project applicant shall include a dust  control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan  shall include measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such basic  measures may include but are not limited to the following:      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 8    f) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the  surrounding areas.  g) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.  h) Water exposed surfaces at least three times a day under calm conditions, and as often as  needed on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and  minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction site.  i) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or  temporarily plant with vegetation.  j) Use street sweepers that comply with SCAQMD Rules 1186 and 1186.1.        Figure 1Project Local Study AreaSOURCE: Google Maps.NProject Site Figure 2Proposed Site PlanSOURCE: Fuscoe Engineering.N     Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 11    2.0 AIR POLLUTANTS   Air pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non‐criteria pollutants.  Federal  ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards  have been established for non‐criteria pollutants.  For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have  been set for different periods.  Most standards have been set to protect public health.  For some  pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of  materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions).  A summary of federal and state ambient air quality  standards is provided in the Regulatory Framework section.  2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors  The criteria pollutants consist of: ozone, NOx, CO, SOx, lead (Pb), and particulate matter (PM). The ozone  precursors consist of NOx and VOC. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and  cause property damage.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls these pollutants “criteria” air  pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health‐based and/or environmentally‐based  criteria for setting permissible levels.  The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria pollutants  and ozone precursors.   Nitrogen Oxides  Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases which contain nitrogen and  oxygen. While most NOx are colorless and odorless, concentrations of NO2 can often be seen as a reddish‐ brown layer over many urban areas.  NOx form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a  combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other  industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel.  NOx reacts with other pollutants to form,  ground‐level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which cause respiratory problems. NOx  and the pollutants formed from NOx can be transported over long distances, following the patterns of  prevailing winds.  Therefore, controlling NOx is often most effective if done from a regional perspective,  rather than focusing on the nearest sources.  Ozone  Ozone is not usually emitted directly into the air, instead it is created by a chemical reaction between NOx  and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial  emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form  ozone.  Ground‐level ozone is the primary constituent of smog.  Sunlight and hot weather cause ground‐ level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from urban areas.   Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant.  Ground‐level ozone is a respiratory irritant and  an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to  vegetation and other materials.  Because NOx and VOC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated  with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOx and VOC emissions.  Carbon Monoxide  Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned  completely.  It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes approximately 56 percent of  all CO emissions nationwide.  In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle  exhaust.  Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and  chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires.  Woodstoves,      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 12    gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are indoor sources of CO.  The  highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion  conditions are more frequent.  The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground beneath a layer of  warm air. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates quickly.  Since CO  concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally  occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and traffic congestion, active parking  lots, and in automobile tunnels.  Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are  particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations.  CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount  of oxygen transported in the bloodstream.  The health threat from lower levels of CO is most serious for  those who suffer from heart disease such as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure.  For a  person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that  person’s ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects.  High  levels of CO can affect even healthy people.  People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision  problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex  tasks.  At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death.  Sulfur Oxides  Sulfur Oxide (SOx) gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, as well as  from the refining of gasoline.  SOx dissolves easily in water vapor to form acid and interacts with other  gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the  environment.   Lead  Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products.  The major sources  of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources.  Due to the phase out of  leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions to the air.  High levels of  lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead‐acid  battery manufacturers. Exposure of fetuses, infants and children to low levels of Pb can adversely affect  the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility,  inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are  associated with increased blood pressure.  Particulate Matter  Particle matter (PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. PM is  made up of a number of components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals,  metals, and soil or dust particles.  The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health  problems. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) that are also known as  Respirable Particulate Matter are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter  the lungs.  Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.   Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) that  are also known as Fine Particulate  Matter have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased negative health impacts and its  ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 13    Volatile Organic Compounds   Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and sometimes other  elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of O3 are referred to and regulated as VOCs (also  referred to as reactive organic gases). Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil‐fueled power  plants are the sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from  petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint.  VOC is not classified as a criteria pollutant, since VOCs by themselves are not a known source of adverse  health effects. The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of O3 and its related health  effects. High levels of VOCs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount  of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are  considered toxic air contaminants (TACs). There are no separate health standards for VOCs as a group.   2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern  Toxic Air Contaminants   In addition to the above‐listed criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of  pollutants of concern.  TACs is a term that is defined under the California Clean Air Act and consists of the  same substances that are defined as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in the Federal Clean Air Act.  There  are over 700 hundred different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity.  Sources of TACs include  industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations  such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust.  Cars and trucks release at least 40  different toxic air contaminants.  The most important of these TACs, in terms of health risk, are diesel  particulates, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3‐butadiene, and acetaldehyde.  Public exposure to TACs can  result from emissions from normal operations as well as from accidental releases.  Health effects of TACs  include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.  TACs are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than criteria air pollutants, however they are linked to  short‐term (acute) or long‐term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects.  There are  hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity.  Sources of TACs include industrial  processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), and motor vehicle exhaust.  According to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, the majority of the  estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of  which is DPM.  DPM is a subset of PM2.5 because the size of diesel particles are typically 2.5 microns and  smaller.  The identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998 led the CARB to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to  Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐fueled Engines and Vehicles in September 2000.  The  plan’s goals are a 75‐percent reduction in DPM by 2010 and an 85‐percent reduction by 2020 from the  2000 baseline.  Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid  material.  The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM, which includes  carbon particles or “soot.”  Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other  cancer‐causing substances.  California’s identification of DPM as a toxic air contaminant was based on its  potential to cause cancer, premature deaths, and other health problems.  Exposure to DPM is a health  hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other  serious health problems.  Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s  potential airborne cancer risk from combustion sources.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 14    Asbestos   Asbestos is listed as a TAC by CARB and as a HAP by the EPA.  Asbestos occurs naturally in mineral  formations and crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release  asbestiform fibers into the air.  Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos‐containing  materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining.  The risk of disease is  dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure.  When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in  the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.  The  nearest likely locations of naturally occurring asbestos, as identified in the General Location Guide for  Ultramafic Rocks in California, prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, is located in  Santa Barbara County.  The nearest historic asbestos mine to the project site, as identified in the Reported  Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in  California, prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, is located at Asbestos Mountain, which is approximately  80 miles east of the project site in the San Jacinto Mountains.  Due to the distance to the nearest natural  occurrences of asbestos, the project site is not likely to contain asbestos.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 15    3.0 GREENHOUSE GASES  3.1 Greenhouse Gases   Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical  role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which  otherwise would have escaped to space.  Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include  carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and  chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).  This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for  maintaining a habitable climate.  Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these  greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of  the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known  as global warming or climate change.  Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to  human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and  residential land uses.  Emissions of CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.  Methane, a  potent greenhouse gas, results from off‐gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills.  Sinks  of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into  the ocean.  The following provides a description of each of the greenhouse gases and their global warming  potential.  Water Vapor   Water vapor is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere.  Water vapor is not  considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life.  Changes in its  concentration are primarily considered a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the  atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization.  The feedback loop in which water is involved  is critically important to projecting future climate change.  As the temperature of the atmosphere rises,  more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil).  Because the air is warmer,  the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to “hold” more water when it is warmer),  leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere.  As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is  then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the  atmosphere.  The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on.  This is  referred to as a “positive feedback loop.”  The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is  unknown as there is also dynamics that put the positive feedback loop in check.  As an example, when  water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are  more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and  heat it up).   Carbon Dioxide   The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean.   However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.   Since the industrial revolution began in the mid 1700s, each of these activities has increased in scale and  distribution.  CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration with the  first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th century.  Prior to the industrial  revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm).  The International Panel on  Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that concentrations were 379 ppm in 2005, an increase of more than 30  percent.  Left unchecked, the IPCC projects that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is  projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources.  This      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 16    could result in an average global temperature rise of at least two degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees  Fahrenheit.    Methane  CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than  that of CO2.  Its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such  as CO2, N2O, and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)).  CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources.  It is  released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice  production (at the roots of the plants).  Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice,  raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of  methane.  Other anthropocentric sources include fossil‐fuel combustion and biomass burning.  Nitrous Oxide  Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution.  In 1998, the global  concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb).  N2O is produced by microbial  processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen.  In  addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel‐fired power plants, nylon  production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.  N2O is  also commonly used as an aerosol spray propellant (i.e., in whipped cream bottles, in potato chip bags to  keep chips fresh, and in rocket engines and race cars).  Chlorofluorocarbons   CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C2H6) with  chlorine and/or fluorine atoms.  CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive  in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface).  CFCs have no natural source, but were first  synthesized in 1928.  They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents.  Due to  the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production  was undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent  treaties banned CFCs worldwide by 2010.  This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major  CFCs are now remaining level or declining.  However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of  the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.  Hydrofluorocarbons   HFCs are synthetic man‐made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs.  Out of all the GHGs, they  are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential.  The HFCs with the largest measured  atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC‐23 (CHF3), HFC‐134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC‐152a (CH3CHF2).   Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC‐23.  HFC‐134a use is increasing due to its use as a  refrigerant.  Concentrations of HFC‐23 and HFC‐134a in the atmosphere are now about 10 parts per trillion  (ppt) each.  Concentrations of HFC‐152a are about 1 ppt.  HFCs are manmade for applications such as  automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.  Perfluorocarbons  Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical  processes in the lower atmosphere.  High‐energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s  surface are able to destroy the compounds.  Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between  10,000 and 50,000 years.  Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6).       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 17    Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt.  The two main sources of PFCs are primary  aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.  Sulfur Hexafluoride  Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas.  SF6 has the  highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2.  Concentrations in the  1990s were about 4 ppt.  Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and  distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas  for leak detection.  Aerosols  Aerosols are particles emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels.   Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by  reflecting light.  Cloud formation can also be affected by aerosols.  Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel  containing sulfur is burned.  Black carbon (or soot) is emitted during biomass burning due to the  incomplete combustion of fossil fuels.  Particulate matter regulation has been lowering aerosol  concentrations in the United States; however, global concentrations are likely increasing.  3.2 Global Warming Potential  GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP).  The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap  heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon  resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to the reference gas, CO2.  The GHGs listed by  the IPCC and the CEQA Guidelines are discussed in this section in order of abundance in the atmosphere.   Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and  fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic (human‐made) sources.  To simplify reporting and analysis,  GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP.  The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions  on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2e.  As such, the GWP of CO2 is equal  to 1.  The GWP values used in this analysis are based on the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which  are used in CARB’s 2014 Scoping Plan Update and the CalEEMod Model Version 2016.3.2 and are detailed  in Table A.  The IPCC has updated the Global Warming Potentials of some gases in their Fifth Assessment  Report, however the new values have not yet been incorporated into the CalEEMod model that has been  utilized in this analysis.  Table A – Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs  Gas  Atmospheric Lifetime  (years)1  Global Warming Potential  (100 Year Horizon)2  Atmospheric  Abundance  Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50‐200 1 379 ppm  Methane (CH4) 9‐15 25 1,774 ppb  Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298 319 ppb  HFC‐23  270 14,800 18 ppt  HFC‐134a 14 1,430 35 ppt  HFC‐152a 1.4 124 3.9 ppt  PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 74 ppt  PFC:  Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 2.9 ppt  Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 5.6 ppt  Notes:      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 18    1 Defined as the half‐life of the gas.  2 Compared to the same quantity of CO2 emissions and is based on the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 standard, which  is utilized in CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2),that is used in this report (CalEEMod user guide: Appendix A).  Definitions: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ppt = parts per trillion  Source: IPCC 2007, EPA 2015    3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory  According to https://cdiac.ess‐dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2014.html 9,855 million metric tons  (MMT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions were created globally in the year 2014. According to  https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global‐greenhouse‐gas‐emissions‐data the breakdown of global  GHG emissions by sector consists of: 25 percent from electricity and heat production; 21 percent from  industry; 24 percent from agriculture, forestry and other land use activities; 14 percent from  transportation; 6 percent from building energy use; and 10 percent from all other sources of energy use.   According to Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990‐2016, prepared by EPA, in 2016  total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,511.3 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions.   Total U.S. emissions have increased by 2.4 percent between 1990 and 2016 and GHG emissions decreased  by 1.9 percent between 2015 and 2016.  The recent decrease in GHG emissions was a result of multiple  factors, including substitution from coal to natural gas in the electricity sector and from a warmer winter  and a slow‐down in the economy in 2016.  However, according to https://rhg.com/research/preliminary‐ us‐emissions‐estimates‐for‐2018/ the preliminary estimates for 2018 show that GHG emissions have  increased by 3.4 percent, which is primarily a result from a strong economy that required the use of more  transportation fuels and power generation.  According to https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm the State of California created 429.4  MMTCO2e in 2016. The breakdown of California GHG emissions by sector consists of: 41 percent from  transportation; 23 percent from industrial; 16 percent from electricity generation; 8 percent from  agriculture; 7 percent from residential buildings; 5 percent from commercial buildings; and 1 percent from  other uses of energy.  In 2016, GHG emissions were 12 MMTCO2e lower than 2015 levels, which represent  a 6 percent year‐over‐year decline.            Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 19    4.0 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT  The air quality at the project site is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state,  regional, and local government agencies.  These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve  air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy‐making, education, and a variety of programs.   The agencies responsible for improving the air quality are discussed below.  4.1 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency  The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963 with major amendments in 1970, 1977 and 1990, is the overarching  legislation covering regulation of air pollution in the United States. The Clean Air Act has established the  mandate for requiring regulation of both mobile and stationary sources of air pollution at the state and  federal level. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 in order to consolidate  research, monitoring, standard‐setting and enforcement authority into a single agency.  The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for  atmospheric pollutants.  It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal  government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. NAAQS pollutants were identified using  medical evidence and are shown below in Table B.  Table B – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards  Air  Pollutant  Concentration / Averaging Time  Most Relevant Effects  California  Standards  Federal Primary  Standards  Ozone (O3)  0.09 ppm / 1‐hour    0.07 ppm / 8‐hour  0.070 ppm, / 8‐hour  (a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema  in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by  alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in  animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health  implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered  pulmonary morphology in animals after long‐term exposures  and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed  humans; (e) Vegetation damage; and (f) Property damage.  Carbon  Monoxide  (CO)  20.0 ppm / 1‐hour    9.0 ppm / 8‐hour  35.0 ppm / 1‐hour    9.0 ppm / 8‐hour  (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of  coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in  persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c)   Impairment of central nervous system functions;  and (d)  Possible increased risk to fetuses.  Nitrogen  Dioxide  (NO2)  0.18 ppm / 1‐hour  0.030 ppm / annual  100 ppb / 1‐hour  0.053 ppm / annual   (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and  respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public  health implied by pulmonary and extra‐pulmonary  biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural  changes; and (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration.  Sulfur  Dioxide       (SO2)  0.25 ppm / 1‐hour    0.04 ppm / 24‐hour  75 ppb / 1‐hour  0.14 ppm/annual  (a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which  may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest  tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with  asthma.  Suspended  Particulate  Matter  (PM10)  50 µg/m3 / 24‐hour  20 µg/m3 / annual  150 µg/m3 / 24‐ hour  (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with  respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in  pulmonary function growth in children; and (c) Increased risk  of premature death from heart or lung diseases in elderly.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 20    Air  Pollutant  Concentration / Averaging Time  Most Relevant Effects  California  Standards  Federal Primary  Standards  Suspended  Particulate  Matter  (PM2.5)  12 µg/m3 / annual 35 µg/m3 / 24‐hour  12 µg/m3 / annual  Sulfates 25 µg/m3 / 24‐hour No Federal  Standards  (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of  asthmatic symptoms; (c ) Aggravation of cardio‐pulmonary  disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility;  and (f) Property damage.  Lead 1.5 µg/m3 / 30‐day  0.15 µg/m3 /3‐  month rolling  (a) Learning disabilities; and (b) Impairment of blood  formation and nerve conduction.  Visibility  Reducing  Particles  Extinction  coefficient of 0.23  per kilometer ‐  visibility of ten miles  or more due to  particles when  relative humidity is  less than 70 percent.   No Federal  Standards  Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less  than 70 percent.  Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf .    As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas  to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the  national standards.  The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local components and regulations to  identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market‐ based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP.  The CARB defines attainment as the category  given to an area with no violations in the past three years. As indicated below in Table C, the Air Basin has  been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non‐attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and  partial non‐attainment for lead.  Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the national ambient air  quality standards for CO, PM10, SO2, and NO2.        Table C – South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status  Criteria Pollutant Standard Averaging Time Designationa) Attainment Dateb)  1‐Hour Ozonec)      NAAQS 1979 1‐Hour  (0.12 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 2/6/2023  (revised deadline)  CAAQS 1‐Hour  (0.09 ppm) Nonattainment N/A  8‐Hour Ozoned)        NAAQS 1997 8‐Hour  (0.08 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024  NAAQS 2008 8‐Hour   (0.075 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 8/3/2038  NAAQS 2015 8‐Hour   (0.070 ppm)  Pending – Expect  Nonattainment (Extreme)  Pending (beyond  2032)  CAAQS 8‐Hour (0.070 ppm) Nonattainment Beyond 2032  CO NAAQS 1‐Hour (35 ppm)  8‐Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007  (attained)      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 21    Criteria Pollutant Standard Averaging Time Designationa) Attainment Dateb)  CAAQS 1‐Hour (20 ppm)  8‐Hour (9 ppm) Attainment 6/11/2007  (attained)  NO2e)  NAAQS 2010 1‐Hour (0.10 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment N/A (attained)  NAAQS 1971 Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998  (attained)  CAAQS 1‐Hour (0.18 ppm)  Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment  ‐‐‐  SO2f)  NAAQS 2010 1‐Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending (expect  Unclassifiable/ Attainment) N/A (attained)  NAAQS 1971 24‐Hour (0.14 ppm)  1971 Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment 3/19/1979  (attained)  PM10  NAAQS 1987 24‐hour   (150 μg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance)g) 7/26/2013  (attained)  CAAQS 24‐hour (50 μg/m3)  Annual (20 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A  PM2.5h)  NAAQS 2006 24‐Hour   (35 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019  NAAQS 1997 Annual   (15.0 μg/m3)  Attainment (final  determination pending)  8/24/2016   (attained 2013)  NAAQS 2012 Annual   (12.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Moderate) 12/31/2021  CAAQS Annual (12.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A  Leadi) NAAQS 2008 3‐Months Rolling   (0.15 μg/m3)  Nonattainment (Partial)  (Attainment determination  requested)  12/31/2015  Source: SCAQMD, February 2016  Notes:  a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable  b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for  attainment demonstration  c) The 1979 1‐hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard and  therefore has some continuing obligations with respect to the revoked standard  d) The 2008 8‐hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm. Effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to  be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8‐hour O3 NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 O3 implementation rule, effective 4/6/15;there are  continuing obligations under the revoked 1997 and revised 2008 O3 until they are attained.  e) New NO2 1‐hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard retained  f) The 1971 annual and 24‐hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect  until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1‐hour standard. Area designations are still pending, with Basin  expected to be designated Unclassifiable /Attainment.  g) Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; 24‐hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; SCAQMD request for  attainment redesignation and PM10 maintenance plan was approved by U.S. EPA on June 26, 2013, effective July 26, 2013.  h) The attainment deadline for the 2006 24‐Hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 12/31/15 for the former “moderate” classification; EPA approved  reclassification to “serious”, effective 2/12/16 with an attainment deadline of 12/31/19; the 2012 (proposal year) annual PM2.5 NAAQS was  revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 μg/m3; new annual designations were final 1/15/15, effective 4/15/15; on July 25, 2016  EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 μg/m3) and 24‐hour PM2.5 (65 μg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24,  2016  i) Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only for near‐source monitors. Expect to remain in attainment based  on current monitoring data; attainment re‐designation request pending.  In 2015, one or more stations in the Air Basin exceeded the most current federal standards on a total of  146 days (40 percent of the year), including: 8‐hour ozone (113 days over 2015 ozone NAAQS), 24‐hour  PM2.5 (30 days, including near‐road sites; 25 days for ambient sites only), PM10 (2 days), and NO2 (1 day).   Despite substantial improvement in air quality over the past few decades, some air monitoring stations in  the Air Basin still exceed the NAAQS for ozone more frequently than any other area in the United States.       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 22    Seven of the top 10 stations in the nation most frequently exceeding the 2015 8‐hour ozone NAAQS in  2015 were located within the Air Basin, including stations in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles  Counties (SCAQMD, 2016).    PM2.5 levels in the Air Basin have improved significantly in recent years.  By 2013 and again in 2014 and  2015, there were no stations measuring PM2.5 in the Air Basin that violated the former 1997 annual  PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0 µg/m3) for the 3‐year design value period.  On July 25, 2016 the EPA finalized a  determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 µg/m3) and 24‐hour PM2.5 (65 µg/m3)  NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016.  Of the 17 federal PM2.5 monitors at ambient stations in the Air Basin  for the 2013‐2015 period, five stations had design values over the current 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS  (12.0 µg/m3), including: Mira Loma (Air Basin maximum at 14.1 µg/m3), Rubidoux, Fontana, Ontario,  Central Los Angeles, and Compton.  For the 24‐hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35.0 µg/m3) there were 14 stations in  the Air Basin in 2015 that had one or more daily exceedances of the standard, with a combined total of  25 days over that standard in the Air Basin.  While it was previously anticipated that the Air Basin’s 24‐ hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be attained by 2015, this did not occur based on the data for 2013 through  2015.  The higher number of days exceeding the 24‐hour PM2.5 NAAQS over what was expected is largely  attributed to the severe drought conditions over this period that allowed for more stagnant conditions in  the Air Basin with multi‐day buildups of higher PM2.5 concentrations.  This was caused by the lack of  storm‐related dispersion and rain‐out of PM and its precursors (SCAQMD, 2016).  The Air Basin is currently in attainment for the federal standards for SO2, CO, NO2, and PM10 and the  Orange County portion of the Air Basin is currently in attainment for the federal standards for lead.  While  the concentration level of the 1‐hour NO2 federal standard (100 ppb) was exceeded in the Air Basin for  one day in 2015 (Long Beach‐ Hudson Station), the NAAQS NO2 design value has not been exceeded.  Therefore, the Air Basin remains in attainment of the NO2 NAAQS (SCAQMD, 2016).  4.2 State – California Air Resources Board  The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is a part of the California Environmental Protection  Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution  control programs within California.  In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California  Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control  measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP.  The CAAQS for criteria pollutants  are shown above in Table B.  In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold  in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various  types of commercial equipment.  It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.  The Air Basin has been designated by the CARB as a non‐attainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5.   Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, NO2, SO2, lead, and  sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and Hydrogen Sulfide.  The following lists the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are  applicable, but not limited to all warehouse projects in the State.   Assembly Bill 2588  The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2588, 1987, Connelly) was  enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program.  AB 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 23    quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release in California.  The data is ranked by high,  intermediate, and low categories, which are determined by: the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume, and  proximity of the facility to nearby receptors.  CARB Regulation for In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicles  On July 26, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted California Code of Regulations Title  13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and NOx emissions from  in‐use off‐road heavy‐duty diesel vehicles in California.  Such vehicles are used in construction, mining,  and industrial operations.  The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires  reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale.  Performance  requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOx emissions, which can be met by replacing  older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits.  The regulation was amended  in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirement making the first compliance  deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501‐5,000  horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).  Currently, no commercial operation  in California may add any equipment to their fleet that has a Tier 0 or Tier 1 engine.  By January 1, 2018  medium and large fleets will be restricted from adding Tier 2 engines to their fleets and by January 2023,  no commercial operation will be allowed to add Tier 2 engines to their fleets.  It should be noted that  commercial fleets may continue to use their existing Tier 0 and 1 equipment, if they can demonstrate that  the average emissions from their entire fleet emissions meet the NOx emissions targets.   CARB Resolution 08‐43 for On‐Road Diesel Truck Fleets    On December 12, 2008 the CARB adopted Resolution 08‐43, which limits NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions  from on‐road diesel truck fleets that operate in California. On October 12, 2009 Executive Order R‐09‐010  was adopted that codified Resolution 08‐43 into Section 2025, title 13 of the California Code of  Regulations.  This regulation requires that by the year 2023 all commercial diesel trucks that operate in  California shall meet model year 2010 (Tier 4 Final) or latter emission standards.  In the interim period,  this regulation provides annual interim targets for fleet owners to meet.  By January 1, 2014, 50 percent  of a truck fleet is required to have installed Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for NOx emissions  and 100 percent of a truck fleet installed BACT for PM10 emissions.  This regulation also provides a few  exemptions including a onetime per year 3‐day pass for trucks registered outside of California.  All on‐ road diesel trucks utilized during construction of the proposed project will be required to comply with  Resolution 08‐43.  4.3 Regional – Southern California   The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South  Coast Air Basin.  To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California  Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and  cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies.  South Coast Air Quality Management District  SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources,  inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when  necessary.  SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect  sources.  It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of AQMPs.  The Final 2016 Air  Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 2016 and was      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 24    adopted by CARB on March 23, 2017 for inclusion into the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The  2016 AQMP was prepared in order to meet the following standards:   8‐hour Ozone (75 ppb) by 2032   Annual PM2.5 (12 µg/m3) by 2021‐2025   8‐hour Ozone (80 ppb) by 2024 (updated from the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs)   1‐hour Ozone (120 ppb) by 2023 (updated from the 2012 AQMP)   24‐hour PM2.5 (35 µg/m3) by 2019 (updated from the 2012 AQMP)  In addition to meeting the above standards, the 2016 AQMP also includes revisions to the attainment  demonstrations for the 1997 8‐hour ozone NAAQS and the 1979 1‐hour ozone NAAQS.  The prior 2012  AQMP was prepared in order to demonstrate attainment with the 24‐hour PM2.5 standard by 2014  through adoption of all feasible measures.  The prior 2007 AQMP demonstrated attainment with the 1997  8‐hour ozone (80 ppb) standard by 2023, through implementation of future improvements in control  techniques and technologies.  These “black box” emissions reductions represent 65 percent of the  remaining NOx emission reductions by 2023 in order to show attainment with the 1997 8‐hour ozone  NAAQS.  Given the magnitude of these needed emissions reductions, additional NOx control measures  have been provided in the 2012 AQMP even though the primary purpose was to show compliance with  24‐hour PM2.5 emissions standards.  The 2016 AQMP provides a new approach that focuses on available, proven and cost effective alternatives  to traditional strategies, while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities to  promote reductions in GHG emissions and TAC emissions as well as efficiencies in energy use,  transportation, and goods movement. The 2016 AQMP recognizes the critical importance of working with  other agencies to develop funding and other incentives that encourage the accelerated transition of  vehicles, buildings and industrial facilities to cleaner technologies in a manner that benefits not only air  quality, but also local businesses and the regional economy.   Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority  to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the  Air Basin.  Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance to the California  Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues  the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook), prepared by SCAQMD, 1993, with the most  current updates found at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html, was developed in accordance with the  projections and programs detailed in the AQMPs.  The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to  assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating  a proposed project’s potential air quality impacts.  Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the  procedures that SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by  CEQA.  The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts,  how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts.  The  SCAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development  proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout the Air Basin, and adverse impacts will  be minimized.  The following lists the SCAQMD rules that are applicable but not limited to residential development  projects in the Air Basin.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 25    Rule 402 ‐ Nuisance   Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air  contaminants or other material which causes injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any  considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety  of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage  to business or property. Compliance with Rule 402 will reduce local air quality and odor impacts to nearby  sensitive receptors.  Rule 403‐ Fugitive Dust  Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities and requires that no person shall  cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust such that dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the  property line or the dust emission exceeds 20 percent opacity, if the dust is from the operation of a  motorized vehicle. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Available  Control Measures, which include but are not limited to the measures below.  Compliance with these rules  would reduce local air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.    Utilize either a pad of washed gravel 50 feet long, 100 feet of paved surface, a wheel shaker, or a  wheel washing device to remove material from vehicle tires and undercarriages before leaving  project site.   Do not allow any track out of material to extend more than 25 feet onto a public roadway and  remove all track out at the end of each workday.   Water all exposed areas on active sites at least three times per day and pre‐water all areas prior  to clearing and soil moving activities.   Apply nontoxic chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer specifications to all construction  areas that will remain inactive for 10 days or longer.     Pre‐water all material to be exported prior to loading, and either cover all loads or maintain at  least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section  23114.   Replant all disturbed area as soon as practical.   Suspend all grading activities when wind speeds (including wind gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.   Restrict traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.   Rule 445‐ Fireplaces  Rule 445 governs emissions from fireplaces.  This rule restricts the installation of wood‐burning fireplaces  into any new development and only allows the installation of dedicated gaseous‐fueled fireplaces.   Rules 1108 and 1108.1 – Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt  Rules 1108 and 1108.1 govern the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in  asphalt.  This rule regulates the VOC contents of asphalt used during construction as well as any on‐going  maintenance during operations.  Therefore, all asphalt used during construction and operation of the  proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1108.1.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 26    Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings  Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content  in sealers, coatings, paints and solvents.  This rule regulates the VOC contents of paints available during  construction.  Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed  project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.  Rule 1143 – Paint Thinners  Rule 1143 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of paint thinners and multi‐purpose solvents that are  used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent  cleaning operations.  This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction.  Solvents  used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1143.  Southern California Association of Governments  The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino,  and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community  development and the environment.  SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization  (MPO) for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation.  With respect  to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable  Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted April, 2016 and the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement  Program (FTIP), adopted September 2018, which addresses regional development and growth forecasts.   Although the RTP/SCS and FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects a key  component of these plans are to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes  higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service.  These plans form the basis  for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air  quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the AQMP.  The RTP/SCS, FTIP, and AQMP are  based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans.   4.4 Local – City of Orange  Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Orange, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution  through its police power and decision‐making authority.  Specifically, the City is responsible for the  assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions.  The City is also  responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the AQMPs.   Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy‐efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic  signals.  In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air  quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality  impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such  mitigation.  In accordance with the CEQA requirements, the City does not, however, have the expertise to develop  plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and region will  meet federal and state standards.  Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes the  SCAQMD CEQA Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and  development proposals within its jurisdiction.         Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 27    5.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT  The regulatory setting related to energy conservation is primarily addressed through State and City  regulations, which are discussed below.   5.1 State   Energy conservation management in the State was initiated by the 1974 Warren‐Alquist State Energy  Resources Conservation and Development Act that created the California Energy Resource Conservation  and Development Commission (currently named California Energy Commission [CEC]), which was  originally tasked with certifying new electric generating plants based on the need for the plant and the  suitability of the site of the plant.  In 1976 the Warren‐Alquist Act was expanded to include new  restrictions on nuclear generating plants, that effectively resulted in a moratorium of any new nuclear  generating plants in the State. The following details specific regulations adopted by the State in order to  reduce the consumption of energy.  California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20   On November 3, 1976 the CEC adopted the Regulations for Appliance Efficiency Standards Relating to  Refrigerators, Refrigerator‐Freezers and Freezers and Air Conditioners, which were the first energy‐ efficiency standards for appliances.  The appliance efficiency regulations have been updated several times  by the Commission and the most current version is the 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, adopted  January 2017 and now includes almost all types of appliances and lamps that use electricity, natural gas  as well as plumbing fixtures. The authority for the CEC to control the energy‐efficiency of appliances is  detailed in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601‐ 1609.  California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6   The CEC is also responsible for implementing the CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency  Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24 Part 6) that were first established in 1978  in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.  In 2008 the State set an  energy‐use reduction goal of zero‐net‐energy use of all new homes by 2020 and the CEC was mandated  to meet this goal through revisions to the Title 24, Part 6 regulations.  The Title 24 standards are updated on a three‐year schedule and since 2008 the standards have been  incrementally moving to the 2020 goal of the zero‐net‐energy use.  On January 1, 2020 the 2019 standards  went into effect, that have been designed so that the average new home built in California will now use  zero‐net‐energy and that non‐residential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy than the 2016  standards due mainly to lighting upgrades. The 2019 standards also encourage the use of battery storage  and heat pump water heaters, require the more widespread use of LED lighting, as well as improve the  building’s thermal envelope through high performance attics, walls and windows.  The 2019 standards  also require improvements to ventilation systems by requiring highly efficient air filters to trap hazardous  air particulates as well as improvements to kitchen ventilation systems.  California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11  CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) was developed in response to  continued efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. The CalGreen Building      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 28    Standards are also updated every three years and the current version is the 2019 California Green Building  Standard Code that become effective on January 1, 2020.  The CALGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection; storm water control during  construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural  resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options  allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition.  The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems  (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency.  The CALGreen Code provides standards for bicycle parking, carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, light  and glare reduction, grading and paving, energy efficient appliances, renewable energy, graywater  systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures, recycling and recycled materials, pollutant controls (including  moisture control and indoor air quality), acoustical controls, storm water management, building design,  insulation, flooring, and framing, among others. Implementation of the CALGreen Code measures reduces  energy consumption and vehicle trips and encourages the use of alternative‐fuel vehicles, which reduces  pollutant emissions.   Some of the notable changes in the 2019 CALGreen Code over the prior 2016 CALGreen Code include: an  alignment of building code engineering requirements with the national standards that include anchorage  requirements for solar panels, provides design requirements for buildings in tsunami zones, increases  Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) for air filters from 8 to 13, increased electric vehicle charging  requirements in parking areas, and sets minimum requirements for use of shade trees.  Senate Bill 100   Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) was adopted September 2018 and requires that by December 1, 2045 that 100  percent of retail sales of electricity to be generated from renewable or zero‐carbon emission sources of  electricity.  SB 100 supersedes the renewable energy requirements set by SB 350, SB 1078, SB 107, and  SB X1‐2. However, the interim renewable energy thresholds from the prior Bills of 44 percent by  December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030, will remain  in effect.  Executive Order B‐48‐18 and Assembly Bill 2127  The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐48‐18 on January 26, 2018 that orders all state entities  to work with the private sector to put at least five million zero‐emission vehicles on California roads by  2030 and to install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2025.  Currently  there are approximately 350,000 electric vehicles operating in California, which represents approximately  1.5 percent of the 24 million vehicles total currently operating in California.  Implementation of Executive  Order B‐48‐18 would result in approximately 20 percent of all vehicles in California to be zero emission  electric vehicles.  Assembly Bill 2127 (AB 2127) was codified into statute on September 13, 2018 and  requires that the California Energy Commission working with the State Air Resources Board prepare  biannual assessments of the statewide electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to support the  levels of zero emission vehicle adoption required for the State to meet its goals of putting at least 5 million  zero‐emission vehicles on California roads by 2030.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 29    Assembly Bill 1109  California Assembly Bill 1109 (AB 1109) was adopted October 2007, also known as the Lighting Efficiency  and Toxics Reduction Act, prohibits the manufacturing of lights after January 1, 2010 that contain levels  of hazardous substances prohibited by the European Union pursuant to the RoHS Directive.  AB 1109 also  requires reductions in energy usage for lighting and is structured to reduce lighting electrical consumption  by: (1) At least 50 percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting; and (2) At least 25  percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor commercial and all outdoor lighting by 2018.  AB 1109  would reduce GHG emissions through reducing the amount of electricity required to be generated by  fossil fuels in California.  Assembly Bill 1493  California Assembly Bill 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill, in reference to its author Fran Pavley) was  enacted on July 22, 2002 and required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted  by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.  In 2004, CARB approved the “Pavley I” regulations limiting  the amount of GHGs that may be released from new passenger automobiles that are being phased in  between model years 2009 through 2016.  These regulations will reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent  from 2002 levels by 2016. In June 2009, the EPA granted California the authority to implement GHG  emission reduction standards for light duty vehicles, in September 2009, amendments to the Pavley I  regulations were adopted by CARB and implementation of the “Pavley I” regulations started in 2009.  The second set of regulations “Pavley II” was developed in 2010, and is being phased in between model  years 2017 through 2025 with the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 45 percent by the year 2020 as  compared to the 2002 fleet.  The Pavley II standards were developed by linking the GHG emissions and  formerly separate toxic tailpipe emissions standards previously known as the “LEV III” (third stage of the  Low Emission Vehicle standards) into a single regulatory framework. The new rules reduce emissions from  gasoline‐powered cars as well as promote zero‐emissions auto technologies such as electricity and  hydrogen, and through increasing the infrastructure for fueling hydrogen vehicles. In 2009, the U.S. EPA  granted California the authority to implement the GHG standards for passenger cars, pickup trucks and  sport utility vehicles and these GHG emissions standards are currently being implemented nationwide.  However, EPA has performed a midterm evaluation of the longer‐term standards for model years 2022‐ 2025, and based on the findings of this midterm evaluation, the EPA has proposed to amend the corporate  average fuel economy (CAFE) and GHG emissions standards for light vehicles for model years 2021  through 2026.  The EPA’s proposed amendments do not include any extension of the legal waiver granted  to California by the 1970 Clean Air Act and which has allowed the State to set tighter standards for vehicle  pipe emissions than the EPA standards.   On September 20, 2019, California filed suit over the EPA decision  to revoke California’s legal waiver that has been joined by 22 other states.   5.2 Local ‐ City of Orange   The City of Orange General Plan, Natural Resources and Infrastructure Elements, March 2010, provides  an Energy Resources Component that details the following applicable goals and policies.  NR Goal 2.0: Protect air, water, and energy resources from pollution and overuse.  Policy 2.1  Cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other regional agencies  to implement and enforce regional air quality management plans.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 30    Policy 2.2  Support alternative transportation modes, alternative technologies, and bicycle‐ and pedestrian‐friendly  neighborhoods to reduce emissions related to vehicular travel.  Policy 2.6  Encourage sustainable building and site designs for new construction and renovation projects.  Policy 2.7  Coordinate with energy suppliers to ensure adequate energy supplies to meet community needs, and to  promote energy conservation and public education programs for that purpose.  Policy 2.9  Promote City operations as a model for energy efficiency and green building.  Policy 2.10  Work toward replacing existing City vehicles with ultra low or zero emission vehicles. At a minimum, new  City vehicles shall be low emission vehicles as defined by the California Air Resources Board, except if  certain vehicle types are not available in the marketplace. Public safety vehicles are exempted from this  requirement.  INF Goal 3.0: Ensure adequate maintenance of public rights‐of‐way to enhance public safety and  improve circulation.  Policy 3.4  Investigate the feasibility of using energy‐efficient street lights to conserve energy.  INF Goal 4.0: Ensure adequate provision of electricity, natural gas, telephone and data services  and cable television.  Policy 4.4  Encourage integrated and cost‐effective design and technology features within new development to  minimize demands on dry utility networks.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 31    6.0 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANAGEMENT  The regulatory setting related to global climate change is addressed through the efforts of various  international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies.  These agencies work jointly, as well  as individually, to reduce GHG emissions through legislation, regulations, planning, policy‐making,  education, and a variety of programs.  The agencies responsible for global climate change regulations are  discussed below.  6.1 International  In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to evaluate  the impacts of global climate change and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail  global climate change.  In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing the  United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal of  controlling GHG emissions.  The parties of the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding  GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries, the objective of reducing their collective GHG  emissions by five percent below 1990 levels by 2012.  The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182  countries, but has not been ratified by the United States.  It should be noted that Japan and Canada opted  out of the Kyoto Protocol and the remaining developed countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol have  not met their Kyoto targets. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012 and the amendment for the second  commitment period from 2013 to 2020 has not yet entered into legal force.  The Parties to the Kyoto  Protocol negotiated the Paris Agreement in December 2015, agreeing to set a goal of limiting global  warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre‐industrial levels. The Paris Agreement has been  adopted by 195 nations with 147 ratifying it, including the United States by President Obama, who ratified  it by Executive Order on September 3, 2016.  On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United  States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, however the Paris Agreement is still legally binding by  the other remaining nations.  Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and  1992.  The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete  ozone in the stratosphere—CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform—were to be  phased out, with the first three by the year 2000 and methyl chloroform by 2005.  6.2 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency  The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing federal policy  to address global climate change.  The Federal government administers a wide array of public‐private  partnerships to reduce U.S. GHG intensity.  These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy,  methane, and other non‐CO2 gases, agricultural practices and implementation of technologies to achieve  GHG reductions.  EPA implements several voluntary programs that substantially contribute to the  reduction of GHG emissions.  In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120), argued November 29, 2006  and decided April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that not only did the EPA have authority to  regulate greenhouse gases, but the EPA's reasons for not regulating this area did not fit the statutory  requirements.  As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO2  and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 32    In response to the FY2008 Consolidations Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110‐161), EPA  proposed a rule on March 10, 2009 that requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large  sources in the United States.  On September 22, 2009, the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule was  signed and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009.  The rule became effective on December  29, 2009.  This rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and  engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions to submit annual  reports to EPA.  On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings under section 202(a) of the  Clean Air Act.  One is an endangerment finding that finds concentrations of the six GHGs in the atmosphere  threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.  The other is a cause or  contribute finding, that finds emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines  contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.  These actions did not impose  any requirements on industry or other entities, however, since 2009 the EPA has been providing GHG  emission standards for vehicles and other stationary sources of GHG emissions that are regulated by the  EPA. On September 13, 2013 the EPA Administrator signed 40 CFR Part 60, that limits emissions from new  sources to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh for fossil fuel‐fired utility boilers and 1,000 pounds of CO2 per  MWh for large natural gas‐fired combustion units.    On August 3, 2015, the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan, emissions guidelines for U.S. states to follow  in developing plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel‐fired power plants (Federal Register  Vol. 80, No. 205, October 23 2015).   On October 11, 2017, the EPA issued a formal proposal to repeal the  Clean Power Plan and on June 19, 2019 the EPA replaced the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean  Energy rule that is anticipated to lower power sector GHG emissions by 11 million tons by the year 2030.  6.3 State   The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has the primary responsible for implementing state policy to  address global climate change, however there are State regulations related to global climate change that  affect a variety of State agencies.  CARB, which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency,  is responsible for the coordination and administration of both the federal and state air pollution control  programs within California.  In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets California Ambient Air  Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures,  provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP.  In addition, the CARB establishes emission  standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and  barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment.  It also sets fuel specifications to  further reduce vehicular emissions.  In 2008, CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan that proposes a “comprehensive set of actions  designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our  dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health”  (CARB 2008). The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct  regulations; alternative compliance mechanisms; monetary and non‐monetary incentives; voluntary  actions; market‐based mechanisms such as a cap‐and‐trade system. In 2014, CARB approved the First  Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB, 2014) that identifies additional strategies moving  beyond the 2020 targets to the year 2050. On December 14, 2017 CARB adopted the California’s 2017  Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 (CARB, 2017) that provides specific statewide policies and  measures to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and the      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 33    aspirational 2050 GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  In addition, the State  has passed the following laws directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions, which are listed  below in chronological order, with the most current first.  California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6   The Title 24 Part 6 standards have been developed by the CEC primarily for energy conservation and is  described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.  It should be noted  that implementation of the Title 24 Part 6 building standards would also reduce GHG emissions, since  energy usage is the primary source of human generated GHG emissions.  California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11  The CalGreen Building standards have been developed by the CEC primarily for energy conservation and  is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.  It should be  noted that implementation of the CalGreen Building standards would also reduce GHG emissions, since  energy usage is the primary source of human generated GHG emissions.  Senate Bill 100   SB 100 requires that by December 1, 2045 that 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to be generated  from renewable or zero‐carbon emission sources of electricity and is described in more detail above in  Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.  Executive Order B‐48‐18 and Assembly Bill 2127  Executive Order B‐48‐18 and AB 2127 provides measures to put at least five million zero‐emission vehicles  on California roads by 2030 and to install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle  chargers by 2025 and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation  Management.  Executive Order B‐30‐15, Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197  The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐30‐15 on April 29, 2015 that aims to reduce California’s  GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.  This executive order aligns California’s GHG  reduction targets with those of other international governments, such as the European Union that set the  same target for 2030 in October, 2014.  This target will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of  reducing GHG emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050 that is based on scientifically established  levels needed in the U.S.A to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius – the warming threshold at  which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea  levels.  Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) (September 8, 2016) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) (September 8, 2016)  codified into statute the GHG emissions reduction targets of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030  as detailed in Executive Order B‐30‐15.  AB 197 also requires additional GHG emissions reporting that is  broken down to sub‐county levels and requires CARB to consider the social costs of emissions impacting  disadvantaged communities.  Executive Order B‐29‐15  The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐29‐15 on April 1, 2015 and directed the State Water  Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in urban water  usage and directed the Department of Water Resources to replace 50 million square feet of lawn with  drought tolerant landscaping through an update to the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 34    Ordinance. The Ordinance also requires installation of more efficient irrigation systems, promotion of  greywater usage and onsite stormwater capture, and limits the turf planted in new residential landscapes  to 25 percent of the total area and restricts turf from being planted in median strips or in parkways unless  the parkway is next to a parking strip and a flat surface is required to enter and exit vehicles. Executive  Order B‐29‐15 would reduce GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter water.  Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bills 939 and 1374  Senate Bill 939 (SB 939) requires that each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50 percent of its  waste away from landfills, whether through waste reduction, recycling or other means.  Senate Bill 1374  (SB 1374) requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt a model ordinance by  March 1, 2004 suitable for adoption by any local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of  construction and demolition of waste materials from landfills.  Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) was adopted in  2011 and builds upon the waste reduction measures of SB 939 and 1374, and sets a new target of a 75  percent reduction in solid waste generated by the year 2020.  Senate Bill 375  Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 in order to support the State’s climate action goals  to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG  emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation.  SB 375 requires CARB to set regional  targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established targets for  2020 and 2035 for each Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) within the State. It was up to each  MPO to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that  MPOs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to meet CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets.   These reduction targets are required to be updated every eight years and the most current targets are  detailed at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐ plan‐targets, which provides GHG emissions reduction targets for SCAG of 8 percent by 2020 and 19  percent by 2035.    The 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted by  SCAG April, 2016 provides a 2020 GHG emission reduction target of 8 percent and a 2035 GHG emission  reduction target of 18 percent.  SCAG will need to develop additional strategies in its next revision of the  RTP/SCS in order to meet CARB’s new 19 percent GHG emission reduction target for 2035.  CARB is also  charged with reviewing SCAG’s RTP/SCS for consistency with its assigned targets.    City and County land use policies, including General Plans, are not required to be consistent with the RTP  and associated SCS.  However, new provisions of CEQA incentivize, through streamlining and other  provisions, qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS and categorized as “transit priority  projects.”  Assembly Bill 1109  AB 1109 requires reductions in energy usage for lighting and is described in more detail above in Section  5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.          Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 35    Executive Order S‐1‐07  Executive Order S‐1‐07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source  of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State’s GHG emissions.  It  establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten  percent by 2020.  This Executive Order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel  Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early‐action measure as part of the effort to meet the  mandates in AB 32.  In 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the LCFS.  The standard was challenged in  the courts, but has been in effect since 2011 and was re‐approved by the CARB in 2015. The LCFS is  anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by 2020.  The LCFS is designed to provide  a framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels.  The  framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet annually.   Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn‐derived ethanol and low‐sulfur diesel fuel represent the baseline  fuels.  Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or blends of these fuels with  gasoline or diesel. Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas also may be low‐carbon fuels.   Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric vehicles, are also considered as low‐carbon  fuels.  Senate Bill 97  Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) was adopted August 2007 and acknowledges that climate change is a prominent  environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA.  SB 97 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning  and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and  transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions,  as required by CEQA, by July 1, 2009.  The Natural Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt  those guidelines by January 1, 2010.  Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97 as stated above, on December 30, 2009 the Natural Resources  Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA guidelines that addresses GHG emissions.  The CEQA  Guidelines Amendments changed 14 sections of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporated GHG language  throughout the Guidelines.  However, no GHG emissions thresholds of significance were provided and no  specific mitigation measures were identified.  The GHG emission reduction amendments went into effect  on March 18, 2010 and are summarized below:   Climate Action Plans and other greenhouse gas reduction plans can be used to determine whether  a project has significant impacts, based upon its compliance with the plan.   Local governments are encouraged to quantify the GHG emissions of proposed projects, noting  that they have the freedom to select the models and methodologies that best meet their needs  and circumstances.  The section also recommends consideration of several qualitative factors that  may be used in the determination of significance, such as the extent to which the given project  complies with state, regional, or local GHG reduction plans and policies.  OPR does not set or  dictate specific thresholds of significance.  Consistent with existing CEQA Guidelines, OPR  encourages local governments to develop and publish their own thresholds of significance for  GHG impacts assessment.   When creating their own thresholds of significance, local governments may consider the  thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended  by experts.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 36     New amendments include guidelines for determining methods to mitigate the effects of GHG  emissions in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.   OPR is clear to state that “to qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must  be identified and incorporated into the project; general compliance with a plan, by itself, is not  mitigation.”   OPR’s emphasizes the advantages of analyzing GHG impacts on an institutional, programmatic  level.  OPR therefore approves tiering of environmental analyses and highlights some benefits of  such an approach.   Environmental impact reports must specifically consider a project's energy use and energy  efficiency potential.  Assembly Bill 32  In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of  2006.  AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent  to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which will be phased  in starting in 2012.  Emission reductions shall include carbon sequestration projects that would remove  carbon from the atmosphere and utilize best management practices that are technologically feasible and  cost effective.  In 2007 CARB released the calculated Year 1990 GHG emissions of 431 million metric tons of CO2e  (MMTCO2e).  The 2020 target of 431 MMTCO2e requires the reduction of 78 MMTCO2e, or approximately  16 percent from the State’s projected 2020 business as usual emissions of 509 MMTCO2e (CARB, 2014).   Under AB 32, CARB was required to adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs  to meet the 1990 cap by 2020.  Early measures CARB took to lower GHG emissions included requiring  operators of the largest industrial facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of CO2 in a calendar year to submit  verification of GHG emissions by December 1, 2010.  The CARB Board also approved nine discrete early  action measures that include regulations affecting landfills, motor vehicle fuels, refrigerants in cars, port  operations and other sources, all of which became enforceable on or before January 1, 2010.  CARB’s Scoping Plan that was adopted in 2009, proposes a variety of measures including: strengthening  energy efficiency and building standards; targeted fees on water and energy use; a market‐based cap‐ and‐trade system; achieving a 33 percent renewable energy mix; and a fee regulation to fund the program.  The 2014 update to the Scoping Plan identifies strategies moving beyond the 2020 targets to the year  2050.   The Cap and Trade Program established under the Scoping Plan sets a statewide limit on sources  responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions, and has established a market for long‐term  investment in energy efficiency and cleaner fuels since 2012.  Executive Order S‐3‐05  In 2005 the California Governor issued Executive Order S 3‐05, GHG Emission, which established the  following reduction targets:   2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels;   2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels;       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 37     2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.  The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to  coordinate a multi‐agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels.  To comply with the  Executive Order, the secretary of CalEPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of  members from various state agencies and commissions.  The team released its first report in March 2006.   The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of businesses, local  governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs. The State achieved  its first goal of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010.  Assembly Bill 1493  AB 1493 or the Pavley Bill sets tailpipe GHG emissions limits for passenger vehicles in California as well as  fuel economy standards and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation  Management.  6.4 Regional – Southern California   The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South  Coast Air Basin.  To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California  Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and  cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies.  South Coast Air Quality Management District  SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources,  inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when  necessary.  SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect  sources.  The SCAQMD is also responsible for GHG emissions for projects where it is the lead agency.  However, for other projects in the SCAB where it is not the lead agency, it is limited to providing resources  to other lead agencies in order to assist them in determining GHG emission thresholds and GHG reduction  measures. In order to assist local agencies with direction on GHG emissions, the SCAQMD organized a  working group and adopted Rules 2700, 2701, and 2702, which are described below.  SCAQMD Working Group  Since neither CARB nor the OPR has developed GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a Working  Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions. At the September 28, 2010 Working  Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds,  which recommends a tiered approach that either provides a quantitative annual thresholds of 3,500  MTCO2e for residential uses, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial uses, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed uses. An  alternative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types is also proposed.   Southern California Association of Governments  The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino,  and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community  development and the environment.  SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization  (MPO) for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation.  With respect  to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable  Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted April, 2016 and the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 38    Program (FTIP), adopted October 2013, which addresses regional development and growth forecasts.   Although the RTP/SCS and FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects a key  component of these plans are to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes  higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service.  These plans form the basis  for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air  quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the AQMP.  The RTP/SCS, FTIP, and AQMP are  based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans.  6.5 Local – City of Orange  Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Orange (City), have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG  emissions through their police power and decision‐making authority.  Specifically, the City is responsible  for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions.  In accordance  with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change  potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change  impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such  mitigation.  In order to meet the State GHG emissions reduction goals, the City has developed the City of Orange Local  CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006 and the Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Analysis – Interim Guidance  Memo (GHG Interim Guidance Memo), September 30, 2008. The GHG Interim Guidance Memo provides  a GHG emission significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year to determine the  significance of an individual project’s contribution to the global GHG emissions environment.  This  threshold has also been utilized and adopted as an interim GHG emission threshold in the Orange General  Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, March 2010.  This threshold is defined as interim since it shall  be preempted when the SCAQMD adopts GHG emissions thresholds for all projects.  Currently, SCAQMD  has only adopted a GHG emission threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e for industrial projects where SCAQMD is  the lead agency.           Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 39    7.0 ATMOSPHERIC SETTING  7.1 South Coast Air Basin  The project site is located within Orange County, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) that  includes the non‐desert portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties and all of Orange  County.  The Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east.   Regionally, the Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east  forming the inland perimeter.      7.2 Local Climate  Orange County is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. The  general region lies in the semi‐permanent high‐pressure zone of the eastern Pacific.  As a result, the  climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes.  Occasional periods of strong Santa Ana winds and winter  storms interrupt the otherwise mild weather pattern.    Although the Air Basin has a semi‐arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the  presence of a shallow marine layer.  Except for infrequent periods when dry air is brought into the Air  Basin by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant.  Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low stratus  clouds, often referred to as “high fog” are a characteristic climate feature.  Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because  they determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a  source.  Daytime winds in Orange County are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves  regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean.  These winds are usually the strongest in the dry summer  months.  Nighttime winds in Orange County are a result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the  mountains to the east and they occur more often during the winter months and are usually lighter than  the daytime winds.  Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both  in the morning and evening hours.  Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical  determinants of air quality conditions on any given day.  During the winter and fall months, surface high‐pressure systems north of the Air Basin combined with  other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong winds, called “Santa Ana Winds”, from the  northeast.  These winds normally have durations of a few days before predominant meteorological  conditions are reestablished. The highest wind speed typically occurs during the afternoon due to daytime  thermal convection caused by surface heating.  This convection brings about a downward transfer of  momentum from stronger winds aloft.  It is not uncommon to have sustained winds of 60 miles per hour  with higher gusts during a Santa Ana Wind event.  The temperature and precipitation levels for Santa Ana Fire Station, which is the nearest weather station  to the project site with historical data is shown below in Table D.  Table D shows that August is typically  the warmest month and December is typically the coolest month.  Rainfall in the project area varies  considerably in both time and space.  Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid‐latitude  storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.            Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 40    Table D – Monthly Climate Data  Month  Average Maximum  Temperature (°F)  Average Minimum  Temperature (°F)  Average Total Precipitation  (inches)  January 68.1 43.1 2.73  February 68.9 44.9 3.05  March 70.7 46.7 2.21  April 73.1 50.0 1.05  May 75.2 54.0 0.25  June 78.6 57.4 0.06  July 83.5 60.9 0.02  August 84.7 61.6 0.06  September 83.9 59.3 0.22  October 79.4 54.5 0.49  November 74.2 47.5 1.28  December 68.8 43.6 2.28  Annual 75.8 52.0 13.69  Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi‐bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7888    7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality  The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources.  Regional  air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the Air Basin.  Estimates of the existing  emissions in the Air Basin provided in the 2012 AQMP, indicate that collectively, mobile sources account  for 59 percent of the VOC, 88 percent of the NOx emissions and 40 percent of directly emitted PM2.5,  with another 10 percent of PM2.5 from road dust.  The 2016 AQMP found that since 2012 AQMP  projections were made stationary source VOC emissions have decreased by approximately 12 percent,  but mobile VOC emissions have increased by 5 percent.  The percentage of NOx emissions remain  unchanged between the 2012 and 2016 projections.   SCAQMD has divided the Air Basin into 38 air‐monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring  station representative of each area.  The project site is located on the northwestern edge of air monitoring  area 21, which covers the southeastern portion of Orange County. The nearest air monitoring station to  the project site is the Anaheim‐Pampas Lane Monitoring Station (Anaheim Station), which is located  approximately 8.76 miles west of the project site at 1630 Pampas Lane, Anaheim.  The monitoring data is  presented in Table E and shows the most recent three years of monitoring data from CARB.  CO  measurements have not been provided, since CO is currently in attainment in the Air Basin and monitoring  of CO within the Air Basin ended on March 31, 2013.                  Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 41    Table E – Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary  Pollutant  (Standard)  Year1  2016 2017 2018  Ozone: 1  Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.103 0.090 0.112   Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 2 0 1  Maximum 8‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.074 0.076 0.071   Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 4 4 1   Days > CAAQs (0.070 ppm) 0 2 0  Nitrogen Dioxide: 1     Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppb) 64.3 81.2 66.0   Days > NAAQS (100 ppb) 0 0 0   Days > CAAQS (180 ppb) 0 0 0  Inhalable Particulates (PM10) :1     Maximum 24‐Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 74.0 95.7 94.6   Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0   Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 3 5 2  Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 28.0 26.9 27.7   Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No   Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes  Ultra‐Fine Particulates (PM2.5):1     Maximum 24‐Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 44.4 53.9 63.1   Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3)  1 7 7  Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 9.4 ND 12.3   Annual > NAAQS and CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No ND No  Notes: Exceedances are listed in bold.  CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm =  parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ND = no data available.  1  Data obtained from the Anaheim Station.  Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/    Ozone   During the last three years, the State 1‐hour concentration standard for ozone has been exceeded  between 0 and 2 days each year at the Anaheim Station.  The State 8‐hour ozone standard has been  exceeded between 0 and 2 days each year over the last three years at the Anaheim Station.  The Federal  8‐hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 1 and 4 days each year over the last three years at  the Anaheim Station.  Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of  chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only  in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind  to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area.  Many areas of Southern California  contribute to the ozone levels experienced at this monitoring station, with the more significant areas  being those directly upwind.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 42    Nitrogen Dioxide  The Anaheim Station did not record an exceedance of either the Federal or State 1‐hour NO2 standards  for the last three years.  Particulate Matter  The State 24‐hour concentration standard for PM10 has been exceeded between 2 and 4 days each year  over the past three years at the Anaheim Station. Over the past three years the Federal 24‐hour standard  for PM10 has not been exceeded at the Anaheim Station.  The annual PM10 concentration at the Anaheim  Station has exceeded the State standard for the past three years and has not exceeded the Federal  standard for the past three years.  Over the past three years the 24‐hour concentration standard for PM2.5 has been exceeded between 1  and 7 days in the year 2018 over the past three years at the Anaheim Station.  The annual PM2.5  concentrations at the Anaheim Station has not exceeded either the State or Federal standard for the past  three years. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor  vehicles.  According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10  and PM2.5).  People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may  suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles.  People with bronchitis  can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles.  Children may experience decline in  lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5.  Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and  people who cannot breathe well through their noses.  Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive,  because many breathe through their mouths during exercise.  7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels in the Air Basin  In order to determine the Air Basin‐wide risks associated with major airborne carcinogens, the SCAQMD  conducted the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) studies.  According to the SCAQMD’s MATES‐ IV study, the project site has an estimated cancer risk of 355 per million persons chance of cancer.  In  comparison, the average cancer risk for the Air Basin is 991 per million persons, which is based on the use  of age‐sensitivity factors detailed in the OEHHA Guidelines (OEHHA, 2015).    In order to provide a perspective of risk, it is often estimated that the incidence in cancer over a lifetime  for the U.S. population ranges between 1 in 3 to 4 and 1 in 3, or a risk of about 300,000 per million persons.  The MATES‐III study referenced a Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention, which estimated that of cancers  associated with known risk factors, about 30 percent were related to tobacco, about 30 percent were  related to diet and obesity, and about 2 percent were associated with environmental pollution related  exposures that includes hazardous air pollutants.       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 43    8.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS  8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters   The criteria air pollution and GHG emissions impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed  through use of CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.  CalEEMod is a computer model published by the SCAQMD  for estimating air pollutant emissions.  The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2014 computer program  to calculate the emission rates specific for Orange County for employee, vendor and haul truck vehicle  trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy equipment  operations.  EMFAC2014 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates  composite emission rates for vehicles.  Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and  grams per mile or grams per running hour.    The project characteristics in the CalEEMod model were set to a project location of Orange County, a  Climate Zone of 8, utility company of Southern California Edison and an opening year of 2022 was utilized  in this analysis.   Land Use Parameters  The proposed project would consist of development of 22 single‐family residential lots. The proposed  project would include development and improvements to streets, sidewalks, and trails; and installation  of an equestrian trail.  The building footprints, patios, driveways, and pools would comprise approximately  132,000 square feet of impervious surfaces; streets and sidewalks would comprise approximately 48,000  square feet of impervious surfaces.  The proposed project’s land use parameters that were entered into  the CalEEMod model are shown in Table F.   Table F – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters  Proposed Land Use Land Use Subtype in CalEEMod  Land Use  Size1  Lot  Acreage2  Building/Paving3   (square feet)  Single‐Family Homes Single Family Housing 22 DU 6.77 27,927  Streets and Sidewalks Other Asphalt Surfaces 48.0 TSF 1.1 48,000  Building Footprints, Patios,  Driveways and Pools Other Non‐Asphalt Surfaces 132.0 TSF 3.03 132,000  Notes:   1 DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet  2 Lot acreage calculated based on the total project area of 10.9‐acres.  3 Building/Paving square feet represent area where architectural coatings will be applied.    Construction Parameters  The proposed project is expected to break ground in June 2021 and be completed by December 2022.   The construction‐related GHG emissions were based on a 30‐year amortization rate as recommended in  the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009.  The phases of construction activities  that have been analyzed are detailed below and include: 1) Site Preparation; 2) Grading, 3) Building  construction, 4) Application of architectural coatings, and 5) Paving.  Site Preparation  The site preparation phase would consist of removing any vegetation, tree stumps, and stones onsite prior  to grading.  The site preparation phase is anticipated to start June 2021 and was based on the default      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 44    CalEEMod duration of two weeks.  The site preparation activities would require 18 worker trips per day.   In order to account for water truck emissions, six vendor truck emissions were added to the site  preparation phase.  The onsite equipment would consist of three rubber tired dozers and four of either  tractors, loaders, or backhoes, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix.  The mitigation of  water all exposed areas two times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction  that would occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control  Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions.  Grading  The grading phase would occur after completion of the site preparation phase.  Grading for the proposed  project would require the import of up to 102,000 cubic yards of dirt that would be obtained from the  Sand and Gravel area located on the south side of the project site.  According to the project applicant, a  temporary bridge would be constructed across Santiago Creek, which will result in an average trip length  from the Sand and Gravel area to the project site of a quarter mile.  Since the dirt will be moved without  the need to go on public roads, it is anticipated that the dirt will be moved with a scraper, which is the  most efficient piece of equipment to move dirt. In order to account for the extensive grading, the grading  timing was extended from the default six weeks to 12 weeks.    The CalEEMod default onsite equipment during the grading phase was utilized that consists of two  excavators, one grader, one rubber tired dozer, two scrapers, and two of either tractors, loaders, or  backhoes.  In order to account for the import of dirt to the project site, the specifications for the CAT 637K  Scraper was utilized, since it meets the required mitigation of Tier 4 Final emissions standards.  The CAT  637K Scraper has two engines that total 860 horsepower and is capable of hauling 26 cubic yards of dirt,  which would result in an average of 65 scraper loads per day over the 60 day grading period in order to  move the 102, 000 cubic yards on the project site. Based on an average haul distance of a quarter mile  from the Sand and Gravel area to the project site (a half mile round trip), if the scraper is traveling at 15  miles per hour, the scraper could complete a round trip between the Sand and Gravel area in 2 minutes.   Since it is unlikely that the scraper could maintain a 15 mile per hour speed at all times, the round trip  time was extended to 5 minutes, which would require the scraper to operate 5.4 hours per day.  As such,  an additional scraper was added to the grading phase that has 860 horsepower and operating for 6 hours  per day.  The grading activities would generate 15 worker trips per day.  In order to account for water truck  emissions, six daily vendor truck trips were added to the grading phase.  The mitigation of water all  exposed areas two times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would  occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be  utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions.  Building Construction  The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase and was modeled as  occurring over 14 months, which is based on the default CalEEMod timing.  The building construction  phase would generate 84 worker trips and 32 vendor trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist  of the simultaneous operation of one crane, three forklifts, one generator, one welder, and three of either  tractors, loaders, or backhoes, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 45    Paving  The paving phase would consist of paving the onsite roads and parking lots.  The paving phase was based  on the default CalEEMod duration of four weeks and starting after completion of the building construction  phase.  The paving phase would generate 15 worker trips per day.  The onsite equipment would consist  of the simultaneous operation of two pavers, two paving equipment, and two rollers, which is based on  the CalEEMod default equipment mix.  Architectural Coating  The application of architectural coatings was modeled as occurring after the paving phase and based on  the default CalEEMod duration of four weeks.  The architectural coating phase was modeled based on  covering 184,275 square feet of residential interior area, 61,425 square feet of residential exterior area,  and 3,685 square feet of parking area.  The architectural coating phase would generate 18 worker trips  per day.  The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor, which is based on the CalEEMod  default equipment mix.   Operational Emissions Modeling  The operations‐related criteria air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions created by the proposed  project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model.  The proposed project was analyzed in  the CalEEMod model based on the land use parameters provided above.    Mobile Sources  Mobile sources include emissions the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed project.  The  vehicle trips associated with the proposed 22 single‐family homes have been analyzed through use of the  weekday trip rates obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report Tentative Tract Map No. 18163  Project (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, April, 2020.  The Traffic Impact  Analysis found that the proposed project would generate 9.44 weekday daily trips per single‐family home,  which equates to 208 weekday vehicle trips per day.  Since the Traffic Impact Analysis did not provide  Saturday and Sunday daily trip rates, the CalEEMod default rates have been utilized and are shown below  in Table G below.  No other changes were made to the CalEEMod default mobile source parameters.   Table G – Project Daily Trip Rates and Total Generated Trips  CalEEMod Land Use  Trips per Single‐Family Homes per Day  Weekday1  Saturday2 Sunday2  Single Family Housing 9.44 9.91 8.62  Total Trips per Day 208 218 190  Notes:  1 Weekday trip rate obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis (Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2020)  2 Saturday and Sunday trip rates obtained from CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 default values.    The CalEEMod model provides the selection of “mitigation” to account for project conditions that would  result in less emissions than a project without these conditions, however it should be noted that this  “mitigation” may represent current conditions, such as existing sidewalks connecting to the project site,  where a project built at such location, would create less vehicle trips and associated emissions than a  project that was not built in area where there are existing sidewalks.  The mobile source emissions analysis  for the Project included the CalEEMod “mitigation” of improved pedestrian network onsite.       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 46    Area Sources  Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment, hearths and architectural  coatings.  The area source emissions were based on the on‐going use of the proposed project in the  CalEEMod model.  According to the project applicant, a fireplace would be an optional item in the  proposed homes.  Since SCAQMD Rule 445 restricts the installation of wood‐burning fireplaces and only  allows dedicated gaseous‐fueled fireplaces, the project was analyzed with 22 natural gas only fireplaces  in the CalEEMod model.  No other changes were made to the default area source parameters in the  CalEEMod model.  Energy Usage  Energy usage includes emissions from electricity and natural gas used onsite.  The energy usage was based  on the ongoing use of the proposed project in the CalEEMod Model.  No changes were made to the default  energy usage parameters in the CalEEMod model.  The new 2019 Title 24, Part 6 building energy efficiency standards have been developed so that the  average new home built in California will have zero‐net‐energy use.  In order to account for the new 2019  Title 24, Part 6 standards, this analysis included the CalEEMod mitigation of exceed the 2016 Title 24  standards by 7 percent, since the 2019 building standards have been calculated to result in new homes  using about 7 percent less energy than homes built with the 2016 building standards  (https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standar ds_FAQ.pdf).  The 2019 standards also now require all single‐family homes to install rooftop photovoltaic  systems based on the following formula from: https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC‐400‐ 2018‐020/CEC‐400‐2018‐020‐CMF.pdf   Size of PV system (kWPV) = (CFA X A)/1000 + (NDwell x B)   Where:  CFA = Conditioned floor area (30,800 square feet)   NDwell = Number of dwelling units (22 homes)   A = CFA Adjustment factor (Climate Zone 8 = 0.586)   B = Dwelling Unit Adjustment factor (Climate Zone 8 = 1.37)   Based on the above formula, the proposed project would be required to install at least 48.2 kilowatts of  photovoltaic solar panels.  Since the CalEEMod model requires that the total kilowatt‐hours per year  generated by the solar panels be entered into the model, the 48.2 kilowatts of solar panels was multiplied  by 8 hours, to provide a conservative average hours per day of sunlight that the solar panels will generate  electricity and then divided by 1.2 to account for the loss associated with converting the direct current  (DC) power from the solar panels to the alternating current (AC) power on the electrical grid and then  multiplying by 365 days, which resulted in the proposed solar panels generating 117,259 kilowatt‐hours  per year that was entered into the CalEEMod model.  Solid Waste  Waste includes the GHG emissions associated with the processing of waste from the proposed project as  well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. The analysis was based on the  default CalEEMod waste generation rates of 51 tons of solid waste per year from the proposed project.       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 47    No changes were made to the default solid waste parameters or mitigation measures in the CalEEMod  model.  The CalEEMod “mitigation” of a 50 percent reduction in landfill waste was selected to account for  implementation of AB 341 that provides strategies to reduce, recycle or compost solid waste by 75 percent  by 2020.  Only 50 percent was selected, since AB 341 builds upon the waste reduction measures of SB 939  and 1374 and therefore, it was assumed approximately 25 percent of the waste reduction target has  already been accounted for in the CalEEMod model.  Water and Wastewater  Water includes the water used for the interior of the buildings as well as for landscaping and is based on  the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water.  The analysis was  based on the default CalEEMod water usage rate of 7,181,016 gallons per year of indoor water use and  4,526,916 gallons per year of outdoor water use.  No changes were made to the default water and  wastewater parameters in the CalEEMod model.    The CalEEMod “mitigation” of the use of low flow faucets, showers, and toilets and use of smart irrigation  system controllers were selected to account for the implementation of the 2016 CCR Title 24 Part 11  (CalGreen) requirements.  8.2 Energy Use Calculations   The proposed project is anticipated to consume energy during both construction and operation of the  proposed project and the parameters utilized to calculate energy use from construction and operation of  the proposed project are detailed separately below.  Construction‐Related Energy Use  Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel for both  off‐road equipment as well as from the transport of workers and materials to and from the project site  and the calculations for each source are described below.    Off‐Road Construction Equipment  The off‐road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the CalEEMod model’s  default off‐road equipment assumptions detailed above in Section 8.1. For each piece of off‐road  equipment, the fuel usage was calculated through use of the 2017 Off‐road Diesel Emission Factors  spreadsheet, prepared by CARB (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/ordiesel.htm).  The Spreadsheet provides  the following formula to calculate fuel usage from off‐road equipment:  Fuel Used = Load Factor x Horsepower x Total Operational Hours x BSFC / Unit Conversion   Where:   Load Factor ‐ Obtained from CalEEMod default values    Horsepower – Obtained from CalEEMod default values  Total Operational Hours – Calculated by multiplying CalEEMod default daily hours by CalEEMod  default number of working days for each phase of construction  BSFC – Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (pounds per horsepower‐hour) – If less than 100  Horsepower = 0.408, if greater than 100 Horsepower = 0.367      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 48    Unit Conversion – Converts pounds to gallons = 7.109  Table H shows the off‐road construction equipment fuel calculations based on the above formula.    Table H – Off‐Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project  Equipment Type  Equipment  Quantity  Horse‐ power  Load  Factor  Operating Hours  per Day  Total  Operational  Hours1  Fuel Used  (gallons)  Site Preparation  Rubber Tired Dozers 3 247 0.40 8 240 1,224  Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 97 0.37 8 320 659  Grading  Excavators 2 158 0.38 8 960 2,976  Grader 1 187 0.41 8 480 1,900  Rubber Tired Dozers 1 247 0.4 8 480 2,448  Scrapers (default) 2 367 0.48 8 960 8,730  Scraper (added for import) 1 860 0.48 6 360 7,672  Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 97 0.37 8 960 1,977  Building Construction  Cranes 1 231 0.29 7 2,100 7,263  Forklifts 3 89 0.2 8 7,200 7,355  Generators 1 84 0.74 8 2,400 8,562  Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97 0.37 7 6,300 12,977  Welders 1 46 0.45 8 2,400 2,851  Paving  Pavers 2 130 0.42 8 320 902  Paving Equipment 2 132 0.36 8 320 785  Rollers 2 80 0.38 8 320 558  Architectural Coating  Air Compressor 1 78 0.48 6 120 258  Total Off‐Road Equipment Fuel Used during Construction (gallons) 69,098  Notes:  1 Based on: 10 days for Site Preparation; 60 days for Grading; 300 days for Building Construction; 20 days for Paving; and 20 days for Painting.   Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (see Appendix A); CARB, 2017.    Table H shows that the off‐road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed project would  consume 69,098 gallons of fuel.  On‐Road Construction‐Related Vehicle Trips  The on‐road construction‐related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the construction  vehicle trip assumptions from the CalEEMod model run as detailed above in Section 8.1. The calculated  total construction miles was then divided by the fleet average for all of Southern California miles per gallon  rates for the year 2021 calculated through use of the EMFAC2017 model  (https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/) and the EMFAC2017 model printouts are shown in Appendix B.   Table I shows the on‐road construction vehicle trips modeled in CalEEMod and the fuel usage calculations.          Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 49    Table I – On‐Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project   Vehicle Trip Types Daily Trips  Trip Length  (miles)  Total Miles  per Day  Total Miles  per Phase1  Fleet Average  Miles per Gallon2  Fuel Used  (gallons)  Site Preparation  Worker Trips  18 14.7 265 2,646 25.3 105  Vendor Truck Trips 6 6.9 41 414 8.0 52  Grading  Worker Trips  20 14.7 294 17,640 25.3 698  Vendor Truck Trips 6 6.9 41 2,484 8.0 312  Building Construction  Worker Trips  84 14.7 1,235 370,440 25.3 14,668  Vendor Truck Trips  20 6.9 221 66,240 8.0 8,312  Paving  Worker Trips  15 14.7 221 4,410 25.3 175  Architectural Coating  Worker Trips  17 14.7 250 4,998 25.3 198  Total Fuel Used from On‐Road Construction Vehicles (gallons) 24,520  Notes:  1 Based on: 10 days for Site Preparation; 60 days for Grading; 300 days for Building Construction; 20 days for Paving; and 20 days for Painting.  2 From EMFAC 2017 model (see Appendix B). Worker Trips based on entire fleet of gasoline vehicles and Vendor Trips based on only truck  fleet of diesel vehicles.   Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; CARB, 2018.    Table I shows that the on‐road construction‐related vehicle trips would consume 24,520 gallons of fuel  and as detailed above, Table H shows that the off‐road construction equipment would consume 69,098  gallons of fuel.  This would result in the total consumption of 93,617 gallons of petroleum fuel from  construction of the proposed project.    Operations‐Related Energy Use  The operation of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel,  electricity, and natural gas, and the calculations for each source are described below.    Operational Petroleum Fuel   The on‐road operations‐related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the total annual  vehicle miles traveled assumptions from the CalEEMod model run as detailed above in Section 8.1, which  found that operation of the proposed project would generate 691,797 vehicle miles traveled per year.   The calculated total construction miles was then divided by the Southern California fleet average rate of  25.3 miles per gallon, which was calculated through use of the EMFAC2017 model and based on the year  2021.  The EMFAC2017 model printouts are shown in Appendix B.  Based on the above calculation  methodology, operational vehicle trips generated from the proposed project would consume 27,393  gallons per year.  Operational Electricity Use   The operations‐related electricity usage was calculated in the CalEEMod model run that is detailed above  in Section 8.1 that found the proposed project will use 58,759 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year of electricity.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 50    Operational Natural Gas Use   The operations‐related natural gas usage was calculated in the CalEEMod model run that is provided in  the Air Quality analysis that found proposed project will use 1,528,000 kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU)  per, which is equivalent to 1,528 mega‐British Thermal units (MBTU) per year of natural gas.          Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 51    9.0 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE  9.1 Regional Air Quality   Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominant pollution  generators in the Air Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have  converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone.  The incremental  regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure.   Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted  rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not  quantifiable on a regional scale.  The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin  with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as  having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.  For the purposes to this air quality  impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the  SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table J.    Table J – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance   Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)   VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead  Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3  Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3  Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2    9.2 Local Air Quality  Project‐related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air  quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant  enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin.  In order to assess local air quality impacts the  SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project‐related air emissions  in the project vicinity.  SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology  (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The  LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.  The LST Methodology provides Look‐Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of  the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors.  As detailed above in Section 7.3, the  project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 17, which covers Central Orange County.    The Look‐Up Tables include site acreage sizes of 1‐acre, 2‐acres and 5‐acres. The Fact Sheet for Applying  CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, prepared by SCAQMD, 2015, provides guidance on how to  determine the appropriate site acreage size to utilize for a project.  The Fact Sheet details the site acreage  should be based on the maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day of construction that is  calculated on the construction equipment list utilized in the CalEEMod model, where crawler tractors,  graders, and rubber tired dozers are all assumed to disturb 0.5‐acre in an 8‐hour day and scrapers are  assumed to disturb 1.0‐acre in an 8‐hour day. It should be noted that the methodology in the Fact Sheet  was developed from the CalEEMod User Guide Appendix A, page 9, where the same acres disturbed per  equipment type is detailed and is utilized in the CalEEMod model in order to determine the acres per day  disturbed during site preparation and grading phases. Table K lists all of the construction equipment      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 52    modeled in CalEEMod and utilizes the methodology in the Fact Sheet to calculate the acres disturbed per  day.     Table K – Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Acres Disturbed per Day  Construction  Activity Equipment Type  Equipment  Quantity  Acres Disturbed per  piece of Equipment  per Day1  Operating  Hours per  Day  Acres  Disturbed  per Day  Site  Preparation  Rubber Tired Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5  Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 0 8 0  Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Site Preparation 1.5  Grading  Excavators 2 0 8 0  Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5  Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5  Scrapers 2 1.0 8 3.0  Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0 8 0  Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Grading  4.0  Building  Construction  Cranes 1 0 7 0  Forklifts 3 0 8 0  Generator Sets 1 0 8 0  Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 0 7 0  Welders 1 0 8   Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Building Construction  0  Paving  Pavers 2 0 8 0  Paving Equipment 2 0 8 0  Rollers 2 0 8 0  Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Paving  0  Architectural  Coating  Air Compressor 1 0 6 0  Total Acres Disturbed per Day During Architectural Coating 0  Maximum Acres Disturbed during All Construction Activities  4.0  Notes:  1 Based on the Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds where crawler tractors, graders, and rubber tired dozers  disturb 0.5‐acre in an 8‐hour day and scrapers disturb 1.0‐acre in an 8‐hour day.  All other equipment disturb 0 acres per 8‐hour day.   Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; SCAQMD, 2015.    As shown in Table K, the maximum disturbed per day would occur during the grading phase when 4‐acres  would be disturbed.  As such, the 2‐acre and 5‐acre project site thresholds shown in the Look‐Up Tables  has been utilized to interpolate the 4‐acre thresholds in this analysis.  The nearest sensitive receptors are homes located as near as 80 feet north of the project site.  According  to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25 meter  thresholds.  Table L below shows the LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and  operational activities.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 53    Table L – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance   Activity  Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1   NOx CO PM10 PM2.5  Construction 160 1,074 11 6  Operation 160 1,074 3 2  Notes:  1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 80 feet (24 meters) north of the project site.  According to SCAQMD methodology,  all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold.    Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for two acres and five acres interpolated to 4‐acres in Air Monitoring Area 17  Central Orange County.    9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants  According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to  toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air  quality impact:    If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or   Toxic air contaminants from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or  greater.  In order to determine if the proposed project may have a significant impact related to toxic air  contaminants (TACs), the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source  Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003,  recommends that if the proposed project is anticipated to create TACs through stationary sources or  regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the  source of the TAC and the toxicity of the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) should be analyzed through a  comprehensive facility‐wide health risk assessment (HRA).  9.4 Odor Impacts  The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the proposed project creates an  odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states:  “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or  other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number  of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such  persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to  business or property.  The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations  necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.”  If the proposed project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the proposed  project would create a significant odor impact.  9.5 Energy Conservation  The new 2018 amendments and additions to the CEQA Checklist now includes an Energy Section that  analyzes the proposed project’s energy consumption in order to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful or  unnecessary consumption of energy.  Since the Energy Section was just added, no state or local agencies      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 54    have adopted specific criteria or thresholds to be utilized in an energy impact analysis.  However, the 2018  Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, provide the following  direction on how to analyze a project’s energy consumption:  “If analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant  environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use  of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use. This analysis should include the  project’s energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation‐related  energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other  relevant considerations may include, among others, the project’s size, location, orientation,  equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project.  (Guidance on information that may be included in such an analysis is presented in Appendix F.)  This analysis is subject to the rule of reason and shall focus on energy use that is caused by the  project. This analysis may be included in related analyses of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,  transportation or utilities in the discretion of the lead agency.”  If the proposed project creates inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy during  construction or operation activities or conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy  efficiency, then the proposed project would create a significant energy impact.  9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions  The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.  In order to identify significance  criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided  detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA.  At the September 28, 2010 Working Group  meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which  recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land  use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above  threshold, as of November 2017, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working  Group’s thresholds.    It should be noted that SCAQMD’s Working Group’s thresholds were prepared prior to the issuance of  Executive Order B‐30‐15 on April 29, 2015 that provided a reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels  by 2030. This target was codified into statute through passage of AB 197 and SB 32 in September 2016.   However, to date no air district or local agency within California has provided guidance on how to address  AB 197 and SB 32 with relation to land use projects.  In addition, the California Supreme Court’s ruling on  Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (Cleveland v. SANDAG),  Filed July 13, 2017 stated:  SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of  significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or  implementation measures to achieve its goal.  In its response to comments, the EIR said: “It is  uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should play in achieving  the EO’s 2050 emissions reduction target.  A recent California Energy Commission report  concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major  ‘decarbonization’ of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency  [citation].      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 55    Although, the above court case was referencing California’s GHG emission targets for the year 2050, at  this time it is also unclear what role land use strategies can or should play in achieving the AB 197 and SB  32 reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.  As such this analysis has relied on the SCAQMD  Working Group’s recommended thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered to  create a significant cumulative GHG impact if the proposed project would exceed the annual threshold of  3,000 MTCO2e.  The GHG emissions analysis for both construction and operation of the proposed project can be found  below in Sections 10.8 and 10.9.            Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 56    10.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS  10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance   Consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality, energy,  and GHG emissions would occur if the proposed project is determined to:   Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;   Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project  region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;   Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;    Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number  of people;   Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary  consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation;   Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy;   Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the  environment; or   Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of  reducing the emissions of GHGs.  10.2 Air Quality Compliance  The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality  Management Plan (AQMP).  The following section discusses the proposed project’s consistency with the  SCAQMD AQMP.  SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan  The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a  proposed project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125).  The  regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section  discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP.  The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and  objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability  to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision‐makers determine that the  proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of  mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.  The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and  density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the  AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should  be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct  other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 57    (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality  violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality  standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.  (2)  Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year  of project buildout and phase.  Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.  Criterion 1 ‐ Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations?  Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short‐term regional construction air  emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance  discussed above in Section 9.1. However, short‐term local construction emissions would exceed the  thresholds of significance for PM10 and PM2.5 discussed above in Section 9.2.  Application of Mitigation  Measure MM AIR‐1c from the Certified EIR included that requires the project applicant to prepare a dust  control plan that includes measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 was found  to be adequate to reduce the local PM10 and PM2.5 impacts to less than significant level.  The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that are  inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD  thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.1.  The analysis for long‐term local air quality  impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the air quality  standards.  Therefore, a less than significant long‐term impact would occur and no mitigation would be  required.  Therefore, based on the information provided above, with implementation of MM AIR‐1c, the proposed  project would be consistent with the first criterion.    Criterion 2 ‐ Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?  Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project  with the assumptions in the AQMP.  The emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted  for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through  use of the planning forecasts provided in the RTP/SCS and FTIP.  The RTP/SCS is a major planning  document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California.  The RTP/SCS  is a long‐range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated  every four years.  The FTIP provides long‐range planning for future transportation improvement projects  that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California.  Local governments are  required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable  regional plans under CEQA.  For this project, the City of Orange General Plan’s Land Use Plan defines the  assumptions that are represented in AQMP.  The General Plan Land Use Element designation for this site is Low Density Residential (LDR) and is  currently zoned a majority Single‐Family Residential 8,000 square feet (R‐1‐8) and the southern portion  of the project site is zoned Sand and Gravel (S‐G).  Consistent with the Orange General Plan’s density range  of 2.1 to 6.0 units per acre for areas designated LDR1, the project site would be allowed to accommodate                                                                    1 City of Orange. 2010. Orange General Plan: Land Use. Website:  https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/570/General‐Plan‐‐‐Land‐Use‐PDF. Accessed April 3, 2020.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 58    a maximum of 92 residential homes and a target of 77 residential homes based on acre density for a 15.4‐ acre residential land use parcel. The proposed 22 residential units on 10.9 acres would be 55 units below  the target density range. Since the proposed project is an allowed land use under the current General Plan  land use designation and zoning, the proposed project is consistent with the current land use designation  and zoning and is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be  consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.  Based on the above, with implementation of Air Quality Mitigation Measure 1 that is provided to meet  Criterion 1, the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.  Therefore,  a less than significant impact will occur in relation to implementation of the AQMP.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Potentially significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  MM AIR‐1c  Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, the project applicant shall include a dust  control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan  shall include measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such basic  measures may include but are not limited to the following:  k) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the  surrounding areas.  l) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.  m) Water exposed surfaces at least three times a day under calm conditions, and as often as  needed on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and  minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction site.  n) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or  temporarily plant with vegetation.  o) Use street sweepers that comply with SCAQMD Rules 1186 and 1186.1.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.     10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non‐Attainment Pollution  The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant  for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality  standard.  The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction  and operations of the proposed project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards.  Construction Emissions  The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading  of the project site, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and parking lots, and application  of architectural coatings.  The construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air  quality impacts.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 59    Construction‐Related Regional Impacts  The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction‐related regional emissions from the  proposed project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 7.1.  The  worst‐case summer or winter daily construction‐related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed  project for each phase of construction activities are shown below in Table M and the CalEEMod daily  printouts are shown in Appendix A.  Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural  coating activities may occur concurrently towards the end of the building construction phase, Table M  also shows the combined regional criteria pollutant emissions from year 2022 building construction,  paving and architectural coating phases of construction.  Table M – Construction‐Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions     Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)  Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5  Site Preparation                   Onsite1 3.89 40.50 21.15 0.04 20.11 11.81  Offsite2 0.09 0.60 0.70 0.00 0.24 0.07  Total 3.98 41.10 21.85 0.04 20.35 11.88  Grading                   Onsite 4.19 46.40 30.88 0.06 14.90 5.88  Offsite 0.11 0.62 0.85 0.00 0.30 0.08  Total 4.30 47.02 31.73 0.06 15.20 5.96  Building Construction (Year 2021)             Onsite 1.90 17.43 16.58 0.03 0.96 0.90  Offsite 0.43 3.19 3.37 0.02 1.16 0.32  Total 2.33 20.62 19.95 0.05 2.12 1.22  Building Construction (Year 2022)       Onsite 1.71 15.62 16.36 0.03 0.81 0.76  Offsite 0.41 3.01 3.17 0.02 1.16 0.32  Total 2.12 18.63 19.53 0.05 1.97 1.08  Paving         Onsite 1.25 11.12 14.58 0.02 0.57 0.52  Offsite 0.06 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.17 0.05  Total 1.31 11.15 15.01 0.02 0.74 0.57  Architectural Coating         Onsite 15.10 1.41 1.81 0.00 0.08 0.08  Offsite 0.07 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.19 0.05  Total 15.17 1.45 2.29 0.00 0.27 0.13  Combined Building Construction (Year 2022), Paving and Architectural Coatings       Onsite 18.06 28.15 32.75 0.05 1.46 1.36  Offsite 0.54 3.08 4.08 0.02 1.52 0.42  Total 18.60 31.23 36.83 0.07 2.98 1.78  Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 18.60 47.02 36.83 0.07 20.35 11.88  SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55  Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No  Notes:  1 Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads.  2 Offsite emissions from vehicles operating on public roads.  Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 60    Table M shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions  thresholds during either site preparation, grading, or the combined building construction, paving and  architectural coatings phases.  Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur  from construction of the proposed project.  Construction‐Related Local Impacts  Construction‐related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality  standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to  create a regional impact to the Air Basin.    The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology  described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), prepared by SCAQMD,  revised October 2009.  The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern  are NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.  In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis  of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate  LST Look‐up Tables.  The Look‐up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if  the daily onsite emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a  significant impact to the local air quality.    Table N shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and  the calculated localized emissions thresholds that have been detailed above in Section 8.2. Since it is  possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently  towards the end of the building construction phase, Table N also shows the combined local criteria  pollutant emissions from year 2022 building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of  construction.  Table N – Construction‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Prior to Mitigation   Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1  Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5  Site Preparation 40.58 21.24 20.14 11.82  Grading 46.48 30.99 14.94 5.89  Building Construction (Year 2021) 17.83 17.00 1.11 0.94  Combined Building Construction (Year 2022), Paving and  Architectural Coatings 28.54 33.26 1.65 1.41  Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 46.48 30.99 20.14 11.82  SCAQMD Local Construction Thresholds2 160 1,074 11 6  Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes Yes  Notes:  1 The Pollutant Emissions include 100% of the On‐Site emissions (off‐road equipment and fugitive dust) and 1/8 of the Off‐Site emissions (on  road trucks and worker vehicles), in order to account for the on‐road emissions that occur within a ¼ mile of the project site.   2 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 80 feet (24 meters) north of the project site.  According to SCAQMD methodology,  all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold.      Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for two acres and five acres interpolated to 4‐acres in Air Monitoring Area 17  Central Orange County.    The data provided in Table N shows that the site preparation and grading phases would exceed the local  PM10 construction threshold and the site preparation phase would exceed the local PM2.5 construction  threshold.  This would be considered a significant impact.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 61    The Certified EIR included Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1c that requires the project applicant to prepare  a dust control plan that includes measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 and  include covering all haul trucks, watering all exposed surfaces at least three times per day, stabilize all  exposed soil with a soil conditioner or plant with vegetation, utilize street sweepers to remove track out  on the adjacent public roads, limit idling to 5 minutes in any hour, provide temporary power poles to  minimize generator use, and restrict traffic speeds on onsite unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.  The available mitigation listed in MM AIR‐1c that is also provided in CalEEMod was selected in the  CalEEMod model run and a summary of the CalEEMod model results with implementation of MM AIR‐1c  are shown in Table O.  Table O – Mitigated Construction‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions   Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1  Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5  Site Preparation 40.58 21.24 9.12 5.76  Grading 46.48 30.99 7.06 3.42  Building Construction (Year 2021) 17.83 17.00 1.11 0.94  Combined Building Construction (Year 2022), Paving and  Architectural Coatings 28.54 33.26 1.65 1.41  Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 46.48 30.99 9.12 5.76  SCAQMD Local Construction Thresholds2 160 1,074 11 6  Exceeds Threshold? No No No No  Notes:  1 The Pollutant Emissions include 100% of the On‐Site emissions (off‐road equipment and fugitive dust) and 1/8 of the Off‐Site emissions (on  road trucks and worker vehicles), in order to account for the on‐road emissions that occur within a ¼ mile of the project site.   2 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 80 feet (24 meters) north of the project site.  According to SCAQMD methodology,  all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold.      Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for two acres and five acres interpolated to 4‐acres in Air Monitoring Area 17  Central Orange County.    Table O shows that with implementation of MM AIR‐1c, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would  exceed the SCAQMD’s local thresholds of significance for any phase of construction activities.  Therefore  with implementation of MM AIR‐1c, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from  construction of the proposed project.  Operational Emissions  The on‐going operation of the proposed project would result in a long‐term increase in air quality  emissions.  This increase would be due to emissions from the project‐generated vehicle trips, emissions  from energy usage, and onsite area source emissions created from the on‐going use of the proposed  project.  The following section provides an analysis of potential long‐term air quality impacts due to  regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on‐going operations of the proposed project.   Operations‐Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis  The operations‐related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been  analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been  detailed in Section 8.1.  The worst‐case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily  emissions created from the proposed project’s long‐term operations have been calculated and are  summarized below in Table P and the CalEEMod daily emissions printouts are shown in Appendix A.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 62    Table P – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions    Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)  Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5  Area Sources1 1.03 0.39 1.99 0.00 0.04 0.04  Energy Usage2 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01  Mobile Sources3 0.32 1.33 4.42 0.02 1.59 0.43  Total Emissions 1.37 1.86 6.47 0.02 1.64 0.48  SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55  Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No  Notes:  1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.  2 Energy usage consist of emissions from natural gas usage.  3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.  Source: Calculated from CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.    The data provided in Table P shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional  emissions thresholds.  Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from  operation of the proposed project.  In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (also referred to as “Friant Ranch”), the California  Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that when a project would have significant impacts to  air quality impacts, an EIR should “make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality  impacts to likely health consequences.” In order to determine compliance with this Case, the Court  developed a three part test that includes the following:   1) The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria  pollutant, including diesel particulate matter.    This Analysis details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant above in Section 4.1 and  specifically in Table B.  In addition, the specific health risks created from diesel particulate matter is  detailed above in Section 2.2 of this analysis.  As such, this analysis meets the part 1 requirements of the  Friant Ranch Case.  2) The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the Project.  The Ruling  details how to identify the magnitude of the health risks.  Specifically, on page 24 of the ruling it  states “The Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the  analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision makers of possible adverse health  effects.  The County could have, for example, identified the Project’s impact on the days of  nonattainment per year.”    Table P above shows that the primary source of operational air emissions would be created from mobile  source emissions that would be generated throughout the Air Basin. As such, any adverse health impacts  created from the proposed project should be assessed on a basin‐wide level.   As indicated above in Table  B, the Air Basin has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non‐attainment area for ozone,  PM2.5, and partial non‐attainment for lead. In addition, PM10 has been designated by the State as non‐ attainment.  It should be noted that VOC and NOx are ozone precursors, as such they have been  considered as non‐attainment pollutants.  According to the 2016 AQMP, in 2016 the total emissions of:  VOC was 500 tons per year; NOx was 522 tons per year; SOx was 18 tons per year; and PM2.5 was 66 tons      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 63    per year.  Since the 2016 AQMP did not calculate total PM10 emissions, the total PM10 emissions were  obtained from The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, for  the year 2020.  The project contribution to each criteria pollutant in the South Coast Air Basin is shown in  Table Q.  Table Q – Project’s Contribution to Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin    Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)  Emissions Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5  Project Emissions1 1.37 1.86 6.47 0.02 1.64 0.48  Total Emissions in Air Basin2 1,000,000 1,044,000 4,246,000 36,000 322,000 132,000  Project’s Percent of Air Emissions 0.0001% 0.0002% 0.0002% 0.0001% 0.0005% 0.0004%  SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55  Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No  Notes:  1 From the project’s total operational emissions shown above in Table P.  2 VOC, NOx, CO, SO2 and PM2.5 from 2016 AQMP and PM10 from the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition.    As shown in Table Q, the project would increase criteria pollutant emissions by as much as 0.0005 percent  for PM10 in the South Coast Air Basin.  Due to these nominal increases in the Air Basin‐wide criteria  pollutant emissions, no increases in days of non‐attainment are anticipated to occur from operation of  the proposed project.  As such, this analysis meets the part 2 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case and  therefore no further analysis is required.  As such, operation of the project is not anticipated to result in  a quantitative increase in premature deaths, asthma in children, days children will miss school, asthma‐ related emergency room visits, or an increase in acute bronchitis among children due to the criteria  pollutants created by the proposed project.  Impacts would be less than significant.  Operations‐Related Local Air Quality Impacts  Project‐related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards  in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a  regional impact to the Air Basin.  The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local CO  emission impacts from the project‐generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality  impacts from on‐site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts  from on‐site operations.  Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project‐Generated Vehicular Trips  CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor  vehicles.  For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a  roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts.  Local air quality  impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal  CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours.    At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and  NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of  control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily  declined. According to the SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables, in 2007 Central Orange County had maximum  CO concentrations of 4.0 ppm for 1 hour and 2.9 ppm for 8‐hours and in 2018 Central Orange County had      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 64    maximum CO concentrations of 2.3 ppm for 1‐hour and 1.9 ppm for 8‐hours, which represent decreases  in CO concentrations of 43 percent and 34 percent, respectively between 2018 and 2007.  In 2007, the Air  Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO  hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles2 during the peak morning and  afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards.  Since the nearby intersections to the  proposed project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD and since the  CO concentrations are now at least 34 percent lower than when CO was designated in attainment in 2007,  no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the proposed project and no CO Hotspot modeling  was performed.  Therefore, a less than significant long‐term air quality impact is anticipated to local air  quality with the on‐going use of the proposed project.  Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations   Project‐related air emissions from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment,  and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed  the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions  may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin.    The local air quality emissions from onsite operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST  Look‐up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The Look‐up Tables were developed  by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from  the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality.  Table R shows the onsite  emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating in  the immediate vicinity of the project site and the calculated emissions thresholds.  Table R – Operations‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions   Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)  Onsite Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5  Area Sources 0.39 1.99 0.04 0.04  Energy Usage 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.01  Mobile Sources 0.17 0.55 0.20 0.05  Total Emissions 0.70 2.60 0.25 0.10  SCAQMD Local Operational Thresholds1 160 1,074 3 2  Exceeds Threshold? No No No No  Notes:  1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 80 feet (24 meters) north of the project site.  According to SCAQMD methodology,  all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold.        Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for two acres and five acres interpolated to 4‐acres in Air Monitoring Area 17  Central Orange County.    The data provided in Table R shows that the on‐going operations of the proposed project would not  exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2.                                                                     2 The four intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire  Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century  Boulevard.  The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately  100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the evening peak hour.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 65    Therefore, the on‐going operations of the proposed project would create a less than significant  operations‐related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions and no mitigation would be required.  Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any  criteria pollutant.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Potentially significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1c provided above in Section 9.2.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.     10.4 Sensitive Receptors  The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.  The  local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed  project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated above  in Section 10.3 for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below.  The  discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions.   The nearest sensitive receptors are single‐family homes located as near as 80 feet north of the project  site.   Construction‐Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts  The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading  of the project site, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and parking lots, and application  of architectural coatings.  Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant  concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant emissions  created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below.  Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction   The local air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project has been analyzed above in Section  10.3 and found that the site preparation and grading phases would exceed the local PM10 construction  threshold and the site preparation phase would exceed the local PM2.5 construction threshold.  This  would be considered a significant impact.  The Certified EIR included Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1c that requires the project applicant to prepare  a dust control plan that includes measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 and  include covering all haul trucks, watering all exposed surfaces at least three times per day, stabilize all  exposed soil with a soil conditioner or plant with vegetation, utilize street sweepers to remove track out  on the adjacent public roads, limit idling to 5 minutes in any hour, provide temporary power poles to  minimize generator use, and restrict traffic speeds on onsite unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less  The analysis provided above in Section 10.3 found that with implementation of MM AIR‐1c, none of the  analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the SCAQMD’s local thresholds of significance for any phase of      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 66    construction activities.  Therefore with implementation of MM AIR‐1c, construction of the proposed  project would create a less than significant construction‐related impact to local air quality and no  mitigation would be required.  Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction   The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter  (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed  project.  According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually  described in terms of “individual cancer risk”.  “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person  exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70‐year lifetime will contract cancer, based on  the use of standard risk‐assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk  assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30 year exposure period for the nearby sensitive  receptors (OEHHA, 2015).  Given the relatively limited number of heavy‐duty construction equipment, the varying distances that  construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short‐term construction  schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long‐term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of  toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.  In addition, California Code of  Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off‐road diesel  equipment in California.  This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires  equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s  usage and emissions.  This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each  fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by  January 2023 no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 2 equipment.  In addition to the  purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become  more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023.  As of January, 2019, 25 percent or more of all  contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher.  Therefore, no significant short‐term toxic air  contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project.  As such, construction of  the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial  pollutant concentrations.  Operations‐Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts  The on‐going operations of the proposed project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant  concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the project‐generated vehicular trips and from the  potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO  emissions. Local criteria pollutant impacts from onsite operations, and toxic air contaminant impacts.    Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project‐Generated Vehicle Trips  CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor  vehicles.  For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a  roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors.  The analysis  provided above in Section 9.3 shows that no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby  intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project.  Therefore, operation of the  proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to  substantial pollutant concentrations.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 67    Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations   The local air quality impacts from the operation of the proposed project would occur from onsite sources  such as architectural coatings, natural gas‐only hearths, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of  natural gas appliances. The analysis provided above in Section 10.3 found that the operation of the  proposed project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance  discussed above in Section 9.2.  Therefore, the on‐going operations of the proposed project would create  a less than significant operations‐related impact to local air quality due to on‐site emissions and no  mitigation would be required.  Operations‐Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts  Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The  California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the  outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust.  Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and  formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air  Pollutants program.  Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips that are anticipated to be generated  by the proposed project, a less than significant TAC impact would occur during the on‐going operations of  the proposed project and no mitigation would be required.  Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive  receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Potentially significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1c provided above in Section 9.2.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.     10.5 Odor Emissions   The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.   Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects.  Generally, the  impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location,  and sensory perception.  The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in  the ambient environment.  The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor  strength or concentration.  The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is  experienced.  The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness  of an odor.  The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works,  or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor.    Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone.  The  detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor.  There are two types of  thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold.  The detection threshold is the  lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work  in the immediate vicinity of the project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 68    population).  The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a  characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population.   The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor.  The odor character is what the substance smells  like.  The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor.  The hedonic  tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential  odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below.  Construction‐Related Odor Impacts  Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings  such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment.  The  objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and  would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site’s boundaries.  Due to  the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no  mitigation would be required.  Operations‐Related Odor Impacts  The proposed project would consist of the development of 22 single‐family homes.  Single‐family homes  are not typical odor generating land uses.  Land uses typically associated with odors include wastewater  treatment facilities, waste‐disposal facilities, specialized industrial uses that include chemical  manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing, and painting/coating operations, or agricultural operations. As  such, the project’s long‐term operational activities are not anticipated to create odor emissions that  would generate numerous odor complaints.  Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur  from operation of the proposed project and no mitigation would be required.  Level of Significance   Less than significant impact.  10.6 Energy Consumption  The proposed project would impact energy resources during construction and operation.  Energy  resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum based fuel  supplies and distribution systems.   This analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of  the proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and  unnecessary consumption of energy.  A general definition of each of these energy resources are provided  below.  Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man‐made resource. The production of electricity requires the  consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal,  and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components,  including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate  for on‐site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission  and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines  is typically responsive to market demands.  In 2018, Southern California Edison, which provides electricity  to the project vicinity provided 85,276 Gigawatt‐hours per year of electricity  ((http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx).      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 69    Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used  as a fuel source.  Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly  located outside the State, and delivered through high‐pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas  transportation system is a nationwide network and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an  issue. Natural gas satisfies almost one‐third of the State’s total energy requirements and is used in  electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation  fuel.  Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet.   In 2018, Orange County consumed 575.133 Million  Therms of natural gas3.  Petroleum‐based fuels currently account for a majority of the California’s transportation energy sources  and primarily consist of diesel and gasoline types of fuels.  However, the state has been working on  developing strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade California has implemented several  policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of  alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation sector, and reduce  vehicle miles traveled (VMT).  Accordingly, petroleum‐based fuel consumption in California has declined.  In 2015, 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline was sold in the State4.  Diesel represents 17 percent of total fuel  sales behind gasoline and in 2015, 4.2 billion gallons of diesel was sold in California5.    The following section calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and  operations of the proposed project and provides a determination if any energy utilized by the proposed  project is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.  Construction Energy   The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading  of the project site, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and parking lots, and application  of architectural coatings.  The proposed project would consume energy resources during construction in  three (3) general forms:   1. Petroleum‐based fuels used to power off‐road construction vehicles and equipment on the  Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul  truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off‐site reuse and disposal facilities);   2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project  construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary  lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating  electrical power; and,  3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes,  and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.  Construction‐Related Electricity   During construction the proposed project would consume electricity to construct the new structures and  infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison (SCE) and  would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the project site.  The use of electricity  from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators would minimize                                                                    3 Obtained from: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx  4 Obtained from: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/  5 Obtained from: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/diesel.html       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 70    impacts on energy use.  Electricity consumed during project construction would vary throughout the  construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities  include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project  construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting  during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.   Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of  construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the proposed project would require limited  electricity consumption that would not be expected to have an adverse impact on available electricity  supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during project construction would not be  wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.  Since there are existing electrical lines running underground in Mabury Avenue, adjacent to the project  site, it is anticipated that only nominal improvements would be required to SCE distribution lines and  equipment with development of the proposed project.  Where feasible, the new service installations and  connections would be scheduled and implemented in a manner that would not result in electrical service  interruptions to other properties.  Compliance with City guidelines and requirements would ensure that  the proposed project fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure installation, coordinates any  electrical infrastructure removals or relocations, and limits any impacts associated with construction of  the project.  Construction of the project’s electrical infrastructure is not anticipated to adversely affect  the electrical infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity.   Construction‐Related Natural Gas   Construction of the proposed project typically would not involve the consumption of natural gas.  Natural  gas would not be supplied to support construction activities, thus there would be no demand generated  by construction. Since there is currently underground gas lines in Mabury Avenue, adjacent to the  project  site, construction of the proposed project would be limited to installation of new natural gas connections  within the project site.  Development of the proposed project would likely not require extensive  infrastructure improvements to serve the project site.  Construction‐related energy usage impacts  associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in  order to place the lines below surface.  In addition, prior to ground disturbance, the proposed project  would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depth of all existing gas lines and  avoid disruption of gas service.  Therefore, construction‐related impacts to natural gas supply and  infrastructure would be less than significant.  Construction‐Related Petroleum Fuel Use   Petroleum‐based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially  consumed during construction, which would utilized by both off‐road equipment operating on the project  site and on‐road automobiles transporting workers to and from the project site and on‐road trucks  transporting equipment and supplies to the project site.    The off‐road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off‐road equipment  assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown above in Section 8.2, which found that the off‐road  equipment utilized during construction of the proposed Project would consume 69,098 gallons of fuel.   The on‐road construction trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the construction vehicle trip  assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown above in Section 8.2, which found that the on‐road trips  generated from construction of the proposed Project would consume 24,520 gallons of fuel.  As such, the  combined fuel used from off‐road construction equipment and on‐road construction trips for the      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 71    proposed Project would result in the consumption of 93,617 gallons of petroleum fuel.  This equates to  0.00049 percent of the gasoline and diesel consumed in the State annually. As such, the construction‐ related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current petroleum usage rates  Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all State and  SCAQMD regulations for off‐road equipment and on‐road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency  standards.  As such, construction activities for the proposed project would not result in the wasteful,  inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources.  Impacts regarding transportation energy  would be less than significant.  Development of the Project would not result in the need to manufacture  construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed  project.  It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as  asphalt, steel, and concrete, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as  concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of  minimizing the cost of doing business.  Operational Energy  The on‐going operation of the proposed project would require the use of energy resources for multiple  purposes including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting,  appliances, and electronics.  Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage,  solid waste disposal, landscape equipment and vehicle trips.  Operations‐Related Electricity  Operation of the proposed project would result in consumption of electricity at the project site.  As  detailed above in Section 8.2 the proposed project would consume 58,759 kilowatt‐hours per year of  electricity.  This equates to 0.0001 percent of the electricity consumed annually by Southern California  Edison. As such, the operations‐related electricity use would be nominal, when compared to current  electricity usage rates in the area.  It should be noted that the proposed project will be required to meet the 2019 Title 24, Part 6 building  energy efficiency standards that have been developed to meet the State’s goal of zero‐net‐energy use for  new homes.  The zero net energy use will be achieved through a variety of measures to make new homes  more energy efficient and by also requiring installation of photovoltaic systems of adequate size to  generate enough electricity to meet the zero‐net energy use standard.  The size of the PV system required  for the project pursuant to the 2019 Title 24 standards was calculated above in Section 8.1, which found  that the proposed project would need to install at least 48.2 Kilowatts of photovoltaic panels within the  proposed project.  Although, the CalEEMod model found that with implementation of the 2019 Title 24  Part 6 standards, that the proposed project would continue to utilize a nominal amount of power, it should  be noted that the electricity usage and emission rates utilized by the CalEEMod model are based on  regional average usage rates for existing homes, which were not all built to the most current Title 24 Part  6, standards, so the CalEEMod model provides a conservative or worst‐case analysis of electricity use from  the proposed project.  Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to  minimize electricity use and that existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would  be sufficient to support the proposed project’s electricity demand. Thus, impacts with regard to electrical  supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be  required.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 72    Operations‐Related Natural Gas   Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of natural gas at the project  site.  As detailed above in Section 8.2 the proposed project would consume 536 MBTU per year of natural  gas.  This equates to 0.0001 percent of the natural gas consumed annually in Orange County. As such, the  operations‐related natural gas use would be nominal, when compared to current natural gas usage rates  in the County.  It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and County  requirements related to the consumption of natural gas, that includes CCR Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy  Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards.  The CCR Title 24, Part  6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the  proposed structures, including enhanced insulation as well as use of efficient natural gas appliances and  HVAC units.  Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to minimize  natural gas use and that existing and planned natural gas capacity and natural gas supplies would be  sufficient to support the proposed project’s natural gas demand.  Thus, impacts with regard to natural gas  supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be  required.  Operations‐Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage  Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of petroleum‐based fuels  related to vehicular travel to and from the project site.  As detailed above in Section 8.2 the proposed  project would consume 27,393 gallons of petroleum fuel per year from vehicle travel.  This equates to  0.0001 percent of the gasoline and diesel consumed in the State annually. As such, the operations‐related  petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current petroleum usage rates.  It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements  related to the consumption of transportation energy that includes California Code of Regulations Title 24,  Part 10 California Green Building Standards that require all new homes to include a dedicated circuit in  the garage to be utilized for electric car charging.  Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be  designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of electric‐ powered vehicles and it is anticipated that existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation  fuels would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s demand. Thus, impacts with regard  transportation energy supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation  measures would be required.  In conclusion, the proposed project would comply with regulatory compliance measures outlined by the  State and City related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Transportation/Circulation, and  Water Supply.  Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable  City Building and Fire Codes.  Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient,  or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.  Impacts would  be less than significant.  Level of Significance   Less than significant impact.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 73    10.7 Energy Plan Consistency  The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or  energy efficiency.  The applicable energy plan for the proposed project is the City of Orange General Plan,  March 2010, that provides an Energy Resources Component.  The proposed project’s consistency with the  applicable energy‐related policies in the General Plan are shown in Table S.   Table S – Proposed Project Compliance with City General Plan Energy Policies  General Plan Energy Policy  Proposed Project Consistency with General Plan  Policies  NR Goal 2.0: Protect air, water, and energy resources  from pollution and overuse.  Consistent.  The proposed project would not overuse  air, water, and energy resources.  Policy 2.1: Cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality  Management District (SCAQMD) and other regional  agencies to implement and enforce regional air quality  management plans.  Consistent.  The proposed project is consistent with  the SCAQMD air quality management plan.  Policy 2.2: Support alternative transportation modes,  alternative technologies, and bicycle‐ and pedestrian‐ friendly neighborhoods to reduce emissions related to  vehicular travel.  Consistent.  The proposed project has a recreational  trail adjacent to Mabury Avenue on the project site  that would promote the use of alternative  transportation to the project.  Policy 2.6: Encourage sustainable building and site designs  for new construction and renovation projects.  Consistent.  The proposed project has taken into  account site designs for sustainability.  Policy 2.7: Coordinate with energy suppliers to ensure  adequate energy supplies to meet community needs, and  to promote energy conservation and public education  programs for that purpose.  Not Applicable. This policy is only applicable to the  City to work with energy suppliers.  Policy 2.9: Promote City operations as a model for energy  efficiency and green building.  Consistent.  The proposed project has been designed  to meet green building standards.  Policy 2.10: Work toward replacing existing City vehicles  with ultra low or zero emission vehicles. At a minimum,  new City vehicles shall be low emission vehicles as defined  by the California Air Resources Board, except if certain  vehicle types are not available in the marketplace. Public  safety vehicles are exempted from this requirement.  Not Applicable.  This is a City requirement for City  vehicles to be ultra low to zero emissions vehicles,  which is not a part of the project.  INF Goal 3.0: Ensure adequate maintenance of public  rights‐of‐way to enhance public safety and improve  circulation.  Not Applicable. This is a City requirement, however  the project does provide adequate rights‐of‐way.  Policy 3.4: Investigate the feasibility of using energy‐ efficient street lights to conserve energy.  Consistent. All street lights installed as part of the  project will use energy efficient lights.  INF Goal 4.0: Ensure adequate provision of electricity,  natural gas, telephone and data services and cable  television.  Consistent.  The proposed project has been designed  to ensure adequate capacity of electricity, natural gas,  data and cable television can be supplied to the  project.  Policy 4.4: Encourage integrated and cost‐effective design  and technology features within new development to  minimize demands on dry utility networks.  Consistent.  The proposed project will be constructed  using the most current design and technologies for  dry utility networks.  Source: City of Orange, 2010.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 74    As shown in Table S, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable energy‐related policies  provided in the City’s General Plan.  Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct  a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.  Level of Significance   Less than significant impact.  10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions  The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a  significant impact on the environment.  The proposed project would consist of development of 22 single‐ family homes.  The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy  usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment. The project’s GHG  emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model based on the construction and operational  parameters detailed above in Section 8.1.  A summary of the results is shown below in Table T and the  CalEEMod model run is provided in Appendix C.  Table T – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions   Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)  Category CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e  Area Sources1 5.66 0.00 0.00 5.70  Energy Usage2 47.35 0.00 0.00 47.59  Mobile Sources3 261.02 0.01 0.00 261.29  Solid Waste4 2.62 0.15 0.00 6.50  Water and Wastewater5 8.13 0.04 0.00 9.35  Construction6 23.54 0.00 0.00 23.66  Total GHG Emissions 348.32 0.20 0.00 354.09  SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000  Exceed Thresholds? No  Notes:  1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, hearths, and landscaping equipment.  2 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage.   3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles.  4 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills.  5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater.  6 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009.  Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.    The data provided in Table T shows that the proposed project would create 354.09 MTCO2e per year.   According to the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance detailed above in Section 9.6, a cumulative global  climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on‐going operations would  exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year.  Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions  would occur from development of the proposed project.  Impacts would be less than significant.    Level of Significance   Less than significant impact.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 75    10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency  The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency  adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.   The applicable plan for the proposed project is the  City of Orange 2010 General Plan, where the Natural Resources Element includes the following goals and  policies related to reducing GHG emissions and responding to climate changes:  GOAL 3.0: Prepare for and adapt to eh effects of climate change and promote practices that  decrease the City’s contribution to climate change.  Policy 3.1: Evaluate the potential effects of climate change on the City’s human and natural systems  and prepare strategies that allow the City to appropriately respond and adapt.  Policy 3.2: Develop and adopt a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gasses (GHGs) within  Orange by at least 15 percent from current levels by 2020.  The proposed project would be consistent with the current General Plan Land Use Element designations  for the project site of Low Density Residential (LDR) and will preserve the adjacent land use designations  of “Resource Area” and “Open Space”.  Thus, the project would help preserve areas of the City designated  for “Resource Area” and “Open Space,” which would be consistent with Goal 3.0 to decrease the City’s  contribution to climate change. In other words, by preserving a majority of the surrounding area as open  space and recreational uses, the project would avoid additional GHG emissions from those areas and  provide alternative transportation and recreational opportunities to the proposed and nearby existing  residents through development of a trail along Santiago Creek. Furthermore, the project site is located in  an infill area, which would add residential density to the local area. The increased density of the local  neighborhood would help support the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) regional  land use and transportation GHG reduction goals mandated by SB 375, which relies on additional  residential density coupled with nearby amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage  alternative modes of transportation.  Given that the project would comply with the land use designations of the project site, increase residential  density in a developed area, and preserve open space and recreational land—which would reduce GHG  emissions produced on those areas—the project would be consistent with the goals and policies adopted  for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs contained within the City’s General Plan. Furthermore,  as detailed in Section 10.8 the project’s combined long‐term operational and amortized construction GHG  emission of 354.09 MTCO2e per year would be well below the applicable SCAQMD threshold of  significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.   As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the  climate change goals and policies in the City of Orange 2020 General Plan and would not conflict with the  applicable plan adopted for reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.   Level of Significance  Less than significant impact.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 76    11.0 REFERENCES    Breeze Software, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2.  California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk  Assessment Guidelines, November 1997.  California Air Resources Board, 2017 Off‐Road Diesel Emission Factor Update for NOx and PM, 2017.  California Air Resources Board, Appendix VII Risk Characterization Scenarios, October 2000.  California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.  California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, May 2014.  California Air Resources Board, Resolution 08‐43, December 12, 2008.  California Air Resources Board, Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for  Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act, on October 24, 2008.  California Air Resources Board, Final Staff Report Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission  Reduction Targets, October 2017.  California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition.  California Department of Conservation, A General Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More  Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August, 2000.  City of Orange, City of Orange General Plan, March 9, 2010.  City of Orange, Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, March, 2010.  City of Orange, City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006.  City of Orange, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Analysis – Interim Guidance, September 30, 2008.  Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Major New Source Review Implementation Under 8‐ Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Reconsideration, June 30, 2005.  Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990‐2016.   FirstCarbon Solutions, Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Trails at Santiago Creek Specific  Plan City of Orange, Orange County, California State Clearinghouse No: 2017031020, November 14, 2018  Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk  Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015  South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June 1, 2007.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 77    South Coast Air Quality Management District, Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod, February  2011.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, December, 2012.   South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March, 2017.   South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised  July 2008.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Draft – 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan Los  Angeles County, May 4, 2012.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 402 Nuisance, Adopted May 7, 1976.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, Amended June 3, 2005.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 445 Wood Burning Devices, Amended May 3, 2013.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108 Cutback Asphalt, Amended February 1, 1985.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108.1 Emulsified Asphalt, Amended November 4,  1983.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, Amended September 6,  2013.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi‐Purpose  Solvents, Amended December 3, 2010.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South  Coast Air Basin, MATES III, January 2008.  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South  Coast Air Basin, MATES‐IV, October 2014.  Southern California Association of Governments, 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable  Communities Strategy, April 2016.  Southern California Association of Governments, 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program  (FTIP) Guidelines, September 2018.  University of California, Davis, Transportation Project‐Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997.  U.S. Geological Survey, Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural  Occurrences of Asbestos in California, 2011.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Appendix  A        APPENDIX A    CalEEMod Model Daily Printouts      1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Asphalt Surfaces 48.00 1000sqft 1.10 48,000.00 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 132.00 1000sqft 3.03 132,000.00 0 Single Family Housing 22.00 Dwelling Unit 6.77 39,600.00 63 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2022Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 Orange County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 1 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total project site 10.9 acres Construction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by applicant Off-road Equipment - A CAT 637K Scraper was added to Grading Phase to account for import of dirt to project site (860 hp for 6 hp) Trips and VMT - 6 Vendor trucks added to Site Prep & Grading to account for Water Trucks On-road Fugitive Dust - Grading - Vehicle Trips - Weekday trips set to 9.44 per SFH from TIA Woodstoves - Per SCAQMD Rule 445 natural gas only fireplaces Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Per MM AIR-1c, water exposed area 3x per day selected Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Improve Pedestrian Network onsite and connecting offsite Energy Mitigation - To account for 2019 Title 24 Part 6 Standards, Exceed Title 24 by 7% and provide 117,259 kWh of onsite PV solar panels Water Mitigation - To account for Title 24 Part 11 requirements, Install Low-Flow fixtures and Use Water-Efficient Irrigation Systems selected Waste Mitigation - To account for AB 341 50% reduction in solid waste selected CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 2 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 0.5 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFireplaces NumberGas 18.70 22.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 2.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.10 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 97.50 195.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.14 6.77 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 367.00 860.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.44 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.10 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.10 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 3 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2902 47.0129 31.7297 0.0659 18.3058 2.0469 20.3527 9.9951 1.8832 11.8783 0.0000 6,410.323 6 6,410.323 6 1.9606 0.0000 6,459.339 3 2022 15.1548 18.6220 19.5308 0.0433 1.1434 0.8204 1.9638 0.3078 0.7718 1.0797 0.0000 4,257.1110 4,257.1110 0.7171 0.0000 4,274.472 7 Maximum 15.1548 47.0129 31.7297 0.0659 18.3058 2.0469 20.3527 9.9951 1.8832 11.8783 0.0000 6,410.323 6 6,410.323 6 1.9606 0.0000 6,459.339 3 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2902 47.0129 31.7297 0.0659 7.2854 2.0469 9.3323 3.9374 1.8832 5.8206 0.0000 6,410.323 6 6,410.323 6 1.9606 0.0000 6,459.339 3 2022 15.1548 18.6220 19.5308 0.0433 1.1434 0.8204 1.9638 0.3078 0.7718 1.0797 0.0000 4,257.1110 4,257.1110 0.7171 0.0000 4,274.472 7 Maximum 15.1548 47.0129 31.7297 0.0659 7.2854 2.0469 9.3323 3.9374 1.8832 5.8206 0.0000 6,410.323 6 6,410.323 6 1.9606 0.0000 6,459.339 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.66 0.00 49.38 58.80 0.00 46.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 4 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Energy 0.0168 0.1433 0.0610 9.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 182.9841 182.9841 3.5100e- 003 3.3500e- 003 184.0714 Mobile 0.3225 1.2950 4.4193 0.0173 1.5804 0.0123 1.5927 0.4226 0.0114 0.4341 1,758.240 4 1,758.240 4 0.0696 1,759.980 8 Total 1.3680 1.8244 6.4710 0.0207 1.5804 0.0635 1.6439 0.4226 0.0626 0.4853 0.0000 2,410.414 4 2,410.414 4 0.0853 0.0119 2,416.092 1 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Energy 0.0159 0.1355 0.0576 8.6000e- 004 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 172.9132 172.9132 3.3100e- 003 3.1700e- 003 173.9407 Mobile 0.3198 1.2796 4.3445 0.0170 1.5488 0.0121 1.5609 0.4142 0.0112 0.4254 1,724.466 9 1,724.466 9 0.0684 1,726.177 1 Total 1.3644 1.8011 6.3928 0.0203 1.5488 0.0626 1.6114 0.4142 0.0618 0.4760 0.0000 2,366.570 0 2,366.570 0 0.0839 0.0117 2,372.157 6 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 5 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2021 6/14/2021 5 10 2 Grading Grading 6/15/2021 7/26/2021 5 30 3 Building Construction Building Construction 7/27/2021 9/19/2022 5 300 4 Paving Paving 9/20/2022 10/17/2022 5 20 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/18/2022 11/14/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.26 1.28 1.21 1.84 2.00 1.35 1.98 2.00 1.34 1.92 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.65 1.51 1.82 Residential Indoor: 80,190; Residential Outdoor: 26,730; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 10,800 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 195 Acres of Paving: 4.13 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 6 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Scrapers 1 6.00 860 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7 18.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 9 23.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 84.00 32.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 17.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 7 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 8 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0160 0.5629 0.1527 1.4800e- 003 0.0383 1.1700e- 003 0.0395 0.0110 1.1200e- 003 0.0122 161.2755 161.2755 0.0127 161.5917 Worker 0.0650 0.0393 0.5467 1.9000e- 003 0.2012 1.3000e- 003 0.2025 0.0534 1.2000e- 003 0.0546 189.3950 189.3950 4.0600e- 003 189.4963 Total 0.0810 0.6022 0.6994 3.3800e- 003 0.2395 2.4700e- 003 0.2420 0.0644 2.3200e- 003 0.0667 350.6705 350.6705 0.0167 351.0880 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 7.0458 0.0000 7.0458 3.8730 0.0000 3.8730 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 7.0458 2.0445 9.0903 3.8730 1.8809 5.7539 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 9 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0160 0.5629 0.1527 1.4800e- 003 0.0383 1.1700e- 003 0.0395 0.0110 1.1200e- 003 0.0122 161.2755 161.2755 0.0127 161.5917 Worker 0.0650 0.0393 0.5467 1.9000e- 003 0.2012 1.3000e- 003 0.2025 0.0534 1.2000e- 003 0.0546 189.3950 189.3950 4.0600e- 003 189.4963 Total 0.0810 0.6022 0.6994 3.3800e- 003 0.2395 2.4700e- 003 0.2420 0.0644 2.3200e- 003 0.0667 350.6705 350.6705 0.0167 351.0880 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 12.9153 0.0000 12.9153 4.0545 0.0000 4.0545 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 12.9153 1.9853 14.9007 4.0545 1.8265 5.8811 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 10 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0160 0.5629 0.1527 1.4800e- 003 0.0383 1.1700e- 003 0.0395 0.0110 1.1200e- 003 0.0122 161.2755 161.2755 0.0127 161.5917 Worker 0.0830 0.0502 0.6986 2.4300e- 003 0.2571 1.6600e- 003 0.2588 0.0682 1.5300e- 003 0.0697 242.0047 242.0047 5.1800e- 003 242.1342 Total 0.0990 0.6131 0.8512 3.9100e- 003 0.2954 2.8300e- 003 0.2983 0.0792 2.6500e- 003 0.0819 403.2802 403.2802 0.0178 403.7259 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.0370 0.0000 5.0370 1.5813 0.0000 1.5813 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 5.0370 1.9853 7.0223 1.5813 1.8265 3.4078 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 11 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0160 0.5629 0.1527 1.4800e- 003 0.0383 1.1700e- 003 0.0395 0.0110 1.1200e- 003 0.0122 161.2755 161.2755 0.0127 161.5917 Worker 0.0830 0.0502 0.6986 2.4300e- 003 0.2571 1.6600e- 003 0.2588 0.0682 1.5300e- 003 0.0697 242.0047 242.0047 5.1800e- 003 242.1342 Total 0.0990 0.6131 0.8512 3.9100e- 003 0.2954 2.8300e- 003 0.2983 0.0792 2.6500e- 003 0.0819 403.2802 403.2802 0.0178 403.7259 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363 9 0.6160 2,568.764 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363 9 0.6160 2,568.764 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 12 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0854 3.0021 0.8142 7.8900e- 003 0.2045 6.2400e- 003 0.2107 0.0588 5.9600e- 003 0.0648 860.1360 860.1360 0.0675 861.8222 Worker 0.3032 0.1835 2.5513 8.8600e- 003 0.9389 6.0800e- 003 0.9450 0.2490 5.6000e- 003 0.2546 883.8431 883.8431 0.0189 884.3163 Total 0.3886 3.1855 3.3655 0.0168 1.1434 0.0123 1.1557 0.3078 0.0116 0.3194 1,743.979 1 1,743.979 1 0.0864 1,746.138 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363 9 0.6160 2,568.764 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363 9 0.6160 2,568.764 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 13 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0854 3.0021 0.8142 7.8900e- 003 0.2045 6.2400e- 003 0.2107 0.0588 5.9600e- 003 0.0648 860.1360 860.1360 0.0675 861.8222 Worker 0.3032 0.1835 2.5513 8.8600e- 003 0.9389 6.0800e- 003 0.9450 0.2490 5.6000e- 003 0.2546 883.8431 883.8431 0.0189 884.3163 Total 0.3886 3.1855 3.3655 0.0168 1.1434 0.0123 1.1557 0.3078 0.0116 0.3194 1,743.979 1 1,743.979 1 0.0864 1,746.138 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 14 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0803 2.8402 0.7862 7.8000e- 003 0.2045 5.4200e- 003 0.2099 0.0588 5.1900e- 003 0.0640 851.6884 851.6884 0.0653 853.3217 Worker 0.2865 0.1662 2.3812 8.5300e- 003 0.9389 5.9600e- 003 0.9449 0.2490 5.4900e- 003 0.2545 851.0890 851.0890 0.0172 851.5188 Total 0.3668 3.0064 3.1674 0.0163 1.1434 0.0114 1.1548 0.3078 0.0107 0.3185 1,702.777 4 1,702.777 4 0.0825 1,704.840 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 15 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0803 2.8402 0.7862 7.8000e- 003 0.2045 5.4200e- 003 0.2099 0.0588 5.1900e- 003 0.0640 851.6884 851.6884 0.0653 853.3217 Worker 0.2865 0.1662 2.3812 8.5300e- 003 0.9389 5.9600e- 003 0.9449 0.2490 5.4900e- 003 0.2545 851.0890 851.0890 0.0172 851.5188 Total 0.3668 3.0064 3.1674 0.0163 1.1434 0.0114 1.1548 0.3078 0.0107 0.3185 1,702.777 4 1,702.777 4 0.0825 1,704.840 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Paving 0.1441 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2469 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 16 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0512 0.0297 0.4252 1.5200e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 151.9802 151.9802 3.0700e- 003 152.0569 Total 0.0512 0.0297 0.4252 1.5200e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 151.9802 151.9802 3.0700e- 003 152.0569 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Paving 0.1441 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2469 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 17 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0512 0.0297 0.4252 1.5200e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 151.9802 151.9802 3.0700e- 003 152.0569 Total 0.0512 0.0297 0.4252 1.5200e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 151.9802 151.9802 3.0700e- 003 152.0569 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 14.8923 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 15.0968 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 18 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0580 0.0336 0.4819 1.7300e- 003 0.1900 1.2100e- 003 0.1912 0.0504 1.1100e- 003 0.0515 172.2442 172.2442 3.4800e- 003 172.3312 Total 0.0580 0.0336 0.4819 1.7300e- 003 0.1900 1.2100e- 003 0.1912 0.0504 1.1100e- 003 0.0515 172.2442 172.2442 3.4800e- 003 172.3312 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 14.8923 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 15.0968 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 19 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Improve Pedestrian Network 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0580 0.0336 0.4819 1.7300e- 003 0.1900 1.2100e- 003 0.1912 0.0504 1.1100e- 003 0.0515 172.2442 172.2442 3.4800e- 003 172.3312 Total 0.0580 0.0336 0.4819 1.7300e- 003 0.1900 1.2100e- 003 0.1912 0.0504 1.1100e- 003 0.0515 172.2442 172.2442 3.4800e- 003 172.3312 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 20 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.3198 1.2796 4.3445 0.0170 1.5488 0.0121 1.5609 0.4142 0.0112 0.4254 1,724.466 9 1,724.466 9 0.0684 1,726.177 1 Unmitigated 0.3225 1.2950 4.4193 0.0173 1.5804 0.0123 1.5927 0.4226 0.0114 0.4341 1,758.240 4 1,758.240 4 0.0696 1,759.980 8 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Single Family Housing 207.68 218.02 189.64 705,915 691,797 Total 207.68 218.02 189.64 705,915 691,797 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Single Family Housing 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 21 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0159 0.1355 0.0576 8.6000e- 004 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 172.9132 172.9132 3.3100e- 003 3.1700e- 003 173.9407 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0168 0.1433 0.0610 9.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 182.9841 182.9841 3.5100e- 003 3.3500e- 003 184.0714 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Single Family Housing 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 22 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 1555.36 0.0168 0.1433 0.0610 9.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 182.9841 182.9841 3.5100e- 003 3.3500e- 003 184.0714 Total 0.0168 0.1433 0.0610 9.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 182.9841 182.9841 3.5100e- 003 3.3500e- 003 184.0714 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 1.46976 0.0159 0.1355 0.0576 8.6000e- 004 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 172.9132 172.9132 3.3100e- 003 3.1700e- 003 173.9407 Total 0.0159 0.1355 0.0576 8.6000e- 004 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 172.9132 172.9132 3.3100e- 003 3.1700e- 003 173.9407 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 23 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Unmitigated 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 24 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.0816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.8478 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0427 0.3649 0.1553 2.3300e- 003 0.0295 0.0295 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 465.8824 465.8824 8.9300e- 003 8.5400e- 003 468.6509 Landscaping 0.0566 0.0211 1.8354 1.0000e- 004 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 3.3076 3.3076 3.2600e- 003 3.3890 Total 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 25 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.0816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.8478 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0427 0.3649 0.1553 2.3300e- 003 0.0295 0.0295 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 465.8824 465.8824 8.9300e- 003 8.5400e- 003 468.6509 Landscaping 0.0566 0.0211 1.8354 1.0000e- 004 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 3.3076 3.3076 3.2600e- 003 3.3890 Total 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 26 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer Institute Recycling and Composting Services 11.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 27 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Asphalt Surfaces 48.00 1000sqft 1.10 48,000.00 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 132.00 1000sqft 3.03 132,000.00 0 Single Family Housing 22.00 Dwelling Unit 6.77 39,600.00 63 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2022Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 Orange County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 1 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total project site 10.9 acres Construction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by applicant Off-road Equipment - A CAT 637K Scraper was added to Grading Phase to account for import of dirt to project site (860 hp for 6 hp) Trips and VMT - 6 Vendor trucks added to Site Prep & Grading to account for Water Trucks On-road Fugitive Dust - Grading - Vehicle Trips - Weekday trips set to 9.44 per SFH from TIA Woodstoves - Per SCAQMD Rule 445 natural gas only fireplaces Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Per MM AIR-1c, water exposed area 3x per day selected Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Improve Pedestrian Network onsite and connecting offsite Energy Mitigation - To account for 2019 Title 24 Part 6 Standards, Exceed Title 24 by 7% and provide 117,259 kWh of onsite PV solar panels Water Mitigation - To account for Title 24 Part 11 requirements, Install Low-Flow fixtures and Use Water-Efficient Irrigation Systems selected Waste Mitigation - To account for AB 341 50% reduction in solid waste selected CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 2 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 0.5 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFireplaces NumberGas 18.70 22.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 2.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.10 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 97.50 195.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.14 6.77 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 367.00 860.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.44 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.10 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.10 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 3 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.3020 47.0166 31.6906 0.0658 18.3058 2.0470 20.3528 9.9951 1.8833 11.8783 0.0000 6,393.398 2 6,393.398 2 1.9610 0.0000 6,442.422 5 2022 15.1626 18.6298 19.4185 0.0426 1.1434 0.8206 1.9640 0.3078 0.7720 1.0799 0.0000 4,190.561 5 4,190.561 5 0.7169 0.0000 4,207.976 4 Maximum 15.1626 47.0166 31.6906 0.0658 18.3058 2.0470 20.3528 9.9951 1.8833 11.8783 0.0000 6,393.398 2 6,393.398 2 1.9610 0.0000 6,442.422 5 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.3020 47.0166 31.6906 0.0658 7.2854 2.0470 9.3324 3.9374 1.8833 5.8206 0.0000 6,393.398 2 6,393.398 2 1.9610 0.0000 6,442.422 5 2022 15.1626 18.6298 19.4185 0.0426 1.1434 0.8206 1.9640 0.3078 0.7720 1.0799 0.0000 4,190.561 5 4,190.561 5 0.7169 0.0000 4,207.976 4 Maximum 15.1626 47.0166 31.6906 0.0658 7.2854 2.0470 9.3324 3.9374 1.8833 5.8206 0.0000 6,393.398 2 6,393.398 2 1.9610 0.0000 6,442.422 5 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.66 0.00 49.38 58.80 0.00 46.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 4 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Energy 0.0168 0.1433 0.0610 9.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 182.9841 182.9841 3.5100e- 003 3.3500e- 003 184.0714 Mobile 0.3169 1.3322 4.2142 0.0165 1.5804 0.0123 1.5927 0.4226 0.0115 0.4341 1,680.726 2 1,680.726 2 0.0693 1,682.459 6 Total 1.3624 1.8616 6.2659 0.0199 1.5804 0.0635 1.6439 0.4226 0.0627 0.4853 0.0000 2,332.900 1 2,332.900 1 0.0850 0.0119 2,338.570 9 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Energy 0.0159 0.1355 0.0576 8.6000e- 004 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 172.9132 172.9132 3.3100e- 003 3.1700e- 003 173.9407 Mobile 0.3143 1.3159 4.1459 0.0162 1.5488 0.0121 1.5609 0.4142 0.0113 0.4254 1,648.402 4 1,648.402 4 0.0682 1,650.106 3 Total 1.3589 1.8374 6.1942 0.0195 1.5488 0.0627 1.6115 0.4142 0.0618 0.4760 0.0000 2,290.505 4 2,290.505 4 0.0837 0.0117 2,296.086 8 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 5 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2021 6/14/2021 5 10 2 Grading Grading 6/15/2021 7/26/2021 5 30 3 Building Construction Building Construction 7/27/2021 9/19/2022 5 300 4 Paving Paving 9/20/2022 10/17/2022 5 20 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/18/2022 11/14/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.26 1.30 1.14 1.86 2.00 1.35 1.98 2.00 1.36 1.92 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.62 1.51 1.82 Residential Indoor: 80,190; Residential Outdoor: 26,730; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 10,800 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 195 Acres of Paving: 4.13 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 6 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Scrapers 1 6.00 860 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7 18.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 9 23.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 84.00 32.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 17.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 7 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 8 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.5616 0.1675 1.4400e- 003 0.0383 1.2100e- 003 0.0396 0.0110 1.1600e- 003 0.0122 157.3134 157.3134 0.0133 157.6450 Worker 0.0736 0.0432 0.5045 1.8000e- 003 0.2012 1.3000e- 003 0.2025 0.0534 1.2000e- 003 0.0546 179.2498 179.2498 3.8400e- 003 179.3458 Total 0.0904 0.6048 0.6720 3.2400e- 003 0.2395 2.5100e- 003 0.2421 0.0644 2.3600e- 003 0.0668 336.5632 336.5632 0.0171 336.9908 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 7.0458 0.0000 7.0458 3.8730 0.0000 3.8730 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 7.0458 2.0445 9.0903 3.8730 1.8809 5.7539 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 9 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.5616 0.1675 1.4400e- 003 0.0383 1.2100e- 003 0.0396 0.0110 1.1600e- 003 0.0122 157.3134 157.3134 0.0133 157.6450 Worker 0.0736 0.0432 0.5045 1.8000e- 003 0.2012 1.3000e- 003 0.2025 0.0534 1.2000e- 003 0.0546 179.2498 179.2498 3.8400e- 003 179.3458 Total 0.0904 0.6048 0.6720 3.2400e- 003 0.2395 2.5100e- 003 0.2421 0.0644 2.3600e- 003 0.0668 336.5632 336.5632 0.0171 336.9908 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 12.9153 0.0000 12.9153 4.0545 0.0000 4.0545 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 12.9153 1.9853 14.9007 4.0545 1.8265 5.8811 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 10 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.5616 0.1675 1.4400e- 003 0.0383 1.2100e- 003 0.0396 0.0110 1.1600e- 003 0.0122 157.3134 157.3134 0.0133 157.6450 Worker 0.0940 0.0552 0.6446 2.3000e- 003 0.2571 1.6600e- 003 0.2588 0.0682 1.5300e- 003 0.0697 229.0414 229.0414 4.9000e- 003 229.1640 Total 0.1108 0.6168 0.8121 3.7400e- 003 0.2954 2.8700e- 003 0.2983 0.0792 2.6900e- 003 0.0819 386.3548 386.3548 0.0182 386.8090 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.0370 0.0000 5.0370 1.5813 0.0000 1.5813 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 5.0370 1.9853 7.0223 1.5813 1.8265 3.4078 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 11 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.5616 0.1675 1.4400e- 003 0.0383 1.2100e- 003 0.0396 0.0110 1.1600e- 003 0.0122 157.3134 157.3134 0.0133 157.6450 Worker 0.0940 0.0552 0.6446 2.3000e- 003 0.2571 1.6600e- 003 0.2588 0.0682 1.5300e- 003 0.0697 229.0414 229.0414 4.9000e- 003 229.1640 Total 0.1108 0.6168 0.8121 3.7400e- 003 0.2954 2.8700e- 003 0.2983 0.0792 2.6900e- 003 0.0819 386.3548 386.3548 0.0182 386.8090 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363 9 0.6160 2,568.764 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363 9 0.6160 2,568.764 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 12 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0896 2.9950 0.8932 7.7000e- 003 0.2045 6.4700e- 003 0.2109 0.0588 6.1900e- 003 0.0650 839.0048 839.0048 0.0707 840.7734 Worker 0.3433 0.2016 2.3543 8.3900e- 003 0.9389 6.0800e- 003 0.9450 0.2490 5.6000e- 003 0.2546 836.4990 836.4990 0.0179 836.9469 Total 0.4329 3.1966 3.2475 0.0161 1.1434 0.0126 1.1559 0.3078 0.0118 0.3196 1,675.503 8 1,675.503 8 0.0887 1,677.720 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363 9 0.6160 2,568.764 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363 9 0.6160 2,568.764 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 13 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0896 2.9950 0.8932 7.7000e- 003 0.2045 6.4700e- 003 0.2109 0.0588 6.1900e- 003 0.0650 839.0048 839.0048 0.0707 840.7734 Worker 0.3433 0.2016 2.3543 8.3900e- 003 0.9389 6.0800e- 003 0.9450 0.2490 5.6000e- 003 0.2546 836.4990 836.4990 0.0179 836.9469 Total 0.4329 3.1966 3.2475 0.0161 1.1434 0.0126 1.1559 0.3078 0.0118 0.3196 1,675.503 8 1,675.503 8 0.0887 1,677.720 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 14 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0843 2.8315 0.8612 7.6100e- 003 0.2045 5.6300e- 003 0.2101 0.0588 5.3900e- 003 0.0642 830.6857 830.6857 0.0684 832.3957 Worker 0.3253 0.1826 2.1939 8.0800e- 003 0.9389 5.9600e- 003 0.9449 0.2490 5.4900e- 003 0.2545 805.5422 805.5422 0.0163 805.9486 Total 0.4095 3.0141 3.0551 0.0157 1.1434 0.0116 1.1550 0.3078 0.0109 0.3187 1,636.227 9 1,636.227 9 0.0847 1,638.344 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 15 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0843 2.8315 0.8612 7.6100e- 003 0.2045 5.6300e- 003 0.2101 0.0588 5.3900e- 003 0.0642 830.6857 830.6857 0.0684 832.3957 Worker 0.3253 0.1826 2.1939 8.0800e- 003 0.9389 5.9600e- 003 0.9449 0.2490 5.4900e- 003 0.2545 805.5422 805.5422 0.0163 805.9486 Total 0.4095 3.0141 3.0551 0.0157 1.1434 0.0116 1.1550 0.3078 0.0109 0.3187 1,636.227 9 1,636.227 9 0.0847 1,638.344 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Paving 0.1441 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2469 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 16 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0581 0.0326 0.3918 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 143.8468 143.8468 2.9000e- 003 143.9194 Total 0.0581 0.0326 0.3918 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 143.8468 143.8468 2.9000e- 003 143.9194 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Paving 0.1441 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2469 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660 3 0.7140 2,225.510 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 17 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0581 0.0326 0.3918 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 143.8468 143.8468 2.9000e- 003 143.9194 Total 0.0581 0.0326 0.3918 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 143.8468 143.8468 2.9000e- 003 143.9194 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 14.8923 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 15.0968 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 18 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0658 0.0370 0.4440 1.6300e- 003 0.1900 1.2100e- 003 0.1912 0.0504 1.1100e- 003 0.0515 163.0264 163.0264 3.2900e- 003 163.1086 Total 0.0658 0.0370 0.4440 1.6300e- 003 0.1900 1.2100e- 003 0.1912 0.0504 1.1100e- 003 0.0515 163.0264 163.0264 3.2900e- 003 163.1086 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 14.8923 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 15.0968 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 19 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Improve Pedestrian Network 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0658 0.0370 0.4440 1.6300e- 003 0.1900 1.2100e- 003 0.1912 0.0504 1.1100e- 003 0.0515 163.0264 163.0264 3.2900e- 003 163.1086 Total 0.0658 0.0370 0.4440 1.6300e- 003 0.1900 1.2100e- 003 0.1912 0.0504 1.1100e- 003 0.0515 163.0264 163.0264 3.2900e- 003 163.1086 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 20 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.3143 1.3159 4.1459 0.0162 1.5488 0.0121 1.5609 0.4142 0.0113 0.4254 1,648.402 4 1,648.402 4 0.0682 1,650.106 3 Unmitigated 0.3169 1.3322 4.2142 0.0165 1.5804 0.0123 1.5927 0.4226 0.0115 0.4341 1,680.726 2 1,680.726 2 0.0693 1,682.459 6 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Single Family Housing 207.68 218.02 189.64 705,915 691,797 Total 207.68 218.02 189.64 705,915 691,797 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Single Family Housing 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 21 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0159 0.1355 0.0576 8.6000e- 004 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 172.9132 172.9132 3.3100e- 003 3.1700e- 003 173.9407 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0168 0.1433 0.0610 9.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 182.9841 182.9841 3.5100e- 003 3.3500e- 003 184.0714 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Single Family Housing 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 22 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 1555.36 0.0168 0.1433 0.0610 9.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 182.9841 182.9841 3.5100e- 003 3.3500e- 003 184.0714 Total 0.0168 0.1433 0.0610 9.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 182.9841 182.9841 3.5100e- 003 3.3500e- 003 184.0714 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 1.46976 0.0159 0.1355 0.0576 8.6000e- 004 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 172.9132 172.9132 3.3100e- 003 3.1700e- 003 173.9407 Total 0.0159 0.1355 0.0576 8.6000e- 004 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 172.9132 172.9132 3.3100e- 003 3.1700e- 003 173.9407 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 23 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Unmitigated 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 24 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.0816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.8478 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0427 0.3649 0.1553 2.3300e- 003 0.0295 0.0295 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 465.8824 465.8824 8.9300e- 003 8.5400e- 003 468.6509 Landscaping 0.0566 0.0211 1.8354 1.0000e- 004 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 3.3076 3.3076 3.2600e- 003 3.3890 Total 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 25 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.0816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.8478 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0427 0.3649 0.1553 2.3300e- 003 0.0295 0.0295 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 465.8824 465.8824 8.9300e- 003 8.5400e- 003 468.6509 Landscaping 0.0566 0.0211 1.8354 1.0000e- 004 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 3.3076 3.3076 3.2600e- 003 3.3890 Total 1.0287 0.3861 1.9907 2.4300e- 003 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 469.1899 469.1899 0.0122 8.5400e- 003 472.0398 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 26 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter Institute Recycling and Composting Services 11.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:52 PMPage 27 of 27 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Winter     Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Appendix  B        APPENDIX B    EMFAC2017 Model Printouts    EMFAC2017 (v1.0.2) Emissions InventoryRegion Type: Air BasinRegion: SOUTH COASTCalendar Year: 2021Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegion Calendar Year Vehicle CatModel Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel ConsumptionSOUTH COA2021 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 81 7629 1628 1.9SOUTH COA2021 LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 6276234 246181276 29647186 8195.8SOUTH COA2021 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 695146 26066042 3200417 1009.6SOUTH COA2021 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 2144804 81991236 10052342 3441.7SOUTH COA2021 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 172430 6230805 2568953 598.1SOUTH COA2021 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 28914 1014315 430773 111.8SOUTH COA2021 MCY Aggregated Aggregated GAS 279209 1958677 558419 53.9SOUTH COA2021 MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 1520877 54421173 7026646 2808.6SOUTH COA2021 MH Aggregated Aggregated GAS 34556 327721 3457 64.5SOUTH COA2021 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 24684 1325210 493870 264.5SOUTH COA2021 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 5845 246477 116955 49.6SOUTH COA2021 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 2415 98099 9660 10.9SOUTH COA2021 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 944 88729 3776 18.5vehicle miles per day (All Categories) 419957391 16,629          1,000 gall per day16,629,188  gallons per dayFleet Avg Miles per gallon 25.3             EMFAC2017 (v1.0.2) Emissions InventoryRegion Type: Air BasinRegion: SOUTH COASTCalendar Year: 2021Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationVMT Trips Fuel ConsumptionSOUTH COA2021 HHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 96727 11545820 974406 1774SOUTH COA2021 LDA AggregatedAggregatedDSL 53710 2185239 254840 46SOUTH COA2021 LDT1 AggregatedAggregatedDSL 406 9520 1420 0SOUTH COA2021 LDT2 AggregatedAggregatedDSL 12472 548394 61718 16SOUTH COA2021 LHDT1 AggregatedAggregatedDSL 109610 4489670 1378756 211SOUTH COA2021 LHDT2 AggregatedAggregatedDSL 43242 1730629 543933 90SOUTH COA2021 MDV AggregatedAggregatedDSL 29604 1222112 145605 46SOUTH COA2021 MH AggregatedAggregatedDSL 11829 115366 1183 11SOUTH COA2021 MHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 119075 7535147 1192855 727SOUTH COA2021 OBUS AggregatedAggregatedDSL 4131 308887 40390 38SOUTH COA2021 SBUS AggregatedAggregatedDSL 6314 199477 72863 27SOUTH COA2021 UBUS AggregatedAggregatedDSL 14 1478 57 0Diesel Truck (HHDT, MDV, MHDT) vehicle miles per day 20,303,080  2,548         1,000 gall per day2,547,681  gallons per dayDiesel Truck Fleet Avg Miles per gallon 8.0                     Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Appendix  C        APPENDIX C    CalEEMod Model Annual Printouts                1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Asphalt Surfaces 48.00 1000sqft 1.10 48,000.00 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 132.00 1000sqft 3.03 132,000.00 0 Single Family Housing 22.00 Dwelling Unit 6.77 39,600.00 63 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2022Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 Orange County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 1 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total project site 10.9 acres Construction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by applicant Off-road Equipment - A CAT 637K Scraper was added to Grading Phase to account for import of dirt to project site (860 hp for 6 hp) Trips and VMT - 6 Vendor trucks added to Site Prep & Grading to account for Water Trucks On-road Fugitive Dust - Grading - Vehicle Trips - Weekday trips set to 9.44 per SFH from TIA Woodstoves - Per SCAQMD Rule 445 natural gas only fireplaces Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Per MM AIR-1c, water exposed area 3x per day selected Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Improve Pedestrian Network onsite and connecting offsite Energy Mitigation - To account for 2019 Title 24 Part 6 Standards, Exceed Title 24 by 7% and provide 117,259 kWh of onsite PV solar panels Water Mitigation - To account for Title 24 Part 11 requirements, Install Low-Flow fixtures and Use Water-Efficient Irrigation Systems selected Waste Mitigation - To account for AB 341 50% reduction in solid waste selected CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 2 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 0.5 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFireplaces NumberGas 18.70 22.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 2.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.10 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.14 6.77 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 367.00 860.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.44 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.10 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.10 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 3 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.2151 2.0902 1.7157 3.6600e- 003 0.4440 0.0954 0.5394 0.1789 0.0889 0.2678 0.0000 325.3126 325.3126 0.0685 0.0000 327.0257 2022 0.3579 1.8637 1.9802 4.2700e- 003 0.1080 0.0828 0.1908 0.0291 0.0779 0.1070 0.0000 381.0210 381.0210 0.0654 0.0000 382.6547 Maximum 0.3579 2.0902 1.9802 4.2700e- 003 0.4440 0.0954 0.5394 0.1789 0.0889 0.2678 0.0000 381.0210 381.0210 0.0685 0.0000 382.6547 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.2151 2.0902 1.7157 3.6600e- 003 0.2156 0.0954 0.3110 0.0812 0.0889 0.1701 0.0000 325.3124 325.3124 0.0685 0.0000 327.0254 2022 0.3579 1.8637 1.9802 4.2700e- 003 0.1080 0.0828 0.1908 0.0291 0.0779 0.1070 0.0000 381.0207 381.0207 0.0654 0.0000 382.6544 Maximum 0.3579 2.0902 1.9802 4.2700e- 003 0.2156 0.0954 0.3110 0.0812 0.0889 0.1701 0.0000 381.0207 381.0207 0.0685 0.0000 382.6544 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.37 0.00 31.28 46.96 0.00 26.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 4 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1772 7.2000e- 003 0.2314 4.0000e- 005 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 5.6581 5.6581 4.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6987 Energy 3.0600e- 003 0.0262 0.0111 1.7000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 86.5024 86.5024 2.9000e- 003 1.0400e- 003 86.8835 Mobile 0.0531 0.2337 0.7370 2.8900e- 003 0.2677 2.1200e- 003 0.2699 0.0717 1.9700e- 003 0.0737 0.0000 266.1363 266.1363 0.0108 0.0000 266.4068 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2433 0.0000 5.2433 0.3099 0.0000 12.9900 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4548 9.1456 9.6004 0.0471 1.1800e- 003 11.1294 Total 0.2334 0.2670 0.9795 3.1000e- 003 0.2677 5.8600e- 003 0.2736 0.0717 5.7100e- 003 0.0774 5.6980 367.4425 373.1405 0.3711 2.3200e- 003 383.1084 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 6-1-2021 8-31-2021 1.2894 1.2894 2 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 0.7457 0.7457 3 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 0.6914 0.6914 4 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.6805 0.6805 5 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.6800 0.6800 6 9-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.1894 0.1894 Highest 1.2894 1.2894 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 5 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1772 7.2000e- 003 0.2314 4.0000e- 005 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 5.6581 5.6581 4.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6987 Energy 2.8900e- 003 0.0247 0.0105 1.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 0.0000 47.3493 47.3493 1.3200e- 003 6.8000e- 004 47.5864 Mobile 0.0527 0.2308 0.7249 2.8300e- 003 0.2624 2.0800e- 003 0.2645 0.0703 1.9400e- 003 0.0722 0.0000 261.0244 261.0244 0.0106 0.0000 261.2903 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6216 0.0000 2.6216 0.1549 0.0000 6.4950 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3638 7.7612 8.1250 0.0377 9.5000e- 004 9.3498 Total 0.2328 0.2627 0.9668 3.0300e- 003 0.2624 5.7100e- 003 0.2681 0.0703 5.5700e- 003 0.0758 2.9854 321.7930 324.7784 0.2050 1.7300e- 003 330.4201 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.27 1.61 1.30 2.26 2.00 2.56 2.01 1.99 2.45 2.04 47.61 12.42 12.96 44.75 25.43 13.75 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 6 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2021 6/14/2021 5 10 2 Grading Grading 6/15/2021 7/26/2021 5 30 3 Building Construction Building Construction 7/27/2021 9/19/2022 5 300 4 Paving Paving 9/20/2022 10/17/2022 5 20 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/18/2022 11/14/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 80,190; Residential Outdoor: 26,730; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 10,800 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 195 Acres of Paving: 4.13 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 7 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Scrapers 1 6.00 860 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7 18.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 9 23.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 84.00 32.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 17.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 8 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 004 0.0102 0.0102 9.4000e- 003 9.4000e- 003 0.0000 16.7179 16.7179 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 16.8530 Total 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 004 0.0903 0.0102 0.1006 0.0497 9.4000e- 003 0.0591 0.0000 16.7179 16.7179 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 16.8530 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 9 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 8.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7240 0.7240 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7255 Worker 3.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.5900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.8255 0.8255 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8259 Total 4.1000e- 004 3.0800e- 003 3.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.1800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.1800e- 003 3.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.5495 1.5495 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5514 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0352 0.0000 0.0352 0.0194 0.0000 0.0194 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 004 0.0102 0.0102 9.4000e- 003 9.4000e- 003 0.0000 16.7178 16.7178 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 16.8530 Total 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 004 0.0352 0.0102 0.0455 0.0194 9.4000e- 003 0.0288 0.0000 16.7178 16.7178 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 16.8530 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 10 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 8.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7240 0.7240 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7255 Worker 3.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.5900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.8255 0.8255 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8259 Total 4.1000e- 004 3.0800e- 003 3.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.1800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.1800e- 003 3.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.5495 1.5495 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5514 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.2841 0.0000 0.2841 0.1105 0.0000 0.1105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e- 004 0.0298 0.0298 0.0274 0.0274 0.0000 81.7425 81.7425 0.0264 0.0000 82.4034 Total 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e- 004 0.2841 0.0298 0.3138 0.1105 0.0274 0.1379 0.0000 81.7425 81.7425 0.0264 0.0000 82.4034 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 11 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.4000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.1720 2.1720 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.1764 Worker 1.2600e- 003 8.5000e- 004 9.9100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.7900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.8100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 3.1643 3.1643 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.1660 Total 1.5100e- 003 9.4200e- 003 0.0123 5.0000e- 005 4.3600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 4.3900e- 003 1.1700e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 5.3363 5.3363 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 5.3424 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1108 0.0000 0.1108 0.0431 0.0000 0.0431 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e- 004 0.0298 0.0298 0.0274 0.0274 0.0000 81.7424 81.7424 0.0264 0.0000 82.4033 Total 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e- 004 0.1108 0.0298 0.1406 0.0431 0.0274 0.0705 0.0000 81.7424 81.7424 0.0264 0.0000 82.4033 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 12 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.4000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.1720 2.1720 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.1764 Worker 1.2600e- 003 8.5000e- 004 9.9100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.7900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.8100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 3.1643 3.1643 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.1660 Total 1.5100e- 003 9.4200e- 003 0.0123 5.0000e- 005 4.3600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 4.3900e- 003 1.1700e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 5.3363 5.3363 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 5.3424 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1084 0.9936 0.9448 1.5300e- 003 0.0546 0.0546 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 132.0333 132.0333 0.0319 0.0000 132.8296 Total 0.1084 0.9936 0.9448 1.5300e- 003 0.0546 0.0546 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 132.0333 132.0333 0.0319 0.0000 132.8296 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 13 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.9700e- 003 0.1738 0.0487 4.5000e- 004 0.0115 3.6000e- 004 0.0118 3.3100e- 003 3.5000e- 004 3.6600e- 003 0.0000 44.0183 44.0183 3.5600e- 003 0.0000 44.1074 Worker 0.0175 0.0118 0.1376 4.9000e- 004 0.0526 3.5000e- 004 0.0529 0.0140 3.2000e- 004 0.0143 0.0000 43.9150 43.9150 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 43.9386 Total 0.0225 0.1856 0.1863 9.4000e- 004 0.0640 7.1000e- 004 0.0648 0.0173 6.7000e- 004 0.0179 0.0000 87.9333 87.9333 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 88.0459 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1084 0.9936 0.9448 1.5300e- 003 0.0546 0.0546 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 132.0331 132.0331 0.0319 0.0000 132.8294 Total 0.1084 0.9936 0.9448 1.5300e- 003 0.0546 0.0546 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 132.0331 132.0331 0.0319 0.0000 132.8294 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 14 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.9700e- 003 0.1738 0.0487 4.5000e- 004 0.0115 3.6000e- 004 0.0118 3.3100e- 003 3.5000e- 004 3.6600e- 003 0.0000 44.0183 44.0183 3.5600e- 003 0.0000 44.1074 Worker 0.0175 0.0118 0.1376 4.9000e- 004 0.0526 3.5000e- 004 0.0529 0.0140 3.2000e- 004 0.0143 0.0000 43.9150 43.9150 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 43.9386 Total 0.0225 0.1856 0.1863 9.4000e- 004 0.0640 7.1000e- 004 0.0648 0.0173 6.7000e- 004 0.0179 0.0000 87.9333 87.9333 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 88.0459 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1587 1.4523 1.5218 2.5000e- 003 0.0752 0.0752 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 215.5045 215.5045 0.0516 0.0000 216.7952 Total 0.1587 1.4523 1.5218 2.5000e- 003 0.0752 0.0752 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 215.5045 215.5045 0.0516 0.0000 216.7952 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 15 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 7.6300e- 003 0.2680 0.0767 7.2000e- 004 0.0187 5.1000e- 004 0.0193 5.4000e- 003 4.9000e- 004 5.8900e- 003 0.0000 71.1112 71.1112 5.6300e- 003 0.0000 71.2519 Worker 0.0271 0.0174 0.2092 7.6000e- 004 0.0858 5.5000e- 004 0.0863 0.0228 5.1000e- 004 0.0233 0.0000 68.9982 68.9982 1.3900e- 003 0.0000 69.0330 Total 0.0347 0.2854 0.2859 1.4800e- 003 0.1045 1.0600e- 003 0.1056 0.0282 1.0000e- 003 0.0292 0.0000 140.1094 140.1094 7.0200e- 003 0.0000 140.2849 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1587 1.4523 1.5218 2.5000e- 003 0.0752 0.0752 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 215.5042 215.5042 0.0516 0.0000 216.7949 Total 0.1587 1.4523 1.5218 2.5000e- 003 0.0752 0.0752 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 215.5042 215.5042 0.0516 0.0000 216.7949 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 16 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 7.6300e- 003 0.2680 0.0767 7.2000e- 004 0.0187 5.1000e- 004 0.0193 5.4000e- 003 4.9000e- 004 5.8900e- 003 0.0000 71.1112 71.1112 5.6300e- 003 0.0000 71.2519 Worker 0.0271 0.0174 0.2092 7.6000e- 004 0.0858 5.5000e- 004 0.0863 0.0228 5.1000e- 004 0.0233 0.0000 68.9982 68.9982 1.3900e- 003 0.0000 69.0330 Total 0.0347 0.2854 0.2859 1.4800e- 003 0.1045 1.0600e- 003 0.1056 0.0282 1.0000e- 003 0.0292 0.0000 140.1094 140.1094 7.0200e- 003 0.0000 140.2849 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.6800e- 003 5.6800e- 003 5.2200e- 003 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 20.0276 20.0276 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1895 Paving 1.4400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0125 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.6800e- 003 5.6800e- 003 5.2200e- 003 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 20.0276 20.0276 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1895 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 17 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 4.0200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.3249 1.3249 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3255 Total 5.2000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 4.0200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.3249 1.3249 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3255 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.6800e- 003 5.6800e- 003 5.2200e- 003 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 20.0275 20.0275 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1895 Paving 1.4400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0125 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.6800e- 003 5.6800e- 003 5.2200e- 003 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 20.0275 20.0275 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1895 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 18 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 4.0200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.3249 1.3249 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3255 Total 5.2000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 4.0200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.3249 1.3249 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3255 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.1489 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0500e- 003 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Total 0.1510 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 19 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e- 004 3.8000e- 004 4.5500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8800e- 003 5.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.5015 1.5015 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5023 Total 5.9000e- 004 3.8000e- 004 4.5500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8800e- 003 5.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.5015 1.5015 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.1489 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0500e- 003 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Total 0.1510 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 20 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Improve Pedestrian Network 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e- 004 3.8000e- 004 4.5500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8800e- 003 5.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.5015 1.5015 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5023 Total 5.9000e- 004 3.8000e- 004 4.5500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8800e- 003 5.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.5015 1.5015 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 21 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0527 0.2308 0.7249 2.8300e- 003 0.2624 2.0800e- 003 0.2645 0.0703 1.9400e- 003 0.0722 0.0000 261.0244 261.0244 0.0106 0.0000 261.2903 Unmitigated 0.0531 0.2337 0.7370 2.8900e- 003 0.2677 2.1200e- 003 0.2699 0.0717 1.9700e- 003 0.0737 0.0000 266.1363 266.1363 0.0108 0.0000 266.4068 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Single Family Housing 207.68 218.02 189.64 705,915 691,797 Total 207.68 218.02 189.64 705,915 691,797 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Single Family Housing 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 22 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.7216 18.7216 7.7000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 18.7886 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 56.2073 56.2073 2.3200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 56.4084 NaturalGas Mitigated 2.8900e- 003 0.0247 0.0105 1.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 0.0000 28.6277 28.6277 5.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 28.7978 NaturalGas Unmitigated 3.0600e- 003 0.0262 0.0111 1.7000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 30.2951 30.2951 5.8000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 30.4751 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Single Family Housing 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 23 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 567708 3.0600e- 003 0.0262 0.0111 1.7000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 30.2951 30.2951 5.8000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 30.4751 Total 3.0600e- 003 0.0262 0.0111 1.7000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 30.2951 30.2951 5.8000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 30.4751 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 536463 2.8900e- 003 0.0247 0.0105 1.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 0.0000 28.6277 28.6277 5.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 28.7978 Total 2.8900e- 003 0.0247 0.0105 1.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 2.0000e- 003 0.0000 28.6277 28.6277 5.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 28.7978 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 24 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 176408 56.2073 2.3200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 56.4084 Total 56.2073 2.3200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 56.4084 Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt Surfaces -39086.3 -12.4537 -0.0005 -0.0001 -12.4983 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces -39086.3 -12.4537 -0.0005 -0.0001 -12.4983 Single Family Housing 136931 43.6291 1.8000e- 003 3.7000e- 004 43.7852 Total 18.7216 7.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 18.7886 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 25 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.1772 7.2000e- 003 0.2314 4.0000e- 005 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 5.6581 5.6581 4.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6987 Unmitigated 0.1772 7.2000e- 003 0.2314 4.0000e- 005 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 5.6581 5.6581 4.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6987 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 26 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0149 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1547 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 5.3000e- 004 4.5600e- 003 1.9400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 5.2830 5.2830 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.3144 Landscaping 7.0700e- 003 2.6400e- 003 0.2294 1.0000e- 005 1.2600e- 003 1.2600e- 003 1.2600e- 003 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 0.3751 0.3751 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.3843 Total 0.1772 7.2000e- 003 0.2314 4.0000e- 005 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 5.6581 5.6581 4.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6987 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 27 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0149 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1547 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 5.3000e- 004 4.5600e- 003 1.9400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 5.2830 5.2830 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.3144 Landscaping 7.0700e- 003 2.6400e- 003 0.2294 1.0000e- 005 1.2600e- 003 1.2600e- 003 1.2600e- 003 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 0.3751 0.3751 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.3843 Total 0.1772 7.2000e- 003 0.2314 4.0000e- 005 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 5.6581 5.6581 4.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6987 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 28 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 8.1250 0.0377 9.5000e- 004 9.3498 Unmitigated 9.6004 0.0471 1.1800e- 003 11.1294 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 1.43339 / 0.903658 9.6004 0.0471 1.1800e- 003 11.1294 Total 9.6004 0.0471 1.1800e- 003 11.1294 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 29 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 1.14671 / 0.848535 8.1250 0.0377 9.5000e- 004 9.3498 Total 8.1250 0.0377 9.5000e- 004 9.3498 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 30 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 2.6216 0.1549 0.0000 6.4950 Unmitigated 5.2433 0.3099 0.0000 12.9900 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 25.83 5.2433 0.3099 0.0000 12.9900 Total 5.2433 0.3099 0.0000 12.9900 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 31 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family Housing 12.915 2.6216 0.1549 0.0000 6.4950 Total 2.6216 0.1549 0.0000 6.4950 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 32 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/7/2020 7:43 PMPage 33 of 33 Orange Tentative Tract No 18163 - Orange County, Annual THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix B: Supplemental Biological Resources Technical Memorandum THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK June 12, 2020 Chris Nichelson Milan REIX, LLC c/o Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, CA 92802 Subject: Supplemental Biological Resources Technical Memorandum for the Trails at Santiago Creek Project Site, City of Orange, Orange County, California Dear Mr. Nichelson: The following is a supplemental technical memorandum to verify and update existing conditions as presented in the Biological Resources Assessment dated August 20171 (2017 BRA) for the Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan located in the City of Orange, Orange County, California (Figure 1). The Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan EIR, which included a specific plan for a 128-lot development within the larger Specific Plan project area on the south side of Santiago Creek, was approved by the Orange City Council on October 22, 2019. However, local residents opposing the approval placed a referendum on the November 2020 ballot to put the issue to a vote. Should the specific plan approval be overturned and not move forward, there is still an area currently zoned for residential development on the north side of Santiago Creek, along the northern portion of the property. This supplemental technical memorandum evaluates potential impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed development of 22 residential lots within that residentially zoned area, and includes the approximately 11.20-acre area north of Santiago Creek (project site2) that was not previously analyzed in the 2017 BRA. 1.0 Project Description The project proposes the development of 22 new residential units (Project) on 10.9 acres (Figure 2), and would also include open space and landscaping dedication of 4.58 acres along the perimeter of the site and Santiago Creek corridor. The project also includes a storm drain outlet and temporary construction access bridge across Santiago Creek, as shown in Figure 2. The storm drain and temporary construction access bridge were intentionally sited within the most disturbed areas of riparian habitat possible to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources. The Project would be limited to the portion of the site designated for low density residential (LDR), located on the south side of Mabury Avenue at the terminus of Yellowstone Boulevard. The project site lies within the Orange County Central/Coastal Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat 1 Environmental Science Associates (ESA). August 2017. Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan Biological Resources Assessment. Prepared for JMI Properties/Santiago Partners LLC. 2 For purposes of this technical memorandum, “project site” refers to the approximately 10.87-acre area associated with the proposed 22-lot development north of Santiago Creek plus the additional areas for a proposed storm drain outlet (0.04 acre) and the temporary construction access bridge crossing (0.29 acre) for a total area evaluated of 11.20 acres. The “Project” refers to the propos ed 22-lot development and the two ancillary elements. June 12, 2020 Page 2 Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) (Figure 3). The NCCP/HCP provides coverage for certain special-status wildlife species within a particular geographic area that includes the project site. As described in the 2017 BRA, specific project design features (PDF’s) have been incorporated to reduce or avoid potential impacts. The PDF’s that are applicable and/or have been revised specifically for this Project will be adopted in the proposed Project and are listed below.  PDF BIO-1: The proposed Project will permanently retain a landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail located along the perimeter of the site and Santiago Creek corridor.  PDF BIO-2: The majority of the southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest within the project site will be avoided. The project will also avoid the majority of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Regional Water Quality Control Board (USACE/RWQCB) “waters of the U.S./State,” including wetlands, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed and associated riparian habitat. Impacts to jurisdictional features will be limited to 0.02 acre of permanent impact resulting from the installation of a storm drain and 0.13 acre of temporary impact resulting from a temporary construction access bridge.  PDF BIO-3: The proposed Project will avoid the majority of Santiago Creek and its associated native riparian habitat (e.g., southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest) as well as native upland habitat (e.g., coastal sage scrub). This includes sensitive plant communities, including coastal sage scrub, coastal sage scrub/non-native herbaceous cover, southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, blue elderberry scrub, California brittlebush scrub, and yerba santa scrub within and/or adjacent to Santiago Creek.  PDF BIO-4: The proposed Project will provide a landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail adjacent to the southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest within Santiago Creek, which provides habitat for the least Bell’s vireo.  PDF BIO-5: The proposed Project will provide selective landscaping, including native species, within the landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail (to the north of Santiago Creek) that is compatible with the adjacent open space area and its habitat.  PDF BIO-6: The proposed Project establishes development standards in the Specific Plan to reduce sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals) to the adjacent open space area supporting sensitive biological resources (i.e., least Bell’s vireo and sensitive natural communities), as demonstrated in the Biological Development Standards in the table below.  PDF BIO-7: The proposed Project will limit uses within the landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail to passive uses (e.g., trail). June 12, 2020 Page 3 BIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Lighting: The project has been designed to minimize night lighting while remaining compliant with City ordinances related to street lighting. Any necessary lighting adjacent to the open space areas of the project will be shielded or directed away from conserved areas. Noise: The project has been designed to comply with City ordinances related to noise. Short-term construction-related noise impacts will be reduced by the implementation of a number of measures during the breeding season (i.e., March 15 through September 15) including the following: • All construction work shall occur during the daylight hours. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours to be determined by the City. • During all excavation and grading on-site, the construction contractors shall equip construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards to reduce construction equipment noise to the maximum extent possible. To the maximum extent possible that does not lengthen the construction period, the construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors. • The construction contractor shall stage equipment in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. • Noise from construction activities shall be limited to the extent possible through the maximum use of technology available to reduce construction equipment noise. Project- generated noise, both during construction and after the development has been completed, shall be in compliance with the requirements outlined in the City of Orange General Plan Noise Element. Exotic Plant and Animal Infestations: To the maximum extent possible, native plants will be used in the landscape plans for the common areas of the project adjacent to conserved areas. The plant palette will avoid the species listed in the California Invasive Plant Council’s California Invasive Plant Inventory (2006 and 2007). Educational Materials: As a part of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the Homeowners Association (HOA) will be responsible for providing educational materials to the homeowners describing the sensitivity of the avoided habitat areas. Signage will be posted adjacent to the avoided riparian areas and conservation areas to alert the public as to the sensitivity of the habitat. Public trails are designed outside of the riparian area to minimize trespassing. 2.0 Methodology Approach This assessment of biological resources is based on information compiled through field reconnaissance and appropriate reference materials. A general biological survey was conducted in order to verify and/or update previous vegetation mapping, as well as to identify any special-status plant and wildlife species and evaluate the potential for such resources to occur within the Project impact area. In addition, the limits of jurisdictional “waters” and riparian habitat that were determined by the 2017 jurisdictional delineation were verified using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. June 12, 2020 Page 4 Literature Review This assessment of biological resources was conducted in April 2020, and began with a review of the 2017 BRA, 2017 Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report,3 and available literature on the biological resources present within the project site and surrounding vicinity. An updated query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a CDFW species account database, was reviewed for all pertinent information regarding the localities of known observations of sensitive species and habitats in the vicinity of the project site, including the La Habra, Yorba Linda, Prado Dam, Anaheim, Orange, Black Star Canyon, Newport Beach, Tustin, and El Toro topographic quadrangles. Updated queries of the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) were also reviewed to identify any documented occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species within the vicinity. A list of relevant databases reviewed is included in Appendix A. This technical memorandum highlights new special-status plant and wildlife species with potential to occur within the Project and surrounding vicinity (i.e., that were not already addressed in the 2017 BRA). Field Investigation ESA biologists Doug Gordon-Blackwood and Sonya Vargas conducted a reconnaissance-level biological survey to verify the current conditions of the project site on April 22, 2020. This field survey included vegetation mapping in order to verify the previous map or update any changes based on current conditions, as well as identify special-status plant and wildlife species within the Project impact area. During the course of this survey, an inventory of all plant and wildlife species observed was compiled (Appendix B). Survey coverage of the entire Project was assisted by using aerial photographs, and special attention was paid to sensitive habitats or those areas potentially supporting special-status flora or fauna. Natural Communities The presence and extent of each plant community was mapped in the field using an electronic field data collection system and current aerial photography. Natural communities were mapped directly in the field utilizing a 250-scale (1” = 250’) aerial photograph. Natural community names and descriptions follow the Orange County Habitat Classification System (OCHCS).4 After completing the field work, the natural community polygons were digitized using GIS technology to calculate the extent of each plant community. Special-Status Plants Special-status plants include those listed by the USFWS, CDFW, and CNPS (particularly Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B). In addition, the NCCP/HCP provides coverage for special-status plant species. Special-status plant species with potential to occur were noted during the reconnaissance-level biological survey based on the species identified from the 2020 literature review as well as from the 2017 BRA. 3 ESA. 2017. Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report. August 2017. 4 Gray, J. and D. Bramlet. 1992. Habitat Classification System: Natural Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. Environmental Management Agency. County of Orange, Santa Ana, California. June 12, 2020 Page 5 General Wildlife Inventory All wildlife species observed within the project site, as well as diagnostic sign (call, tracks, nests, scat, remains, or other sign), were recorded in field notes. Binoculars and regional field guides were utilized for the identification of wildlife, as necessary. Wildlife taxonomy follows Stebbins5 for amphibians and reptiles, the American Ornithologists’ Union6 for birds, and Jameson and Peeters7 for mammals. Scientific names are used during the first mention of a species; common names only are used in the remainder of the text. Special-Status Wildlife Species Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur were noted during the reconnaissance-level biological survey based on the species identified from the 2020 literature review as well as from the 2017 BRA. Due to the presence of suitable habitat within the project site, focused surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted during Spring 2020. Jurisdictional Delineation A formal wetland delineation was not conducted during the field survey; however, the outer limits of jurisdictional areas were verified or updated and refined as compared to the 2017 Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report8 where there were notable changes associated with the updated vegetation mapping. 3.0 Changes to Existing Conditions Based on the reconnaissance-level biological survey, the majority of the conditions noted within the project site are consistent with what was documented in the 2017 BRA; however, the following discussion focuses on biological resources within the 11.20-acre project site for the proposed 22-lot development, storm drain, and temporary construction access bridge, as well as highlighting any changes to existing conditions. Natural Communities During the reconnaissance-level biological survey, ESA biologists updated the vegetation map. The majority of the natural communities found on-site remained unchanged from the 2017 BRA map; however minor changes were identified (e.g., disturbed/coastal sage scrub increased from 0.23 acre [in 2017] to 0.96 acre [in 2020], and non-native grassland/non-native herbaceous cover decreased from 10.47 acres to 9.74 acres). Natural communities identified within the project site and the corresponding acreages each contributes are summarized below in Table 1. Descriptions of each of the natural communities found within the project site are provided below. Southern cottonwood willow riparian forest is the only natural community identified that is considered a sensitive natural community in the CNDDB. Locations of each of the natural communities are shown in Figure 4, and locations of 5 Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians Third Edition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 6 American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. The American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist of North American Birds. 7th Edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. June. 7 Jameson, Jr., E. W., and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. Berkeley: University of California Press. 8 ESA. 2017. Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report. August 2017. June 12, 2020 Page 6 each of the sensitive natural communities are shown in Figure 5. Representative photographs of natural communities found within the project site are included in Appendix C. TABLE 1 NATURAL COMMUNITIES Natural Community OCHCS Code1 22-Lot Development Area (Acres) Proposed Storm Drain (Acres) Temporary Construction Access Bridge (Acres) Total (Acres) Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest2 7.8 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.17 Disturbed/Coastal Sage Scrub3 16.1/2.3 0.96 <0.01 0.96 Non-Native Herbaceous Cover/Disturbed 16.1/16.1 0.03 0.03 Non-Native Grassland/Non-Native Herbaceous Cover 4.6/16.1 9.74 0.01 0.08 9.83 Disturbed 16.1 0.15 0.06 0.21 Total 10.87 0.04 0.29 11.20 1 Orange County Habitat Classification System 2 The natural community is a high priority [for conservation] vegetation communities denoted on the CDFW List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities. 3 The natural community is covered under the NCCP/HCP Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest (OCHCS 7.8) Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest is dominated by Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), black willow (Salix gooddingii), red willow (Salix laevigata), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). Other species found within this community include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), cattail (Typha sp.), wild grape (Vitis sp.), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), southern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), phacelia (Phacelia sp.), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), rush (Juncus sp.), spike rush (Eleocharis sp.), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), giant reed (Arundo donax), and giant wild rye (Elymus condensatus). In addition, several non-native invasive species were observed, including Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.), date palm (Phoenix canariensis), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), Spanish sunflower (Pulicaria paludosa), Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), English ivy (Hedera helix), castor bean (Ricinus communis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), white sweetclover (Melilotus alba), white cudweed (Pseudognaphalium luteo-album), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest is found along the southern edge of the project site within Santiago Creek. June 12, 2020 Page 7 Disturbed/Coastal Sage Scrub9 (OCHCS 16.1/2.3) Disturbed/coastal sage scrub is dominated by non-native herbaceous cover, weedy species but exhibit components of a coastal sage scrub community, including California sagebrush and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). Disturbed/coastal sage scrub is found within the central portion of the project site. Non-Native Herbaceous Cover/Disturbed (OCHCS 16.1/16.1) Non-native herbaceous cover/disturbed is dominated by weedy, non-native herbaceous species interspersed with disturbed areas that contain little or no vegetation. Non-native herbaceous cover/disturbed is found in the southern portion of the project site. Non-Native Grassland/Non-Native Herbaceous Cover (OCHCS 4.6/16.1) This community is dominated by non-native annual grasses, such as barley (Hordeum sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis), peregrine saltbush (Atriplex suberecta), and intermixed with non- native herbaceous species such as black mustard. This community comprises the majority of the project site. Disturbed (OCHCS 16.1) Disturbed or barren areas either completely lack vegetation or contain only very sparse non-native herbaceous cover. Disturbed areas within the project site consist of relict dirt roads which were compacted by vehicular use. Disturbed areas occur in the southwestern portions of the project site. Special-Status Plant Species Special-status plant species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site include those species listed in the 2017 BRA. In addition to those noted in the 2017 BRA, the April 2020 literature review identified four additional special-status plant species as having been documented in the vicinity that warranted further consideration, including: Horn’s milk-vetch (Astragalus hornii var. hornii), Plummer’s mariposa-lily (Calochortus plummerae), lucky morning-glory (Calystegia felix), and Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii). These species and their sensitivity designations are listed below in Table 2. The 11.20-acre project site is predominantly comprised of disturbed, non-native habitat, and none of the species identified as having a potential to occur were detected within the project site during the 2020 field survey, nor were these species detected in the comprehensive plant species lists recorded during focused special-status plant surveys conducted on the project site in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, or 2017. Two special-status plant species were previously identified in the 2017 BRA: southern California black walnut and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis). A thorough search of the project site was conducted for these special-status species; none were found within the project site, however two southern California black walnut tree individuals were found nearby (i.e., not on the 11.20-acre project site) that were not previously mapped were recorded as shown on Figure 6. 9 This plant community is covered under the NCCP/HCP. June 12, 2020 Page 8 TABLE 2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR)1 Horn’s milk-vetch Astragalus hornii var. hornii None/None/1B.1 Plummer’s mariposa-lily Calochortus plummerae None/None/4.2 lucky morning-glory Calystegia felix None/None/1B.1 Robinson’s pepper-grass Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii None/None/4.3 1 Status California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR): CRPR 1B.1 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California. CRPR 4.2 = Watch List: Plants of limited distribution; moderately threatened in California. CRPR 4.3 = Watch List: Plants of limited distribution; not very threatened in California. Special-Status Wildlife Species Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site include those species listed in the 2017 BRA. In addition to those noted in the 2017 BRA, the April 2020 literature review noted five additional special-status wildlife species as having been documented within the vicinity, including: yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), steelhead - southern California (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona), and southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi). These species and their sensitivity designations are listed below in Table 3. TABLE 3 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Status (Federal/State/NCCP/HCP)1 yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis SSC/None steelhead - southern California Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus FE/None Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii None/Candidate southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC/None southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC/None 1 Status State/Federal Designations: FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered WL = Watch List SSC = Species of Special Concern June 12, 2020 Page 9 The 11.20-acre project site is predominantly comprised of disturbed, non-native habitat and either does not contain any suitable habitat (or microhabitat) for these species or lies outside the known range for the yellow rail, steelhead, Crotch bumble bee, southern grasshopper mouse, and southern California legless lizard. Due to the presence of low quality but potentially suitable scrub habitat within the project site, as well sightings of California gnatcatcher adults and incidental sightings of dispersing juveniles nearby (as documented in the 2017 BRA), focused surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted during Spring 2020, and no California gnatcatcher were found within the project site. No coastal California gnatcatcher were observed during focused breeding season surveys conducted by Michael Brandman Associated (MBA) in 2008; or by PCR Services Corporation (PCR) in 2010, 2012, 2013, or 2015; or by ESA in 2017 (as summarized in the 2017 BRA). Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands An assessment of jurisdictional waters and wetlands was conducted though the local reach of Santiago Creek, including the project site, in 2017 as documented in the Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report.10 During the reconnaissance-level biological survey, the outer limits of jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat areas were verified and updated where there were any notable changes associated with the updated vegetation mapping. ESA verified that USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters and wetlands remained unchanged from the 2017 delineation. However minor changes to the CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation were identified, as shown in Figure 7. Jurisdictional features within the project site along with the corresponding acreages are summarized below in Table 4. TABLE 4 JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES* Jurisdictional Features 22-Lot Development Area (Acres) Proposed Storm Drain (Acres) Temporary Construction Access Bridge (Acres) Total (Acres) USACE/RWQCB Waters - <0.01 0.06 0.06 USACE/RWQCB Wetlands - 0 0.01 0.01 CDFW Streambed and Riparian Habitat - 0.02 0.13 0.15 *Jurisdictional acreages overlap and are not additive (e.g., USACE/RWQCB acreages are included in the total CDFW jurisdictional acreages). 4.0 Impacts Special-Status Plant Species Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct removal of a number of common plant species within the project site. A list of plant species observed within the project site is included in Appendix B. Common plant species present within the project site occur in large numbers throughout the region and their removal does not meet the significance thresholds defined in Section 5 of the 2017 BRA, Thresholds of Significance. Therefore, 10 ESA. 2017. Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report. August 2017. June 12, 2020 Page 10 impacts to common plant species would be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. Many of the special-status plant species discussed in Section 4.8.2 of the 2017 BRA may occur within the region, but are not expected to occur within the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat and/or because the project site lies outside the known range or elevation for these species, or because certain species are highly conspicuous but were not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted on the project site in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, or 2017. Two special-status plant species were previously identified in the 2017 BRA that warranted careful consideration, southern California black walnut and southern tarplant. A thorough search of the project site was conducted for these special-status species; and none were found within the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur to special-status plant species as a result of the proposed Project and no mitigation measures would be required. Special-Status Wildlife Species The 11.20-acre project site is predominantly comprised of disturbed, non-native habitat. The proposed Project would result in the disruption and removal of mostly disturbed habitat and the loss and displacement of some non-sensitive, common wildlife species. Due to the limited amount of native habitat to be removed on-site and the implementation of project design features (as described in Section 1.0) that include the avoidance of the majority of the native plant communities within Santiago Creek on-site (where the majority of the wildlife species documented from the project site were observed), these impacts would not be expected to reduce the general wildlife populations below self-sustaining levels within the region. In addition, the permanent loss of approximately 10.91 acres (10.87 acres from the 22-lot development, 0.04 acre for the storm drain) of marginal foraging habitat (the majority of which is disturbed) for non-sensitive raptor species that are not covered under the NCCP/HCP (e.g., Cooper’s hawk and merlin) is not expected to substantially affect these species to a point where their survival in the region is threatened. These species are relatively mobile and are expected to utilize foraging habitat remaining on-site and in the region. Therefore, impacts to common wildlife species would be considered less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. Several of the special-status wildlife species discussed and dismissed from consideration in Section 4.8.3 of the 2017 BRA are also not expected to occur within the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat or because the project site is outside of the known range for these species. Therefore, no impacts to these special-status wildlife species would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The 2017 BRA also identified several special-status wildlife species that were observed or have at least a moderate potential to occur. Of these, the following have some potential to occur within the 11.20-acre project site, which is predominantly comprised of disturbed, non-native habitat except for a few small areas of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest: white-tailed kite, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, willow flycatcher, coyote, coast range newt, red-diamond rattlesnake, coast horned lizard, Coronado skink, orange-throated whiptail, long-eared owl, western mastiff bat, coastal whiptail, sharp- shinned hawk, rough-legged hawk, red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, prairie falcon, American peregrine falcon, loggerhead shrike, southwestern willow flycatcher, pallid bat, June 12, 2020 Page 11 and gray fox. No suitable habitat occurs within the project site for arboreal salamander, arroyo toad, coast patch- nosed snake, or burrowing owl. With the exception of coast range newt, white-tailed kite, prairie falcon, least Bell’s vireo, willow flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, western mastiff bat, pallid bat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, all the other potentially present or observed species noted above are covered species under the NCCP/HCP; therefore, impacts to these species, if present, are considered less than significant and adequately addressed through the implementation of the NCCP/HCP and no focused surveys or mitigation measures would be required. Prairie falcon and least Bell’s vireo are conditionally covered and are discussed in further detail below. Willow flycatcher is also discussed in further detail below. Coast range newt, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, long-eared owl, western mastiff bat, pallid bat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and northwestern San Diego pocket mouse are designated as California Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW but are not listed as threatened or endangered by State or Federal agencies. The proposed Project was designed to minimize impacts to Santiago Creek which contains the higher quality habitat on site. A total of 0.04 acre of permanent impacts associated with the proposed storm drain, and 0.29 acre of temporary impacts for a construction access bridge that will be restored to pre- project conditions, will occur to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest. The majority of the suitable habitat (e.g., southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, coastal sage scrub, and other native habitats) within Santiago Creek and northern portion of the property outside of the 11.20-acre project site which has potential to support special-status species will be avoided, and the availability of contiguous habitat within the project site will continue to provide resources and foraging habitat for these species, if present. Thus, the loss of individuals as a result of the proposed project would not be expected to reduce regional population numbers. Therefore, impacts to these special-status wildlife species are considered adverse but less then significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur or which were observed on-site that are covered or conditionally covered by the NCCP/HCP include the prairie falcon, least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and southwestern willow flycatcher. A discussion of NCCP/HCP covered and conditionally covered species is provided below. Prairie Falcon (Species of Special Concern, NCCP/HCP Conditionally Covered) As stated in the 2017 BRA, the prairie falcon is a conditionally covered species under the NCCP/HCP. This species is only expected to utilize the project site for foraging due to the lack of suitable nesting habitat within the project site. Therefore, impacts to the prairie falcon foraging habitat would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Least Bell’s Vireo (Federally and State Endangered, NCCP/HCP Conditionally Covered) The 2017 BRA noted that least Bell’s vireo, a migratory species that breeds locally when present in the spring and summer months, is a conditionally covered species under the NCCP/HCP. The least Bell’s vireo was previously observed on-site by MBA in 2008; PCR in 2010; and ESA in 2017. Least Bell’s vireo were also heard June 12, 2020 Page 12 within the southern cottonwood-willow riparian habitat within the immediate vicinity of the 11.20-acre project site during the 2020 field survey. The proposed Project would have relatively limited impacts to habitat utilized by the least Bell’s vireo during the breeding season, including 0.05 acre of permanent impacts (0.02 acre for 22- lot development, 0.03 acre for proposed storm drain) and 0.12 acre of temporary impacts (for construction access bridge) to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest. PDFs have been incorporated into the project to reduce this potential impact. The PDFs provide the following:  PDF BIO-1: The proposed Project will permanently retain a landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail located along the perimeter of the site and Santiago Creek corridor.  PDF BIO-2: The majority of the southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest within the project site will be avoided. The project will also avoid the majority of jurisdictional waters supporting U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Regional Water Quality Control Board (USACE/RWQCB) “waters of the U.S./State,” including wetland, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed and associated riparian habitat. Impacts to jurisdictional features will be limited to 0.02 acre of permanent impact resulting from the installation of a storm drain and 0.13 acre of temporary impact resulting from a temporary construction access bridge.  PDF BIO-3: The proposed Project will avoid the majority of Santiago Creek and its associated native riparian habitat (e.g., southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest) as well as native upland habitat (e.g., coastal sage scrub). This includes sensitive plant communities, including coastal sage scrub, coastal sage scrub/non-native herbaceous cover, southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, blue elderberry scrub, California brittlebush scrub, and yerba santa scrub within and/or adjacent to Santiago Creek.  PDF BIO-4: The proposed Project will provide a landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail adjacent to the southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest within Santiago Creek, which provides habitat for the least Bell’s vireo.  PDF BIO-5: The proposed Project will provide selective landscaping, including native species, within the landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail (to the north of Santiago Creek) that is compatible with the adjacent open space area and its habitat.  PDF BIO-6: The proposed Project establishes development standards in the Specific Plan to reduce sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals) to the adjacent open space area supporting sensitive biological resources (i.e., least Bell’s vireo and sensitive natural communities), as demonstrated in the Biological Development Standards.  PDF BIO-7: The proposed Project will limit uses within the landscape buffer with fuel modification and trail to passive uses (e.g., trail). June 12, 2020 Page 13 The project design avoids impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Although the least Bell’s vireo is a conditionally covered species under the NCCP/HCP,11 it is not anticipated to be eligible to receive coverage under the NCCP/HCP in this area, since the associated habitat may appropriately be consider regionally significant for the long-term conservation of the species. Any potentially adverse impacts to the least Bell’s vireo would be considered potentially significant. As such, specific PDFs, mentioned above, have been incorporated into the project to help minimize potential impacts to this species. Additional mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (see MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b in Section 5.0 below). California Gnatcatcher (Federally Threatened, NCCP/HCP Identified Species) Coastal California gnatcatcher was evaluated in the biological surveys leading up to the EIR certified by the city of Orange for the Trails at Santiago project. Coastal California gnatcatcher were not observed on-site during focused breeding season surveys conducted by MBA in 2008; or by PCR in 2010, 2012, 2013, or 2015; or by ESA in 2017. However, during focused surveys conducted in 2014, a coastal California gnatcatcher pair was observed in the western portion of the project site. The pair did not appear to be engaged in any definite breeding-related activity and was not observed again on the project site on subsequent surveys conducted during that season. Later that season, however, a pair of gnatcatchers that was believed to be the same pair that had been seen on-site was observed off-site on the west side of Cannon Street in a more extensive area of poor quality coastal sage scrub habitat. In addition, one dispersing juvenile coastal California gnatcatcher was observed incidentally outside of the breeding season on August 3, 2010, and additional incidental sightings of two separate coastal California gnatcatcher individuals were made on both June 9 and 27, 2017. Each of these incidental observations occurred in disturbed/non-native herbaceous cover or within disturbed areas perched on mule fat, and none were observed in coastal sage scrub. Considering the locations where these incidental sightings occurred, and the fact that focused breeding season surveys on-site were negative in all years when incidental sightings were made, the prior biological resources analysis and the certified EIR concluded that it is most likely that these incidental sightings were juveniles dispersing through the project site from suitable habitat areas in the vicinity of the project site and not resident individuals. Based upon this, the EIR concluded that there would be no significant impacts from the proposed Trails at Santiago project on the gnatcatcher. Due to the presence of suitable habitat (i.e., disturbed/coastal sage scrub) within the project site, updated focused surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted during Spring 2020, and no California gnatcatcher were found within the project site. Based on the previous results of seven years of negative surveys, this species does not occupy the project site. Therefore, no impacts to the California gnatcatcher would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 11 Under the NCCP/HCP, conditionally covered species may be covered in portions of the NCCP/HCP, but these species are not cover ed within long-term conservation areas. Because Santiago Creek is a perennial stream with dense riparian habitat that is contiguous to Santiago Oaks Regional Park and larger open space areas beyond the park to the east, this riparian system is considered a pot ential NCCP/HCP long-term conservation area for the least Bell’s vireo. Thus, take of this species is not covered under the NCCP/HCP. Mitigation measures (MM BIO-1) would mitigate adverse impacts to this species and therefore ensure compliance with the NCCP/HCP. June 12, 2020 Page 14 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Federally and State Endangered, NCCP/HCP Conditionally Covered) As stated in the 2017 BRA, the southwestern willow flycatcher is a conditionally covered species under the NCCP/HCP. No southwestern willow flycatcher were observed on-site during focused surveys conducted by MBA in 2008; PCR in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015; or ESA in 2017, and this species it not expected to occur on-site. Therefore, no impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Willow Flycatcher (State Endangered) As stated in the 2017 BRA, willow flycatchers are listed as State Endangered and were observed during the 2012 survey. One individual willow flycatcher was observed outside the project site within southern cottonwood- willow riparian forest that is contiguous with this same community on-site. The habitat that this willow flycatcher was observed in is considered suitable for nesting. However, no breeding willow flycatchers were observed during the focused surveys. The proposed Project would impact limited areas of habitat considered potentially suitable to support the willow flycatcher but that this species is not known to use for breeding, including a total of 0.05 acre of permanent impacts (0.02 acre for 22-lot development, 0.03 acre for proposed storm drain) and 0.12 acre of temporary impacts (for construction access bridge) to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest. However, because willow flycatchers are not expected to breed within the project site, no direct impacts would occur to this species and no mitigation measures would be required. Significant impacts to foraging habitat for this species are not anticipated for the following reasons:  The large areas of riparian habitat within Santiago Creek which will be avoided by the proposed project will still be available to provide a greater area of contiguous habitat for foraging opportunities.  For the southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest which will be impacted, temporary impacts will be restored to pre-project conditions. The 0.05 acre of permanent impacts is not expected to exclude continued use of the surrounding habitat for foraging should willow flycatcher occur within these areas. Thus, impacts to potential willow flycatcher foraging habitat are not expected to threaten regional populations of this species and would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. White-Tailed Kite (Fully Protected) As stated in the 2017 BRA, white-tailed kite was observed during 2008 surveys, and has the potential to breed within the project site. Any impacts to the white-tailed kite would be considered potentially significant. Therefore, mitigation to avoid any nesting birds during the breeding season would be required in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503.5 and 3511) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see MM BIO-4 in Section 5.0 below). Natural Communities As summarized in Table 5 below, with implementation of the proposed Project, permanent impacts will occur to 10.91 acre of natural communities, including 0.05 acre of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, 0.96 acre of disturbed/coastal sage scrub, 9.75 acres of non-native grassland/non-native herbaceous cover, and 0.15 acre of June 12, 2020 Page 15 disturbed areas. Temporary impacts will occur to 0.29 acre of natural communities, including 0.12 acre of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, less than 0.01 acre of disturbed/coastal sage scrub, 0.03 acre of non- native herbaceous cover/disturbed, 0.08 acre of non-native grassland/non-native herbaceous cover, and 0.06 acre of disturbed areas. TABLE 5 IMPACTS TO NATURAL COMMUNITIES Natural Community OCHCS Code1 22-Lot Development Area (Acres) Proposed Storm Drain (Acres) Temporary Construction Access Bridge (Acres) Total (Acres) Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest2 7.8 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.17 Disturbed/Coastal Sage Scrub3 16.1/2.3 0.96 <0.01 0.96 Non-Native Herbaceous Cover/Disturbed 16.1/16.1 0.03 0.03 Non-Native Grassland/Non-Native Herbaceous Cover 4.6/16.1 9.74 0.01 0.08 9.83 Disturbed 16.1 0.15 0.06 0.21 Total 10.87 0.04 0.29 11.20 1 Orange County Habitat Classification System 2 The natural community is a high priority [for conservation] vegetation communities denoted on the CDFW List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities. 3 The natural community is covered under the NCCP/HCP Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest is a sensitive natural community, therefore impacts to this natural community are considered potentially significant. Thus, mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant (see MM BIO-2 in Section 5.0 below). None of the remaining natural communities are considered sensitive; therefore, although adverse, impacts are less than significant to those communities and no mitigation would be required. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands As summarized in Table 6 below, with implementation of the proposed Project, a total of 0.02 acre of permanent impacts will occur, which includes less than 0.01 acre of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.” / “waters of the State” and approximately 0.02 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat. A total of 0.13 acre of temporary impacts will occur, which includes approximately 0.06 acre of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.”/“waters of the State,” approximately 0.01 acre of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional wetlands, and approximately 0.13 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat. Jurisdictional acreages overlap and are not additive (e.g., USACE/RWQCB acreages are included in the total CDFW jurisdictional acreages). Any potential impacts to jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands are considered potentially significant, therefore mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant (see MM BIO-3 in Section 5.0 below). June 12, 2020 Page 16 TABLE 6 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES* Jurisdictional Features 22-Lot Development Area (Acres) Proposed Storm Drain (Acres) Temporary Construction Access Bridge (Acres) Total (Acres) USACE/RWQCB Waters - <0.01 0.06 0.06 USACE/RWQCB Wetlands - 0 0.01 0.01 CDFW Streambed and Riparian Habitat - 0.02 0.13 0.15 *Jurisdictional acreages overlap and are not additive (e.g., USACE/RWQCB acreages are included in the total CDFW jurisdictional acreages). Wildlife Movement Wildlife Corridors The 11.20-acre project site is predominantly comprised of disturbed, non-native habitat. However, the native habitat associated with Santiago Creek and native scrub areas outside of the project site supports live-in and movement habitat for species on a local scale as discussed in the 2017 BRA. This habitat likely functions to facilitate regional wildlife movement for a number of species on a regional scale. The proposed Project was designed to avoid Santiago Creek and associated native habitat that is best suited to support local and regional wildlife movement along the creek to the maximum extent feasible. Impacts are limited to 0.05 acre of permanent impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest (associated with impacts to overhanging canopy from the 22-lot development and from the proposed storm drain), which will not inhibit local or regional movement, and 0.12 acre of temporary impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest for a temporary construction access bridge, which will be returned to pre-project conditions once the Project is complete. Thus, the proposed impacts will not inhibit wildlife movement through the project site nor their use of the Santiago Creek wildlife corridor. Therefore, for species which utilize the habitat associated with Santiago Creek, impacts to wildlife movement would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Migratory Species The project site has the potential to support both raptor and songbird nests due to the presence of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Nesting activity typically occurs from February 15 to August 31 (January 15 to August 31 for raptors). Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Wildlife Code Section 3503. The removal of vegetation during the breeding season that could cause potential impacts to raptor (e.g., red-tailed hawk) and songbird nests would be considered potentially significant, therefore mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant (see MM BIO-4 in Section 5.0 below). June 12, 2020 Page 17 Regulated Trees In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, Title 12 Streets and Sidewalks and Public Places, Chapter 12.32 Tree Preservation (Tree Preservation Ordinance), all trees, regardless of species, that measure a minimum of 10.5 inches in circumference, measured at a point 24 inches above the ground are protected. Based on review of aerial imagery, approximately 40 regulated trees currently lie within the project impact area, all of which will be impacted. A complete inventory of all trees shall be conducted in compliance with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any potential impacts to regulated trees are considered potentially significant, therefore compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance will be required to reduce impacts to less than significant (see Condition of Approval [COA] BIO-3 in Section 5.0 below) and ensure the Project would not conflict with local ordinances protecting biological resources. County of Orange Central/Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP Consistency The project site is within central subregion of the County of Orange Central/Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP. The Project will impact 0.96 acre of disturbed/coastal sage scrub; however, this community is dominated by disturbed vegetation and does not warrant mitigation. Based on survey results and the level of disturbance to the limited area containing some disturbed/coastal sage scrub vegetation, impacts to coastal sage scrub-obligate species would not be considered significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Additionally, the least Bell’s vireo is a conditionally covered species under the NCCP/HCP and implementation of the PDF’s and mitigation measure to address least Bell’s vireo will contribute to the long-term conservation of the species and its habitat. Thus, the proposed project is considered consistent with the goals and objectives of the NCCP/HCP. 5.0 Mitigation Measure and Conditions of Approval Special-Status Wildlife Species Mitigation for impacts to special-status wildlife species will be consistent with COA BIO-1, MM BIO-1a, and MM BIO-1b in the 2017 BRA (and in the certified EIR), and subject to agency approval. No California gnatcatchers were observed during focused surveys conducted in 2020; therefore, no impacts to the California gnatcatcher would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Natural Communities Mitigation for impacts to sensitive natural communities, specifically southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, will be consistent with MM BIO-2 in the 2017 BRA (and in the certified EIR). Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands will be consistent with COA BIO-2 and MM BIO- 3 in the 2017 BRA (and in the certified EIR), and subject to agency approval. June 12, 2020 Page 18 Migratory or Nesting Birds Mitigation for impacts to migratory or nesting birds will be consistent with MM BIO-4 in the 2017 BRA (and in the certified EIR). Regulated Trees Mitigation for impacts to regulated trees will be consistent with COA BIO-3 in the 2017 BRA (and in the certified EIR). Should you have any questions regarding the methodology or findings in this report, please contact Maile Tanaka at m.tanaka@esassoc.com or 949-753-7001. Sincerely, Environmental Science Associates Maile Tanaka Managing Biologist List of Figures and Appendices Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Proposed Footprint for 22-Lot Development Figure 3: Relationship to the Orange County NCCP/HCP Figure 4: Updated Natural Communities Figure 5: Updated Sensitive Natural Communities Figure 6: Updated Special-Status Plant Species Figure 7: Updated Jurisdictional Features Appendix A: Literature Review Appendix B: Flora and Faunal Compendium Appendix C: Site Photos Figures Appendix A: Literature Review Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand-verbena PDNYC010P1 None None G5T2?S2 1B.1 Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G2G3 S1S2 SSC Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous-crowned sparrow ABPBX91091 None None G5T3 S3 WL Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow ABPBXA0020 None None G5 S3 SSC Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad AAABB01230 Endangered None G2G3 S2S3 SSC Anniella stebbinsi southern California legless lizard ARACC01060 None None G3 S3 SSC Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None G5 S3 SSC Aphanisma blitoides aphanisma PDCHE02010 None None G3G4 S2 1B.2 Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP Ardea herodias great blue heron ABNGA04010 None None G5 S4 Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC Asio otus long-eared owl ABNSB13010 None None G5 S3?SSC Aspidoscelis hyperythra orange-throated whiptail ARACJ02060 None None G5 S2S3 WL Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail ARACJ02143 None None G5T5 S3 SSC Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch PDFAB0F1G0 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.1 Astragalus hornii var. hornii Horn's milk-vetch PDFAB0F421 None None GUT1 S1 1B.1 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(La Habra (3311788)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Yorba Linda (3311787)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Prado Dam (3311786)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Anaheim (3311778)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Orange (3311777)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Black Star Canyon (3311776)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Newport Beach (3311768)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Tustin (3311767)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>El Toro (3311766)) Query Criteria: Report Printed on Wednesday, April 15, 2020 Page 1 of 7Commercial Version -- Dated April, 3 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 10/3/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Atriplex coulteri Coulter's saltbush PDCHE040E0 None None G3 S1S2 1B.2 Atriplex pacifica south coast saltscale PDCHE041C0 None None G4 S2 1B.2 Atriplex parishii Parish's brittlescale PDCHE041D0 None None G1G2 S1 1B.1 Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson's saltscale PDCHE041T1 None None G5T1 S1 1B.2 Baccharis malibuensis Malibu baccharis PDAST0W0W0 None None G1 S1 1B.1 Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee IIHYM24480 None Candidate Endangered G3G4 S1S2 Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp ICBRA03060 Endangered None G2 S2 Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea PMLIL0C050 Threatened Endangered G2 S2 1B.1 Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk ABNKC19120 None None G4 S3S4 WL Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3 California Walnut Woodland California Walnut Woodland CTT71210CA None None G2 S2.1 Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa-lily PMLIL0D150 None None G4 S4 4.2 Calochortus weedii var. intermedius intermediate mariposa-lily PMLIL0D1J1 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.2 Calystegia felix lucky morning-glory PDCON040P0 None None G1Q S1 1B.1 Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis coastal cactus wren ABPBG02095 None None G5T3Q S3 SSC Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker AFCJC02190 Threatened None G1 S1 Centromadia parryi ssp. australis southern tarplant PDAST4R0P4 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant PDAST4R0R4 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.1 Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse AMAFD05031 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 SSC Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover ABNNB03031 Threatened None G3T3 S2S3 SSC Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum salt marsh bird's-beak PDSCR0J0C2 Endangered Endangered G4?T1 S1 1B.2 Report Printed on Wednesday, April 15, 2020 Page 2 of 7Commercial Version -- Dated April, 3 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 10/3/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long-tongued bat AMACB02010 None None G4 S1 SSC Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina San Fernando Valley spineflower PDPGN040J1 Proposed Threatened Endangered G2T1 S1 1B.1 Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina long-spined spineflower PDPGN040K1 None None G5T3 S3 1B.2 Cicindela gabbii western tidal-flat tiger beetle IICOL02080 None None G2G4 S1 Cicindela hirticollis gravida sandy beach tiger beetle IICOL02101 None None G5T2 S2 Cicindela latesignata latesignata western beach tiger beetle IICOL02113 None None G2G4T1T2 S1 Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1 Coelus globosus globose dune beetle IICOL4A010 None None G1G2 S1S2 Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail ABNME01010 None None G4 S1S2 SSC Crotalus ruber red-diamond rattlesnake ARADE02090 None None G4 S3 SSC Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population IILEPP2012 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed dudleya PDCRA040H0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher ABPAE33043 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S1 Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar PDPLM03035 Endangered Endangered G4T1 S1 1B.1 Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery PDAPI0Z042 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 1B.1 Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat AMACD02011 None None G5T4 S3S4 SSC Euphydryas editha quino quino checkerspot butterfly IILEPK405L Endangered None G5T1T2 S1S2 Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon ABNKD06071 Delisted Delisted G4T4 S3S4 FP Report Printed on Wednesday, April 15, 2020 Page 3 of 7Commercial Version -- Dated April, 3 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 10/3/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle ABNKC10010 Delisted Endangered G5 S3 FP Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii Los Angeles sunflower PDAST4N102 None None G5TH SH 1A Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress PGCUP040C0 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Horkelia cuneata var. puberula mesa horkelia PDROS0W045 None None G4T1 S1 1B.1 Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None G5 S3 SSC Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens decumbent goldenbush PDAST57091 None None G3G5T2T3 S2 1B.2 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat AMACC05030 None None G5 S4 Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter's goldfields PDAST5L0A1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1 Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail ABNME03041 None Threatened G3G4T1 S1 FP Lepechinia cardiophylla heart-leaved pitcher sage PDLAM0V020 None None G3 S2S3 1B.2 Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson's pepper-grass PDBRA1M114 None None G5T3 S3 4.3 Monardella australis ssp. jokerstii Jokerst's monardella PDLAM18112 None None G4T1?S1?1B.1 Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermedia intermediate monardella PDLAM180A4 None None G4T2?S2?1B.3 Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis AMACC01020 None None G5 S4 Nama stenocarpa mud nama PDHYD0A0H0 None None G4G5 S1S2 2B.2 Nasturtium gambelii Gambel's water cress PDBRA270V0 Endangered Threatened G1 S1 1B.1 Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia PDPLM0C0Q0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata coast woolly-heads PDPGN0G011 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.2 Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat AMAFF08041 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 SSC Nolina cismontana chaparral nolina PMAGA080E0 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat AMACD04010 None None G4 S3 SSC Report Printed on Wednesday, April 15, 2020 Page 4 of 7Commercial Version -- Dated April, 3 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 10/3/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat AMACD04020 None None G5 S3 SSC Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 steelhead - southern California DPS AFCHA0209J Endangered None G5T1Q S1 Onychomys torridus ramona southern grasshopper mouse AMAFF06022 None None G5T3 S3 SSC Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass PMPOA4G010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Pandion haliaetus osprey ABNKC01010 None None G5 S4 WL Panoquina errans wandering (=saltmarsh) skipper IILEP84030 None None G4G5 S2 Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Belding's savannah sparrow ABPBX99015 None Endangered G5T3 S3 Penstemon californicus California beardtongue PDSCR1L110 None None G3 S2 1B.2 Pentachaeta aurea ssp. allenii Allen's pentachaeta PDAST6X021 None None G4T1 S1 1B.1 Perognathus longimembris pacificus Pacific pocket mouse AMAFD01042 Endangered None G5T1 S1 SSC Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard ARACF12100 None None G3G4 S3S4 SSC Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher ABPBJ08081 Threatened None G4G5T2Q S2 SSC Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbit-tobacco PDAST440C0 None None G4 S2 2B.2 Rallus obsoletus levipes light-footed Ridgway's rail ABNME05014 Endangered Endangered G5T1T2 S1 FP Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 Santa Ana speckled dace AFCJB3705K None None G5T1 S1 SSC Riparia riparia bank swallow ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S2 Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub CTT32720CA None None G1 S1.1 Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch-nosed snake ARADB30033 None None G5T4 S2S3 SSC Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort PDAST8H060 None None G3 S2 2B.2 Setophaga petechia yellow warbler ABPBX03010 None None G5 S3S4 SSC Sidalcea neomexicana salt spring checkerbloom PDMAL110J0 None None G4 S2 2B.2 Report Printed on Wednesday, April 15, 2020 Page 5 of 7Commercial Version -- Dated April, 3 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 10/3/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Sorex ornatus salicornicus southern California saltmarsh shrew AMABA01104 None None G5T1?S1 SSC Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream CARE2330CA None None GNR SNR Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest CTT61310CA None None G4 S4 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Southern Coastal Salt Marsh CTT52120CA None None G2 S2.1 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest CTT61330CA None None G3 S3.2 Southern Dune Scrub Southern Dune Scrub CTT21330CA None None G1 S1.1 Southern Foredunes Southern Foredunes CTT21230CA None None G2 S2.1 Southern Interior Cypress Forest Southern Interior Cypress Forest CTT83230CA None None G2 S2.1 Southern Riparian Scrub Southern Riparian Scrub CTT63300CA None None G3 S3.2 Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland CTT62400CA None None G4 S4 Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub CTT63320CA None None G3 S2.1 Spea hammondii western spadefoot AAABF02020 None None G3 S3 SSC Sternula antillarum browni California least tern ABNNM08103 Endangered Endangered G4T2T3Q S2 FP Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp ICBRA07010 Endangered None G1G2 S1S2 Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite PDCHE0P0D0 None None G3 S2 1B.2 Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster PDASTE80C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Taricha torosa Coast Range newt AAAAF02032 None None G4 S4 SSC Taxidea taxus American badger AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC Thamnophis hammondii two-striped gartersnake ARADB36160 None None G4 S3S4 SSC Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) IMGASJ7040 None None G2 S2 Report Printed on Wednesday, April 15, 2020 Page 6 of 7Commercial Version -- Dated April, 3 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 10/3/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2 Record Count: 123 Report Printed on Wednesday, April 15, 2020 Page 7 of 7Commercial Version -- Dated April, 3 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 10/3/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants*The database used to provide updates to the Online Inventory is under construction. View updates and changes made since May 2019 here. Plant List 61 matches found. Click on scientific name for details Search Criteria Found in Quads 3311788, 3311787, 3311786, 3311778, 3311777, 3311776, 3311768 3311767 and 3311766; Modify Search Criteria Export to Excel Modify Columns Modify Sort Display Photos Scientific Name Common Name Family Lifeform Blooming Period CA Rare Plant Rank State Rank Global Rank Abronia maritima red sand- verbena Nyctaginaceae perennial herb Feb-Nov 4.2 S3?G4 Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand- verbena Nyctaginaceae annual herb (Jan)Mar- Sep 1B.1 S2 G5T2? Aphanisma blitoides aphanisma Chenopodiaceae annual herb Feb-Jun 1B.2 S2 G3G4 Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk- vetch Fabaceae perennial herb Jan-Aug 1B.1 S2 G2 Atriplex coulteri Coulter's saltbush Chenopodiaceae perennial herb Mar-Oct 1B.2 S1S2 G3 Atriplex pacifica South Coast saltscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Mar-Oct 1B.2 S2 G4 Atriplex parishii Parish's brittlescale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Jun-Oct 1B.1 S1 G1G2 Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson's saltscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct 1B.2 S1 G5T1 Baccharis malibuensis Malibu baccharis Asteraceae perennial deciduous shrub Aug 1B.1 S1 G1 Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea Themidaceae perennial bulbiferous herb Mar-Jun 1B.1 S2 G2 Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia Montiaceae annual herb (Jan)Mar- Jun 4.2 S4 G4 Calochortus catalinae Catalina mariposa lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb (Feb)Mar- Jun 4.2 S3S4 G3G4 Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb May-Jul 4.2 S4 G4 Page 1 of 4CNPS Inventory Results 4/15/2020http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311788:3311787:3311786:3311... Calochortus weedii var. intermedius intermediate mariposa lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb May-Jul 1B.2 S2 G3G4T2 Calystegia felix lucky morning- glory Convolvulaceae annual rhizomatous herb Mar-Sep 1B.1 S1 G1Q Camissoniopsis lewisii Lewis' evening- primrose Onagraceae annual herb Mar-May (Jun)3 S4 G4 Centromadia parryi ssp. australis southern tarplant Asteraceae annual herb May-Nov 1B.1 S2 G3T2 Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant Asteraceae annual herb Apr-Sep 1B.1 S2 G3G4T2 Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum salt marsh bird's- beak Orobanchaceae annual herb (hemiparasitic) May-Oct (Nov)1B.2 S1 G4?T1 Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina San Fernando Valley spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S1 G2T1 Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina long-spined spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.2 S3 G5T3 Convolvulus simulans small-flowered morning-glory Convolvulaceae annual herb Mar-Jul 4.2 S4 G4 Deinandra paniculata paniculate tarplant Asteraceae annual herb (Mar)Apr- Nov(Dec)4.2 S4 G4 Dodecahema leptoceras slender-horned spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1 Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed dudleya Crassulaceae perennial herb Apr-Jul 1B.2 S2 G2 Dudleya stolonifera Laguna Beach dudleya Crassulaceae perennial stoloniferous herb May-Jul 1B.1 S1 G1 Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar Polemoniaceae perennial herb Apr-Sep 1B.1 S1 G4T1 Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery Apiaceae annual / perennial herb Apr-Jun 1B.1 S1 G5T1 Harpagonella palmeri Palmer's grapplinghook Boraginaceae annual herb Mar-May 4.2 S3 G4 Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii Los Angeles sunflower Asteraceae perennial rhizomatous herb Aug-Oct 1A SH G5TH Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress Cupressaceae perennial evergreen tree 1B.1 S2 G2 Hordeum intercedens vernal barley Poaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 3.2 S3S4 G3G4 Horkelia cuneata var. puberula mesa horkelia Rosaceae perennial herb Feb-Jul (Sep)1B.1 S1 G4T1 Juglans californica Southern California black walnut Juglandaceae perennial deciduous tree Mar-Aug 4.2 S4 G4 Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii southwestern spiny rush Juncaceae perennial rhizomatous herb (Mar)May- Jun 4.2 S4 G5T5 Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Jun 1B.1 S2 G4T2 Page 2 of 4CNPS Inventory Results 4/15/2020http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311788:3311787:3311786:3311... Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter's goldfields Lepechinia cardiophylla heart-leaved pitcher sage Lamiaceae perennial shrub Apr-Jul 1B.2 S2S3 G3 Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson's pepper-grass Brassicaceae annual herb Jan-Jul 4.3 S3 G5T3 Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb Mar-Jul (Aug)4.2 S4?G4T4? Monardella australis ssp. jokerstii Jokerst’s monardella Lamiaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Jul-Sep 1B.1 S1 G4T1 Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermedia intermediate monardella Lamiaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Apr-Sep 1B.3 S2?G4T2? Nama stenocarpa mud nama Namaceae annual / perennial herb Jan-Jul 2B.2 S1S2 G4G5 Nasturtium gambelii Gambel's water cress Brassicaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Apr-Oct 1B.1 S1 G1 Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S2 G2 Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata coast woolly- heads Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Sep 1B.2 S2 G3G4T2 Nolina cismontana chaparral nolina Ruscaceae perennial evergreen shrub (Mar)May- Jul 1B.2 S3 G3 Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass Poaceae annual herb Apr-Aug 1B.1 S1 G1 Penstemon californicus California beardtongue Plantaginaceae perennial herb May-Jun (Aug)1B.2 S2 G3 Pentachaeta aurea ssp. allenii Allen's pentachaeta Asteraceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.1 S1 G4T1 Phacelia hubbyi Hubby's phacelia Hydrophyllaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 4.2 S4 G4 Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis south coast branching phacelia Hydrophyllaceae perennial herb Mar-Aug 3.2 S3 G5?T3Q Pickeringia montana var. tomentosa woolly chaparral- pea Fabaceae evergreen shrub May-Aug 4.3 S3S4 G5T3T4 Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Fish's milkwort Polygalaceae perennial deciduous shrub May-Aug 4.3 S4 G5T4 Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbit- tobacco Asteraceae perennial herb (Jul)Aug- Nov(Dec)2B.2 S2 G4 Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak Fagaceae perennial deciduous tree Mar-Jun 4.2 S3 G3 Romneya coulteri Coulter's matilija poppy Papaveraceae perennial rhizomatous herb Mar-Jul (Aug)4.2 S4 G4 Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead Alismataceae perennial rhizomatous herb (emergent) May-Oct (Nov)1B.2 S3 G3 Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort Asteraceae annual herb Jan-Apr (May)2B.2 S2 G3 Sidalcea neomexicana Malvaceae perennial herb Mar-Jun 2B.2 S2 G4 Page 3 of 4CNPS Inventory Results 4/15/2020http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311788:3311787:3311786:3311... Search the Inventory Simple Search Advanced Search Glossary Information About the Inventory About the Rare Plant Program CNPS Home Page About CNPS Join CNPS Contributors The Calflora Database The California Lichen Society California Natural Diversity Database The Jepson Flora Project The Consortium of California Herbaria CalPhotos Questions and Comments rareplants@cnps.org salt spring checkerbloom Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite Chenopodiaceae perennial herb (May)Jul- Oct(Jan)1B.2 S2 G3 Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster Asteraceae perennial rhizomatous herb Jul-Nov (Dec)1B.2 S2 G2 Suggested Citation California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 15 April 2020]. © Copyright 2010-2018 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved. Page 4 of 4CNPS Inventory Results 4/15/2020http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311788:3311787:3311786:3311... IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site- specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Orange County, California Local office Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office  (760) 431-9440  (760) 431-5901 2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385 http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaCInformation for Planning and Consultation Page 1 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1.Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2.Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3.Log in (if directed to do so). 4.Provide a name and description for your project. 5.Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1.Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. 2.NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: 1 2 Page 2 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Birds Fishes Critical habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. Migratory birds NAME STATUS Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8178 Threatened Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945 Endangered NAME STATUS Santa Ana Sucker Catostomus santaanae There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3785 Threatened Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1.The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2.The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: •Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php 1 2 Page 3 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. •Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php •Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.) Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637 Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Page 4 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Black Skimmer Rynchops niger This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5234 Breeds May 20 to Sep 15 Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9447 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 31 California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31 Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Jan 1 to Dec 31 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084 Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9470 Breeds Jan 15 to Jun 10 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464 Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20 Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5511 Breeds elsewhere Page 5 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481 Breeds elsewhere Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410 Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20 Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656 Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15 Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Breeds elsewhere Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Breeds elsewhere Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Feb 20 to Sep 5 Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus clementae This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4243 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 20 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9483 Breeds elsewhere Willet Tringa semipalmata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds elsewhere Wrentit Chamaea fasciata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10 Page 6 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ “Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1.The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2.To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3.The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. Page 7 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources  no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Black Skimmer BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Black-chinned Sparrow BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) California Thrasher BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Clark's Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Page 8 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Common Yellowthroat BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Costa's Hummingbird BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Lawrence's Goldfinch BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Long-billed Curlew BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Marbled Godwit BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Page 9 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Nuttall's Woodpecker BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Oak Titmouse BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Short-billed Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Song Sparrow BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Spotted Towhee BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Whimbrel BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Page 10 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Willet BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Wrentit BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? Page 11 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year- round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1."BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2."BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3."Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in Page 12 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ “Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds” at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. This location overlaps the following wetlands: Data limitations FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND Palustrine RIVERINE Riverine A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website Page 13 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. Page 14 of 14IPaC: Explore Location 4/15/2020https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OSJZPNM5KNG6JMVC3KY7KNDFSY/resources Appendix B: Flora and Faunal Compendium Trails at Santiago Creek B-1 ESA / D201700187.04 Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium May 2020 Preliminary − Subject to Revision APPENDIX B Floral and Faunal Compendium Plant Species Family Scientific Name Common Name Nativity Status Fabaceae Acmispon glaber deerweed, California broom Native Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven Naturalized Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed Native Boraginaceae Amsinckia intermedia common fiddleneck Native Saururaceae Anemopsis californica yerba mansa Native Asteraceae Artemisia californica California sagebrush Native Asteraceae Artemisia douglasiana mugwort Native Poaceae Arundo donax giant reed Naturalized Chenopodiaceae Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush Naturalized Poaceae Avena barbata slender wild oat Naturalized Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Native Asteraceae Baccharis salicifolia subsp. salicifolia mule fat Native Asteraceae Bidens pilosa common beggar-ticks Naturalized Brassicaceae Brassica nigra black mustard Naturalized Poaceae Bromus diandrus ripgut grass Naturalized Poaceae Bromus hordeaceus soft chess Naturalized Poaceae Bromus rubens red brome Naturalized Convolvulaceae Calystegia macrostegia island false bindweed Native Asteraceae Centaurea melitensis tocalote Naturalized Asteraceae Centromadia parryi subsp. australis southern tarplant Native 1B.1 Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album lamb's quarters Naturalized Apiaceae Conium maculatum poison hemlock Naturalized Poaceae Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass Naturalized Crassulaceae Crassula connate pygmy-weed Native Asteraceae Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle Naturalized Poaceae Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Naturalized Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis tall cyperus Native Cyperaceae Cyperus involucratus umbrella sedge Naturalized Solanaceae Datura wrightii jimsonweed Native Asteraceae Deinandra fasciculata clustered tarweed Native Polygonaceae Emex spinose devil's thorn Naturalized Asteraceae Encelia californica bush sunflower Native Trails at Santiago Creek Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium Trails at Santiago Creek B-2 ESA / D201700187.04 Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium May 2020 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Family Scientific Name Common Name Nativity Status Asteraceae Encelia farinose brittlebrush Native Geraniaceae Erodium brachycarpum white-stemmed filaree Naturalized Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium redstem filaree Naturalized Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camaldulensis red gum, river red gum Naturalized Myrtaceae Eucalyptus globulus blue gum Naturalized Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare fennel Naturalized Oleaceae Fraxinus uhdei shamel ash Naturalized Geraniaceae Geranium molle Naturalized Asteraceae Glebionis coronaria crown daisy Naturalized Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum seaside heliotrope Native Rosaceae Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Native Asteraceae Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Native Brassicaceae Hirschfeldia incana shortpod mustard Naturalized Poaceae Hordeum murinum wall barley Naturalized Juglandaceae Juglans californica Southern California black walnut Native 4.2 Asteraceae Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Naturalized Brassicaceae Lobularia maritima sweet alyssum Naturalized Anacardiaceae Malosma laurina laurel sumac Native Malvaceae Malva parviflora cheeseweed Naturalized Asteraceae Matricaria discoidea pineapple weed Naturalized Fabaceae Medicago polymorpha California burclover Naturalized Myrtaceae Melaleuca viminalis weeping bottlebrush Naturalized Fabaceae Melilotus albus white sweetclover Naturalized Fabaceae Melilotus indicus sourclover Naturalized Solanaceae Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco Naturalized Oleaceae Olea europaea olive Naturalized Cactaceae Opuntia ficus-indica mission prickly-pear Naturalized Poaceae Pennisetum setaceum crimson fountain grass Naturalized Polygonaceae Persicaria lapathifolia willow weed Native Arecaceae Phoenix canariensis Canary Island palm Naturalized Plantaginaceae Plantago major common plantain Naturalized Platanaceae Platanus racemosa western sycamore Native Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis annual beard grass Naturalized Salicaceae Populus fremontii subsp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood Native Salicaceae Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood Native Asteraceae Pseudognaphalium biolettii two-color rabbit-tobacco Native Asteraceae Pseudognaphalium californicum ladies’ tobacco Native Asteraceae Pulicaria paludosa Spanish false fleabane Naturalized Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia coast live oak, encina Native Trails at Santiago Creek Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium Trails at Santiago Creek B-3 ESA / D201700187.04 Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium May 2020 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Family Scientific Name Common Name Nativity Status Brassicaceae Raphanus sativus radish Naturalized Euphorbiaceae Ricinus communis castor bean Naturalized Polygonaceae Rumex crispus curly dock Naturalized Salicaceae Salix exigua sandbar willow Native Salicaceae Salix gooddingii Goodding's black willow Native Salicaceae Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Native Chenopodiaceae Salsola tragus Russian thistle, tumbleweed Naturalized Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra subsp. caerulea blue elderberry Native Anacardiaceae Schinus molle pepper tree Naturalized Anacardiaceae Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree Naturalized Poaceae Schismus barbatus old han schismus Naturalized Asteraceae Senecio vulgaris common groundsel Naturalized Asteraceae Silybum marianum milk thistle Naturalized Brassicaceae Sisymbrium altissimum tumble mustard Naturalized Asteraceae Sonchus asper subsp. asper prickly sow thistle Naturalized Poaceae Stipa miliacea var. miliacea smilo grass Naturalized Tamaricaceae Tamarix ramosissima saltcedar Naturalized Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum western poison oak Native Typhaceae Typha latifolia broad-leaved cattail Native Ulmaceae Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm, lacebark elm Naturalized Urticaceae Urtica dioica stinging nettle Native Urticaceae Urtica urens dwarf nettle Naturalized Vitaceae Vitis girdiana desert wild grape Native Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm Naturalized Key to Species Listing Status Codes FE Federally Endangered SE State Listed as Endangered FT Federally Threatened ST State Listed as Threatened FC Federal Candidate SCE State Candidate for Endangered FPE Federally Proposed as Endangered SCT State Candidate for Threatened FPT Federally Proposed as Threatened SFP State Fully Protected FPD Federally Proposed for Delisting California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rank 1A: Presumed extirpated in California and either Rare or Extinct elsewhere. Rank 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered throughout their range. Rank 2A: Presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere. Rank 2B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common in other states. Rank 3: Plant species for which additional information is needed before rarity can be determined. Rank 4: Species of limited distribution in California (i.e., naturally rare in the wild), but whose existence does not appear to be susceptible to threat. SOURCE: ESA 2020. New Threat Code extensions and their meanings: 1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened 3 Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Trails at Santiago Creek Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium Trails at Santiago Creek B-4 ESA / D201700187.04 Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium May 2020 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Wildlife Species REPTILES Scientific Name Common Name Emydidae Box and Water Turtles * Trachemys scripta elegans red-eared slider Phrynosomatidae Zebratail, Earless, Horned, Spiny, Fringe-Toed Lizards Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard Uta stansburiana side-blotched lizard Teiidae Whiptail Lizards Aspidoscelis tigris western whiptail BIRDS Scientific Name Common Name Ardeidae Herons Ardea alba great egret Butorides virescens green heron Egretta thula snowy egret Cathartidae New World Vultures Cathartes aura turkey vulture Accipitridae Hawks Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Columbidae Pigeons and Doves * Columba livia rock pigeon Zenaida macroura mourning dove Vireonidae Vireos Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo Corvidae Jays and Crows Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Aegithalidae Bushtits Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Troglodytidae Wrens Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher Mimidae Thrashers Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Trails at Santiago Creek Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium Trails at Santiago Creek B-5 ESA / D201700187.04 Appendix B – Floral & Faunal Compendium May 2020 Preliminary − Subject to Revision REPTILES Scientific Name Common Name Bombycillidae Waxwings Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxing Parulidae Wood Warblers Oreothlypis celata orange-crowned warbler Emberizidae Emberizine Sparrows and Allies Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco Melozone crissalis California towhee Cardinalidae Buntings, Grosbeaks, and Tanagers Piranga ludoviciana western tanager Icteridae Blackbirds Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole Fringillidae Finches Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch MAMMALS Scientific Name Common Name Canidae Canines Canis latrans coyote Leporidae Hares and Rabbits Sylvilagus bachmani brush rabbit Procyonidae Ringtails and Raccoons Procyon lotor raccoon Sciuridae Squirrels and Chipmunks Sciurus niger fox squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Appendix C: Site Photos PHOTOGRAPH 1: View of Disturbed habitat within 22-lot parcel, facing east. PHOTOGRAPH 3: View of Herbaceous Cover natural community within center of 22-lot parcel, facing south towards southern boundary.PHOTOGRAPH 2: View of Disturbed - Coastal Sage Scrub natural community within southern portion of 22-lot parcel, facing northeast.Trails at Santiago CreekAppendix CSite PhotographsSOURCE: ESA, 2020D201700187.04 PHOTOGRAPH 5: View of Disturbed Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Woodland Natural Community and location of Future Storm Drain Collection Point, facing south towards Santiago Creek.PHOTOGRAPH 6: View of Non-Native Grassland-Herbaceous Cover natural community and ornamental trees along East Marbury Avenue and the northern boundary of the 22-lot parcel, facing East.Trails at Santiago CreekAppendix CSite PhotographsSOURCE: ESA, 2020D201700187.04PHOTOGRAPH 4: View of Giant Reed natural community within Santiago Creek south of Future Storm Drain Downstream Discharge Point, facing north. PHOTOGRAPH 9: View of eastern boundary of 22-lot parcel boundary where Santiago Creek conveys flows south towards the proposed Future Temporary Access Road location, facing South.Trails at Santiago CreekAppendix CSite PhotographsSOURCE: ESA, 2020D201700187.04PHOTOGRAPH 7: View of Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Woodland natural community and northern boundary of Future Storm Drain Downstream Discharge Point, facing southwest.PHOTOGRAPH 8: View of proposed Future Temporary Access Road across Santiago Creek with Metropolitan Water District facilities and disturbed portion of Santiago Creek visible in the foreground, facing northeast. Appendix C: Hydrological Reports THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-1: Preliminary WQMP THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18163 Mabury Avenue & Yellowstone Boulevard Orange, CA 92869 COORDINATES: 33.817839, -117.787729 Prepared for: MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 888 Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, CA 92802 714.687.1900 Prepared by: FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 949.474.1960 Dino Capannelli, PE Date Prepared: April 6, 2020 Date Revised: June 7, 2020 P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. i OWNER’S CERTIFICATION PROJECT OWNER’S CERTIFICATION Permit/Application No.: Grading Permit No.: Tract/Parcel Map and Lot(s)No.: TTM 18163 Building Permit No.: Address of Project Site and APN: Mabury Ave and Yellowstone Blvd, Orange, California 92869 COORDINATES: 33.817839, -117.787729 This Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. by FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Orange TTM No. 18163 (Permit # Pending) requiring the preparation of the plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the City of Orange Local Implementation Plan (LIP), and the intent of NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Orange, County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. Maintenance requirements within Section V and Appendix D will be adhered to with particular emphasis on maintaining the BMPs described within Sections IV and V. The Owner’s Annual Self Certification Statement along with a BMP maintenance implementation table will be submitted by June 30th every year following project completion. At least one copy of the approved WQMP shall be available on the subject property in perpetuity. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. The City of Orange will be notified of the change of ownership and the new owner will submit a new certification. Signature: Date: Name: Title: Company: Milan Capital Management, Inc. Address: 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Email: Telephone #: 714.687.1900 Public Works Director Date City Engineer Date P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. ii OWNER’S CERTIFICATION NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY Water Quality Management Plan WQMP Number – As assigned by the City of Orange: Submission of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (and his/her agent) of t he site (or portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/ Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual: Milan Capital Management, Inc Contact Person: Street Address: 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Title: City: Anaheim State: CA Zip: 92802 Phone: 714-687-1900 II. Information about Site Relevant to WQMP Name of Project: TTM 18163 Title of WQMP applicable to site: TTM 18163 Street Address of the site: Mabury Ave & Yellowstone Blvd Date of Transfer of Responsibility: III. New Owner/ Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City State Zip Phone: P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ............................ 1 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 2 II.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 2 II.2 Project Purpose and Activities ........................................................................................ 3 II.3 Potential Storm Water Pollutants .................................................................................... 3 II.4 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern ................................................................................. 5 II.5 Post Development Drainage Characteristics .................................................................... 7 II.6 Residential Projects ....................................................................................................... 7 II.7 Property Ownership/Management ................................................................................. 7 SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 8 III.1 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................ 8 III.2 Site Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 8 III.3 Watershed Description................................................................................................ 10 SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) ......................................................... 11 IV.1 Site Design BMPs ....................................................................................................... 13 IV.2 Source Control BMPs ................................................................................................. 14 IV.2.1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs..................................................................... 14 IV.2.2 Structural Source Control BMPs ............................................................................ 16 IV.3 Low Impact Development BMP Selection ...................................................................... 17 IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) ....................................................................... 18 IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs .................................................................................................. 19 IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration & Rainwater Harvesting BMPs ................................................... 21 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs .............................................................................................. 23 IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs .......................................................................... 24 IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs ......................................................................... 25 IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs ...................................................................................... 25 IV.4 Water Quality Credits ................................................................................................. 25 IV.5 Alternative Compliance Plan Information ...................................................................... 25 IV.6 Vector Control ........................................................................................................... 25 IV.7 Drainage Management Areas ..................................................................................... 25 IV.8 Calculations .............................................................................................................. 27 IV.8.1 Design Capture Volume (DCV) ............................................................................. 27 IV.8.2 Modular Wetland System BMP Design ................................................................... 34 P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION V IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE & INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs (O&M PLAN) 37 V.1 Frequency Inspection Matrix ........................................................................................ 38 V.2 Regulatory Permits ...................................................................................................... 43 V.3 Funding .................................................................................................................... 43 V.4 Owner Self-Certification Statement .............................................................................. 44 V.5 BMP Implementation Tracking ..................................................................................... 45 SECTION VI LOCATION MAP, SITE PLAN AND BMP DETAILS ............................................... 47 SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ............................................................................ 51 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDICES Appendix A .............................................................................. Conditions of Approval (PENDING) Appendix B ................................................................................................... Educational Materials Appendix C ................................................................................................................ BMP Details Appendix D ................................................................... BMP Maintenance Information / O&M Plan Appendix E ........................................................................................ Preliminary Soils Investigation Appendix F .................................. Hydrology Information (Q2 – Two-year frequency storm evaluation) LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Site Design BMPs ....................................................................................................... 13 Table 2. Non-Structural Source Control BMPs ........................................................................... 14 Table 3. Structural Source Control BMPs ................................................................................... 16 Table 4. Hydrologic Source Control BMPs ................................................................................. 18 Table 5. Infiltration BMPs ......................................................................................................... 19 Table 6. Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting ..................................................................... 21 Table 7. Biotreatment BMPs ..................................................................................................... 23 P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 1 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS & WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PROJECT INFORMATION Permit/Application No.: Grading or Building Permit No.: Address of Project Site (or Tract Map and Lot Number if no address) and APN: Mabury Ave and Yellowstone Blvd, Orange, California 92869 COORDINATES: 33.817839, -117.787729 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR ISSUANCE Discretionary Permit(s): Pending – to be provided in Final WQMP Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance applied to this project: (Please list verbatim.) Pending Issuance - To be provided in Appendix A of the Final WQMP upon issuance by the City of Orange. Water Quality Conditions of Approval (COA) are copied from full project COAs (Appendix A) and included here in the Final WQMP. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION II.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Tentative Tract No. 18163 project site encompasses approximately 10.9 acres in the City of Orange. The project site is bounded by Mabury Avenue and Yellowstone Boulevard to the north, and Santiago Creek to the south, west, and east. A Vicinity Map is included in Section VI. The table below summarizes the proposed project. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Planning Area/ Community Name: Mabury Ranch Project Area (ft2): 10.9 acres (462,567 ft2) # of Dwelling Units: 22 single-family units SIC Code: Not applicable Narrative Project Description: The proposed 10.9-acre redevelopment project plans to develop 22 single- family residential estate lots of approximately 6,000 to 8,000 square feet for future sale. Unit-specific amenities will be determined during the Final WQMP. Treatment will be provided by biotreatment BMPs. The project abuts a private street with two proposed privately maintained side streets, each ending in a cul de sac. A biotretention with underdrain BMP is proposed to treat the private streets and southern lots. The proposed BMPs are discussed further in Section IV.3 of this WQMP. Project Area: Pervious Area Pervious Area Percentage Impervious Area Impervious Area Percentage Pre-Project Conditions: 10.3 ac 95% 0.6 ac 5% Post-Project Conditions: 5.5 ac 50% 5.5 ac 50% Drainage Patterns/ Connections: Under existing conditions, the site sheet flows to the south and west before draining to Santiago Creek. Flows within Santiago Creek are routed through the Santiago Creek Recharge Basin, which is designed to infiltrate flows to replenish the local groundwater basin. The Recharge Basin will receive treated flows from the Project Site and high flows that bypass proposed BMPs. All runoff into Santiago Creek that is not infiltrated discharges to the Santa Ana River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at Huntington Beach. Under proposed conditions, runoff will be conveyed via proposed curb and gutter and storm drain systems. Each of the proposed lots will be graded to drain towards the proposed private streets. Under final buildout conditions, low-flows and first-flush runoff from each of the lots will be intercepted by P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT curb and gutter prior to draining to one of three proposed biotreatment BMPs. DMAs 1 and 2 will sheet flow to Mabury Avenue where low flows will be intercepted by proprietary biotreatment BMPs. These BMPs will be privately maintained. DMAs 3 and 4 will sheet flow to the proposed private streets, prior to being intercepted by a catch basin located in the cul-de-sac. Flows will be routed through a bioretention with underdrain BMP. Conceptual BMP sizing has been included as part of this WQMP analysis. To address hydromodification impacts, 2-year storm flows from DMAs 3 and 4 will flow to the proposed bioretention with underdrain BMP for detention and volume mitigation. Flows beyond the 2-year storm volume and DCV will bypass the system and discharge directly to Santiago Creek via the proposed storm drain system. II.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIES The purpose of the project is to develop 22 single-family residential lots and two private streets. Activities proposed for the Project Site include those typical with residential land uses. No common areas or parks are proposed. II.3 POTENTIAL STORM WATER POLLUTANTS The table below, derived from Table 2 of the Countywide Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document (revised December 2013), summarizes the categories of land use or project features of concern and the general pollutant categories associated with them for final buildout conditions. Priority Project Categories and/or Features: Streets, Highways, & Freeways. Detached Residential Development (to be developed in the future or by others). POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN Pollutant E = Expected to be of concern N =Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Suspended Solid/ Sediment E Nutrients E Heavy Metals E Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E Pesticides E Oil & Grease E P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN Pollutant E = Expected to be of concern N =Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Toxic Organic Compounds E Trash & Debris E There are no GeoTracker-listed cleanup sites within the vicinity of the project site. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION II.4 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN The purpose of this section is to identify any hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) with respect to downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased flows on natural habitat, etc. As specified in Section 2.3.3 of the 2011 Model WQMP, projects must identify and mitigate any HCOCs. A HCOC is a combination of upland hydrologic conditions and stream biological and physical conditions that presents a condition of concern for physical and/or biological degradation of streams. In the North Orange County permit area, HCOCs are considered to exist if any streams located downstream from the project are determined to be potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts and either of the following conditions exists: ▪ Post-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm exceeds the pre-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm by more than 5 percent or ▪ Time of concentration (Tc) of post-development runoff for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event exceeds the time of concentration of the pre-development condition for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event by more than 5 percent. If these conditions do not exist or streams are not potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts, an HCOC does not exist and hydromodification does not need to be considered further. In the North Orange County permit area, downstream channels are considered not susceptible to hydromodification, and therefore do not have the potential for a HCOC, if all downstream conveyance channels that will receive runoff from the project are engineered, hardened, and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity, and no sensitive habitat areas will be affected. Is the proposed project potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts? Yes No (show map) A preliminary hydromodification analysis was prepared for the ultimate condition of the project site. The project site discharges directly to Santiago Creek, which is a major tributary of the Santa Ana River. Santiago Creek confluences with Santa Ana River downstream and ultimately discharges into the Pacific Ocean. Santiago Creek Channel (E08) is considered hydromodification susceptible (see screenshot below). P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure XVI-3c Susceptibility Analysis Santa Ana River 2-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM SUMMARY Condition Tc Peak Runoff Volume Pre-development 7.12 min 18.36 cfs 0.65 ac-ft Proposed 13.26 min 14.92 cfs 0.87 ac-ft Difference + 6.14 min -3.44 cfs +0.22 ac-ft % Change +86.2% -18.74% +33.9% The results of the 2-year hydrology analysis found that implementation of the proposed project in its ultimate build-out condition would result in a decrease in peak runoff and an increase in time of concentration, but a 33.9% increase in volume (see Appendix F). Therefore, hydromodification impacts exist for the project site. The hydromodification volume will be detained through a proposed bioretention with underdrain system located south of the project site before discharging to Santiago Creek. As peak runoff will decrease under proposed conditions due to an increase in time of concentration and a change in proposed flowpath, and the hydromodification volume will be detained within the bioretention with underdrain BMP, hydromodification impacts will be mitigated. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION II.5 POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS Under proposed conditions, runoff will be conveyed through a combination of sheet flow and curb and gutter. Low flows in the two northern DMAs (DMA 1 and 2) will drain to Mabury Avenue and be captured by a Modular Wetland System for treatment. Flows from the southern two DMAs (DMA 3 and 4) will drain to a proposed bioretention without underdrain BMP sized for the combined DCV. High-flows will beyond the DCV will bypass the system and drain directly to Santiago Creek. Treated flows will also outlet to Santiago Creek. II.6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS The proposed residential lots will be developed for single family homes, ranging from 0.19 acres to 0.32 acres in size. Specific building footprints and amenities (pools, parking, landscaping), will be provided in the Final WQMP for the project site. II.7 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT Private Streets: Milan Capital Management, Inc. Open Space: Milan Capital Management, Inc. Estate Lots: Milan Capital Management, Inc. Structural BMPs: Milan Capital Management, Inc. The Owner, Milan Capital Management, Inc. shall assume all BMP maintenance and inspection for all residential units and private streets. Inspection and maintenance responsibilities are outlined in Section V of this report. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 8 SITE DESCRIPTION SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION III.1 PHYSICAL SETTING Reference Location Map: 33.817839, -117.787729 Site Address: South of Mabury Avenue and Yellowstone Boulevard, Orange, CA 92869 Land Use: Estate Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1-8 (Single Family Residential, 8,000 ft2) Predominant Soil Type: Type D per site-specific soils investigation Impervious Conditions: Existing Impervious: 5% Proposed Impervious: 50% Pervious Conditions: Existing Pervious: 95% Proposed Pervious: 50% III.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS Precipitation Zone: 0.85 inches per TGD Figure XVI-1 Site Description: Under existing conditions, the project site is entirely vacant and consists of scrub brush and a dirt access road. A portion of the project site is also undeveloped and exists as a vacant dirt lot. The site is bounded on the south, west, and east sides by Santiago Creek. Topography: The project site generally slopes to the south towards Santiago Creek. Proposed streets and residential areas will be relatively flat, sloping towards the south. Steeper areas to the south and west of the project site will be stabilized and equipped with drainage systems designed to reduce erosion and promote efficient drainage. Existing Drainage Patterns/ Connections: Under existing conditions, flows drain to the south via sheet flow before discharging directly to Santiago Creek. Soil Type, Geology, and Infiltration Properties: A site-specific geotechnical study is still pending for the TTM 18163 site, and no site-specific infiltration rates are currently available. However, a site-specific soils investigation was conducted by Ginter & Associates, Inc on April 20, 2020, examining underlying soil conditions for the Project Site. The overall site was deemed to be on stiff, Type D soils. Beneath the native soils, a layer of bedrock was discovered. Due to the presence of type D soils and bedrock, it is not anticipated that infiltration will be feasible for the project site. This will be confirmed through on-site infiltration testing during final design. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 9 SITE DESCRIPTION Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Conditions: No groundwater was encountered during the preliminary soils investigation conducted by Ginter & Associates, Inc. However, significant subterranean groundwater flows were noted south of the Santiago Creek. The direction of subterranean flow is generally east to west and parallel to the Santiago Creek and found to be approximately 34-52 feet below ground surface. Geotechnical Conditions (relevant to infiltration)1: The presence of Type D soils and bedrock indicate infiltration infeasibility due to a combination of low infiltration rates and the potential for perched groundwater conditions as a result of infiltration BMPs. A site specific infiltration study will be conducted during final design to confirm infiltration infeasibility. Off-Site Drainage: There is no run-on anticipated for the project site based on proposed grading. Any incidental run-on will drain to Santiago Creek. Utility and Infrastructure Information: There is an existing M.W.D 109” pipeline that intersects the project site. The proposed private streets will follow the path of the existing pipeline so as to minimize impacts to proposed infrastructure. Watershed Management Priorities: Not applicable. 1 (Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., 2016) P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 10 SITE DESCRIPTION III.3 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Watershed: Santiago Creek, Santa Ana River Watershed Downstream Receiving Waters: Santiago Creek Santa Ana River (Reach 2) Santa Ana River (Reach 1) 303(d) Listed Impairments: None Applicable TMDLs: None Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOCs): Refer to Section II.4 for details. Watershed Management Priorities: Not Applicable P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 11 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) Best Management Practices (BMPs) are programs and policies, including structural controls that are implemented to control the discharge of pollutants from the project site. This Section describes site design BMPs, source control BMPs, hydromodification control BMPs and treatment control BMPs. The proposed LID BMPs discussed in Section IV.3 have been selected for the project based on the feasibility criteria as defined in the 2011 Countywide Model WQMP and Technical Guidance Document (TGD)2,3, as well as the project’s Pollutants of Concern, the BMP’s ability to effectively treat those pollutants, specific site conditions (such as presence of low-infiltrating soil layers), setback requirements from building foundations, retaining wall footings and utilities. The proposed project is to develop 22 single-family residential estate for future sale, as well as one lot dedicated to a pump house. As infiltration has been shown to be infeasible for the site based on soil type and presence of bedrock (infiltration feasibility to be confirmed in final design), the DMAs have been sized for the implementation of biotreatment BMPs based on TGD methodology. These BMPs are discussed further in Section IV.3.4 below. As roughly 3.9 acres of the site will remain pervious under buildout conditions, treatment will be provided for 7.0 acres of the proposed project area, which includes all residential lots, the pump house lot, and private streets. Consistent with the Model WQMP, the following performance criteria have been applied to the project. Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub-regional basis? Yes No 2 County of Orange Planning Division. (2011, May 19). Exhibit 7.II Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). 3 County of Orange Planning Division. (2013, December 20). Exhibit 7.III Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 12 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Hydromodification Control Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-2.4.2.2) If a hydrologic condition of concern (HCOC) exists, priority projects shall implement onsite or regional hydromodification controls such that: ▪ Post-development runoff volume for the two-year frequency storm does not exceed that of the predevelopment condition by more than five percent, and ▪ Time of concentration of post-development runoff for the two-year storm event is not less than that for the predevelopment condition by more than five percent. Where the Project WQMP documents that excess runoff volume from the two-year runoff event cannot feasibly be retained and where in-stream controls cannot be used to otherwise mitigate HCOCs, the project shall implement on-site or regional hydromodification controls to: ▪ Retain the excess volume from the two-year runoff event to the MEP, and ▪ Implement on-site or regional hydromodification controls such that the post-development runoff two-year peak flow rate is no greater than 110 percent of the predevelopment runoff two-year peak flow rate. LID Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-2.4.3) Infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). LID BMPs must be designed to retain, on-site, (infiltrate, harvest and use, or evapotranspire) storm water runoff up to 80 percent average annual capture efficiency. Treatment Control BMP Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-3.2.2) If it is not feasible to meet LID performance criteria through retention and/or biotreatment provided on-site or at a sub-regional/regional scale, then treatment control BMPs shall be provided on-site or offsite prior to discharge to waters of the US. Sizing of treatment control BMP(s) shall be based on either the unmet volume after claiming applicable water quality credits, if appropriate. LID Design Storm Capture Volume: The Simple Method DCV for the TTM 18163 property (10.9 ac) is 17.506.1 cu-ft. The Simple Method DCV for the treated area of 7.0. acres is 16,391.0 cu-ft. Refer to Section IV.7 for specific Drainage Manage Area (DMA) breakdown and Section IV.8 for detailed calculations (Worksheet B). P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 13 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.1 SITE DESIGN BMPS The following table describes the site design BMPs used in this project and the methods used to incorporate them. TABLE 1. SITE DESIGN BMPS TECHNIQUE INCLUDED? IF NO, STATE JUSTIFICATION YES NO Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs) (C-Factor Reduction) Create Reduced or “Zero Discharge” Areas (Runoff Volume Reduction)1 Minimize Impervious Area/Maximize Permeability (C-Factor Reduction)2 Conserve Natural Areas (C-Factor Reduction) Notes: 1. Detention and retention areas incorporated into landscape design provide areas for retaining and detaining storm water flows, resulting in lower runoff rates and reductions in volume due to limited infiltration and evaporation. Such Site Design BMPs may reduce the size of Treatment Control BMPs. 2. The “C Factor” is a representation of the ability of a surface to produce runoff. Surfaces that produce higher volumes of runoff are represented by higher C Factors. By incorporating more pervious, lower C Factor surfaces into a development, lower volumes of runoff will be produced. Lower volumes and rates of runoff translate directly to lowering treatment requirements. Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs) (C-Factor Reduction) Landscaping will be provided throughout the site within the individual lots and around the existing perimeter slopes to disconnect impervious areas. Create Reduced or “Zero Discharge” Areas (Runoff Volume Reduction) Where feasible, proposed landscaping will be designed to be self-retaining. Flows from the majority of the Project Site will drain to a bioretention with underdrain BMP for detention and treatment prior to discharge from the site. Lot-specific grading and landscape design will be assessed in greater detail during final design. Minimize Impervious Area/Maximize Permeability (C-Factor Reduction) Impervious surfaces have been minimized by incorporating landscaped areas throughout the site within the individual lots, and along the trail easements and perimeter slopes. Runoff form the proposed residential lots will drain to biotreatment BMPs. Conserve Natural Areas (C-Factor Reduction) Where feasible, natural undeveloped areas will be maintained and natural drainage patterns will be promoted. Under final buildout conditions, approximately 4.5 acres of the TTM tract limit will be pervious. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 14 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS IV.2.1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. TABLE 2. NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions N3 Common Area Landscape Management N4 BMP Maintenance N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Not applicable, residential development N6 Local Water Quality Permit Compliance The City of Orange does not issue water quality permits. N7 Spill Contingency Plan Not applicable, no fueling on-site N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No Underground Storage tank is proposed N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance No hazardous material sites are proposed N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation Not applicable, no hazardous materials on-site. N11 Common Area Litter Control N12 Employee Training N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks No loading docks are proposed N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets No retail gasoline outlets are proposed P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 15 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES N1, Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational materials will be provided to tenants, including brochures and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the storm drain system. Examples include tips for pet care, household tips, and proper household hazardous waste disposal. Tenants will be provided with these materials by the property management prior to occupancy, and periodically thereafter. Refer to Section VII for a list of materials available and attached to this WQMP. Additional materials are available through the City of Orange Stormwater Program website (http://www.cityoforange.org) and the California Stormwater Quality Association’s (CASQA) BMP Handbooks (http://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks). N2, Activity Restrictions The Owner shall develop ongoing activity restrictions that include those that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water quality. Activities include, but are not limited to: handling and disposal of contaminants, fertilizer and pesticide application restrictions, litter control and pick-up, and vehicle or equipment repair and maintenance, washing down of impervious surfaces, as well as any other activities that may potentially contribute to water pollution. The site shall remain in compliance with the Orange Municipal Code, especially Chapter 7. N3, Common Area Landscape Management Management programs will be designed and implemented by the Owner to maintain all the common areas within the project site. These programs will cover how to reduce the potential pollutant sources of fertilizer and pesticide uses, utilization of water-efficient landscaping practices and proper disposal of landscape wastes by the owner/developer and/or contractors. N4, BMP Maintenance The Owner will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of each applicable non- structural BMP, as well as scheduling inspections and maintenance of all applicable structural BMP facilities through its staff, landscape contractor, and/or any other necessary maintenance contractors. Details on BMP maintenance are provided in Section V of this WQMP, and the O&M Plan is included in Section V and Appendix D. N11, Common Area Litter Control The Owner will be responsible for performing trash pickup and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary. Responsibilities will also include noting improper disposal materials by tenants. N12, Employee Training All employees of the Owner and any contractors will require training to ensure that employees are aware of activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain. Training will include, but not be limited to, spill cleanup procedures, proper waste disposal, housekeeping practices, etc. N14, Common Area Catch Basin Inspection All on-site private catch basin inlets and drainage facilities shall be inspected and maintained by the Owner at least once a year, prior to the rainy season, no later than October 1st of each year. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 16 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES N15, Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots The Owner shall be responsible for sweeping all private streets within the project on a weekly basis. IV.2.2 Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. TABLE 3. STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason S1 SD-13 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage S2 SD-34 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction No outdoor storage areas are proposed. S3 SD-32 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction No outdoor trash enclosures are proposed. S4 SD-12 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation S6 SD-31 Properly Design: Dock areas No loading docks are proposed. S7 SD-31 Properly Design: Maintenance bays No maintenance bays are proposed. S8 SD-33 Properly Design: Vehicle wash areas No wash areas are proposed. S9 SD-36 Properly Design: Outdoor processing areas No processing areas are proposed. S10 Properly Design: Equipment wash areas No wash areas are proposed. S11 SD-30 Properly Design: Fueling areas No fueling areas are proposed. S12 SD-10 Properly Design: Hillside landscaping S13 Properly Design: Wash water control for food preparation areas No food preparation areas are proposed. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 17 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TABLE 3. STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason S14 Properly Design: Community car wash racks No car wash racks are proposed. S1/SD-13, Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage The phrase “NO DUMPING! DRAINS TO OCEAN” will be stenciled on all major storm drain inlets within the project site to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. Stencils shall be in place prior to release of certificate of occupancy. Stencils shall be inspected for legibility on an annual basis and re-stenciled as necessary. S4/SD-12, Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control The Owner will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all common landscape areas utilizing similar planting materials with similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff. The Owner will be responsible for implementing all efficient irrigation systems for common area landscaping including, but not limited to, provisions for water sensors and programmable irrigation cycles. This includes smart timers, rain sensors, and moisture shut-off valves. The irrigation systems shall be in conformance with City water efficiency guidelines. Systems shall be tested twice per year, and water used during testing/flushing shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. S5, Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation The site drainage design shall include appropriate BMPs to decrease the potential for erosion of slopes. The design shall be consistent with Federal, State, and local standards (e.g., RWQCB, ACOE, CDFG). As applicable, the following principles shall be used: 1) convey runoff safely from the tops of slopes, 2) avoid disturbing steep or unstable slopes, as well as natural channels, 3) implement a permanent stabilization BMP on disturbed slopes and channels as quickly as possible, such as native vegetation, and 4) install energy dissipaters at the outlets of new storm drains, culverts, or channels. These structural BMPs will be deployed only on hillsides that are disturbed as a result of Project development. S12/SD-10, Properly Design: Hillside landscaping All slopes shall be vegetated and stabilized to prevent erosion, in accordance with “Efficient Irrigation and Landscape Design” source control BMP to prevent erosion. Hillsides that do not maintain existing vegetation/drainage patterns will implement stabilized landscaping. IV.3 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BMP SELECTION Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. The 4th Term MS4 Storm Water Permit (Order R8-2009-0030) requires the evaluation and use of LID features using the following hierarchy of treatment: infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvest/reuse, and biotreatment. The following sections summarize the LID BMPs proposed for the project in accordance with the permit hierarchy and performance criteria outlined in Section IV.1. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 18 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) Hydrologic source controls (HSCs) can be considered to be a hybrid between site design practices and LID BMPs. HSCs are distinguished from site design BMPs in that they do not reduce the tributary area or reduce the imperviousness of a drainage area; rather they reduce the runoff volume that would result from a drainage area with a given imperviousness compared to what would result if HSCs were not used. TABLE 4. HYDROLOGIC SOURCE CONTROL BMPS ID Name Included? HSC-1 Localized on-lot infiltration HSC-2 Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) HSC-3 Street trees (canopy interception) HSC-4 Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) HSC-5 Green roofs/Brown roofs HSC-6 Blue roofs HSC-7 Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) Other: HSCs were not incorporated into the project’s design at this stage in the project’s development. Any HSC’s will be accounted for during final design of the residential estate lots and the cumulative volume of the HSC’s will be subtracted from the required treatment volume in a future, separate WQMP(s). Green Street / Linear Project BMPs GREEN STREET BMPs ID Name Included? HSC-3 Street trees (canopy interception) BIO-1 Stormwater Curb Extensions / Stormwater Planters BiO-1 Bioretention Areas INF-6 Permeable Pavement INF-6 Permeable Friction Course Overlays P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 19 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GREEN STREET BMPs ID Name Included? BIO-2 Vegetated Swales (composed amended where possible) BIO-3 Filter strips (amended road shoulder) BIO-7 Proprietary Biotreatment INF-2 Infiltration Trench TRT-2 Cartridge Media Filters TRT-2 WSDOT Media Filter Drains Other: Green Street BMPs are not applicable for this project as all proposed streets are private. Private streets will be treated by Biotreatment BMPs, discussed in Section IV.3.3. IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Infiltration BMPs are LID BMPs that capture, store and infiltrate storm water runoff. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge (underdrain or outlet structure) until this volume is exceeded. Examples of infiltration BMPs include infiltration trenches, bioretention without underdrains, drywells, permeable pavement, and underground infiltration galleries. TABLE 5. INFILTRATION BMPS ID Name Included? INF-3 INF-4 Bioretention Without Underdrains Rain Gardens Porous Landscaping Infiltration Planters Retention Swales INF-2 Infiltration Trenches INF-1 Infiltration Basins INF-5 Drywells INF-7 Subsurface Infiltration Galleries -- French Drains INF-6 Permeable Asphalt P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 20 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TABLE 5. INFILTRATION BMPS ID Name Included? Permeable Concrete Permeable Concrete Pavers Other: Based on findings of Type D soils and bedrock during a preliminary soils investigation by Ginter & Associates, Inc, infiltration has been assumed to be infeasible for the project site. The site will be treated through the use of biotreatment BMPs. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 21 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration & Rainwater Harvesting BMPs TABLE 6. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, RAINWATER HARVESTING ID Name Included? -- HSCs, see Section IV.3.1 -- Surface-based infiltration BMPs -- Biotreatment BMPs, see Section VI.3.4 HU-1 Above-ground cisterns and basins HU-2 Underground detention -- Other: In order to quantify harvested water demand for the common areas of the project, the Modified Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) method was used, consistent with Appendix X of the Model WQMP’s Technical Guidance Document (TGD), dated May 19, 2011. The Modified EAWU method is modified from the OC Irrigation Code (County Ordinance No. 09-010) to account for the wet season demand and storm events (assuming that no irrigation would be applied for approximately 30% of the days in the wet season). The equation used to calculate the Modified EAWU is: 𝐾𝑚𝑐𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑐𝑐 𝐶𝐴𝑇𝑇= (𝐶𝑇𝑚wet × 𝐾L × 𝐾𝐴 × 0.015) 𝐼𝐶 Where: Modified EAWU = estimated daily average water use during wet season ETowet = average reference ET from November through April (inches per month) per Table X.2 of the TGD KL = landscape coefficient (Table X.4 of the TGD) LA = landscape area irrigated with harvested water (square feet) IE = irrigation efficiency (assumed at 90%) Note: In the equation, the coefficient (0.015) accounts for unit conversions and shut down of irrigation during and for three days following a significant precipitation event. For a system to be considered “feasible”, the system must be designed with a storage volume equal to the DCV from the tributary area and achieve more than 40% capture. The system must also be able to drawdown in 30 days to meet the 40% capture value. In addition, Table X.6 of the Technical Guidance Document sets forth the demand thresholds for minimum partial capture. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 22 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TABLE X.6: HARVESTED WATER DEMAND THRESHOLDS FOR MINIMUM PARTIAL CAPTURE Design Capture Storm Depth, inches Wet Season Demand Required for Minimum Partial Capture, gpd per impervious acre 0.60 490 0.65 530 0.70 570 0.75 610 0.80 650 0.85 690 0.90 730 0.95 770 1.00 810 The following table summarizes the estimated applied water use for the common area landscaping of the project. Water use was estimated for the 7.0 acres of improvement area only, as the remaining 3.9 acres will not provide irrigation opportunities. Conservation-style landscaping was assumed for the Project site. ESTIMATED APPLIED WATER USE (EAWU) FOR COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING Landscape Type Total Area (ac) % Impervious Impervious Tributary (ac) Irrigated LS Area (ac) EToWet (1) (in/mo) KL (2) Modified EAWU (gpd) Modified EAWU per impervious acre (gpd/ac) Minimum Capture Threshold (3) (gpd/ac) Total 6.99 80 5.60 1.40 2.90 0.35 1,041.42 186.13 690 Design Capture Volume (gal) 121,064 Drawdown (days) 116.2 Notes: 1 Per Table X.2 for Santa Ana Region (similar climate type), Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document, dated May 19, 2011. 2 Per Table X.4 of the Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document, dated May 19, 2011. 3 Per Table X.6 of Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document, dated May 19, 2011. Based on the proposed drawdown time, harvest & use BMPs are infeasible for the Project Site. The DCV will be treated through the use of biotreatment BMPs. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 23 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs TABLE 7. BIOTREATMENT BMPS ID Name Included? BIO-1 Bioretention with underdrains Storm Water planter boxes with underdrains Rain gardens with underdrains BIO-5 Constructed wetlands BIO-2 Vegetated swales BIO-3 Vegetated filter strips BIO-7 Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems BIO-4 Wet extended detention basin BIO-6 Dry extended detention basins -- Other: Biotreatment BMPs will be utilized on-site for water quality treatment of the proposed residential lots and private streets. The project will implement four proprietary biotreatment systems for water quality treatment to treat all pollutants of concern to a medium to high level of effectiveness. The proposed system is the Modular Wetlands Systems developed by Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. Modular Wetlands by Modular Wetlands Systems, Inc. are proprietary biotreatment systems that utilize multi-stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pre- treatment chamber contains the first three stages of treatment and includes a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine TSS, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment is achieved through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges back into the storm drain system. This system was selected based on its ability to treat the project’s pollutants of concerns to a medium or high effectiveness, in accordance with the Model WQMP and TGD requirements. Two Modular Wetland System (MWS) units will be installed to treat runoff from the proposed residential units in DMAs 1 and 2. Treated low flows and high flows will continue draining down Mabury Avenue before being collected by City storm drain infrastructure. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 24 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES In accordance with the Model WQMP and TGD, the bioretention/biotreatment BMPs will be sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour). Since Modular Wetlands are sized based on flow rate, they were sized utilizing the methodology for flow based BMPs (TGD Section III.1.2 and Worksheet D). MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM DESIGN SUMMARY DMA(1) Area (ac) % Imp. Tc (min) Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) QDesign(3) (cfs) Size / Model(4) Treatment Capacity (5) (cfs) DMA 1 1.17 80% 5 0.26 0.229 MWS-L-4-19-C 0.237 DMA 2 1.47 80% 5 0.26 0.286 MWS-L-8-12-C 0.346 Notes: (1) See also Section IV.2.2. (2) Refer to WQMP Exhibit in Section VI for locations of each drainage area and BMP. (3) Detailed calculations and worksheets are included in Section IV.8. (4) Unit details and specifications are included in Section VI. (5) Treatment capacities of each unit are based on wetland media design loading rate (controlled by downstream orifice) and perimeter surface area of wetland media provided. Individual unit sizing calculations provided by the manufacturer are included on eac h cut sheet/detail included in Section VI. In addition to the proposed MWS units, DMAs 3 and 4 will be treated by a single bioretention with underdrain system that will also satisfy hydromodification requirements for the entire site. The BMP will feature an 18” ponding depth and will be capable of drawing down in under 48 hours. Flows beyond the DCV will bypass the system and drain to Santiago Creek. BIORETENTION W/ UNDERDRAIN DESIGN SUMMARY: SIMPLE METHOD DMA(1) Total Drainage Area (ac) BMP Ponding Depth (ft) Depth Filtered (ft) BMP Drawdown Time (hours) Simple Method DCV (ft3)(3) BMP Surface Area Needed (ft2) BMP Surface Area Provided (ft2) DMA 3+4 4.35 1.5 0.625 45 10,275 4,835.2 4,900 Notes: (1) Refer to WQMP Exhibit in Section VI for locations of DMAs and proposed BMPs. (2) Per Figure III.2 of the TGD. See also Worksheet C in Section IV.8. (3) Per Worksheet C, “Determining Capture Efficiency of Volume Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs.” Copies of completed worksheets with detailed calculations are included in Section IV.8. Locations and tributary drainage areas are shown on the Preliminary WQMP Exhibit included in Section VI. BMP details and cross sections are included in Appendix C. Detailed calculations and associated TGD Worksheets are included in Section IV.8. Operation and maintenance details are included in Section V and Appendix D (O&M Plan). Further details on the proposed BMP designs, including final locations, footprints, and inverts will be provided in the Final WQMP. IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 25 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The hydromodification volume 9,583 cu. Ft will be detained through the proposed bioretention with underdrain BMP treating DMAs 3 and 4. By sizing the proposed basin for the combined DCV of 10,275 cu. ft using the simple method, the equivalent hydromodification volume of 9,583 cu. ft will be detained before discharging to Santiago Creek. As proposed flows are less than existing flows for the 2-year storm event, and the hydromodification volume for the entire site is provided within the bioretention with underdrain system, hydromodification impacts will be mitigated. IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Not applicable. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs Not applicable. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.4 WATER QUALITY CREDITS Not applicable. Water quality credits will not be applied for the project. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PLAN INFORMATION Not applicable. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.6 VECTOR CONTROL Vector control issues are not considered an issue since all proposed BMPs will be flow-based or designed to draw down within 48 hours. IV.7 DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS In accordance with the MS4 permit and the 2011 Model WQMP, the project site has been divided into Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) to be utilized for defining drainage areas and sizing LID and other treatment control BMPs. DMAs have been delineated based on the proposed site grading patterns, drainage patterns, storm drain and catch basin locations. The design capture volumes (DCV) and treatment flow rates (QDesign) for each DMA are summarized in the table below. These have been derived utilizing the “Simple Method” in accordance with the TGD Section III.1.1. Actual BMP sizing requirements, including flow rates, depths, and other design details for the specific BMPs proposed are provided in Section IV.3.2 and Section IV.3.3. Locations of DMAs and associated LID and treatment BMPs are identified on the exhibits in Section VI. Additional calculations and TGD Worksheets are provided in Section IV.8. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 26 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS (DMAs) DMA/ Drainage Area ID(1) BMP Tributary Drainage Area (ac) % Imp. Design Storm Depth(2) (in) Estimated Tc (min) Rainfall Intensity(3) (in/hr) Simple Method DCV(4) (ft3) QDesign (5) (cfs) DMA 1 Proprietary Biotreatment 1.17 80.0% 0.85 5 0.26 2,714.5 0.229 DMA 2 Proprietary Biotreatment 1.47 80.0% 0.85 5 0.26 3,399.4 0.286 DMA 3 Bioretention with Underdrain 2.17 82.0% 0.85 5 0.26 5,124.4 0.432 DMA 4 Bioretention with Underdrain 2.18 82.0% 0.85 5 0.26 5,152.8 0.434 Notes: 1. Refer to exhibits in Section VI for locations of each DMA. 2. Per Figure XVI-1 of the Technical Guidance Document. 3. Per Figure III.4 of the Technical Guidance Document. 4. Per Section III.1.1 of the Technical Guidance Document. 5. Per Section III.3.3 and Worksheet D of the Technical Guidance Document. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 27 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.8 CALCULATIONS IV.8.1 Design Capture Volume (DCV) In accordance with Section III.1.1 and Worksheet B of the TGD, the project DCV is calculated as follows: 𝐶𝐶𝑇=𝐶 × 𝑐 × 𝐴 × 43,560 𝑠𝑐 𝑎𝑐× 1 12 𝑐𝑠/𝑖𝑚 𝐶=(0.75 × 𝑖𝑚𝑚 +0.15) Where: DCV = design capture volume, in ft3 C = runoff coefficient Imp = impervious fraction of drainage area d = storm depth per Figure XVI-1, in inches A = tributary area, in acres Refer to Worksheet B for DCV calculations for the individual DMAs. Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Project: TTM 18163 Date: 6/03/2020 DMA = DMA 1 DMA 2 DMA 3 DMA 4 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d= 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, d remainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 inches 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A= 1.173 1.469 2.171 2.183 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 80.0% 80.0% 82.0% 82.0% % 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.750 0.750 0.765 0.765 4 Calculate runoff volume, V design = (C x d remainder x A x 43560 x (1/12))Vdesign=2,714.5 3,399.4 5,124.4 5,152.8 cu-ft Step 2: Calculate the DCV Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume F:\Projects\881\004\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Mabury_Calcs 2020-05-29; B-1 6/3/2020 P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 29 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet Infeasibility Criteria Yes No 1 Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Refer to Appendix VII (Worksheet I) for guidance on groundwater-related infiltration feasibility criteria. X Provide basis: No groundwater was encountered during preliminary soil investigation. There are no known plumes in the area. 2 Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk of increasing risk of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? (Yes if the answer to any of the following questions is yes, as established by a geotechnical expert): The BMP can only be located less than 50 feet away from slopes steeper than 15 percent The BMP can only be located less than eight feet from building foundations or an alternative setback. A study prepared by a geotechnical professional or an available watershed study substantiates that stormwater infiltration would potentially result in significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. X Provide basis: The preliminary soils investigation indicated the presence of bedrock below fill and native soils. Infiltration would create the potential for perched groundwater conditions, potentially contributing to geotechnical hazards. 3 Would infiltration of the DCV from drainage area violate downstream water rights? X Provide basis: P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 30 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Partial Infeasibility Criteria Yes No 4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on HSG D soils or the site geotechnical investigation identifies presence of soil characteristics which support categorization as D soils? X Provide basis: Per a site-specific soils investigation, the site soils underlying fill were found to be stiff and exhibited characteristics consistent with Type D soils. 5 Is measured infiltration rate below proposed facility less than 0.3 inches per hour? This calculation shall be based on the methods described in Appendix VII. X Provide basis: Infiltration tests are pending for the site, however a soils study indicated Type D soils. 6 Would reduction of over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? X Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible: 7 Would an increase in infiltration over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? X Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible: Infiltration Screening Results (check box corresponding to result): P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 31 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) 8 Is there substantial evidence that infiltration from the project would result in a significant increase in I&I to the sanitary sewer that cannot be sufficiently mitigated? (See Appendix XVII) Provide narrative discussion and supporting evidence: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. N/A 9 If any answer from row 1-3 is yes: infiltration of any volume is not feasible within the DMA or equivalent. Provide basis: Summarize findings of infeasibility screening 10 If any answer from row 4-7 is yes, infiltration is permissible but is not presumed to be feasible for the entire DCV. Criteria for designing biotreatment BMPs to achieve the maximum feasible infiltration and ET shall apply. Provide basis: Summarize findings of infeasibility screening 11 If all answers to rows 1 through 11 are no, infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, BMPs must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the maximum extent practicable. Infiltration is not anticipated to be feasible due to the presence of Type D soils and bedrock. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 32 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Table VIII.1: Recommendations/Requirements for BMP Selection to Minimize Groundwater Quality Impacts Tributary Area Risk Category Narrative Description of Category Example Land Use Activities BMP Selection Requirements Low Runoff Contamination Potential BMP receives runoff from a mix of land covers that are expected to have relatively clean runoff; significant spills in tributary area are unlikely. ▪ Rooftops with roofing material and downspouts free of copper and zinc ▪ Patios, sidewalks, and other pedestrian areas ▪ Mixed residential land uses with applicable source controls ▪ Institutional land uses with applicable source controls ▪ Driveways and minor streets ▪ Any infiltration BMP type may be used ▪ Pretreatment for sediment is strongly recommended, as applicable, to mitigate clogging Moderate Runoff Contamination Potential BMP receives runoff from a mix of land covers, more than 10 percent of which have the potential to generate stormwater pollutants at levels that could potentially contaminate groundwater; there is potential for minor spills in the tributary area. ▪ Roadways greater than 5,000 ADT but less than 25,000 ADT ▪ Commercial and institutional parking lots ▪ Commercial land uses ▪ Light industrial that does not include usage of chemicals that ▪ are mobile in stormwater and groundwater ▪ Trash storage areas ▪ Any infiltration BMP type may be used ▪ Pretreatment shall be used ▪ The type of pretreatment shall be selected to address potential groundwater contaminants potentially found in stormwater runoff. High Runoff Contamination Potential BMP receives runoff from a mix of land covers, more than 10 percent of which have significant unavoidable potential to generate stormwater pollutants in quantities that could be detrimental to groundwater quality; and/or there is significant potential for major spills that could drain to BMPs. ▪ Roads greater than 25,000 ADT ▪ Heavy and light industrial pollutant source areas, including areas with exposed industrial activity and high use industrial truck traffic, and any areas that cannot be isolated these areas. Does not include lower risk source sources areas within industrial zones (e.g., roofs, offices, and parking areas) that are hydrologically isolated from industrial pollutant source areas ▪ Automotive repair shops ▪ Car washes ▪ Fleet storage areas ▪ Nurseries, agriculture, and heavily managed landscape areas with extensive use of fertilizer ▪ Fueling stations (infiltration prohibited under all conditions) Infiltration is prohibited unless advanced pretreatment and spill isolation can be feasibly used and enhanced monitoring and inspection are implemented. Large projects* must evaluate feasibility of advanced pretreatment and spill isolation. Small projects may consider infiltration to be infeasible with narrative discussion * See Table VII.2 for definition of “Large” and “Small” projects. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Table VIII.2: Definition of Project Site Categories Residential Commercial, Institutional Industrial Small Projects Less than 10 acres and less than 30 DU Less than 5 acres and less than 50,000 SF Less than 2 acres and less than 20,000 SF Large Projects Greater than 10 acres or greater than 30 DU Greater than 5 acres or greater than 50,000 SF Greater than 2 acres or greater than 20,000 SF VIII.2. Depth to Groundwater and Mounding Potential Minimum separation between the infiltrating surface (bottom of infiltration facility) and seasonally high mounded groundwater shall be observed in the design of infiltration BMPs, depending on BMP type. • If the depth to unmounded seasonally high groundwater is greater than 15 feet, the depth to groundwater does not constrain infiltration • If separation to unmounded seasonally high groundwater is greater than 10-feet and the infiltration area is less than 2,000 sq-ft, the depth to groundwater does not constrain infiltration. • The separation between the infiltrating surface and the seasonally high mounded groundwater table shall not be less than 5 feet for all BMP types. BMPs for which 5-foot minimum separation applies include: o Rain gardens and dispersion trenches (small, residential applications) o Bioretention and planters o Permeable Pavement o Similar BMPs infiltrating over an extensive surface area and providing robust pretreatment or embedded treatment processes. • Separation to mounded seasonally high groundwater shall be at least 10 feet for infiltration devices that inject water below the subsurface and surface infiltration BMPs with tributary area and land use activities that are considered to pose a more significant risk to groundwater quality. BMPs for which the 10-foot separation applies include: o Dry wells o Subsurface infiltration galleries or vaults o Surface Infiltration Basins o Infiltration Trenches o Other functionally similar devices or BMPs. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 34 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.8.2 Modular Wetland System BMP Design The Modular Wetland System proprietary biotreatment BMPs were sized in accordance with Section III.1.2 and Worksheet D of the TGD: 𝑄𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛=𝐶 × 𝑖 × 𝐴 𝐶=(0.75 × 𝑖𝑚𝑚 +0.15) Where: QDesign = design flowrate, in cfs C = runoff coefficient Imp = impervious fraction of drainage area i = design intensity per Figure III.4, in inches per hour A = tributary area, in acres Refer to Worksheet D for flowrate calculations for the individual drainage areas/DMAs. Refer to Appendix C for additional design details and sizing information for the proposed Modular Wetland BMPs (provided by the manufacturer). Further details on the proposed BMP design including pipe sizes and inverts will be provided in the Final WQMP. Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Project: TTM 18163 Date: 6/3/2020 DMA 1 DMA 2 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2)Tc=5.0 5.0 min 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I 1 I1=0.260 0.260 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y 2 (Worksheet A)Y2=0% 0% % 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency (Y2), I 2 I2=0 0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, I design = I 1 - I 2 Idesign=0.260 0.260 in/hr 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A= 1.173 1.469 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 80.0% 80.0% % 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C = (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.750 0.750 4 Calculate design flowrate, Q design = (C x i design x A)Qdesign=0.229 0.286 cfs Describe System: Proprietary BioTreatment (BIO-7): Unit Size / Model = MWS-L-4-19 MWS-L-8-12 Unit Size / Model Treatment Capacity = 0.237 0.346 cfs Number of Units Needed = 1 1 Total Bio-treatment Provided = 0.237 0.346 cfs Provide time of concentration assumptions: 5.0 5.0 min Figure III.4. Capture Efficiency Nomograph for Off-line Flow-based Systems in Orange County Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate Supporting Calculations F:\Projects\881\004\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Mabury_Calcs 2020-05-29; D-1 (MWS)6/4/2020 P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 37 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE SECTION V IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE & INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs (O&M PLAN) It has been determined that Milan Capital Management, Inc., shall assume all BMP inspection and maintenance responsibilities for the TTM 18163 project. Contact Name: Pending – to be provided in Final WQMP Company: Milan Capital Management, Inc. Address: 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Phone: 714.687.1900 Should the maintenance responsibility be transferred at any time during the operational life of TTM 18163, such as when an HOA or POA is formed for a project, a formal notice of transfer shall be submitted to the City of Orange at the time responsibility of the property subject to this WQMP is transferred. The transfer of responsibility shall be incorporated into this WQMP as an amendment. The Owner shall verify BMP implementation and ongoing maintenance through inspection, self- certification, survey, or other equally effective measure. The certification shall verify that, at a minimum, the inspection and maintenance of all structural BMPs including inspection and performance of any required maintenance in the late summer / early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season. A form that may be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is included in Appendix D. The City of Orange may conduct verifications to assure that implementation and appropriate maintenance of structural and non-structural BMPs prescribed within this WQMP is taking place at the project site. The Owner shall retain operations, inspections and maintenance records of these BMPs and they will be made available to the City or County upon request. All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years after the recorded inspection date for the lifetime of the project. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 38 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE V.1 FREQUENCY INSPECTION MATRIX TABLE 8. BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs N1, Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational materials will be provided to tenants annually. Materials to be distributed are found in Appendix B. Tenants will be provided these materials by the Owner prior to new occupancy and annually thereafter. At lease signing & annually Milan Management Capital, Inc N2, Activity Restrictions The Owner will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality, through lease terms or other equally effective measure, for the property. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, prohibiting vehicle maintenance, vehicle washing, and washing of impervious areas. Ongoing Milan Management Capital, Inc N3, Common Area Landscape Management Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with City Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (LIP Exhibit A-5.1V) as well as local requirements. Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be performed on an as-needed basis to prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drain inlets. Monthly at minimum, or more often as needed Milan Management Capital, Inc. N4, BMP Maintenance Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this WQMP. Records of inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept by the Owner and shall be available for review upon request. Ongoing Milan Management Capital, Inc. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 39 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE TABLE 8. BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party N11, Common Area Litter Control Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction with routine maintenance activities. Weekly Milan Management Capital, Inc. N12, Employee Training Educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, particularly good housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted on an as needed basis. Annually Milan Management Capital, Inc. N14, Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities shall be inspected after each storm event and once per year. Inlets and other facilities shall be cleaned prior to the rainy season, by October 1 each year. Annually Milan Management Capital, Inc. N15, Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Private streets must be swept at least weekly, including prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Weekly Milan Management Capital, Inc. STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs S1, SD-13, Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1 each year. Those determined to be illegible will be re-stenciled as soon as possible. Annually Milan Management Capital, Inc. S4, SD-12, Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control Inspect, test and adjust irrigation system to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, ensure timing and cycle lengths are correct. Weekly Visual inspection testing 2x per year Milan Management Capital, Inc. S5, Protect Slopes and Channels and Provide Energy dissipation To be performed in conjunction with maintenance activities. Maintain vegetative cover and/or mulch to eliminate exposed soils. Any eroded surfaces to be repaired immediately. Inspections to be performed twice each year (spring and fall) and after major storm events to check for signs of erosion, gullies, and sloughing. Monthly Milan Management Capital, Inc. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 40 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE TABLE 8. BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party S12, SD-10, Properly Design: Hillside landscaping To be performed in conjunction with maintenance activities. Maintain plants as needed, inspect for leaks in irrigation, remove debris and overgrowth as needed. Monthly Milan Management Capital, Inc P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 41 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) BMPs BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party Bioretention With Underdrains Inspect BMPs routinely with general maintenance activities, as well as semi- annually or after major storm events to check for maintenance needs and function. Routine maintenance activities include: ▪ Maintain vegetation and media to perpetuate a robust vegetative and microbial community (thin/trim vegetation, replace spent media and mulch). ▪ Periodically remove dead vegetative biomass to prevent export of nutrients or clogging of the system. ▪ Remove accumulated sediment before it significantly interferes with system function. ▪ Conduct maintenance to prevent surface clogging (surface scarring, raking, mulch replacement, etc.). ▪ Maintain splash blocks/energy dissipation and scour-protection as required based on facility inspection. ▪ Routinely remove accumulated sediment at the inlet and outlet and trash and debris from the area. ▪ Repair torn or broken liners as necessary. Major maintenance shall be provided when the performance of the facility declines significantly and cannot be restored through routine maintenance. Major maintenance activities include: ▪ Replace media / planting soils as triggered by reduction in filtration/infiltration rates or decline in health of biological processes. ▪ Provide major sediment removal to restore volumetric capacity of basin-type BMPs. Repair or modify inlets/outlets to restore original function or enhance function based on observations of performance. 2x per year Milan Management Capital, Inc. Individual Homeowners P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 42 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) BMPs BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party Proprietary Biotreatment: Modular Wetland Systems (MWS) Per manufacturer’s specifications, the system shall be inspected at a minimum of once every six months, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1) each year, and after major storm events. Typical maintenance includes: ▪ Removing trash & debris from the catch basin screening filter (by hand, 2x per year at a minimum). ▪ Removal of sediment and solids in the settlement chamber (vacuum truck, once per year at a minimum). ▪ Replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM filter cartridge and drain-down filter (if equipped, once per year at a minimum) ▪ Trim plants within the wetland chamber as needed in conjunction with routine landscape maintenance activities (typically 2x per year). No fertilizer shall be used. Wetland chamber should be inspected during rain events to verify flow through the system. If little to no flow is observed from the lower valve or orifice plate, the wetland media may require replacement. If prior treatment stages are properly maintained, the life of the wetland media can be up to 20 years. 2x per year Milan Management Capital, Inc. Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off- site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 43 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE V.2 REGULATORY PERMITS None are required. V.3 FUNDING Long-term funding for all structural, non-structural, and LID BMPs and private streets, parking areas, and private lots will be provided by the Owner, Milan Capital Management, Inc. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 44 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE V.4 OWNER SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT As the owner representative of the TTM 18163 project for which a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was approved by the City, I hereby certify under penalty of law that all Best Management Practices contained within the approved Project WQMP have been ma intained and inspected in accordance with the schedule and frequency outlined in the approved WQMP Maintenance Table. The maintenance activities and inspections conducted are shown in the attached table and have been performed by qualified and knowledgeable individuals. Structural Treatment BMPs have been inspected and certified by a licensed professional engineer. To the best of my knowledge, the information submitted is true and accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and citations for violating water quality regulations. Signature: Date: Name: Title: Company: Address: Email: Telephone: P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 45 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE V.5 BMP IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING This sheet is to be completed and submitted annually with the Owner Self Certification Statement. BMP IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING TABLE BMP Activity Completion Dates or Frequency Initial SOURCE CONTROL BMPS (STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL) N1, Education for Property Owners, Tenants & Occupants Provide educational materials to tenants. Prior to occupancy, annually thereafter N2, Activity Restrictions Restrict activities that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water quality Ongoing N3, Common Area Landscape Management Maintain landscaping, restrict use of fertilizer & pesticides, properly dispose landscape wastes. Monthly N4, BMP Maintenance Maintain BMPs in accordance with Section V and Appendix D. Completion of construction, ongoing thereafter N11, Common Area Litter Control Litter pick-up and patrol. Weekly N12, Employee Training Educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention practices. Upon hire, annually thereafter N14, Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Inspect catch basin inlets and clean out as necessary. Annually N15, Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Sweep exposed parking areas & drive aisles. Weekly S1, Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Inspect for legibility and re-stencil if needed. Annually S4, Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control Inspect, test and adjust irrigation system to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, ensure timing and cycle lengths are correct. Weekly visual inspection Testing2x per year S5, Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation Inspect vegetative cover. Check for signs of erosion, gullies, and sloughing 2x per year S12, SD-10, Properly Design: Hillside landscaping Inspect irrigation for leaks, check vegetation to ensure health of all plants. Monthly LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND TREATMENT BMPs* Bioretention With Underdrains* Maintain landscaping, restrict use of fertilizer & pesticides, remove accumulated sediment, trash & debris 2x per year P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 46 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE BMP IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING TABLE BMP Activity Completion Dates or Frequency Initial Modular Wetland System* Inspect settling chamber for sediment accumulation and clean out as necessary. Replace pre- treatment media filter. Evaluate for overall plant health. Prune, trim and/or replace vegetation as necessary. No fertilizer shall be used in wetland chamber. 2x per year * Structural Treatment BMPs should be certified by a Licensed Professional Engineer. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 47 SITE PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN SECTION VI LOCATION MAP, SITE PLAN AND BMP DETAILS The exhibits provided in this section are to illustrate the post construction BMPs prescribed within this WQMP. Drainage flow information of the proposed project, such as general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface drainage conveyances, and storm drain facilities are also depicted. All structural source control and treatment control BMPs are shown as well. EXHIBITS ▪ Vicinity Map ▪ Tentative Tract Map 17847 ▪ Preliminary WQMP Exhibit BMP DETAILS & FACT SHEETS (INCLUDED IN APPENDIX C) ▪ Proprietary Biotreatment (BIO-7) ▪ Modular Wetland Systems P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 48 SITE PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN ------------------------------------------- P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 51 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS The educational materials included in this WQMP are provided to inform people involved in future uses, activities, or ownership of the site about the potential pitfalls associated with careless storm water management. “The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door” provides users with information about storm water that is/will be generated on site, what happens when water enters a storm drain, and its ultimate fate, discharging into the ocean. Also included are activities guidelines to educate anyone who is or will be associated with activities that have a potential to impact storm water runoff quality, and provide a menu of BMPs to effectively reduce the generation of storm water runoff pollutants from a variety of activities. The educational materials that may be used for the proposed project are included in Appendix B of this WQMP and are listed below. EDUCATION MATERIALS Residential Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Attached Business Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Attached The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for the Automotive Industry Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar Tips for the Home Mechanic Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Household Tips Other Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) (https://www.casqa.org/resources/b mp-handbooks) Check If Attached Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) DF-1 Drainage System Operation & Maintenance Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South County) SD-12 Efficient Irrigation Tips for Maintaining Septic Tank Systems SD-13 Storm Drain Signage Responsible Pest Control Sewer Spill Tips for the Home Improvement Projects Tips for Horse Care Tips for Landscaping and Gardening Tips for Pet Care Tips for Pool Maintenance Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains Tips for Projects Using Paint Tips for Protecting Your Watershed Other: Children’s Brochure P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) TTM 18163 JUNE 7, 2020 MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 52 APPENDICES APPENDICES Appendix A .............................................................................. Conditions of Approval (PENDING) Appendix B ................................................................................................... Educational Materials Appendix C ................................................................................................................ BMP Details Appendix D ................................................................... BMP Maintenance Information / O&M Plan Appendix E ........................................................................................ Preliminary Soils Investigation Appendix F .................................. Hydrology Information (Q2 – Two-year frequency storm evaluation) APPENDIX A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PENDING) APPENDIX B EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS APPENDIX C BMP DETAILS ORA N G E C O U NT Y ORA N G E C O U NT Y RIVE R SI D E C O U NT Y RIVE RSI DE C O U NTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY1.050.71 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.950.70.90.90.75P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-1_RainfallZones_20110215.mxdFIGUREJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP04/22/10DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYTECHNICAL GUIDANCEDOCUMENTORANGE CO.CARAINFALL ZONESSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION03.67.21.8Miles06123KilometersLEGENDOrange County Precipitation Stations24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches)24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches) - ExtrapolatedCity BoundariesRainfall ZonesDesign Capture Storm Depth (inches)0.65"0.70.750.800.850.900.951.001.10"Note: Events defined as 24-hour periods (calendar days) with greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall. For areas outside of available data coverage, professional judgment shall be applied.XVI-1 ORA N G E C O U NT Y ORA N GE C O U NTY RIVE RSI DE C O U NT Y RIVE R SI DE C O U NTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYP:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-2a_HydroSoils_20110215.mxdFIGUREXVI-2aJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP02/09/11DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYINFILTRATION STUDYORANGE CO.CANRCS HYDROLOGICSOILS GROUPSSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONSource: Soils: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Soil Survey - soil_ca678, Orange County & Western RiversideDate of publication: 2006-02-08!I03.67.21.8Miles05102.5KilometersLEGENDCity BoundariesHydrologic Soil GroupsA SoilsB SoilsC SoilsD Soilshttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm ORA N G E C O U NT Y ORA N G E C O U NT Y RIVE R SI D E C O U NT Y RIVE RSI DE C O U NT Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYP:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-2b_D-Soils_20110215.mxdFIGUREXVI-2bJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP02/09/11DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYINFILTRATION STUDYORANGE CO.CAHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE D NRCS SOIL SURVEYSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONSource: D Soils: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Soil Survey - soil_ca678, Orange County & Western RiversideDate of publication: 2006-02-08!I03.67.21.8Miles05102.5KilometersLEGENDCity BoundariesHydrologic Soil GroupsD Soilshttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY1010351030103010201010550330303030 20510203050103020P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-2d_DepthToGroundwaterOverview_20110215.mxdFIGUREXVI-2dJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.25 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP02/09/11DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYINFILTRATION STUDYORANGE CO.CANORTH ORANGE COUNTYMAPPED DEPTH TO FIRST GROUNDWATERSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONNote: Data are not available for South Orange County at this time.Source:Sprotte, Fuller and Greenwood, 1980.California Division of Mines and Geology;California Geological Survey!I02.551.25Miles0482KilometersLEGENDDepth To First Groundwater ContoursCity BoundariesOCWD Groundwater Basin Protection Boundary P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\SuceptabilityMaps_20100505\9526E_SantaAnaRiverSusceptibility_20100430.mxdClevelandNational Forest San Bernardino County Riverside County South Orange County Newport Bay Watershed Stabilized by Grade Control Structure San Gabriel-Coyote Creek Watershed Anaheim Bay- Huntington Harbor Watershed PetersCanyonReservoir OliveHills KraemerBasin CarbonCanyon WalnutCanyonReservoir IrvineLake AnaheimLake WarnerBasin MillerRetardingBasin BartlettRetardingBasin FletcherRetardingBasin SOUTHPARKPUMPSTATION VillaPark Dam Yorba LindaReservoir Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012 FIGURE 3JOBTITLESCALE1" = 12000'DESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP04/30/10DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYWATERSHEDMASTER PLANNINGORANGE CO.CASUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYISSANTA ANA RIVER!I 0 12,000 24,000 Feet Susceptibility Potential Areas of Erosion, Habitat, & Physical Structure Susceptibility Channel Type Earth (Unstable) Earth (Stabilized) Stabilized Tidel Influence <= Mean High Water Line (4.28') Water Body Basin Dam Lake Reservoir Forest Areas Cleveland National Forest Federal Lands Amarus Salt Marsh Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012 SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP UPATE (FEB 2013) APPENDIX D BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION / O&M PLAN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN Water Quality Management Plan For Tentative Tract No. 18163 Mabury Avenue and Yellowstone Boulevard This page intentionally left blank O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 3 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs Yes N3. Common Area Landscape Management Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (OC DAMP Section 5.5) as well as local requirements. Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be performed on an as-needed basis to prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drain inlets. Frequency: Monthly Milan Capital Management, Inc. Yes N4. BMP Maintenance Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in the O&M Plan included in this WQMP (Appendix D). Records of inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept by the owner/developer and shall be available for review upon request. Frequency: Ongoing Milan Capital Management, Inc. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 4 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N11. Common Area Litter Control Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction with routine maintenance activities. Frequency: Annually Milan Capital Management, Inc. Yes N12. Employee Training Educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, particularly good housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted on an as needed basis. Frequency: Annually Milan Capital Management, Inc. Yes N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities shall be inspected after each storm event and once per year. Storm drain inlets and other drainage facilities shall be cleaned prior to the rainy season, by October 1 each year. Milan Capital Management, Inc. Yes N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Private streets and parking lots will be swept on a quarterly basis, at minimum. Milan Capital Management, Inc. STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 5 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes S1. Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1 each year. Those determined to be illegible will be re- stenciled as soon as possible. Frequency: Annually Milan Capital Management, Inc. Yes S4. Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control In conjunction with routine maintenance activities, verify that landscape design continues to function properly by adjusting properly to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, and to verify that irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in accordance with water demands, given time of year, weather, and day or night time temperatures. System testing shall occur twice per year. Water from testing/flushing shall be collected and properly disposed to the sewer system and shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Frequency: Weekly Visual inspection, testing 2x per year Milan Capital Management, Inc. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 6 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes S5. Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation To be performed in conjunction with maintenance activities. Maintain vegetative cover and/or mulch to eliminate exposed soils. Any eroded surfaces to be repaired immediately. Inspections to be performed twice each year (spring and fall) and after major storm events to check for signs of erosion, gullies, and sloughing. Frequency: Monthly Milan Capital Management, Inc. Yes S12. Properly design: Hillside landscaping To be performed in conjunction with maintenance activities. Maintain plants as needed, inspect for leaks in irrigation, remove debris and overgrowth as needed. Frequency: Monthly Milan Capital Management, Inc. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 7 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BMPs Biotreatment BMP # 1: Bioretention with Underdrains Bioretention planters with underdrains are plant-based biotreatment systems that typically consist of a ponding area, mulch layer, planting soils and plants. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants. Inspect BMPs routinely with general maintenance activities, as well as semi-annually or after major storm events to check for maintenance needs and function. Routine maintenance activities include: ▪ Maintain vegetation and media to perpetuate a robust vegetative and microbial community (thin/trim vegetation, replace spent media and mulch). ▪ Periodically remove dead vegetative biomass to prevent export of nutrients or clogging of the system. ▪ Remove accumulated sediment before it significantly interferes with system function. ▪ Conduct maintenance to prevent surface clogging (surface scarring, raking, mulch replacement, etc.). ▪ Maintain splash blocks/energy dissipation and scour-protection as required based on facility inspection. ▪ Routinely remove accumulated sediment at the inlet and outlet and trash and debris from the area. ▪ Repair torn or broken liners as necessary. Major maintenance shall be provided when the performance of the facility declines significantly and cannot be restored through routine Milan Capital Management, Inc. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 8 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility maintenance. Major maintenance activities include: ▪ Replace media / planting soils as triggered by reduction in filtration/infiltration rates or decline in health of biological processes. ▪ Provide major sediment removal to restore volumetric capacity of basin-type BMPs. Repair or modify inlets/outlets to restore original function or enhance function based on observations of performance. Frequency: 2x per year Biotreatment BMP #2: Modular Wetland Systems (MWS) Modular Wetlands by Modular Wetlands Systems, Inc. are proprietary biotreatment systems that utilize multi-stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pre-treatment chamber contains the first three stages of treatment and includes a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine TSS, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment is achieved through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges back into the storm drain system. The Modular Wetland units shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The system shall be inspected at a minimum of once every six months, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1) each year, and after major storm events. Typical maintenance includes: ▪ Removing trash & debris from the catch basin screening filter (by hand, 2x per year at a minimum). ▪ Removal of sediment and solids in the settlement chamber (vacuum truck, once per year at a minimum). ▪ Replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM filter cartridge and drain-down filter (if equipped, once per year at a minimum) ▪ Trim plants within the wetland chamber as Milan Capital Management, Inc. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 9 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility needed in conjunction with routine landscape maintenance activities (typically 2x per year). No fertilizer shall be used. Wetland chamber should be inspected during rain events to verify flow through the system. If little to no flow is observed from the lower valve or orifice plate, the wetland media may require replacement. If prior treatment stages are properly maintained, the life of the wetland media can be up to 20 years. Frequency: 2x per year O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 10 of 12 Required Permits Permits are not required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Forms to Record BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is attached. Recordkeeping All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years and must be made available for review upon request. Waste Management Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off- site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed APPENDIX E PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 1 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction: ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Proposed Development ................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Geotechnical Investigations: ............................................................................................................. 3 3.0 Geologic Settings ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Regional Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Site Geology ........................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Af) ............................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.2 Younger Alluvium (Qya) ............................................................................................................... 7 3.2.3 Older Alluvium (Qoa.1) ................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.4 Bedrock: Vaqueros/Sespe Formation, undifferentiated (Tvs) .............................................. 7 3.2.5 Geologic Structure and Regional Seismicity.......................................................................... 8 4.0 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 9 5.0 Laboratory Analyses ................................................................................................................................ 9 6.0 Seismic Design Considerations ................................................................................................................ 9 7.0 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................................ 10 8.0 Slope Protection .................................................................................................................................... 11 9.0 Soil Properties ....................................................................................................................................... 11 10.0 Recommendations and Conclusions .................................................................................................. 11 10.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 11 10.2 Site Grading ..................................................................................................................................... 12 10.2.1 Site Clearing and Preparations ................................................................................................. 12 10.2.2 Remedial Grading ..................................................................................................................... 12 10.2.3 Fill Materials ............................................................................................................................. 12 10.2.4 Fill Placement, Moisture Conditional and Compaction ........................................................... 12 10.2.5 Earthwork Observations and Testing ....................................................................................... 13 10.3 Temporary Excavations ................................................................................................................... 13 10.4 Preliminary Foundation Design ....................................................................................................... 14 10.4.1 General Remarks ................................................................................................................. 15 10.5 Settlement ...................................................................................................................................... 15 10.6 Floor Slab-on-Grade ........................................................................................................................ 15 10.6.1 Concrete Floor Slabs ................................................................................................................ 16 GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 2 10.6.2 Driveway .................................................................................................................................. 16 10.6.3 Exterior Flatwork ...................................................................................................................... 16 10.6.4 Sub-grade Pre-saturation ......................................................................................................... 16 10.6.5 General ..................................................................................................................................... 16 10.7 Moisture/Water Vapor Mitigation for Concrete Slab-on-Grade .................................................... 17 10.9 Expansive Soils/Shrinkage ............................................................................................................... 18 10.10 Soil Corrosion ................................................................................................................................ 18 11.0 Utility Trench Backfill .......................................................................................................................... 18 12.0 Asphalt Concrete Pavement ............................................................................................................... 19 13.0 Site Drainage ....................................................................................................................................... 20 14.0 Landscape, Irrigation and Maintenance ............................................................................................. 20 15.0 Plan Review, Observations and Testing .............................................................................................. 21 16.0 Limitations........................................................................................................................................... 21 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 Geotechnical Map Appendices Appendix I References Appendix II Logs of Borings and Test Pits Appendix III Seismic Refraction Survey Appendix IV Laboratory Analyses Appendix V Slope Stability Analyses GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 3 1.0 Introduction: This report has been prepared to provide a Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation and Grading Plan Review for the subject site known as the “Mabury Site” in the city of Orange, California. The Grading Plan prepared by Fuscoe Engineering dated 3/14/2020 at a scale of 1”= 50’ was utilized as a base to present the geotechnical data analyses. 1.1 Site Description The subject site encompasses approximately 10 acres situated north of Santiago Creek and south of Mabury Avenue, as shown in Figure 1. A 106” diameter MWD Diemer water line bisects the site in a northwest to southeast direction. Natural topography ranges from approximately 430 ft. elevation in the northeast to approximately 400 ft. elevation in the southwest. A 20’± high cliff occurs along the north bank of Santiago Creek near the southeast perimeter. The site is currently vacant with native weeds and grasses. 1.2 Proposed Development The proposed Grading Plan consists of 22 residential lots, a main street with cul-de-sac emanating from Mabury Avenue for access and a secondary cul-de-sac off the main street. The fill slopes are all proposed at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Access to lots 1-5 and 16-22 will be from Mabury Avenue. 2.0 Geotechnical Investigations: Investigative techniques for the subject site included backhoe test pits, hollow stem auger borings and a shallow seismic refraction survey. These investigations were performed by Neblett & Associates, Inc. and Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. while the undersigned was employed by these firms either as Project Geologist or Chief Geologist. The test pits T-1 through T-14 were excavated by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. in 1992 at the locations shown in Figure 3 and the test pit logs are described in Appendix II. The maximum depths are on the order of 12 feet. The test pits WT-3 and WT-4 were excavated by Neblett & Associates, Inc. in 1999 to determine the location and depth of the MWD Diemer Intertie 10” diameter water line. The hollow stem auger borings BB-3 through BB-7 were excavated by Neblett & Associates, Inc. in 2002 to maximum depths of 30 ft. at the locations shown in Figure 3 . A shallow seismic refraction survey was performed by Neblett & Associates, Inc. consisting of 5 lines from 140 ft. long to 240 ft. long. The results are included in Appendix III. Samples were taken at various intervals during the test pit and hollow stem auger boring excavations for laboratory analyses. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 4 GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 5 GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 6 3.0 Geologic Settings 3.1 Regional Geologic Setting Regionally, the site is situated in the northeastern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province at an average elevation of 30’± m.s.l. (mean sea level) and subjacent to the Santa Ana Mountains, which rise to the east to more than 3,000’ m.s.l. Santiago Creek, which transgresses the site and the Santa Ana River, situated a few miles north, are currently active in transporting sediments and forming coalescing alluvia fans resulting in a broad surface which sloped away from the hills toward the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The majority of the site lies within the historic Santiago Creek floodplain designated on our Regional Geologic Map (Figure 2) as younger alluvium (Qya) in concert with Schoellhamer et al. (1981). A few feet above this historic floodplain at the approximate elevation of the existing Santiago Canyon Road is a surface exposed geomorphically as the first fluvial terrace above Santiago Creek. This terrace, identified “Qoa-1” on the attached Geotechnical Map (Figure 3), is traceable as a paired surface upstream and downstream from the site. Regional mapping (Schoellhamer et al. 1981) shows that remnants of at least four fluvial terraces border Santiago Creek in this area. These terraces are all underlain by fluvial gravels laid down by ancestral channels of Santiago Creek and bear lithologies and clast sizes comparable to the gravels that underlay the subject site and which are exposed in present floodplain quarries downstream. The subject site is located in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province and near the northern terminus of the Santa Ana Mountains, which reflect the northwest-trending signature of this province in southern California. The Peninsular Ranges (Jahns, 1954) extended from southern California and down the length of the Baja California Peninsula for 900 miles (1500km.). The ranges are characterized by basement complexes of mid-Jurassic to mid-Cretaceous age mildly metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks (Schoelhamer et al., 1981) which are intruded by quartz plutonites and gabbros of the southern California batholithic. These basement complexes are overlain locally by Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary rocks. These rocks have been offset during the past three million ears or more by predominately northwest-trending right-slip faults and some of these faults are active today, including the Whittier-Elsinore, San Jacinto and Norport- Inglewood faults (Crowell, 1974). The structure of the northern Santa Ana Mountains is dominated by two plunging anticlinoriums-a broad north-plunging anticlinal structure that underlines the main mountain mass and which is truncated at the northeast by the Whittier Fault and a northwest-trending anticlinorium that underlies the southwest flank and plunges northwest beneath the Los Angeles basin as the Anaheim nose. Based on the work by Schoellhamer et al. (1981), the generalized structure south of Santiago Creek near the subject site is dominated by northwest-striking beds, fold axes and faults with bisecting northeast-trending faults. In contrast, north of Santiago Creek, the generalized structure is dominated by GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 7 east/west-trending beds, fold axes and faults with some northwest and northeast-trending antithetic fault systems. The bedrock units exposed in the site’s environs are dominated by Eocene (?) to Miocene Age rocks, which include: undifferentiated Sespe and Vaqueros Formations consisting of a sequence of interbedded marine and non-marine sandstone and conglomerate; overlain uncomfortably by a predominantly sandstone sequence (Middle Miocene Age) know as the Topanga Formation, which in turn is overlain uncomfortably by sequences of shale, siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate designated as the Puente Formation (Upper Miocene Age). Also, outcrops of a sequence of extrusive igneous rocks and minor interbedded sedimentary rocks know as the El Modeno Volcanics (Schoellhamer et al., 1981) occur near the site and surrounding the area. Schoellhamer et al., (1981) have delineated the El Modeno Volcanics into various categories, which include basalt flows, tuff and tuff-breccia and flows and flow breccia. Also, scattered basalt and porphyritic andesite dikes intrude the Topanga Formation and other portions of the El Modeno Volcanics. The surficial deposits blanketing the bedrock units consist of alluvium along Santiago Creek. The older alluvium has been subdivided on the basis of their respective altitude above the stream into four numbered units (Qoa-1 through Qoa-4) by Schoellhamer et al. (1981). These deposits generally consist of pebbles, cobbles and boulders in a clayey red sand and silt matrix. 3.2 Site Geology 3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Af) Some portions of the site have been disturbed and infilled with undocumented and non- engineered fills derived locally, which consist of silty to gravelly sand with cobbles, local concrete fragments and some brush. In the southwest portion of the site, bedrock and younger alluvium is mantled by a thin (1’-3’) blanket of artificial fill. 3.2.2 Younger Alluvium (Qya) This surficial unit is located in the southwest portion of the site, as shown in Figure 3. It generally consists of dark reddish-brown medium-grained sand with some clay and abundant sub-rounded pebbles and cobbles in a massive moderately dense condition. Depths of this unit are in the 10-12 ft. range. 3.2.3 Older Alluvium (Qoa.1) The older alluvium occurs in the central and northern portions of the site and is a slightly elevated alluvial terrace deposit consisting of similar lithologic and soil engineering properties as the younger alluvium (Qya). The thickness of this unit is approximately 30- 40 feet. 3.2.4 Bedrock: Vaqueros/Sespe Formation, undifferentiated (Tvs) This bedrock unit underlies the artificial fill, younger alluvium and older alluvium within the site and is exposed along the floor and north bank of Santiago Creek, GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 8 south of the site. It consists predominately of very well-cemented and massive coarse sandstones and pebbly sandstones with minor reddish brown siltstone to claystone interbeds. 3.2.5 Geologic Structure and Regional Seismicity The geologic structure exposed along the Santiago Creek channel consists of bedding having north to north-northwesterly strikes and moderate (25o to 35o) dips to the west. As discussed previously, the inferred location of the El Modeno Fault transecting the site is shown in Figure 3 (per Schoellhamer et al., 1981). The investigation by Ginter and Shlemon (1991) in the vicinity of the inferred trace of this fault location south of Santiago Road, found no direct evidence of its presence at that location and if it were present, would pre-date Holocene Age (“active” designation per the CDMG). Furthermore, this firm’s geologic mapping, subsurface investigations and review of previous consultant’s work (i.e. Geomatrix, March 11, 1996) indicate no evidence of faulting within the subject site. Consequently, the El Modeno Fault is not believed to be present within or immediately adjacent to the site. Recent interpretations by Wright (1991) suggest the El Modeno Fault “dies out” in the site’s vicinity and the east-west trending Peralta Hills Thrust Fault is the Major structural element north of the site. The position of the Peralta Hills Fault suggests that the El Modeno Fault is truncated by or passes beneath it (Fife et al., 1982). This subject site and if present at all in the immediate vicinity, is “inactive”. The Peralta Hills Fault, considered by Bryant, Fife and others (1982) to be within a transition zone between the northern Peninsular Ranges and the Central Transverse Ranges, exemplifies the north-dipping reverse to thrust faulting found throughout the Transverse Ranges Province. The Peralta Hills Fault is considered a north-dipping reverse fault along a 5± miles sinuous trace across the southern Peralta Hills (Figure 2). Youthfulness of this fault has been demonstrated at several localities by Bryant, Fife (1982) and various other consultants by offsets extending into Pleistocene terrace deposits and Holocene alluvial and colluvial deposits. It is not known whether the Peralta Hills Fault is a major tectonic feature capable of producing earthquakes or simply related to flexural folding within the sedimentary interval (Bryant and Fife, 1981). The closest active “regional” fault if the Whittier Fault, located approximately 6 miles (9 km.) northeast of the subject site. The Whittier Fault, considered a “master” fault of the area (Yeats et al, 1981) and also a northern extension of the Elsinore Fault, is a high-single northeast-dipping, strike-slip fault with a reverse component of Late Pleistocene to Holocene age (Yerkes et al., 1965). The Whittier Narrows earthquake (Mw5.9) of October 1, 1987 occurred approximately 6 miles northwest of the site, which was only related to the GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 9 Whittier Fault and which involved an east-striking blind thrust dipping 25o north (Hauksson & Jones, 1989). In general, recorded seismic activity from 1932 ± to present for the subject site and its environs has been relatively sparse (Bryant and Fife, 1982). The July 29, 2008 Mw5.4 Chino Hills earthquake epicenter was approximately 12 miles northeast of the subject site between the Whittier Fault and the Chino Fault that indicates a local mechanism mixture of strike-slip and thrust faulting on a west-southwest or a west-northwest striking nodal plane (Hauksson, 2009). 4.0 Groundwater No groundwater was encountered during the subsurface investigations within the subject site to the depths excavated. The groundwater regime of the site is predominately influenced by the Santiago Creek system and the controlled outflow from the Villa Park dam, situated upstream. The majority of this flow is contained via the Santiago Creek channel, which has an elevation of approximately 390 ft. near the eastern perimeter and descends at a very shallow gradient to the western perimeter, where it is at an elevation of 375 feet. Based on our various subsurface investigations of adjacent areas and the monitoring well data, significant subterranean groundwater flows are also present south of Santiago Creek. These flows appear to be uncontrolled and involve a broad braided system migrating along various venues near the old alluvial gravel/bedrock interface. 5.0 Laboratory Analyses Laboratory test results of in-situ dry density and moisture contents performed by the previous consultant Neblett and Associates, Inc. are included in their logs of borings. The laboratory tests performed on representative samples by Pacific Soils, Inc. are presented in Appendix IV. Additional laboratory testing should be performed during the grading on different types of soils and bedrocks. 6.0 Seismic Design Considerations Based on the subsurface conditions, the site classification of the project site may be characterized as “Stiff Soils” with Site Class D. Corresponding seismic design parameter for this site classification and the site location (Latitude: 33.815448; Longitude: -117.788327) were determined based on general ground motion analyses in accordance with Section 1613.5 of the CBC. These parameters are summarized below: GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 10 Categorization / Coefficient Design Value Site Class D Mapped MCE Spectral Acceleration for Short (0.2 Second) Period, SS 1..5 g Mapped MCE Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period, S1 0.599 g Short Period (0.2 Second) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Long Period (1 Second) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.5 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-Second Period, SMS 2.282 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period, SM1 0.898 g Design (5% damped) Spectral Response Acceleration for Short (0.2 Second) Period, SDS 1.0 g Design (5% damped) Spectral Response Acceleration for a 1- Second Period, SD1 0.599 g Maximum Considered Earthquake-Geometric Mean, PGAM 0.502 g 7.0 Slope Stability Static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses were performed for representative highest 2:1 (horizontal : vertical) fill slope configuration as shown Cross Section 1-1’. A reasonable shear strength values (C = 200 psf and  = 32 degrees) were used in the stability analyses. A horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.21 g obtained in accordance with SP 117 guidelines (using peak ground acceleration corresponding to two-thirds of PGAM, 5 mm threshold, predominant earthquake magnitude and distance to seismic source for 475-year return period) was utilized in the pseudo- static analyses. Slope stability calculations are included in Appendix III. Factors of safety obtained in the analyses exceed the required factors of safety 1.5 and 1.0 for static and pseudo-static, respectively. The surficial stability analysis is based on the Infinite Slope Method considering submerged slope condition to a depth of 4 feet. The surficial stability calculation is also included in Appendix III. The factor of safety obtained from calculation is greater than the required 1.5. Slope stability analyses (calculations) are presented in Appendix V. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 11 8.0 Slope Protection Slope protection in the form of buried rip-rap is recommended to be placed, as shown in Figure 3 . The design of the rip-rap should be in accordance with the governing agencies. The design Civil Engineer should determine the height limits of the rip-rap to accommodate the jurisdictional requirements. 9.0 Soil Properties The majority of the site consists of older alluvial terrace gravel deposits (Qoa.1) underlain by bedrock. After appropriate removals, this unit will be considered suitable to support the proposed development. Some areas along the development’s southern perimeter contain young alluvial terrace gravel deposits which, in some areas, are blanketed with a thin veneer of artificial fill, which will require removal and replacement with engineered fill. The young alluvial terrace gravels (Qya) will be suitable to support the development after appropriate removals and replacement with engineered fill. The underlying bedrock materials assigned to the undifferentiated Sespe/Vaqueros Formation (Tvs) are considered suitable (with proper engineering) for support of the proposed development. 10.0 Recommendations and Conclusions 10.1 General Based on the results of our investigation, engineering analyses and evaluations, combined with our professional experience and judgment, it is our opinion that, from a geologic and geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development. The planned residences can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings, provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and implemented during construction. Preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction are present below. As grading and foundation plans are completed, they should be forwarded to our office for review to verify conformance with the intent of these recommendations, and to enable us to provide additional/revised recommendations, as appropriate. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 12 10.2 Site Grading 10.2.1 Site Clearing and Preparations a) Precautions should be taken during the performance of all work and at all times, to protect the work site, particularly excavated areas, from flooding, ponding and inundation due to poor or improper temporary surface drainage. During periods of impending inclement weather, temporary provisions should be made to adequately direct surface drainage away from all sources and off the work site and also provide adequate pumps and sumps to handle any flow into the excavations. b) All site preparation as indicated below should be made under the periodic observation of the Project Geotechnical Engineer or Project Geologist. c) Prior to the start of the grading and earthwork operations, all excess vegetation, surface trash, debris and other deleterious materials should be removed and wasted away from the site. 10.2.2 Remedial Grading a.) Removals and Overexcavating All artificial fill (Af) should be removed and replaced with engineered fills. Excavation depths generally range from a few feet to 10 feet. The upper portions of the native terrace alluvial gravels (Qya and Qoa.1) are unsuitable and will require removal to depths ranging from 5 to 10 feet. 10.2.3 Fill Materials The excavated on-site soils may be used as compacted fill. The fill materials to be used as compacted engineered fill should be free of organics, debris, deleterious materials, and rocks over 6 inches maximum dimension, and must be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer or Project Geologist prior to use. Import soils, if required, should be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer for suitability prior to delivery. Import soils should be free of trash, debris or other objectionable materials. All import fill should have engineering characteristics similar to the on-site soils. Plans and specifications should indicate that the grading contractor shall notify the Project Geotechnical Engineer not less than 72 hours in advance of the location of any soils proposed for import. Each proposed import source shall be sampled, tested and approved prior to delivery of soils for use on the site. 10.2.4 Fill Placement, Moisture Conditional and Compaction Approved on-site or imported soils, should be spread in thin loose lifts (not exceeding six inches in thickness), moisture conditioned to approximately 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture contents, and each lift rolled and compacted to minimum 90 GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 13 percent of the applicable laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM: D 1557), until the desired grades are achieved. No jetting or flooding is allowed. Compacted fill areas not meeting the specified relative compaction should be moisture conditioned, as appropriate, and re-compacted, until the required compaction is achieved. 10.2.5 Earthwork Observations and Testing The site preparation, over-excavation, and earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing by a representative of the Project Geotechnical Engineer or Project Geologist. The fill should be tested at the time of placement to verify that the required compaction is achieved. The fill compaction should be determined in the field by the Sand Cone Method (ASTM: D 1556) or Nuclear Gauge Method (ASTM: D 2216), or other test method approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. During grading, an adequate number of field density tests should be performed using approved test procedures in order to determine compliance of earthwork to the project requirements. The frequency of field density testing should be in accordance with the recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and must comply with the minimum requirements of the governing jurisdiction. Quality control testing performed to determine the acceptability of the fill compaction should be based on the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determined in accordance with ASTM: D 1557 test procedure. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable materials encountered during grading should be brought immediately to the attention of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Deeper excavations may be required, should unsuitable soils be encountered locally, as determined by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or Project Geologist. 10.3 Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations greater than 5 feet vertical height should be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V or shored in accordance with Cal OSHA requirements. Our office should review soil conditions exposed during excavations to verify acceptability of temporary slopes. Final temporary backcut slope design will be dependent upon the GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 14 soil conditions encountered, construction procedures and schedule. Temporary backcuts should not be left open for extended periods of time. 10.4 Preliminary Foundation Design The planned commercial structures may be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on compacted engineered fill. At the time of this report preparation, foundation details and loads were not available. These should be reviewed during the precise grading plan review to confirm the geotechnical recommendations provided herein and to develop supplemental recommendations, if required. The preliminary geotechnical design criteria applicable to the subject development are summarized below: Allowable Bearing Pressure (1) = 1,500 psf Minimum Footing Depth (2) = 24 inches Minimum Footing Width = Per CBC Passive Soil Pressure (3) = 250 psf/ft., subject to a maximum of 2,000 psf Friction Coefficient = 0.35 (ultimate) Minimum Footing Reinforcement = Four No. 4 bars, 2 each at top and bottom (1) The above value may be increased 250 lbs./sq.ft. for each additional foot exceeding the minimum embedment depth and/or width, subject to a maximum of 2,500 psf. Allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for short term loading due to wind or seismic forces. (2) Footing depth is below lowest adjacent soil grade. (3) Passive soil pressure value is for level soil conditions adjacent to footings. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 15 10.4.1 General Remarks • Foundation details such as concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. should be established by the Project Structural Engineer, considering the soil expansion potential and loading and service conditions. The reinforcements shown should be considered as minimum requirements. The footings should be adequately reinforced based on structural design considerations and/or Code requirements. • Isolated column footings should be tied together by grade beams in at least two (2) orthogonal directions. • Foundation excavations should be observed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of reinforcement or concrete. Forming of footing excavations may be required. Excavations should be free of slough and debris and thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete. • Excavated materials from footings and utility trenches should not be placed in slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. 10.5 Settlement Total static and differential post-construction settlements for footings designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria given below and supporting loads not exceeding the typical loadings for residential construction (column and wall loads on the order of 30 kips and 3 kips/lineal foot, respectively) are not anticipated to exceed the values shown below. The settlement estimates should be confirmed based on review of the foundation plans. Structures should be designed for the following post-construction settlements: - Total settlement = 1 inch - Differential settlement = ¾-inch (*) (*) Between similarly loaded column footings and for continuous footings and slabs over a distance of approximately 30 feet. 10.6 Floor Slab-on-Grade The compacted engineered fill underling the site generally consists of clayey and silty sands with low to medium soil expansion potential. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 16 Structural and/or construction loading considerations will govern slab design and should be evaluated by the Project Structural Engineer. In areas where a moisture sensitive floor covering will be used, the floor slab-on-grade should be underlain by a moisture/water vapor retarder, as recommended in Section below. Recommended criteria for slab-on grade are shown below: 10.6.1 Concrete Floor Slabs Concrete floor slabs should be 5 inches thick (minimum) and should be reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid height. No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center should be provided connecting floor slabs to footings. In order to minimize migration of moisture up the concrete slab from soil subgrade and damage to floor coverings, a moisture barrier/water vapor retarder recommended beneath floor slabs as discussed hereinafter. 10.6.2 Driveway Driveway concrete slabs should be 5 inches thick (minimum) with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid-height. The slab may be placed directly on properly prepared sub-grade. No moisture barrier is required under driveway slabs. 10.6.3 Exterior Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork (e.g. sidewalks, walkways) should be 4 inches thick (minimum), with No. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, each way at mid-height and placed on properly prepared sub-grade. Hardscape areas within two feet of the descending slopes should include a thickened edge deepened to provide a minimum five (5) feet horizontal setback between the bottom outside face of the thickened edge and slope face. 10.6.4 Sub-grade Pre-saturation Prior to concrete placement, the soil sub-grade should be thoroughly wetted to about 12 inches in depth at a moisture condition of about 2 to 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content. 10.6.5 General Interior floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, including driveway, should be properly designed for the construction and service loading conditions, potential settlements and soil expansion. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 17 reinforcing criteria, joint spacing, etc. should be established by the Project Structural Engineer. The recommended minimum reinforcements for concrete slabs provided above are intended for preliminary design only. More restrictive criteria as dictated by structural design or regulatory requirements shall govern. 10.7 Moisture/Water Vapor Mitigation for Concrete Slab -on-Grade In order to reduce the potential for moisture/water vapor migration up through the slab and possibly affecting floor covering, a moisture/vapor retarder is recommended under concrete floor slab-on-grade. The moisture barrier should be properly installed, lapped and sealed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Punctures and rips should be repaired prior to placement of sand. As a minimum, this moisture/water vapor retarder should consist of 10-mil thick polyethylene (“Visqueen”), lapped and sealed, and placed mid-height within a 4-inch coarse sand layer. This moisture/water vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The following recommendations are based on the tentative guidelines by the American Concrete Institute to reduce the potential moisture/water vapor intrusion in concrete slab-on-grade. Based on our review of available literature, it appears that the ACI procedure would be more effective to help reduce potential moisture/water vapor migration up through concrete slab-on-grade. Recommendations based on the ACI guidelines are presented below: ▪ The moisture/water vapor retarder should consist of high strength polyethylene membrane and should meet or exceed the ASTM: E-1745-97 Class C material requirements for water vapor permeance, tensile strength and puncture resistance. The vapor retarder should consist of “Moistop Plus” (Fortifiber Building Products Systems) or “Vapor Block” VB 15 (Americover, Inc.), or approved equal. The vapor retarder should be underlain by a capillary break comprised of minimum 4 inches thick pea gravel layer. The gravel layer should be placed and compacted on approved soil sub-grade. ▪ The membrane should be placed on approved gravel layer and properly lapped and sealed. Membranes intersecting utility pipes, sewer lines, ducts or drains must be properly wrapped around the penetrations and sealed. All punctures and rips in the membrane should be repaired prior to placement of concrete, following manufacturer’s recommendations. The vapor retarder should be installed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM: E-1643, and in conformance with the installation procedures recommended by the manufacturer. ▪ To minimize slab curling, a low slump concrete (low shrinkage mix design) should be used for the slab construction, as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 18 The moisture/water vapor protection for concrete slab-on-grade should be selected base on cost and construction considerations, and considering potential future problems resulting from improper and uncontrolled landscape irrigation practices. Regardless of the moisture/water vapor retarder option selected, it should be emphasized that proper control of irrigation and landscape water adjacent to the structure is of paramount importance. 10.9 Expansive Soils/Shrinkage In general, the site soils are sandy soils with very low soil expansion potential. Specialized construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil forces are not anticipated at this time. Additional evaluation of soils for expansion potential should be conducted by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operations. The source of the fill materials for grading operations include younger alluvium (Qya) and older alluvium (Qoa-1) will shrink when excavated and re-compacted. A shrinkage of 10- 15% may be considered in the earthwork volume calculations. 10.10 Soil Corrosion The previous consultant Pacific Soils. Inc. performed one soil corrosion testing consisted of pH, chlorides, soluble sulfates, and alkalinity. Their test results indicate the tested soils are not corrosive. Additional soil corrosion testing of exposed foundation materials should be performed during or near completion of site grading. It may be necessary to retain a corrosion specialist for the project. 11.0 Utility Trench Backfill Bedding material should consist of on-site sandy or imported materials exhibiting a San Equivalent (S.E.) value of 30 or greater. The on-site soils are considered suitable for trench backfill, provided they are free of organic materials and oversize rocks. Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 4 inches and mechanically compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 90% based on ASTM: D1157. Care should be taken not to damage utility lines. Utility trenches should not be located within the influence of footings. This is defined as a zone located below the footing and a line sloping at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) outward GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 19 from the outside edge of footings. If utility lines are located within the zone of footings, the backfill should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction or slurry backfilled (minimum 1-1/2 sack cemented sand mix. To reduce potential water migration into building sub-grade through the granular bedding/shading layer and/trench backfill, utility trenches should be backfilled with the onsite finer grained materials or sand-cement slurry for minimum 3 feet length at their entry points. Trenches in fill soils and alluvial deposits greater than 4 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back as required by the local regulatory agency, the state of California Division of Industrial Safety Construction Safety Orders, and Federal OSHA requirements. 12.0 Asphalt Concrete Pavement The streets, parking stalls and drive aisles may be designed for traffic indices of 4.0.4.5, 5.5, 6.0 and 7.0 depending upon the anticipated truck traffic on each street. The sections were computed based on California Test Method 301 procedures. A conservatively assumed “R”-value of 10 for the subgrade soil was used in the computation. Actual “R”-value testing for the subgrade materials should be performed during construction to confirm the “R”- value used in the design. Traffic Index Recommended Minimum Pavement Section Asphalt Concrete (in.) Aggregate Base (in.) 4.0 3 6 4.5 3 8 5.5 4 9 6.0 4 11 7.0 5 13 Aggregate base should consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), or equivalent, as specified in Sections 200-2.2 and 200-2.4 in the Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction, “Green Book”, and be compacted to minimum 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density determined in accordance with ASTM: D-1557, Method C. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 20 The sub-grade soils should consist of engineered fill compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at approximately 2 to 3 percentage points wet of optimum moisture contents and exhibit firm and unyielding condition prior to placement of base course material. Additional testing should be performed, as necessary, to verify the subgrade soil conditions exposed and compliance with project requirements. 13.0 Site Drainage It is important that proper drainage be maintained at the subject site both during and after construction of the planned improvements. Surface drainage should be directed away from structures, and their appurtenances to approved drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided. Adequate area drainage systems should be installed in planter areas and within flatwork areas, as required. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less 5-percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5-percent slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent where located within 10 feet of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped at minimum of 2 percent away from the building. The recommended drainage patterns should be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the structure or, if altered, should be replaced with a properly designed area drain system. 14.0 Landscape, Irrigation and Maintenance Irrigation activities at the site should be monitored and controlled to prevent over-watering. Planter areas adjacent to structures should be avoided. If utilized, such planters should include measure to contain irrigation water and prevent moisture migration into walls and under foundation and slabs-on-grade. General guideline for landscape, irrigation and maintenance are shown below: a. Landscape planting should consist of appropriate drought resistant vegetation, as recommended by the Landscape Architect. Landscaping should be completed as soon as possible and properly maintained. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 21 b. Proper irrigation and maintenance and repair of installed irrigation systems are essential to minimize ground saturation. Leaks should be repaired immediately. Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Over-watering with consequent excessive runoff and ground saturation must be avoided. c. If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions. d. All drainage devices that have been installed must be maintained and cleaned. 15.0 Plan Review, Observations and Testing Ginter & Associates, Inc. should be provided with precise grading and foundation plans, when available, for our review to evaluate the preliminary recommendations presented herein and to develop additional/revised recommendations, as appropriate. Field observation and testing during precise and remedial grading must be performed by a representative of this firm to verify conformance of the earthwork to the requirements of the regulating agencies, the project specifications, and the recommendations presented in this report. Any earthwork performed in connection with the subject project without the full knowledge of, and not under the direct observation of this firm, will render the recommendations of this report invalid. 16.0 Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Milan Capital Management and its design consultants relative to the design and construction of the proposed project. This report is not intended for other parties, and it may not contain sufficient information for other purposes. The Owner or Owner Representative should make sure that the information and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are brought to the attention of the Project Architect and Project Engineer and incorporated into the project plans. The findings contained in this report are based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the information obtained from limited borings and/or test pits and the results of the laboratory testing and engineering analysis. The opinions and recommendations provided were based on the assumption that the geotechnical conditions, which exist across the site, are similar to those observed in the test excavations. The condition and characteristics of the sub-surface materials at locations and depths other than those excavated and observed may be different and no representations are made as to their quality and engineering properties. Should any conditions encountered during construction differ from those described herein, this office should be contacted immediately for evaluation of the actual conditions and for appropriate recommendations prior to continuation of work. GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 22 The findings and recommendations presented herein were obtained in accordance with currently accepted professional engineering principles and practices in the field of geologic and geotechnical engineering and reflect our best professional judgment. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. We thank you for the opportunity to provide our services for your project and look forward to working with you and the project team during site grading, design and construction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. {Signatures on following page} GINTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107-19 4/20/2020 23 APPENDIX F HYDROLOGY INFORMATION ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS ============================================================================ (C) Copyright 1989-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA **************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 Existing Condition Hydrograph 2-year storm event ============================================================================ *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC I: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 1.14 10.00 75.(AMC II) 0.200 0.803 2 13.74 100.00 88.(AMC II) 0.200 0.198 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 14.88 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.186 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.756 ============================================================================ Problem Descriptions: Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 Existing Condition Hydrograph (calib coef: 0.7395) 2-year storm event ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.74 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 14.88 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH/HR) = 0.186 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.756 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.12 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.65 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 1.89 **************************************************************************** TIME VOLUME Q 0. 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.10 0.0004 0.09 Q . . . . 0.22 0.0013 0.09 Q . . . . 0.34 0.0021 0.09 Q . . . . 0.45 0.0030 0.09 Q . . . . 0.57 0.0038 0.09 Q . . . . 0.69 0.0047 0.09 Q . . . . 0.81 0.0055 0.09 Q . . . . 0.93 0.0064 0.09 Q . . . . 1.05 0.0073 0.09 Q . . . . 1.17 0.0082 0.09 Q . . . . 1.29 0.0090 0.09 Q . . . . 1.40 0.0099 0.09 Q . . . . 1.52 0.0108 0.09 Q . . . . 1.64 0.0117 0.09 Q . . . . 1.76 0.0126 0.09 Q . . . . 1.88 0.0135 0.09 Q . . . . 2.00 0.0144 0.09 Q . . . . 2.12 0.0153 0.09 Q . . . . 2.23 0.0163 0.09 Q . . . . 2.35 0.0172 0.09 Q . . . . 2.47 0.0181 0.09 Q . . . . 2.59 0.0190 0.10 Q . . . . 2.71 0.0200 0.10 Q . . . . 2.83 0.0209 0.10 Q . . . . 2.95 0.0219 0.10 Q . . . . 3.07 0.0228 0.10 Q . . . . 3.18 0.0238 0.10 Q . . . . 3.30 0.0248 0.10 Q . . . . 3.42 0.0257 0.10 Q . . . . 3.54 0.0267 0.10 Q . . . . 3.66 0.0277 0.10 Q . . . . 3.78 0.0287 0.10 Q . . . . 3.90 0.0297 0.10 Q . . . . 4.01 0.0307 0.10 Q . . . . 4.13 0.0317 0.10 Q . . . . 4.25 0.0327 0.10 Q . . . . 4.37 0.0337 0.10 Q . . . . 4.49 0.0347 0.11 Q . . . . 4.61 0.0358 0.11 Q . . . . 4.73 0.0368 0.11 Q . . . . 4.85 0.0379 0.11 Q . . . . 4.96 0.0389 0.11 Q . . . . 5.08 0.0400 0.11 Q . . . . 5.20 0.0410 0.11 Q . . . . 5.32 0.0421 0.11 Q . . . . 5.44 0.0432 0.11 Q . . . . 5.56 0.0443 0.11 Q . . . . 5.68 0.0454 0.11 Q . . . . 5.79 0.0465 0.11 Q . . . . 5.91 0.0476 0.11 Q . . . . 6.03 0.0487 0.11 Q . . . . 2 6.15 0.0498 0.12 Q . . . . 6.27 0.0510 0.12 Q . . . . 6.39 0.0521 0.12 Q . . . . 6.51 0.0533 0.12 Q . . . . 6.63 0.0545 0.12 Q . . . . 6.74 0.0556 0.12 Q . . . . 6.86 0.0568 0.12 Q . . . . 6.98 0.0580 0.12 Q . . . . 7.10 0.0592 0.12 Q . . . . 7.22 0.0604 0.12 Q . . . . 7.34 0.0616 0.13 Q . . . . 7.46 0.0629 0.13 Q . . . . 7.57 0.0641 0.13 Q . . . . 7.69 0.0654 0.13 Q . . . . 7.81 0.0666 0.13 Q . . . . 7.93 0.0679 0.13 Q . . . . 8.05 0.0692 0.13 Q . . . . 8.17 0.0705 0.13 Q . . . . 8.29 0.0718 0.13 Q . . . . 8.41 0.0731 0.14 Q . . . . 8.52 0.0745 0.14 Q . . . . 8.64 0.0758 0.14 Q . . . . 8.76 0.0772 0.14 Q . . . . 8.88 0.0786 0.14 Q . . . . 9.00 0.0800 0.14 Q . . . . 9.12 0.0814 0.14 Q . . . . 9.24 0.0828 0.15 Q . . . . 9.35 0.0842 0.15 Q . . . . 9.47 0.0857 0.15 Q . . . . 9.59 0.0871 0.15 Q . . . . 9.71 0.0886 0.15 Q . . . . 9.83 0.0901 0.15 Q . . . . 9.95 0.0917 0.16 Q . . . . 10.07 0.0932 0.16 Q . . . . 10.19 0.0948 0.16 Q . . . . 10.30 0.0963 0.16 Q . . . . 10.42 0.0979 0.16 Q . . . . 10.54 0.0996 0.17 Q . . . . 10.66 0.1012 0.17 Q . . . . 10.78 0.1029 0.17 Q . . . . 10.90 0.1046 0.17 Q . . . . 11.02 0.1063 0.18 Q . . . . 11.13 0.1080 0.18 Q . . . . 11.25 0.1098 0.18 Q . . . . 11.37 0.1116 0.18 Q . . . . 11.49 0.1134 0.19 Q . . . . 11.61 0.1152 0.19 Q . . . . 11.73 0.1171 0.19 Q . . . . 11.85 0.1190 0.20 Q . . . . 11.97 0.1210 0.20 Q . . . . 12.08 0.1231 0.23 Q . . . . 12.20 0.1254 0.25 Q . . . . 12.32 0.1279 0.26 Q . . . . 12.44 0.1305 0.26 Q . . . . 12.56 0.1330 0.27 Q . . . . 12.68 0.1357 0.27 Q . . . . 12.80 0.1384 0.28 Q . . . . 12.91 0.1411 0.28 Q . . . . 13.03 0.1439 0.29 Q . . . . 13.15 0.1467 0.29 Q . . . . 13.27 0.1496 0.30 Q . . . . 3 13.39 0.1526 0.31 Q . . . . 13.51 0.1557 0.32 Q . . . . 13.63 0.1588 0.32 Q . . . . 13.75 0.1620 0.33 Q . . . . 13.86 0.1653 0.34 Q . . . . 13.98 0.1687 0.35 Q . . . . 14.10 0.1722 0.36 Q . . . . 14.22 0.1759 0.39 Q . . . . 14.34 0.1798 0.40 Q . . . . 14.46 0.1838 0.42 Q . . . . 14.58 0.1880 0.43 Q . . . . 14.69 0.1923 0.46 Q . . . . 14.81 0.1969 0.47 Q . . . . 14.93 0.2017 0.50 .Q . . . . 15.05 0.2067 0.52 .Q . . . . 15.17 0.2121 0.57 .Q . . . . 15.29 0.2178 0.60 .Q . . . . 15.41 0.2238 0.63 .Q . . . . 15.53 0.2299 0.62 .Q . . . . 15.64 0.2379 1.01 . Q . . . . 15.76 0.2498 1.41 . Q . . . . 15.88 0.2712 2.95 . Q . . . . 16.00 0.3090 4.76 . Q. . . . 16.12 0.4224 18.36 . . . . Q . 16.24 0.5224 2.04 . Q . . . . 16.36 0.5359 0.72 .Q . . . . 16.47 0.5426 0.63 .Q . . . . 16.59 0.5483 0.55 .Q . . . . 16.71 0.5534 0.49 Q . . . . 16.83 0.5579 0.44 Q . . . . 16.95 0.5621 0.41 Q . . . . 17.07 0.5660 0.38 Q . . . . 17.19 0.5696 0.35 Q . . . . 17.31 0.5729 0.33 Q . . . . 17.42 0.5760 0.31 Q . . . . 17.54 0.5790 0.30 Q . . . . 17.66 0.5818 0.28 Q . . . . 17.78 0.5846 0.27 Q . . . . 17.90 0.5872 0.26 Q . . . . 18.02 0.5897 0.25 Q . . . . 18.14 0.5920 0.20 Q . . . . 18.25 0.5939 0.20 Q . . . . 18.37 0.5958 0.19 Q . . . . 18.49 0.5976 0.18 Q . . . . 18.61 0.5994 0.18 Q . . . . 18.73 0.6011 0.17 Q . . . . 18.85 0.6028 0.17 Q . . . . 18.97 0.6044 0.16 Q . . . . 19.09 0.6060 0.16 Q . . . . 19.20 0.6075 0.16 Q . . . . 19.32 0.6090 0.15 Q . . . . 19.44 0.6105 0.15 Q . . . . 19.56 0.6119 0.15 Q . . . . 19.68 0.6133 0.14 Q . . . . 19.80 0.6147 0.14 Q . . . . 19.92 0.6161 0.14 Q . . . . 20.03 0.6174 0.13 Q . . . . 20.15 0.6187 0.13 Q . . . . 20.27 0.6200 0.13 Q . . . . 20.39 0.6212 0.13 Q . . . . 20.51 0.6224 0.12 Q . . . . 4 20.63 0.6237 0.12 Q . . . . 20.75 0.6248 0.12 Q . . . . 20.87 0.6260 0.12 Q . . . . 20.98 0.6272 0.12 Q . . . . 21.10 0.6283 0.12 Q . . . . 21.22 0.6294 0.11 Q . . . . 21.34 0.6305 0.11 Q . . . . 21.46 0.6316 0.11 Q . . . . 21.58 0.6327 0.11 Q . . . . 21.70 0.6338 0.11 Q . . . . 21.81 0.6348 0.11 Q . . . . 21.93 0.6358 0.10 Q . . . . 22.05 0.6369 0.10 Q . . . . 22.17 0.6379 0.10 Q . . . . 22.29 0.6389 0.10 Q . . . . 22.41 0.6398 0.10 Q . . . . 22.53 0.6408 0.10 Q . . . . 22.65 0.6418 0.10 Q . . . . 22.76 0.6427 0.10 Q . . . . 22.88 0.6437 0.10 Q . . . . 23.00 0.6446 0.09 Q . . . . 23.12 0.6455 0.09 Q . . . . 23.24 0.6464 0.09 Q . . . . 23.36 0.6473 0.09 Q . . . . 23.48 0.6482 0.09 Q . . . . 23.59 0.6491 0.09 Q . . . . 23.71 0.6500 0.09 Q . . . . 23.83 0.6508 0.09 Q . . . . 23.95 0.6517 0.09 Q . . . . 24.07 0.6525 0.09 Q . . . . 24.19 0.6530 0.00 Q . . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) ======================= ========= 0% 1445.4 10% 28.5 20% 14.2 30% 7.1 40% 7.1 50% 7.1 60% 7.1 70% 7.1 80% 7.1 90% 7.1 5 EXRS2 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 * * Existing Condition Hydrology * * 2-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: EXRS2.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:44 03/27/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 430.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.512 Page 1 EXRS2 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.792 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 57 7.51 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.41 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 430.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 428.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.53 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.21 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.26 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.76 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.37 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.80 Tc(MIN.) = 9.31 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.584 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.16 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.59 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.64 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.77 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.39 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 520.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 Page 2 EXRS2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.31 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.58 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.80 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.147 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.710 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 57 8.15 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.40 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.40 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 427.80 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 556.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.64 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.85 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.40 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.34 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 6.61 Tc(MIN.) = 14.76 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.216 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): Page 3 EXRS2 DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.46 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.78 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.44 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.46 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 886.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.76 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.22 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.78 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 0.59 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 100.00 2 0.78 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.23 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 100.00 2 1.23 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.23 Tc(MIN.) = 9.31 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.87 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 886.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ Page 4 EXRS2 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 431.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.437 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.676 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 75 8.44 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 8.44 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.676 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.70 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.93 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 392.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 149.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2282 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.638 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.20 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 Page 5 EXRS2 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.06 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.11 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 8.79 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.26 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.16 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.18 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 324.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 8.79 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.638 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.50 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.81 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.79 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.64 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.81 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 150.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 431.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 427.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 Page 6 EXRS2 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.043 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.723 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.43 0.20 1.000 75 8.04 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.59 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 427.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 419.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 325.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0262 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.545 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.30 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.38 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.22 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.68 Tc(MIN.) = 9.73 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.57 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.73 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.09 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.65 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 402.00 = 475.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.73 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.545 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.58 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.91 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.31 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 Page 7 EXRS2 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.01 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 419.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 46.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0652 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.533 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.09 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.06 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.96 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.86 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.11 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.08 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.99 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 403.00 = 521.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.86 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.533 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.98 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.98 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.38 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.46 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ Page 8 EXRS2 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 382.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 99.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.3434 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.522 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.12 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.53 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.49 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.99 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.14 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.54 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.52 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 404.00 = 620.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.99 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.522 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.65 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.99 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.52 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.32 Page 9 EXRS2 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 405.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.264 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.13 0.20 1.000 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.24 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 405.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 390.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 273.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0531 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.049 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 2.44 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.28 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.80 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.95 Tc(MIN.) = 5.95 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.44 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.06 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.28 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.73 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 502.00 = 373.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 502.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< Page 10 EXRS2 ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 390.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 376.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 62.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2339 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.029 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.06 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.33 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.96 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 6.05 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.63 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.33 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.97 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 435.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.05 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.029 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.58 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.91 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.05 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 Page 11 EXRS2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.91 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 601.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 79.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 422.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.264 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.07 0.20 1.000 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.13 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 601.00 TO NODE 602.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 422.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 412.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 300.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0317 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.932 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.93 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.86 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.15 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.59 Tc(MIN.) = 6.59 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.93 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.45 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.56 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.64 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 602.00 = 379.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 602.00 TO NODE 603.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< Page 12 EXRS2 >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 412.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 383.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 129.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2287 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.861 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.05 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.34 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.82 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.05 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.45 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.57 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.06 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.06 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.27 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 603.00 = 508.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 603.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 383.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 44.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2045 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.848 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.02 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.08 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.82 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 7.12 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.03 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.07 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.80 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 604.00 = 552.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Page 13 EXRS2 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 604.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 7.12 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.848 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.34 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.57 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 604.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 4 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.12 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.85 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.57 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 324.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 430.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.528 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.790 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.77 0.20 1.000 75 7.53 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 701.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 14 EXRS2 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 5 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.53 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.79 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.10 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.91 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 3.0 500.00 2 1.81 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 1.4 300.00 3 7.32 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 6.2 400.00 4 3.57 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 2.4 600.00 5 1.10 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 0.8 700.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 5 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 17.02 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 10.3 500.00 2 17.26 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 11.6 600.00 3 17.16 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 12.0 700.00 4 16.78 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.0 300.00 5 16.31 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.7 400.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.26 Tc(MIN.) = 7.12 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.64 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 620.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 17.02 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 10.3 500.00 2 17.26 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 11.6 600.00 3 17.16 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 12.0 700.00 4 16.78 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.0 300.00 5 16.31 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.7 400.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 620.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** Page 15 EXRS2 STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.23 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 100.00 2 1.23 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 886.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 18.04 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 10.9 500.00 2 18.36 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.3 600.00 3 18.29 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.7 700.00 4 17.99 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 13.8 300.00 5 17.81 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.2 100.00 6 17.54 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.6 400.00 7 13.76 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.19) 0.93 14.8 200.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.36 Tc(MIN.) = 7.119 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 886.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 TC(MIN.) = 7.12 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.951 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.36 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 18.04 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 10.9 500.00 2 18.36 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.3 600.00 3 18.29 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.7 700.00 4 17.99 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 13.8 300.00 5 17.81 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.2 100.00 6 17.54 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.6 400.00 7 13.76 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.19) 0.93 14.8 200.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 16 MABURY AVENUEMABURY AVENUE YELLOWSTONE BLV D LASSEN BLVDSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKMILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT COMPANYRIO SANTIAGO TTM 18163GNIREENEIGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315www.fuscoe.comFax: (714) 687-1900Phone: (714) 687-0000888 S. Disneyland Drive, Ste 101MILAN CAPITALPREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:Anaheim, CA 92802MANAGEMENT, INCVICINITY MAP5555SANTIAGO CANYON ROADE. KATELLA AVEVILLA PARK RD.E. COLLINS AVE.SANTIAGO BLVDCANNON S TSERRANO AVEMABURYAVEORANGEPARK BLVDHEWES STWALNUT STGRAVIERSTPR O S P E C T CANNON STCHAPMANAVEME A T S AVESANTIAGO OAKSREGIONAL PARKNICKY WAYN.T.S.HYDROLOGIC MAPEXISTING CONDITION PLANSHEET 1 OF 2DATE:3/31/2020GNIREENEIGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315www.fuscoe.com ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS ============================================================================ (C) Copyright 1989-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA **************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 Proposed Condition Hydrogrph 2-year storm event ============================================================================ *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC I: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 7.84 60.00 75.(AMC II) 0.200 0.366 2 5.36 100.00 88.(AMC II) 0.200 0.198 3 1.68 85.00 75.(AMC II) 0.200 0.148 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 14.88 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.154 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.719 ============================================================================ Problem Descriptions: Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 Proposed Condition Hydrograph (calib coef: 0.87) 2-year storm event ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.89 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 14.88 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH/HR) = 0.160 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.719 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.26 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 1 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.87 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 1.67 **************************************************************************** TIME VOLUME Q 0. 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.09 0.0000 0.00 Q . . . . 0.31 0.0011 0.12 Q . . . . 0.53 0.0033 0.12 Q . . . . 0.75 0.0055 0.12 Q . . . . 0.97 0.0077 0.12 Q . . . . 1.19 0.0100 0.12 Q . . . . 1.41 0.0122 0.12 Q . . . . 1.63 0.0145 0.13 Q . . . . 1.86 0.0168 0.13 Q . . . . 2.08 0.0192 0.13 Q . . . . 2.30 0.0215 0.13 Q . . . . 2.52 0.0239 0.13 Q . . . . 2.74 0.0263 0.13 Q . . . . 2.96 0.0287 0.13 Q . . . . 3.18 0.0312 0.13 Q . . . . 3.40 0.0337 0.14 Q . . . . 3.62 0.0362 0.14 Q . . . . 3.84 0.0387 0.14 Q . . . . 4.07 0.0413 0.14 Q . . . . 4.29 0.0439 0.14 Q . . . . 4.51 0.0465 0.14 Q . . . . 4.73 0.0492 0.15 Q . . . . 4.95 0.0519 0.15 Q . . . . 5.17 0.0546 0.15 Q . . . . 5.39 0.0573 0.15 Q . . . . 5.61 0.0601 0.15 Q . . . . 5.83 0.0630 0.16 Q . . . . 6.05 0.0658 0.16 Q . . . . 6.28 0.0687 0.16 Q . . . . 6.50 0.0717 0.16 Q . . . . 6.72 0.0747 0.16 Q . . . . 6.94 0.0777 0.17 Q . . . . 7.16 0.0808 0.17 Q . . . . 7.38 0.0839 0.17 Q . . . . 7.60 0.0871 0.17 Q . . . . 7.82 0.0903 0.18 Q . . . . 8.04 0.0936 0.18 Q . . . . 8.27 0.0969 0.18 Q . . . . 8.49 0.1003 0.19 Q . . . . 8.71 0.1038 0.19 Q . . . . 8.93 0.1073 0.19 Q . . . . 9.15 0.1109 0.20 Q . . . . 9.37 0.1146 0.20 Q . . . . 9.59 0.1183 0.21 Q . . . . 9.81 0.1221 0.21 Q . . . . 10.03 0.1260 0.22 Q . . . . 10.25 0.1300 0.22 Q . . . . 10.48 0.1341 0.23 Q . . . . 10.70 0.1383 0.23 Q . . . . 10.92 0.1426 0.24 Q . . . . 2 11.14 0.1470 0.24 Q . . . . 11.36 0.1515 0.25 Q . . . . 11.58 0.1562 0.26 Q . . . . 11.80 0.1610 0.27 Q . . . . 12.02 0.1659 0.27 Q . . . . 12.24 0.1716 0.35 Q . . . . 12.46 0.1780 0.36 Q . . . . 12.68 0.1847 0.37 Q . . . . 12.91 0.1916 0.38 Q . . . . 13.13 0.1987 0.40 Q . . . . 13.35 0.2061 0.41 Q . . . . 13.57 0.2138 0.44 Q . . . . 13.79 0.2219 0.45 Q . . . . 14.01 0.2305 0.48 Q . . . . 14.23 0.2396 0.51 .Q . . . . 14.45 0.2495 0.57 .Q . . . . 14.67 0.2601 0.60 .Q . . . . 14.90 0.2716 0.67 .Q . . . . 15.12 0.2842 0.71 .Q . . . . 15.34 0.2986 0.87 .Q . . . . 15.56 0.3153 0.96 .Q . . . . 15.78 0.3422 1.98 . Q . . . . 16.00 0.3929 3.57 . Q . . . . 16.22 0.5618 14.92 . . . Q. . 16.44 0.7091 1.21 . Q . . . . 16.66 0.7272 0.77 .Q . . . . 16.88 0.7399 0.63 .Q . . . . 17.11 0.7506 0.54 .Q . . . . 17.33 0.7598 0.47 Q . . . . 17.55 0.7679 0.42 Q . . . . 17.77 0.7754 0.39 Q . . . . 17.99 0.7823 0.36 Q . . . . 18.21 0.7882 0.29 Q . . . . 18.43 0.7933 0.26 Q . . . . 18.65 0.7979 0.25 Q . . . . 18.87 0.8023 0.23 Q . . . . 19.09 0.8065 0.22 Q . . . . 19.32 0.8105 0.21 Q . . . . 19.54 0.8143 0.20 Q . . . . 19.76 0.8180 0.20 Q . . . . 19.98 0.8215 0.19 Q . . . . 20.20 0.8249 0.18 Q . . . . 20.42 0.8282 0.18 Q . . . . 20.64 0.8314 0.17 Q . . . . 20.86 0.8345 0.17 Q . . . . 21.08 0.8375 0.16 Q . . . . 21.30 0.8404 0.16 Q . . . . 21.52 0.8432 0.15 Q . . . . 21.75 0.8459 0.15 Q . . . . 21.97 0.8486 0.15 Q . . . . 22.19 0.8513 0.14 Q . . . . 22.41 0.8538 0.14 Q . . . . 22.63 0.8563 0.14 Q . . . . 22.85 0.8588 0.13 Q . . . . 23.07 0.8612 0.13 Q . . . . 23.29 0.8636 0.13 Q . . . . 23.51 0.8659 0.13 Q . . . . 23.73 0.8681 0.12 Q . . . . 23.96 0.8704 0.12 Q . . . . 24.18 0.8726 0.12 Q . . . . 24.40 0.8736 0.00 Q . . . . 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) ======================= ========= 0% 1445.3 10% 39.8 20% 26.5 30% 13.3 40% 13.3 50% 13.3 60% 13.3 70% 13.3 80% 13.3 90% 13.3 4 PRRS2 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 * * Proposed Condition Hydrology * * 2-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: PRRS2.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:29 03/30/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 436.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.850 Page 1 PRRS2 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.534 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.84 0.20 0.600 57 9.85 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.07 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.07 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 428.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 258.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.49 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.67 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.12 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.59 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.03 Tc(MIN.) = 11.88 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.377 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.75 0.20 0.600 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.85 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.80 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.37 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.20 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.65 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 588.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< Page 2 PRRS2 ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.88 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.80 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 435.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.80 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 10.289 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.496 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.83 0.20 0.600 57 10.29 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.03 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 427.80 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 546.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.66 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.19 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.73 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.54 Page 3 PRRS2 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.27 Tc(MIN.) = 15.56 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.180 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.32 0.20 0.600 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.32 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.26 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.05 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.07 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.81 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.59 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 876.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 15.56 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.18 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.05 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.80 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 1.6 100.00 2 2.05 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 2.2 200.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.66 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.2 100.00 2 3.57 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.7 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.66 Tc(MIN.) = 11.88 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.23 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 876.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Page 4 PRRS2 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 425.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.575 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.661 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.82 0.20 0.600 57 8.58 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.82 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.52 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 425.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 421.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 329.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.73 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.26 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.34 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.77 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.35 Tc(MIN.) = 10.92 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.446 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.35 0.20 0.600 57 Page 5 PRRS2 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.42 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.59 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.05 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.29 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.75 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 659.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.92 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.45 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 303.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 425.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.557 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.663 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.31 0.20 0.600 57 8.56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.43 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 303.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 425.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 421.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 295.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 Page 6 PRRS2 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.40 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.46 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.07 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.57 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.37 Tc(MIN.) = 10.93 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.445 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.62 0.20 0.600 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.62 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.93 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.30 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.39 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.30 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.72 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 625.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.93 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.44 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.30 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.59 10.92 1.446 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 2.2 300.00 2 2.30 10.93 1.445 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 1.9 300.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO Page 7 PRRS2 CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.89 10.92 1.446 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 4.1 300.00 2 4.89 10.93 1.445 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 4.1 300.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.89 Tc(MIN.) = 10.92 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.10 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 659.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 304.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 415.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1148.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.40 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.89 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.28 Tc(MIN.) = 13.20 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 304.00 = 1807.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 304.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 23.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2609 NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF .1 WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 4.89 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 6.64 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 Tc(MIN.) = 13.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 305.00 = 1830.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 13.26 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.293 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 5.36 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.27 Page 8 PRRS2 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 9.46 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.60 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 13.26 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.293 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN PUBLIC PARK D 1.68 0.20 0.850 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.850 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.68 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.70 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.14 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.30 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 11.30 13.26 1.293 0.20( 0.17) 0.83 11.1 300.00 2 11.30 13.27 1.293 0.20( 0.17) 0.83 11.1 300.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 1830.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.66 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.2 100.00 2 3.57 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.7 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 876.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 14.54 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 13.2 100.00 2 14.92 13.26 1.293 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 3 14.92 13.27 1.293 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 4 13.73 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 14.9 200.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.92 Tc(MIN.) = 13.259 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.56 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 1830.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: Page 9 PRRS2 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 TC(MIN.) = 13.26 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.56 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.776 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.92 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 14.54 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 13.2 100.00 2 14.92 13.26 1.293 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 3 14.92 13.27 1.293 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 4 13.73 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 14.9 200.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 10 MABURY AVENUEMABURY AVENUE YELLOWSTONE BLV D LASSEN BLVDSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKMILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT COMPANYRIO SANTIAGO TTM 18163GNIREENEIGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315www.fuscoe.comFax: (714) 687-1900Phone: (714) 687-0000888 S. Disneyland Drive, Ste 101MILAN CAPITALPREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:Anaheim, CA 92802MANAGEMENT, INCVICINITY MAP5555SANTIAGO CANYON ROADE. KATELLA AVEVILLA PARK RD.E. COLLINS AVE.SANTIAGO BLVDCANNON S TSERRANO AVEMABURYAVEORANGEPARK BLVDHEWES STWALNUT STGRAVIERSTPR O S P E C T CANNON STCHAPMANAVEME A T S AVESANTIAGO OAKSREGIONAL PARKNICKY WAYN.T.S.HYDROLOGIC MAPPROPOSED CONDITION PLANSHEET 2 OF 2DATE: 3/30/2020GNIREENEIGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315www.fuscoe.com C-2: Hydrology Study THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HYDROLOGY STUDY TTM 18163 Orange, California prepared for Milan Capital Management, Inc 888 S. Disneyland Drive Suite 101 Anaheim, CA 92802 Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, California 92606 949.474.1960 www.fuscoe.com Project Manager: Dino Capannelli, P.E. March 2020 Job Number: 881-002 TTM 18163 HYDROLOGY REPORT City of Orange Orange County, CA Prepared for: Milan Capital Management, Inc. 888 S. Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, CA 92802 Ph #714.687.1900 By: FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 949.474.1960 www.fuscoe.com Prepared: March 2020 TTM 18163 HYDROLOGY REPORT MARCH 2020 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY ................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION................................................................ 1 2.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSES ............................................................................... 3 2.1 STORM FREQUENCY .................................................................................. 3 2.2 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................ 3 3.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 4 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 – HYDROLOGIC SOILS MAP APPENDIX 2 – EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY CALCUALTIONS APPENDIX 3 – PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 4 – EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY MAP APPENDIX 5 – PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY MAP TTM 18163 HYDROLOGY REPORT MARCH 2020 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this report is to prepare existing and proposed condition runoff associated with the proposed Rio Santiago development project. 1.2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION The project is located within the City of Orange in north-central Orange County, California. The site is generally located to the east of State Route 55, to the west of State Route 261, approximately two miles to the north of Chapman Avenue, on the north side of Santiago Canyon Road, between Orange Park Boulevard on the east and Cannon Street on the west, and south of Mabury Avenue. A Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1on the following page. The 10.9-acre site will allow for 22 single-family lots. It is anticipated that on-lot infiltration BMPs will be proposed pending initial geotechnical feasibility findings. The project will also include a public street with two privately maintained side streets, each ending in a cul-de-sac. Under existing conditions, the site sheet flows to the south and west before draining to Santiago Creek. All runoff into Santiago Creek then discharges to the Santa Ana River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at Huntington Beach. Under proposed conditions, runoff will be conveyed via a proposed storm drain system. Each of the proposed lots will be graded to drain towards the proposed public streets. TTM 18163 HYDROLOGY REPORT MARCH 2020 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 2 FIGURE 1 TTM 18163 HYDROLOGY REPORT MARCH 2020 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 3 2.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSES 2.1 STORM FREQUENCY Existing and proposed condition analyses were performed for 2-, 10- and 100-year storm frequencies. 2.2 METHODOLOGY This study was prepared in conformance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual using the Rational Method software developed by AES. AES software was utilized to perform hydrologic calculations. The site is predominately in soil type ‘D’ as shown on the Orange County Hydrology Manual, provided in Appendix 1. Results of the hydrology calculations and maps are included in the appendices of this report. Existing calculations are included in Appendix 2. Proposed condition calculations are included in Appendix 3. Existing condition hydrology map is included in Appendix 4. Proposed condition map is included in Appendix 5. The project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) outlines the BMP’s required for this project and their sizing. TTM 18163 HYDROLOGY REPORT MARCH 2020 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 4 3.0 CONCLUSION The results of the hydrologic analyses are shown on the following table. Table 1 – Hydrologic Summary 2-Year Existing 2-Year Proposed 10-Year Existing 10-Year Proposed 100-Year Existing 100-year Proposed Q 18.4 cfs 15.0 cfs 35.2 cfs 29.3 cfs 55.2 cfs 46.6 cfs Tc 7.12 minutes 13.26 minutes 6.79 minutes 12.61 minutes 6.56 minutes 12.19 minutes The proposed project will re-develop the former sand and gravel mining site into a planned community generally consisting of low density residential. Based on the proposed land use changes and project design features presented in this report, no significant hydrology-related impacts are anticipated with respect to the proposed plan. The supporting calculations and exhibits are included in the appendices of this report. APPENDIX 1 HYDROLOGIC SOILS MAP APPENDIX 2 EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS EXRS2 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 * * Existing Condition Hydrology * * 2-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: EXRS2.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:44 03/27/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 430.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.512 Page 1 EXRS2 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.792 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 57 7.51 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.41 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 430.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 428.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.53 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.21 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.26 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.76 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.37 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.80 Tc(MIN.) = 9.31 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.584 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.16 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.59 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.64 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.77 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.39 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 520.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 Page 2 EXRS2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.31 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.58 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.80 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.147 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.710 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 57 8.15 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.40 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.40 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 427.80 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 556.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.64 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.85 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.40 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.34 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 6.61 Tc(MIN.) = 14.76 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.216 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): Page 3 EXRS2 DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.46 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.78 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.44 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.46 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 886.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.76 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.22 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.78 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 0.59 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 100.00 2 0.78 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.23 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 100.00 2 1.23 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.23 Tc(MIN.) = 9.31 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.87 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 886.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ Page 4 EXRS2 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 431.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.437 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.676 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 75 8.44 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 8.44 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.676 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.70 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.93 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 392.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 149.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2282 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.638 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.20 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 Page 5 EXRS2 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.06 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.11 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 8.79 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.26 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.16 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.18 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 324.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 8.79 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.638 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.50 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.81 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.79 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.64 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.81 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 150.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 431.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 427.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 Page 6 EXRS2 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.043 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.723 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.43 0.20 1.000 75 8.04 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.59 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 427.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 419.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 325.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0262 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.545 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.30 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.38 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.22 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.68 Tc(MIN.) = 9.73 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.57 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.73 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.09 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.65 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 402.00 = 475.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.73 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.545 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.58 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.91 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.31 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 Page 7 EXRS2 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.01 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 419.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 46.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0652 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.533 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.09 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.06 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.96 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.86 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.11 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.08 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.99 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 403.00 = 521.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.86 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.533 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.98 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.98 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.38 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.46 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ Page 8 EXRS2 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 382.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 99.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.3434 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.522 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.12 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.53 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.49 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.99 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.14 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.54 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.52 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 404.00 = 620.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.99 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.522 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.65 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.99 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.52 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.32 Page 9 EXRS2 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 405.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.264 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.13 0.20 1.000 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.24 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 405.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 390.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 273.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0531 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.049 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 2.44 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.28 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.80 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.95 Tc(MIN.) = 5.95 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.44 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.06 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.28 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.73 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 502.00 = 373.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 502.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< Page 10 EXRS2 ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 390.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 376.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 62.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2339 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.029 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.06 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.33 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.96 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 6.05 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.63 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.33 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.97 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 435.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.05 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.029 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.58 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.91 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.05 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 Page 11 EXRS2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.91 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 601.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 79.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 422.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.264 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.07 0.20 1.000 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.13 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 601.00 TO NODE 602.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 422.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 412.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 300.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0317 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.932 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.93 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.86 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.15 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.59 Tc(MIN.) = 6.59 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.93 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.45 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.56 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.64 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 602.00 = 379.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 602.00 TO NODE 603.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< Page 12 EXRS2 >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 412.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 383.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 129.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2287 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.861 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.05 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.34 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.82 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.05 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.45 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.57 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.06 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.06 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.27 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 603.00 = 508.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 603.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 383.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 44.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2045 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.848 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.02 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.08 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.82 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 7.12 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.03 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.07 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.80 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 604.00 = 552.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Page 13 EXRS2 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 604.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 7.12 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.848 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.34 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.57 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 604.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 4 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.12 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.85 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.57 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 324.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 430.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.528 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.790 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.77 0.20 1.000 75 7.53 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 701.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 14 EXRS2 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 5 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.53 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.79 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.10 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.91 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 3.0 500.00 2 1.81 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 1.4 300.00 3 7.32 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 6.2 400.00 4 3.57 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 2.4 600.00 5 1.10 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 0.8 700.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 5 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 17.02 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 10.3 500.00 2 17.26 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 11.6 600.00 3 17.16 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 12.0 700.00 4 16.78 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.0 300.00 5 16.31 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.7 400.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.26 Tc(MIN.) = 7.12 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.64 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 620.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 17.02 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 10.3 500.00 2 17.26 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 11.6 600.00 3 17.16 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 12.0 700.00 4 16.78 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.0 300.00 5 16.31 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.7 400.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 620.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** Page 15 EXRS2 STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.23 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 100.00 2 1.23 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 886.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 18.04 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 10.9 500.00 2 18.36 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.3 600.00 3 18.29 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.7 700.00 4 17.99 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 13.8 300.00 5 17.81 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.2 100.00 6 17.54 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.6 400.00 7 13.76 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.19) 0.93 14.8 200.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.36 Tc(MIN.) = 7.119 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 886.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 TC(MIN.) = 7.12 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.951 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.36 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 18.04 6.05 2.029 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 10.9 500.00 2 18.36 7.12 1.848 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.3 600.00 3 18.29 7.53 1.790 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.7 700.00 4 17.99 8.79 1.638 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 13.8 300.00 5 17.81 9.31 1.584 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.2 100.00 6 17.54 9.99 1.522 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.6 400.00 7 13.76 14.76 1.216 0.20( 0.19) 0.93 14.8 200.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 16 EXRS10 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Rio Santiago * * Existing Condition Hydrology * * 10-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: EXRS10.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:52 03/27/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 430.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.512 Page 1 EXRS10 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.215 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 75 7.51 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.75 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.75 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 430.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 428.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.95 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.14 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.92 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.48 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.65 Tc(MIN.) = 9.16 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.870 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.16 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.41 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.08 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.55 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.97 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.51 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 520.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 Page 2 EXRS10 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.16 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.87 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.08 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.80 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.147 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.069 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 75 8.15 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.71 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.71 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 427.80 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 556.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.18 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.90 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.59 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.45 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.84 Tc(MIN.) = 13.99 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.252 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): Page 3 EXRS10 DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.46 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.92 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.45 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.66 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.67 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.50 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 886.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.99 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.25 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.45 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.08 9.16 2.870 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 100.00 2 1.45 13.99 2.252 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.29 9.16 2.870 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 100.00 2 2.29 13.99 2.252 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.29 Tc(MIN.) = 13.99 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.14 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 886.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ Page 4 EXRS10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 431.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.437 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.008 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 88 8.44 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.88 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.88 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 8.44 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.008 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.88 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.70 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.77 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 392.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 149.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2282 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.947 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.20 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 Page 5 EXRS10 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.02 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.03 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.31 Tc(MIN.) = 8.75 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.49 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.22 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.29 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 324.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 8.75 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.947 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.50 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.24 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.46 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.75 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.95 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.46 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 150.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 431.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 427.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 Page 6 EXRS10 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.043 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.092 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.43 0.20 1.000 88 8.04 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.12 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 427.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 419.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 325.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0262 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.819 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.30 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.65 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.86 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.40 Tc(MIN.) = 9.45 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.06 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.73 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.08 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 402.00 = 475.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.45 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.819 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.58 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.72 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.31 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 Page 7 EXRS10 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.80 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 419.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 46.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0652 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.801 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.09 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.91 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.15 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.47 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 9.55 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.96 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.47 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.20 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 403.00 = 521.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.55 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.801 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.98 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.98 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.64 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ Page 8 EXRS10 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 382.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 99.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.3434 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.783 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.12 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 12.73 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.80 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.41 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 9.67 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.78 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.41 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 404.00 = 620.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.67 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.783 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.65 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.51 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.29 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.67 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.78 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 14.29 Page 9 EXRS10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 405.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.13 0.20 1.000 88 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.45 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.45 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 405.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 390.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 273.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0531 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.726 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 2.44 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.33 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.64 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.81 Tc(MIN.) = 5.81 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.44 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.74 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.16 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.49 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.71 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 502.00 = 373.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 502.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< Page 10 EXRS10 ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 390.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 376.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 62.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2339 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.694 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.06 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.25 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.63 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.09 Tc(MIN.) = 5.90 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.63 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.27 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 435.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 5.90 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.694 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.37 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.90 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.69 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 Page 11 EXRS10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.37 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 601.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 79.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 422.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.07 0.20 1.000 88 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.24 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 601.00 TO NODE 602.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 422.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 412.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 300.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0317 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.532 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.93 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.64 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.64 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.37 Tc(MIN.) = 6.37 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.93 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.79 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.00 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 602.00 = 379.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 602.00 TO NODE 603.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< Page 12 EXRS10 >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 412.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 383.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 129.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2287 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.426 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.05 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.52 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.16 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 6.72 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.05 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.95 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 603.00 = 508.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 603.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 383.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 44.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2045 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.405 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.02 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.98 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.32 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 6.79 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.06 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.97 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.30 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 604.00 = 552.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Page 13 EXRS10 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 604.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.79 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.405 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.34 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.98 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.95 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 604.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 4 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.79 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.95 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 324.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 430.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.528 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.211 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.77 0.20 1.000 88 7.53 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.09 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.09 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 701.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 14 EXRS10 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 5 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.53 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.21 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.09 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 9.37 5.90 3.694 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 3.0 500.00 2 3.46 8.75 2.947 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 1.4 300.00 3 14.29 9.67 2.783 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 6.2 400.00 4 6.95 6.79 3.405 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 2.4 600.00 5 2.09 7.53 3.211 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 0.8 700.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 5 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 32.60 5.90 3.694 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 10.4 500.00 2 33.16 6.79 3.405 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 11.5 600.00 3 32.94 7.53 3.211 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 12.2 700.00 4 32.44 8.75 2.947 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.1 300.00 5 31.87 9.67 2.783 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.7 400.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 33.16 Tc(MIN.) = 6.79 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 620.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 32.60 5.90 3.694 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 10.4 500.00 2 33.16 6.79 3.405 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 11.5 600.00 3 32.94 7.53 3.211 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 12.2 700.00 4 32.44 8.75 2.947 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.1 300.00 5 31.87 9.67 2.783 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.7 400.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 620.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** Page 15 EXRS10 STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.29 9.16 2.870 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 100.00 2 2.29 13.99 2.252 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 886.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 34.50 5.90 3.694 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 10.9 500.00 2 35.18 6.79 3.405 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.2 600.00 3 35.04 7.53 3.211 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.9 700.00 4 34.69 8.75 2.947 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 14.0 300.00 5 34.47 9.16 2.870 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.3 100.00 6 34.15 9.67 2.783 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.6 400.00 7 27.60 13.99 2.252 0.20( 0.19) 0.93 14.8 200.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 35.18 Tc(MIN.) = 6.794 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 886.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 TC(MIN.) = 6.79 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.951 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 35.18 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 34.50 5.90 3.694 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 10.9 500.00 2 35.18 6.79 3.405 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.2 600.00 3 35.04 7.53 3.211 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.9 700.00 4 34.69 8.75 2.947 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 14.0 300.00 5 34.47 9.16 2.870 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.3 100.00 6 34.15 9.67 2.783 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.6 400.00 7 27.60 13.99 2.252 0.20( 0.19) 0.93 14.8 200.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 16 EXRS100 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Rio Santiago * * Existing Condition Hydrology * * 100-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: EXRS100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:20 03/31/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 430.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.512 Page 1 EXRS100 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.900 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 91 7.51 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.14 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 430.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 428.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.46 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.61 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.09 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.58 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.51 Tc(MIN.) = 9.03 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.411 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.16 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.63 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.66 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.08 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.15 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.62 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 520.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 Page 2 EXRS100 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.03 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.66 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.80 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.147 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.678 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 91 8.15 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.09 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.09 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 427.80 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 556.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.82 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.60 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.75 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.56 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.30 Tc(MIN.) = 13.45 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.510 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): Page 3 EXRS100 DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.46 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.44 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.26 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.54 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.84 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.62 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 886.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.45 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.51 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.26 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.66 9.03 4.411 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 100.00 2 2.26 13.45 3.510 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.57 9.03 4.411 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 100.00 2 3.58 13.45 3.510 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.58 Tc(MIN.) = 13.45 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.14 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 886.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ Page 4 EXRS100 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 431.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.437 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.585 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 98 8.44 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.38 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 8.44 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.585 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.38 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.70 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.76 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 392.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 149.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2282 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.501 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.20 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 Page 5 EXRS100 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.15 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.03 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.28 Tc(MIN.) = 8.71 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.48 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.43 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 324.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 8.71 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.501 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.50 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.94 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.42 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.71 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.42 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 150.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 431.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 427.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 Page 6 EXRS100 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.043 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.712 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.43 0.20 1.000 98 8.04 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.75 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.75 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 427.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 419.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 325.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0262 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.336 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.30 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.17 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.31 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.26 Tc(MIN.) = 9.30 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.84 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.73 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.44 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.52 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.84 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 402.00 = 475.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.30 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.336 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.58 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.88 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.31 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 Page 7 EXRS100 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 402.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 419.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 46.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0652 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.311 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.09 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 12.49 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.97 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.56 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 9.39 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.58 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.56 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.03 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 403.00 = 521.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 403.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.39 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.311 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.98 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.98 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.33 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 19.90 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 403.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ Page 8 EXRS100 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 416.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 382.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 99.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.3434 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.285 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.12 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 20.12 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.69 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.49 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 9.49 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.44 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.22 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.49 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.77 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 404.00 = 620.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.49 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.285 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.65 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.39 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 22.61 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 404.00 TO NODE 404.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.49 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.28 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 22.61 Page 9 EXRS100 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 426.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 405.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.13 0.20 1.000 98 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.70 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.70 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 405.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 390.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 273.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0531 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.729 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 2.44 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.78 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.34 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.46 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.72 Tc(MIN.) = 5.72 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.44 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.14 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.79 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.58 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.48 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 502.00 = 373.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 502.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< Page 10 EXRS100 ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 390.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 376.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 62.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2339 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.684 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.06 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 12.94 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.05 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.45 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 5.80 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.30 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.63 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.98 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.45 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.09 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 503.00 = 435.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 5.80 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.684 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.35 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.73 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.71 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 503.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.80 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.68 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 Page 11 EXRS100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 14.71 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 601.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 79.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 422.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.07 0.20 1.000 98 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.38 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 601.00 TO NODE 602.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 422.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 412.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 300.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0317 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.465 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.93 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.59 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.13 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.21 Tc(MIN.) = 6.21 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.93 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.41 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.74 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.45 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.78 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 602.00 = 379.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 602.00 TO NODE 603.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< Page 12 EXRS100 >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 412.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 383.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 129.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2287 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.324 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 1.05 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.16 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.43 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) = 6.50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.84 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.05 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.45 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.12 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.06 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 603.00 = 508.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 603.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 383.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 44.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2045 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.294 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.02 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 9.50 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.46 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.41 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 Tc(MIN.) = 6.56 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.09 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.49 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.41 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.45 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 604.00 = 552.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Page 13 EXRS100 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 604.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.56 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.294 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.34 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.56 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.05 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 604.00 TO NODE 604.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 4 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.56 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.29 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 11.05 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 324.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 430.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.528 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.894 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 0.77 0.20 1.000 98 7.53 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.25 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.25 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 701.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 14 EXRS100 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 5 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 5 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.53 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.25 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 14.71 5.80 5.684 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 3.0 500.00 2 5.42 8.71 4.501 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 1.4 300.00 3 22.61 9.49 4.285 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 6.2 400.00 4 11.05 6.56 5.294 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 2.4 600.00 5 3.25 7.53 4.894 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 0.8 700.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 5 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 51.28 5.80 5.684 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 10.4 500.00 2 52.12 6.56 5.294 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 11.4 600.00 3 51.74 7.53 4.894 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 12.2 700.00 4 51.11 8.71 4.501 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.2 300.00 5 50.40 9.49 4.285 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.7 400.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 52.12 Tc(MIN.) = 6.56 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.37 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 620.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 51.28 5.80 5.684 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 10.4 500.00 2 52.12 6.56 5.294 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 11.4 600.00 3 51.74 7.53 4.894 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 12.2 700.00 4 51.11 8.71 4.501 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.2 300.00 5 50.40 9.49 4.285 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 13.7 400.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 620.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** Page 15 EXRS100 STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.57 9.03 4.411 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 100.00 2 3.58 13.45 3.510 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 886.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 54.24 5.80 5.684 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 11.0 500.00 2 55.24 6.56 5.294 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.0 600.00 3 55.04 7.53 4.894 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 13.0 700.00 4 54.63 8.71 4.501 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.1 300.00 5 54.40 9.03 4.411 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.3 100.00 6 53.97 9.49 4.285 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.6 400.00 7 44.42 13.45 3.510 0.20( 0.19) 0.93 14.8 200.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 55.24 Tc(MIN.) = 6.563 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 701.00 = 886.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 TC(MIN.) = 6.56 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.951 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 55.24 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 54.24 5.80 5.684 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 11.0 500.00 2 55.24 6.56 5.294 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 12.0 600.00 3 55.04 7.53 4.894 0.20( 0.19) 0.95 13.0 700.00 4 54.63 8.71 4.501 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.1 300.00 5 54.40 9.03 4.411 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.3 100.00 6 53.97 9.49 4.285 0.20( 0.19) 0.94 14.6 400.00 7 44.42 13.45 3.510 0.20( 0.19) 0.93 14.8 200.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 16 APPENDIX 3 PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS PRRS2 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 * * Proposed Condition Hydrology * * 2-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: PRRS2.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:29 03/30/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 436.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.850 Page 1 PRRS2 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.534 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.84 0.20 0.600 57 9.85 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.07 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.07 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 428.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 258.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.49 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.67 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.12 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.59 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.03 Tc(MIN.) = 11.88 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.377 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.75 0.20 0.600 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.85 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.80 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.37 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.20 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.65 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 588.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< Page 2 PRRS2 ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.88 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.80 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 435.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.80 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 10.289 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.496 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.83 0.20 0.600 57 10.29 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.03 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 427.80 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 546.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.66 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.19 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.73 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.54 Page 3 PRRS2 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.27 Tc(MIN.) = 15.56 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.180 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.32 0.20 0.600 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.32 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.26 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.05 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.07 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.81 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.59 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 876.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 15.56 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.18 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.05 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.80 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 1.6 100.00 2 2.05 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 2.2 200.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.66 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.2 100.00 2 3.57 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.7 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.66 Tc(MIN.) = 11.88 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.23 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 876.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Page 4 PRRS2 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 425.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.575 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.661 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.82 0.20 0.600 57 8.58 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.82 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.52 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 425.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 421.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 329.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.73 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.26 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.34 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.77 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.35 Tc(MIN.) = 10.92 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.446 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.35 0.20 0.600 57 Page 5 PRRS2 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.42 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.59 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.05 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.29 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.75 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 659.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.92 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.45 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 303.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 425.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.557 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.663 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.31 0.20 0.600 57 8.56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.43 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 303.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 425.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 421.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 295.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 Page 6 PRRS2 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.40 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.46 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.07 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.57 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.37 Tc(MIN.) = 10.93 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.445 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.62 0.20 0.600 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.62 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.93 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.30 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.39 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.30 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.72 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 625.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.93 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.44 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.30 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.59 10.92 1.446 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 2.2 300.00 2 2.30 10.93 1.445 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 1.9 300.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO Page 7 PRRS2 CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.89 10.92 1.446 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 4.1 300.00 2 4.89 10.93 1.445 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 4.1 300.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.89 Tc(MIN.) = 10.92 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.10 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 659.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 304.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 415.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1148.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.40 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.89 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.28 Tc(MIN.) = 13.20 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 304.00 = 1807.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 304.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 23.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2609 NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF .1 WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 4.89 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 6.64 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 Tc(MIN.) = 13.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 305.00 = 1830.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 13.26 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.293 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 5.36 0.20 1.000 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.27 Page 8 PRRS2 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 9.46 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.60 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 13.26 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.293 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN PUBLIC PARK D 1.68 0.20 0.850 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.850 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.68 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.70 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.14 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.30 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 11.30 13.26 1.293 0.20( 0.17) 0.83 11.1 300.00 2 11.30 13.27 1.293 0.20( 0.17) 0.83 11.1 300.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 1830.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.66 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.2 100.00 2 3.57 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.7 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 876.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 14.54 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 13.2 100.00 2 14.92 13.26 1.293 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 3 14.92 13.27 1.293 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 4 13.73 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 14.9 200.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.92 Tc(MIN.) = 13.259 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.56 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 1830.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: Page 9 PRRS2 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 TC(MIN.) = 13.26 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.56 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.776 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.92 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 14.54 11.88 1.377 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 13.2 100.00 2 14.92 13.26 1.293 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 3 14.92 13.27 1.293 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 4 13.73 15.56 1.180 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 14.9 200.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 10 PRRS10 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 * * Proposed Condition Hydrology * * 10-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: PRRS10.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:37 03/30/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 436.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.850 Page 1 PRRS10 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.753 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.84 0.20 0.600 75 9.85 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.99 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.99 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 428.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 258.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.80 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.13 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.44 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.80 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.76 Tc(MIN.) = 11.61 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.505 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.75 0.20 0.600 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.61 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.41 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.06 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.54 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.88 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 588.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< Page 2 PRRS10 ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.61 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.51 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.41 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 435.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.80 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 10.289 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.685 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.83 0.20 0.600 75 10.29 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.92 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 427.80 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 546.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.14 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.06 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.00 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.73 Page 3 PRRS10 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.56 Tc(MIN.) = 14.84 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.176 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.32 0.20 0.600 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.32 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.44 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.98 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.11 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.83 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 876.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.84 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.18 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.98 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.41 11.61 2.505 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 1.6 100.00 2 3.98 14.84 2.176 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 2.2 200.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 7.02 11.61 2.505 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.3 100.00 2 6.92 14.84 2.176 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.7 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.02 Tc(MIN.) = 11.61 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.27 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 876.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Page 4 PRRS10 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 425.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.575 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.980 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.82 0.20 0.600 75 8.58 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.68 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.82 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.68 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 425.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 421.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 329.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.08 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.30 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.69 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.06 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.04 Tc(MIN.) = 10.61 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.638 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.35 0.20 0.600 75 Page 5 PRRS10 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.92 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.68 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.04 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 659.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.61 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.64 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.92 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 303.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 425.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.557 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.984 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.31 0.20 0.600 75 8.56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.80 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.80 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 303.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 425.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 421.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 295.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 Page 6 PRRS10 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.64 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.95 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.38 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.77 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.07 Tc(MIN.) = 10.62 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.636 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.62 0.20 0.600 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.62 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.67 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.37 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.68 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 625.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.62 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.64 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.37 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.92 10.61 2.638 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 2.2 300.00 2 4.37 10.62 2.636 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 1.9 300.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO Page 7 PRRS10 CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 9.29 10.61 2.638 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 4.1 300.00 2 9.28 10.62 2.636 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 4.1 300.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.29 Tc(MIN.) = 10.61 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.10 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 659.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 304.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 415.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1148.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.82 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.29 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.95 Tc(MIN.) = 12.56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 304.00 = 1807.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 304.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 23.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2609 NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF .1 WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 9.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 7.76 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 12.61 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 305.00 = 1830.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 12.61 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.389 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 5.36 0.20 1.000 88 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.56 Page 8 PRRS10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 9.46 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.93 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 12.61 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.389 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN PUBLIC PARK D 1.68 0.20 0.850 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.850 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.68 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.36 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.14 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 22.29 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 22.29 12.61 2.389 0.20( 0.17) 0.83 11.1 300.00 2 22.28 12.62 2.388 0.20( 0.17) 0.83 11.1 300.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 1830.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 7.02 11.61 2.505 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.3 100.00 2 6.92 14.84 2.176 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.7 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 876.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 28.61 11.61 2.505 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 13.5 100.00 2 29.28 12.61 2.389 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 3 29.27 12.62 2.388 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 4 27.07 14.84 2.176 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 14.9 200.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 29.28 Tc(MIN.) = 12.610 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.55 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 1830.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: Page 9 PRRS10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 TC(MIN.) = 12.61 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.55 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.776 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 29.28 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 28.61 11.61 2.505 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 13.5 100.00 2 29.28 12.61 2.389 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 3 29.27 12.62 2.388 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 4 27.07 14.84 2.176 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 14.9 200.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 10 PRRS100 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: fuscoe engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Rio Santiago - TTM 18163 * * Proposed Condition Hydrology * * 100-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: PRRS100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:24 03/31/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 436.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.850 Page 1 PRRS100 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.195 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.84 0.20 0.600 91 9.85 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.08 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.08 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 428.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 258.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.34 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.18 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.71 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.00 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.59 Tc(MIN.) = 11.44 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.851 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.75 0.20 0.600 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.52 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.34 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.83 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.11 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 588.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< Page 2 PRRS100 ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.44 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.85 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.34 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 435.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 431.80 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 10.289 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.092 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.83 0.20 0.600 91 10.29 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.97 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.97 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 431.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 427.80 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 546.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.91 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.46 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.22 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.92 Page 3 PRRS100 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.10 Tc(MIN.) = 14.39 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.377 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.32 0.20 0.600 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.32 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.87 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.30 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.45 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.99 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.36 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.05 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 876.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.39 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.30 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.34 11.44 3.851 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 1.6 100.00 2 6.30 14.39 3.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 2.2 200.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 11.08 11.44 3.851 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.3 100.00 2 10.96 14.39 3.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.7 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.08 Tc(MIN.) = 11.44 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 876.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Page 4 PRRS100 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 425.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.575 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.542 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.82 0.20 0.600 91 8.58 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.82 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.24 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 425.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 421.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 329.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.87 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.84 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.99 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.33 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.83 Tc(MIN.) = 10.41 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.065 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.35 0.20 0.600 91 Page 5 PRRS100 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.24 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.70 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.74 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.97 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.31 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 659.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.41 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.70 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 303.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 434.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 425.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.557 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.548 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.31 0.20 0.600 91 8.56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.24 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 303.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 425.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 421.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 295.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 Page 6 PRRS100 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0160 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.12 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.98 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.65 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.97 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.86 Tc(MIN.) = 10.41 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.064 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 1.62 0.20 0.600 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.62 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.75 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.85 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.78 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.98 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 625.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.41 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.93 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.85 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 7.70 10.41 4.065 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 2.2 300.00 2 6.85 10.41 4.064 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 1.9 300.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO Page 7 PRRS100 CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 14.55 10.41 4.065 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 4.1 300.00 2 14.55 10.41 4.064 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 4.1 300.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.55 Tc(MIN.) = 10.41 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.10 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.12 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 659.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 304.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 415.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1148.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.02 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 14.55 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.74 Tc(MIN.) = 12.14 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 304.00 = 1807.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 304.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 374.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 23.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2609 NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF .1 WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 14.55 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 8.71 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 12.19 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 305.00 = 1830.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 12.19 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.714 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" D 5.36 0.20 1.000 98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.95 Page 8 PRRS100 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 9.46 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 30.21 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 305.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 12.19 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.714 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN PUBLIC PARK D 1.68 0.20 0.850 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.850 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.68 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.36 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 11.14 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 35.56 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 305.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 35.56 12.19 3.714 0.20( 0.17) 0.83 11.1 300.00 2 35.56 12.19 3.713 0.20( 0.17) 0.83 11.1 300.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 1830.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 11.08 11.44 3.851 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.3 100.00 2 10.96 14.39 3.377 0.20( 0.12) 0.60 3.7 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 876.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 45.75 11.44 3.851 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 13.8 100.00 2 46.61 12.19 3.714 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 3 46.61 12.19 3.713 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 4 43.15 14.39 3.377 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 14.9 200.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 46.61 Tc(MIN.) = 12.187 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.55 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 1830.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: Page 9 PRRS100 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.9 TC(MIN.) = 12.19 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.55 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.776 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 46.61 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 45.75 11.44 3.851 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 13.8 100.00 2 46.61 12.19 3.714 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 3 46.61 12.19 3.713 0.20( 0.16) 0.78 14.6 300.00 4 43.15 14.39 3.377 0.20( 0.15) 0.77 14.9 200.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 10 APPENDIX 4 EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY MAP MABURY AVENUEMABURY AVENUE YELLOWSTONE BLV D LASSEN BLVDSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKMILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT COMPANYRIO SANTIAGO TTM 18163GNIREENEIGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315www.fuscoe.comFax: (714) 687-1900Phone: (714) 687-0000888 S. Disneyland Drive, Ste 101MILAN CAPITALPREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:Anaheim, CA 92802MANAGEMENT, INCVICINITY MAP5555SANTIAGO CANYON ROADE. KATELLA AVEVILLA PARK RD.E. COLLINS AVE.SANTIAGO BLVDCANNON S TSERRANO AVEMABURYAVEORANGEPARK BLVDHEWES STWALNUT STGRAVIERSTPR O S P E C T CANNON STCHAPMANAVEME A T S AVESANTIAGO OAKSREGIONAL PARKNICKY WAYN.T.S.HYDROLOGIC MAPEXISTING CONDITION PLANSHEET 1 OF 2DATE:3/31/2020GNIREENEIGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315www.fuscoe.com APPENDIX 5 PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY MAP MABURY AVENUEMABURY AVENUE YELLOWSTONE BLV D LASSEN BLVDSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKSANTIAGO CREEKMILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT COMPANYRIO SANTIAGO TTM 18163GNIREENEIGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315www.fuscoe.comFax: (714) 687-1900Phone: (714) 687-0000888 S. Disneyland Drive, Ste 101MILAN CAPITALPREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:Anaheim, CA 92802MANAGEMENT, INCVICINITY MAP5555SANTIAGO CANYON ROADE. KATELLA AVEVILLA PARK RD.E. COLLINS AVE.SANTIAGO BLVDCANNON S TSERRANO AVEMABURYAVEORANGEPARK BLVDHEWES STWALNUT STGRAVIERSTPR O S P E C T CANNON STCHAPMANAVEME A T S AVESANTIAGO OAKSREGIONAL PARKNICKY WAYN.T.S.HYDROLOGIC MAPPROPOSED CONDITION PLANSHEET 2 OF 2DATE: 3/30/2020GNIREENEIGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315www.fuscoe.com C-3: Sewer Capacity Report THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PRELIMINARY SEWER CAPACITY REPORT TTM 18163 ORANGE, CA PREPARED FOR: MILAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC 888 SOUTH DISNEYLAND DRIVE SUITE 101 ANAHEIM, CA 92802 (714) 687-1900 PREPARED BY: FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 16795 VON KARMAN, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92606 (949) 474-1960 PROJECT MANAGER: JOHN OLIVIER P.E. DATE PREPARED: JUNE 2020 JOB NUMBER 881-004-01 PRELIMINARY SEWER CAPACITY REPORT June 2020 Milan Capital Management, INC. TTM 18163 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Project Description 1 1.3 Existing Sewer Facilities 2 1.4 Proposed Flow Generation Analysis 2 1.5 Flow Depth Calculations 2 2.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 3 3.0 APPENDICES 3 Appendix 1 City of Orange Sewer Atlas Map Appendix 2 Sewer As-Built Plans Appendix 3 Sewer Proposed Flow Depth Calculations PRELIMINARY SEWER CAPACITY REPORT June 2020 Milan Capital Management, Inc. 1 TTM 18163 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to analyze the public sanitary sewer system for the proposed TTM 18163 project, located in City of Orange, California. The sewer lines to be evaluated have been requested by the City, and include sewer lines in Mabury Avenue, fronting the project site, along with downstream reaches in Mt McKinley Boulevard, and Taft Avenue, to Cannon Street. (See Appendix 1 for City of Orange Atlas Map.) 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located within the City of Orange in north-central Orange County, California. The site is south of Mabury Avenue at the intersection with Yellowstone Boulevard, and is generally located to the east of State Route 55, to the west of State Route 261. A Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1 below. The proposed development will include 22 single-family homes, along with a roadway and proposed intersection at Mabury Avenue and Yellowstone Drive. The project site is currently vacant/undeveloped land. PRELIMINARY SEWER CAPACITY REPORT June 2020 Milan Capital Management, Inc. 2 TTM 18163 1.3 EXISTING SEWER FACILITIES The existing City of Orange sewer system that will be accepting wastewater flows from the proposed development is a 15” VCP sewer line, with slopes ranging from 0.4% throughout most of Mabury Avenue, and flattening to 0.2% through Mt McKinley Boulevard and Taft Avenue, to Cannon Street. (As-Built Sewer Plans are included in Appendix 2.) Although the existing sewer flows are provided in the City Atlas (Appendix 1), we noticed that some of the downstream reaches show existing flows that are lower than those of the upstream reaches. We discussed this issue with the City of Orange, and were advised that the existing condition flow data was obtained via a hybrid system, including the following resources: • Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD); flows based on land use • City of Orange; flows based on dwelling units (100 gpd per capita) • Flow Monitoring (obtaining actual flow data; in-situ) We were advised that, due to the variances included with each data source, some of the data shown on the sewer atlas erroneously show that the flow decreases traveling downstream, which would not occur. Therefore, we were advised to update the flow data shown on the sewer atlas to what made the most sense. The existing flow markups were added to the sewer atlas, and were used to obtain the proposed condition depth over diameter (d/D). 1.4 PROPOSED FLOW GENERATION ANALYSIS In order to evaluate the impact of the proposed development, a determination of the additional wastewater flows from the proposed development has been calculated. Tentative Tract 18163 proposed 22 single-family residential dwelling units. Using typical flow generation values, the average additional wastewater to be generated is calculated below. • 22 DU @ 3.5 persons/DU x 100 gpd/person = 7,700 gpd • Peak Flow = 7,700 gpd x 2.5 = 19,250 gpd = 0.0298 cfs The proposed development (TTM 18163) will increase the peak wastewater flow to the existing public sewer system by 0.0298 cfs. 1.5 FLOW DEPTH CALCULATIONS The hydraulics of the existing sewer reaches with the total wastewater flows were performed, based adding the proposed project flows to the existing condition flows that were provided by the City of Orange. (See Appendix 3 for hydraulic calculations for the various sewer reaches.) PRELIMINARY SEWER CAPACITY REPORT June 2020 Milan Capital Management, Inc. 3 TTM 18163 2.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The calculations and results presented in this report demonstrate that the existing sewer system will not be adversely impacted by the wastewater flows associated with the proposed project. The summary of the analyses is presented in Table 1. Table 1 – Existing Public Sewer with Proposed Condition Flows Sewer Reach MH- MH Pipe Size Pipe Slope (%) Design Peak Flow (cfs) Existing Peak Flow (cfs) Existing d/D Additional Peak Flow (cfs) Proposed Total Peak Flow (cfs) Proposed d/D 1970 - 1981 15” 0.4% 2.0462 0.6706 0.2738 0.0298 0.7004 0.2896 1981 - 2018 15” 0.4% 2.0462 0.6706 0.2738 0.0298 0.7004 0.2896 2018 - 2030 15” 0.4% 2.2019 0.6911 0.2678 0.0298 0.7209 0.2944 2030 - 2015 15” 0.4% 1.773 0.6956 0.3003 0.0298 0.7254 0.2952 2015 - 2046 15” 0.4% 1.773 0.6956 0.3003 0.0298 0.7254 0.2952 2046 - 2032 15” 0.2% 1.773 0.6956 0.3448 0.0298 0.7254 0.3520 2032 - 1976 15” 0.2% 1.773 0.6956 0.3448 0.0298 0.7254 0.3520 1976 - 1988 15” 0.2% 0.796 0.8839 0.3896 0.0298 0.9083 0.3952 1988 - 2040 15” 0.2% 1.4186 0.8849 0.3393 0.0298 0.9147 0.3968 2040 - 2051 15” 0.2% 1.7849 0.8975 0.3865 0.0298 0.9273 0.3992 3.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1 City of Orange Sewer Atlas Map Appendix 2 Sewer As-Built Plans Appendix 3 Sewer Proposed Flow Depth Calculations Appendix 1 Sewer Atlas Map ISLE ROYALE CIRCANYON PARK CIRBRYCEAVECRATERLAKEAVEMT.McKINLEYBLVDCRATER LAKE AVECANNONST MOU N T A IN A V E M A B U R Y A V E J U AN E N O A VE L E X I N G T O N A V E CHUMASH STWILLIAMSBURG STZIONSTCARLSBADSTLASSEN BLVDSHENANDOAHAVE TETONAVE PARKER CIR LASSEN BLVDYELLOWSTONEBLVDMAMMOTHCIRT E T O N A V E B R Y C E AVE PLAYANO AVE S E R R A N O A VE S M O K E Y A V E B R Y C E A V E S H E N A N D O A H A V E FOREST STYELLOWSTONEBLVDMOUNTAIN AVET A F T A VE!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(5634 5 5 0 8 5506 5502 5538 5546 5618 5608 5440 5432 5 5 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 9 5448 5424 5 5 1 1 5 5 1 5 5434 5502 5 5 2 2 5514 1681 1691 1725 1715 1703 1 7 0 2 1 6 8 8 1 7 1 2 1732 5 3 2 9 5712 5731 5917 5901 5841 5811 5803 5741 5614 5707 5719 5703 5626 5638 5724 5712 5702 1886 1888 1890 1 8 1 5 1803 1 8 0 6 9 8 2 1 6230 6218 6206 6142 6132 6122 6001 6 0 4 9 6007 6 0 1 9 6 0 2 7 6 0 3 7 6209 6145 6135 6123 6233 6221 6317 6305 6243 6231 6219 6207 6145 6133 6121 6341 5920 5908 5846 5838 5828 5814 5750 5736 5608 5612 5614 5607 5546 5550 5604 9 6 8 2 9 7 0 2 9722 9 7 4 2 6329 6303 6315 6327 6 3 3 6 6330 6318 6325 6331 6341 6335 6323 6 3 1 3 6314 6326 6338 6310 6309 6231 6206 6220 6230 6223 6209 6147 1986 1 9 8 2 1 9 4 8 1 9 5 8 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 5 1 9 4 5 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 1 6 0 0 8 6002 6003 6 0 1 4 6036 6048 5912 5749 5702 5706 1 8 9 2 1891 1889 1887 5919 5843 5722 5734 5808 5831 5823 5636 5618 5611 5631 1804 1802 5707 5701 5630 1724 5448 5247 5311 5235 5223 1 8 1 4 1 8 6 6 1 8 7 8 1 8 2 8 1 8 4 0 1 8 5 4 5501 5525 5539 5513 5502 5540 5526 5514 1989 1985 6232 1 8 8 3 1 8 93 6241 6207 6219 6145 6133 6121 6220 6208 6144 6134 6047 6023 6033 6015 6007 6050 6047 5828 5918 5906 5842 6026 6021 6033 6038 6028 6018 6002 6006 1979 1987 5 8 2 5 5921 5909 5843 1 9 1 1 1 9 3 3 1 9 2 3 5917 5841 5723 1921 5835 5905 5904 5903 5843 5833 5821 5709 5705 5922 5902 5840 5828 5750 5738 5724 5315 5303 5316 5321 5322 5338 5339 5331 1 6 8 8 1 6 9 8 1 7 1 2 1 7 3 6 1 7 2 4 5905 5817 5805 5743 5827 5817 5809 1807 5623 5 7 2 5 5 7 1 3 1785 5637 1741 17 33 6132 1 9 2 8 6144 6003 6016 1936 6008 1945 6004 1 9 6 2 1993 1 9 7 4 1978 1 9 7 8 5326 5314 5302 6010 6018 6026 6036 6048 6306 6242 5304 1 7 4 0 1770 1776 1775 1796 1802 1 8 1 4 5737 1854 6004 1 8 6 2 1 8 7 6 6001 6122 5919 1 8 8 8 5814 1884 1 9 0 2 5920 1 9 1 2 6336 6011 1914 6007 6122 19212 19252 19221 19211 19222 19232 19262 19231 19251 9752 5508 ISLE ROYALE CIRT E T O N A V E YELLOWSTONEBLVDTAFT AVE S M O K E Y A V E WATERTONA V E .B R Y C E AVEBRYCEAVE SHENANDOAHAVE. TETONAVELASSEN BLVDC R ATER LAKEAVECANYON PARK CIRSERRANO AVEMAMMOTH CIRFOREST STCARPENTERCIR CANNON STCHUMASH STPLAYANO AVE PARKER CIR TAFT AVEMT . M cKINLEYBLVD MOUNTAIN AVEYELLOWSTONE BLVDM A B U R Y A V EZIONSTCARLSBAD STJ U A N E N O A V E L E X I N G T O N A V EWILLIAMSBURG STMOUNTAIN AVE 1702 1709 171 2 171 4 1715 1717 172 11722 173 2 173 4 1748 175 8 176 0 1770 1784 178 6 1790 179 11796 180 4 1816 1822 182 31825 183 0 183 6 186 3 1871 187 2 188 1 188 3 188 9 1902 1910 191 3 192 0 1927 1937 194 0 194 2 1945 194 8 195 6 1970 197 3 1976 198 1 198 2 1985 1988 2015 2018 203 2 204 6 20512054 2070 2101 210 3 2134 217 2 2173 866 9 867 1 8739 0 1709-1732Design=1.5352Existing=0.0008d/D =0.0127 1889-1883Design=0.6641Existing=0.0375d/D=0.11558669-2093 D esign=0.1279 Existing=0.0062 d/D =0.1075 2172-2213Design=0.9138Existing=0.0169d/D =0 .068 1 7 0 2 - 1 7 1 4De si g n = 2 . 1 4 0 3 E x is ti n g = 0 . 0 3 4 7 d /D= 0 . 0 6 3 9 2195-2199Desi gn=0.9024Exi st i ng=0.007d/D=0.04521876-1913Design=1.2235Existing=0.0042d/D=0.031 1650-1714Design=1.4666Existing=0.4371d/D=0.2609 2101-2095Design=0.6548Existing=0d/D=02018-2030Desi gn=2.2019Exi sti ng=0.6911d/D=0.26781715-1713Design=1.2093Existing=0.0028d/D=0.02582040-2051Desi gn=1.7849Exi sti ng=0.8849d/D=0.33931945-1948Design=0.8689Existing=0.0008d/D=0.01661660-1722Design=2.0229Existing=0.0253d/D=0.05661804-1863Design=1.7049Existing=0.0011d/D=0.0145 1822-1876Design=1.0266Existing=0d/D=01724-1758Design=1.0954Existing=0.0034d/D=0.0294 1941-1942Design=0.4058Existing=0.0272d/D=0.12541712-1717Desi gn=1.2299Exi st i ng=0.0011d/D=0.01681942-1974Design=1.6007Existing=0.1883d/D=0.16461986-1973Design=2.0447Existing=0.6883d/D=0.27761940-1941Design=0.3817Existing=0.0242d/D=0.12211924-1920Design=0.3826Existing=0.0183d/D=0.10681937-1942Desi gn=0.3255Exi st i ng=0.1608d/D=0.33861 9 7 4 - 1 9 8 8De s i g n = 0 . 7 9 6Ex i s ti n g = 0 . 9 2 4 1 d /D= 0 . 5 4 71871-1872Design=0.8643Existing=0.0022d/D=0.0271913-1910Design=0.3843Existing=0.0105d/D=0.08171822-1830Design=0.3821Existing=0d/D=01830-1847Design=0.3816Existing=0.0046d/D=0.05541766-1816Design=1.716Existing=0.0028d/D=0.02191985-1967Design=0.2953Existing=0.0008d/D=0.02741920-1889Design=0.3857Existing=0.0215d/D=0.11481982-1940Design=0.3187Existing=0.0026d/D=0.0461 9 8 8-2 0 4 0 D e sig n = 1.4 1 8 6 E xistin g = 0.8 9 7 5 d/D = 0.3 8 6 5 1847-1823Design=0.3837Existing=0.0073d/D=0.06872 1 3 4 -2 1 9 9Design=2 .2 4 9 9Existing=0 .8 6 7d/D =0 .2 9 7 5 1816-1825Design=0.3834Existing=0.0204d/D=0.11241823-1796Design=0.4493Existing=0.0108d/D=0.07691748-1702Design=2.0443Existing=0.0324d/D=0.06331784-1790Design=0.8962Existing=0.0005d/D=0.01362173-2172Design=0.4599Existing=0d/D=08670-8669Design=0.3612Existing=0.0037d/D=0.0512 1717-1770Design=1.2122Existing=0.0053d/D=0.03481722-1748Design=2.0317Existing=0.0326d/D=0.06372030-2015Design=1.773Existing=0.6956d/D=0.30031 9 8 1- 2 0 1 8 D e sig n = 2.3 1 6 5 E xistin g = 0.6 6 2 1 d/ D = 0.2 5 5 4 1872-1940Design=1.0526Existing=0.0128d/D=0.0558 1927-1913Design=0.3824Existing=0.002d/D=0.03731836-1816Desi gn=0.3841Exi st i ng=0.0142d/D=0.09451883-1948Design=0.8751Existing=0.1329d/D=0.18641863-1937Design=1.2321Existing=0.0159d/D=0.05751760-1770Design=0.7995Existing=0.004d/D=0.03672095-2172Design=0.915Existing=0.0046d/D=0.03692032-1974Design=1.5655Existing=0.6902d/D=0.3191948-1932Design=0.2843Existing=0.1392d/D=0.33711732-1790Design=1.1553Existing=0.0372d/D=0.08831 9 5 6 -2 0 5 4Design=1 .9 3 2 2Existing=0 .4 5 6 8d/D =0 .2 3 2 1 1734-1732Design=1.1929Existing=0.0005d/D=0.01181910-1924Design=0.3824Existing=0.0145d/D=0.095517 9 0 -188 3Design=1.1 9 0 5Existing=0.0 5 8 7d/D =0 .1 0 8 2 2 0 7 0 -2 1 3 4 D e s ig n =2 .1 7 0 1 E xis tin g =0 .8 7 5 7 d /D =0 .3 0 4 7 2093-2032 Design=0.5154 Existing=0.0066 d/D=0.0573 1825-1883Design=0.383Existing=0.0233d/D=0.11981970-1981Desi gn=2.0462Exi sti ng=0.6706d/D=0.27381 9 6 7-2 0 3 2 D e sig n = 0.3 1 2 5 E xistin g = 0.0 0 4 8 d/ D = 0.0 6 2 3 1973-1970Design=2.0577Existing=0.6785d/D=0.27462015-2046Desi gn=2.0544Exi st i ng=0.6833d/D=0.27581 7 1 4 -1 7 8 6Design=2 .0 1 5 5Existing=0 .4 6 9 1d/D =0 .2 3 0 3 1932-1902Design=0.2385Existing=0.1398d/D=0.37091881-1956Design=2.3767Existing=0.4607d/D=0.2103 1 7 8 6 -1 8 8 1 D e s i g n =2 .2 8 3 1 E x i s t i n g =0 .4 6 4 7 d /D =0 .2 1 5 5 2046-2032Design=1.4452Existing=0.6735d/D=0.32841 9 0 2 - 1 9 3 7De s i g n =0. 3 4 5Ex i s ti n g =0. 1 3 92 d /D=0 . 3 0 47 2103-2195Design=0.9098Existing=0.0009d/D=0.01732054-2050Desi gn=3.7814Exi st i ng=0.461d/D=0.16741758-1732Design=0.3956Existing=0.0261d/D=0.12451770-1758Design=0.4042Existing=0.0158d/D=0.09698"8"10"8" 1 2 " 8"8"6"8"8"8"8 " 8 " 8 "8"8"8 "8"8"8"8"12" 8" 8" 8 " 8" 1 5 "10"8 " 8" I1000100200300 400 500 60050 FeetOrange S ew e r A tl asLegend Other City o f Anaheim City of O ra n g e Appendix 2 Sewer As-Built Plans Appendix 3 Sewer Proposed Flow Depth Calculations GIVEN: Qgiven=0.700 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0040 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=4.349 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.362 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 65.16 degree R= 0.208 ft C= 82.273 V= 2.372 ft/sec A= 0.295 sq. ft. Qassume=0.700 cfs Q halffull = 1.99 cfs Q 3/4full = 3.67 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =4.349 Capacity d/r =57.99% Qcapacity =3.673 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =19.07% (Q halffull = 1.99 cfs (Q 3/4full = 3.67 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.557 ft C 3/4full=95.783 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =3.240 ft/sec)V 3/4full=3.720 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed GIVEN: Qgiven=0.721 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0040 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=4.412 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.368 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 65.69 degree R= 0.210 ft C= 82.542 V= 2.394 ft/sec A= 0.301 sq. ft. Qassume=0.721 cfs Q halffull = 1.99 cfs Q 3/4full = 3.67 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =4.412 Capacity d/r =58.83% Qcapacity =3.673 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =19.63% (Q halffull = 1.99 cfs (Q 3/4full = 3.67 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.557 ft C 3/4full=95.783 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =3.240 ft/sec)V 3/4full=3.720 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed GIVEN: Qgiven=0.725 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0040 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=4.423 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.369 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 65.78 degree R= 0.211 ft C= 82.588 V= 2.397 ft/sec A= 0.302 sq. ft. Qassume=0.725 cfs Q halffull = 1.99 cfs Q 3/4full = 3.67 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =4.423 Capacity d/r =58.97% Qcapacity =3.673 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =19.75% (Q halffull = 1.99 cfs (Q 3/4full = 3.67 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.557 ft C 3/4full=95.783 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =3.240 ft/sec)V 3/4full=3.720 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed GIVEN: Qgiven=0.725 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0020 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=5.275 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.440 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 72.74 degree R= 0.243 ft C= 85.376 V= 1.881 ft/sec A= 0.385 sq. ft. Qassume=0.725 cfs Q halffull = 1.40 cfs Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =5.275 Capacity d/r =70.33% Qcapacity =2.587 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =28.04% (Q halffull = 1.40 cfs (Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.161 ft C 3/4full=95.405 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =2.281 ft/sec)V 3/4full=2.620 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed GIVEN: Qgiven=0.908 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0020 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=5.928 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.494 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 77.90 degree R= 0.265 ft C= 87.402 V= 2.014 ft/sec A= 0.451 sq. ft. Qassume=0.908 cfs Q halffull = 1.40 cfs Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =5.928 Capacity d/r =79.04% Qcapacity =2.587 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =35.11% (Q halffull = 1.40 cfs (Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.161 ft C 3/4full=95.405 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =2.281 ft/sec)V 3/4full=2.620 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed GIVEN: Qgiven=0.915 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0020 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=5.950 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.496 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 78.07 degree R= 0.266 ft C= 87.465 V= 2.018 ft/sec A= 0.453 sq. ft. Qassume=0.915 cfs Q halffull = 1.40 cfs Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =5.950 Capacity d/r =79.33% Qcapacity =2.587 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =35.36% (Q halffull = 1.40 cfs (Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.161 ft C 3/4full=95.405 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =2.281 ft/sec)V 3/4full=2.620 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed GIVEN: Qgiven=0.927 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0020 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=5.993 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.499 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 78.41 degree R= 0.268 ft C= 87.586 V= 2.026 ft/sec A= 0.458 sq. ft. Qassume=0.927 cfs Q halffull = 1.40 cfs Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =5.993 Capacity d/r =79.91% Qcapacity =2.587 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =35.85% (Q halffull = 1.40 cfs (Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.161 ft C 3/4full=95.405 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =2.281 ft/sec)V 3/4full=2.620 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed GIVEN: Qgiven=0.696 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0020 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=5.168 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.431 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 71.88 degree R= 0.239 ft C= 85.011 V= 1.858 ft/sec A= 0.375 sq. ft. Qassume=0.696 cfs Q halffull = 1.40 cfs Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =5.168 Capacity d/r =68.91% Qcapacity =2.587 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =26.89% (Q halffull = 1.40 cfs (Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.161 ft C 3/4full=95.405 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =2.281 ft/sec)V 3/4full=2.620 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed GIVEN: Qgiven=0.884 cfs <== Discharge n=0.013 <== Roughness coefficient S=0.0020 <== Slope V:H r=0.625 ft <== Radius TRIAL DEPTH: h=5.843 in <== Vary this depth to get Q assume = Q given 0.487 ft CACULATIONS: beta= 77.24 degree R= 0.263 ft C= 87.157 V= 1.997 ft/sec A= 0.442 sq. ft. Qassume=0.884 cfs Q halffull = 1.40 cfs Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs RESULT: (Qgiven-Qassume) / Qgiven %=0%<========OK Flow Depth (in) =5.843 Capacity d/r =77.91% Qcapacity =2.587 cfs Capacity Qgiven/Qcapacity =34.17% (Q halffull = 1.40 cfs (Q 3/4full = 2.59 cfs beta halffull=90.000 degree beta 3/4full=120.00 degree Rhalffull =0.313 ft R3/4full=0.377 ft C halffull =91.161 ft C 3/4full=95.405 ft A halffull =0.614 sq. ft.A 3/4full=0.987 sq. ft. V halffull =2.281 ft/sec)V 3/4full=2.620 ft/sec) *Cells that are highlighted can be changed C-4: Water Demand Report THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK WATER DEMAND REPORT TTM 18163 Orange, California Milan Capital Management, Inc. 888 South Disneyland Drive, Suite 101 Anaheim, CA 92802 (714) 687-1900 Prepared By: Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92606 949.474.1960 www.fuscoe.com Project Manager: John Olivier, P.E. Date Prepared: June 2020 Job Number: 881-004-01 Water Demand Report June 2020 Table of Contents Section Page I. Introduction ................................................................................... 1 II. Project Site and Description ......................................................... 1 III. Existing Water Capacity ............................................................... 2 IV. Proposed Water Demands ............................................................ 3 V. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 3 VI. List of Appendices ........................................................................ 3 Appendix 1 – City of Orange Water Atlas Sheet Appendix 2 – Domestic Water Demand Calculations Water Demand Report June 2020 Milan Capital Management, Inc. TTM 18163 Page 1 I. Introduction This Water Demand Report for the proposed “TTM 18163” project, located on Mabury Avenue at Yellowstone Boulevard in the City of Orange has been prepared to present the existing water system’s flow characteristics and the proposed water demand associated with the proposed development. II. Project Site and Description The project is located within the City of Orange in north-central Orange County, California. The site is south of Mabury Avenue at the intersection with Yellowstone Boulevard, and is generally located to the east of State Route 55, to the west of State Route 261. The project proposes to construct 22 single-family homes on an existing vacant lot. A Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1 below. Water Demand Report June 2020 Milan Capital Management, Inc. TTM 18163 Page 2 III. Existing Water Capacity According to the City of Orange Water Atlas Sheet, there is an existing 8” DIP waterline in Mabury Avenue, fronting the project. A copy of this Water Atlas Sheet is included in Appendix 1 of this report. The project proposes to connect to this waterline at the intersection of Mabury Avenue and Yellowstone Boulevard. The City of Orange provided Fuscoe with the below table of the flows and pressures read at the nearest hydrants for preliminary design, and is used for reference purposes only. Hydrant # (Mabury Ave) Static Pressure (PSI) Residual Pressure (PSI) Observed Flow (GPM) Flow at 20 PSI (GPM) Approx Test Date 2882 (Lassen Blvd) 90 86 1558 7308 Aug-19 2883 (Yellowstone Blvd) 86 80 1503 5485 Aug-18 2884 (East of Yellowstone Blvd) 88 82 1521 5644 Aug-18 The hydrant that is nearest the proposed connection at Yellowstone Boulevard is hydrant # 2883, which has a static pressure of 86 psi, a residual pressure of 80 psi associated with a demand of 1,503 gpm, and a maximum flow of 5,485 gpm at 20 psi. Fire hydrant flow testing will be required for final design. The City of Orange Fire Department shall be contacted at 714-288-2541 to schedule a flow test for system design. Water Demand Report June 2020 Milan Capital Management, Inc. TTM 18163 Page 3 IV. Proposed Water Demands The project proposes to build 22 single family homes. According to our research, we have estimated a maximum peak demand of 30 gpm for each home. The total peak domestic water demand associated with the proposed development is 660 gpm. The domestic water demand calculations are included in Appendix 2 of this report. Fire flow demands will be calculated during final design, and shall be calculated based on 2019 California Fire Code, Appendices B and C. Based on our experience, we are preliminarily estimating a fire flow demand of 2,000 gpm for the proposed project. V. Conclusion The proposed water demand values are as follows: • Domestic: 660 gpm • Fire: 2,000 gpm Based our analysis, the existing 8” DIP public watermain in Mabury Avenue has adequate capacity to supply water to the proposed development. VI. List of Appendices Appendix 1 – City of Orange Water Atlas Sheet Appendix 2 – Domestic Water Demand Calculations Appendix 1 City of Orange Water Atlas Sheet CIT Y OF ORANGE WATER ATL AS SH EET DAT E PLOT T ED: Au gust 2019 DAT E REVISED: Au gust 2019 807181917090697989G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. ± ÑF! !H !H±"b !H"bÑF! ÑF! !H !H !H !H !H !R ±!H ±"b!H "b!H ÑF! !H !H !H ÑF! !H !H !H !H !H ±!H ÑF! !H "b"b!H !H ÑF! !H ÑF! !H "b!H ±±!H !H"b!H !R !H !R ± !H !H "b !H !H !H !H !R !H !H !H"b!H ÑF! ÑF!"b!H ± !H !H ±!H !H "b!H ÑF! !H "b!H ÑF! !H !H !H !H ± !H !H ±"b !H "b"b!H !H !H !H !H MM ÍB !(!(&. !(!(&. !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( 8 DIP 6 DIP 6 DIP 8 DIP 8 D I P 8 DIP 8 D IP 8 DIP 8 DIP 6 D IP 8 D I P 8 DIP 6 DIP 12 DIP 6 DIP 6 D I P 4 DIP 16 DIP 4 DIP 4 DIP 6 D I P 12 DIP 8 DIP 8 D I P 8 D I P 8 DIP 8 DIP 8 DIP 8 DIP 12 DIP 8 DIP 10 DIP 8 D IP 12 DIP 8 DIP 10 DIP 16 DIP 8 DIP 8 DIP 4 DIP 4 DIP 12 DIP 4 DIP 8 D I P 8 DIP 4 DIP 6 D IP 8 DIP 12 DIP 8 DIP12 DIP 8 DIP 12 D IP 8 D I P 8 DIP 6 DIP 6 DIP 12 DIP 16 DIP 8 D IP 6 DIP 6 DIP YUROK STBRYCEAVE C R E S T V IE W C IR Z I ON S T M O U NTAINAVE CARPENTER CIR TETON A VE FOREST STGLACIER STCRESTDE V IL L EAVEMAMMOTH CIRMOUNTMCKI NLEYBLVDCHUMASH STLARSON CI RMABURY AVE PARKER CIR WILLIAMSBURG STPLAYANO AVE CARLSBAD STJUA NENO A VE L E X I N G T O N A V E YELLOWSTONE BLVDSHENANDOAHAVE ISLE ROYALE CIRC R A T E R L A K E A V ECANYON PARK CI RSERRANO AV E M A M M O T H C IRL ASSEN BLVDZION STTETON AVE CANNON STCA RLSBAD ST BRYCE AVE LASSEN BLVDCANNON STMODOC STB R Y C E A V E BRYCEAVE S M O K E Y A V E LASSEN BLVDCHUMASH STTETON AVE MOUNTAIN AVESHOSHONE AVEC R A TE R LA K E A V E RI DG E V IE W R D M A B U R Y A V E TAFT AVE M A BURYAVEW A TE R TO N A V E YUROK STM A B U R Y A V E LASSEN BLVDSHENANDOAHAVEBRYCEAVE CANNON STCANNONSTS H E N A N D O A H A V ECANNON STLASSEN BLVDS H O S H O N E A V E TAFT AVE YELLOWSTONE BLVDYELLOWSTONE BLVDYELLOWSTONE BLVDCRATER LAKE AVE MOUNT MCKINLEY BLVD T E T O N A V E TAFTAVETex t Tex t Tex tText 1 0' W / O C L 10'N/O C L 1 0 'S /O C L10'S /O C L10'S /O C L 18'S/O CL10'E/O CL10'E/O CL9.5 'S/O CL10'N/O CL 10'E/O CL15.5'E/O CL10'E/O CL1 0 'S /O C L 10'S/O CL 1 0 'S /O C L 1 0 'S /O C L 15'E/O CL14'S/O CL 18'W/O CL2 4 'S /O C L 12'E/O CL73634'S /O C L 6"24'W/O CLMT . McKINLEY P.R. S TATION W -6 47 1 0'W/ O C L62110'S/O CL 9'E/O CL18'W/O CL1 0 'S /O C L 10'S/O CL15'S/O CL 11'E/O CL14.5'E/O CL10'S/O CL9.5'E/O CL18'W/O CL1 0 'S /O C L 10.5'E/O CL13'W/O CL6 'S /O C L10.5'S/O CL 8'S/O CL 13'S/O CL 1 0 'S /O C L 12'E/O CL21'W/O CL1 1 .5 'S /O C L 1 0'N / O C L 15'E/O CL12'N/O CL10'S/O CL9'S /O C L 12'S/O CL 12'N/O CL18'W/O CL10'N/O CL18'W/O CL25'W/O CL20'W/O CL26'W/O CL26'W/O CL3"CITY OFVILLA PARK5919 5 5 0 8 5506 5502 5440 5432 5 5 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 9 5448 5424 5 5 1 1 5434 5502 5 5 2 2 5514 1681 1691 1725 1715 1703 1702 1688 1712 1732 5222 5212 5146 5134 5110 5141 5330 5329 5 3 2 4 5 3 1 6 5234 5 2 4 6 5 3 0 8 1656 1662 1658 1664 1678 1686 1694 1708 1722 1734 1748 1760 1772 5712 5731 5917 5901 5841 5811 5803 5741 5614 5707 5719 5703 5626 5638 5724 5712 5702 1886 1888 1890 1815 1803 1 8 0 6 9862 9 8 6 1 9901 9921 9881 9821 6230 6218 6206 6142 6132 6122 6001 6 0 4 9 6007 6 0 1 9 6 0 2 7 6 0 3 7 6209 6145 6135 6123 6233 6221 6317 6305 6243 6231 6219 6207 6145 6133 6121 6403 6341 5920 5908 5846 5838 5828 5814 5750 5736 5608 5612 5614 5607 5546 5550 5604 9 7 4 1 9 7 1 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 8 2 9 6 6 2 9702 9722 9742 9762 9766 9772 9776 9765 9771 5145 1655 1687 1695 1661 1679 6329 6303 6315 6327 6 3 3 6 6330 6318 6406 6349 6411 6325 6331 6341 6403 6409 6347 6335 6323 6 3 1 3 6314 6326 6338 6402 6310 6309 6231 6206 6220 6230 6223 6209 6147 1986 1982 1948 1958 1970 1975 1945 1959 1971 6008 6002 6003 6014 6036 6048 5912 5749 5702 5706 1 8 9 2 1891 1889 1887 5919 5843 5722 5734 5808 5831 5823 5636 5618 5611 5631 1804 1802 5707 5701 5630 1724 5448 1691 1657 1663 1677 1685 1701 1717 1729 1743 5046 5215 5247 5311 5235 5223 1814 1866 1878 1828 1840 1854 5501 5525 5539 5513 5502 5540 5526 5514 1989 1985 6232 1883 1 8 9 3 6241 6207 6219 6145 6133 6121 6220 6208 6144 6134 6047 6023 6033 6015 6007 6050 6047 5828 5918 5906 5842 6026 6021 6033 6038 6028 6018 6002 6006 1979 1987 5 8 2 5 5921 5909 5843 1 9 1 1 1 9 3 3 1 9 2 3 5917 5841 5723 1921 5835 5905 5904 5903 5843 5833 5821 5709 5705 5922 5902 5840 5828 5750 5738 5724 5315 5303 5316 5321 5322 5338 5339 5331 1711 1709 1721 1759 1773 1733 1779 1681 1667 1660 1668 1680 1688 1698 1712 1736 1724 5905 5817 5805 5743 5827 5817 5809 1807 5623 5725 5 7 1 3 1785 5637 1741 1 7 3 3 6132 1 9 2 8 6144 6003 6016 1936 6008 1945 6004 1962 1993 1974 1978 1 9 7 8 5048 1682 1 6 7 6 5326 5314 5302 6010 6018 6026 6036 6048 6306 6242 5304 1 7 4 0 1770 1776 1775 1796 1802 1 8 1 4 5737 1 8 5 4 6004 1862 1876 6001 6122 5919 1888 5814 1884 1902 5920 1 9 1 2 6336 6011 1914 6348 6410 6007 6122 19212 19252 19201 19221 19211 19202 19222 19232 19262 19152 19161 19141 19231 19242 6145 19221 19251 9752 5508 1806 WAT E RTREATM E N TPLANT HANSEN RECYCLING6145 SANTAIG O CANYON RD 9016 9021 9018 9023 9019 9020 9022 1856 39969053 3064 2771 2772 2878 2763 2879 2736 2639 2695 2692 28802881 2638 2696 2690 2884 2883 2885 28822689 26884092 4091 2693 2488 2489 2691 2694 2697 2877 2653 3128 3127 2735 MayburySubzone 0 190 380 570 76095Feet OLegend CIP = Cast Iron Pipe DIP = Ductile Iron Pipe CYL = Cylinder Pipe STL = Steel Pipe AC = Asbestos Cement Pipe PL = Plastic Pipe GALV = Galvanized Pipe PVC = Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe COP = Copper Pipe %..(Booster Pump "Îi SamplingStation 4 Meter !*"AirControl !*"AirGap ÍÖ Altitude ÍB Air Vac G!.Hydrant 6" lateral UT Reservoir "%W ProductionWell "b Reducer Plug &.Closed Valve Gate Valve Butterfly Valve != !(&É DetectorCheck&, Offset"T Tap!R Cap± Appendix 2 Domestic Water Demand Calculations Rio Santiago Water Demand Calculations Proposed Development: 22 units Estimate Peak Demand Values: · Toilet: 5 gpm · Shower or Bathtub: 5 gpm · Kitchen Faucet: 3 gpm · Bathroom Faucet: 3 gpm · Dishwasher: 3 gpm · Washing Machine: 5 gpm · Miscellaneous: 6 gpm · TOTAL ESTIMATE = 30 gpm per dwelling unit Proposed Peak Domestic Water Demand: 30 gpm per unit Total Peak Domestic Demand: 22 DU x 30 gpm/DU = 660 gpm Appendix D: Noise Impact Analysis THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK       NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS  ORANGE TRAIL AT SANTIAGO CREEK PROJECT  CITY OF ORANGE              Lead Agency:     City of Orange  300 E Chapman Ave  Orange, CA 92866       Prepared by:     Vista Environmental   1021 Didrickson Way  Laguna Beach, California 92651  949 510 5355  Greg Tonkovich, INCE      Project No. 20042    May 8, 2020      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page i    TABLE  OF CONTENTS  1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1  1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives ................................................................................. 1  1.2 Site Location and Study Area ..................................................................................................... 1  1.3 Proposed Project Description .................................................................................................... 1  1.4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1  1.5 Mitigation Measures from the Certified EIR .............................................................................. 2  1.6 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 4  2.0 Noise Fundamentals ................................................................................................................ 8  2.1 Noise Descriptors ....................................................................................................................... 8  2.2 Tone Noise ................................................................................................................................. 8  2.3 Noise Propagation ...................................................................................................................... 8  2.4 Ground Absorption .................................................................................................................... 9  3.0 Ground‐Borne Vibration Fundamentals ................................................................................. 10  3.1 Vibration Descriptors ............................................................................................................... 10  3.2 Vibration Perception ................................................................................................................ 10  3.3 Vibration Propagation .............................................................................................................. 10  4.0 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................. 11  4.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................................................................. 11  4.2 State Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 12  4.3 Local Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 13  5.0 Existing Noise Conditions ....................................................................................................... 18  5.1 Existing Noise Levels from Certified EIR ................................................................................... 18  5.2 Existing Noise Level from 2012 Noise Report .......................................................................... 18  6.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ................................................................................. 22  6.1 Construction Noise ................................................................................................................... 22  6.2 Operations‐Related Noise ........................................................................................................ 23  6.3 Vibration .................................................................................................................................. 25  7.0 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 26  7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance.............................................................................................. 26  7.2 Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards ................................................................. 26  7.3 Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration .................................................................... 30  7.4 Aircraft Noise ........................................................................................................................... 31  8.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 32         Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page ii    TABLE  OF CONTENTS CONTINUED  APPENDICES  Appendix A – 2009 and 2011 Field Noise Measurements Printouts  Appendix B – RCNM Model Construction Noise Calculation Printouts  Appendix C – FHWA Model Offsite Traffic Noise Calculations Printouts                  Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page iii    LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1 – Project Location Map ................................................................................................................... 5  Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 6  Figure 3 – Proposed Fence & Wall Plan ........................................................................................................ 7  Figure 4 – Existing Noise Contours from Certified EIR ................................................................................ 20  Figure 5 – 2009 and 2011 Noise Measurements Locations ........................................................................ 21    LIST OF TABLES   Table A – FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria ................................................................ 11  Table B – City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources ........................ 13  Table C – City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Sources ................................ 14  Table D – City of Orange Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards .......................................................... 16  Table E – Noise Level Measurements On June 15‐16, 2009 ....................................................................... 18  Table F – Noise Level Measurements On September 21‐22, 2011 ............................................................. 19  Table G – Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors .................................................... 22  Table H – FHWA Model Roadway Parameters............................................................................................ 23  Table I – FHWA Model Average Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 24  Table J – Roadway Vehicle Mix ................................................................................................................... 24  Table K – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................................. 25  Table L – Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Homes ....................................................................... 27  Table M – Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions .............................................................................. 28  Table N – Opening Year 2022 Project Traffic Noise Contributions ............................................................. 29  Table O – Long‐Term Year 2040 Project Traffic Noise Contributions ......................................................... 29        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Page iv    ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS  ANSI  American National Standards Institute  Caltrans California Department of Transportation  CEQA  California Environmental Quality Act  City    City of Orange  cmu  Concrete masonry unit  CNEL  Community Noise Equivalent Level  dB  Decibel  dBA  A‐weighted decibels  DOT  Department of Transportation  FHWA  Federal Highway Administration  FTA  Federal Transit Administration  EPA  Environmental Protection Agency   Hz  Hertz  Ldn  Day‐night average noise level  Leq  Equivalent sound level  Lmax  Maximum noise level  ONAC  Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control  OSB  Oriented Strand Board  OSHA  Occupational Safety and Health Administration  PPV  Peak particle velocity  RMS  Root mean square  SEL  Single Event Level or Sound Exposure Level  STC  Sound Transmission Class  UMTA  Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration  VdB  Vibration velocity level in decibels          Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 1    1.0 INTRODUCTION  1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives  This Noise Impact Analysis has been prepared to determine the noise and vibration impacts associated  with the proposed Tentative Tract No. 18163 project (proposed project).  The following is provided in this  report:   A description of the study area and the proposed project;    Information regarding the fundamentals of noise;    Information regarding the fundamentals of vibration;   A description of the local noise guidelines and standards;    An evaluation of the current noise environment;   An analysis of the potential short‐term construction‐related noise impacts from the proposed  project; and,   An analysis of long‐term operations‐related noise impacts from the proposed project.    1.2 Site Location and Study Area  The project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Orange (City).  The approximately 10.9‐acre  project site is currently vacant and is bounded by Mabury Avenue and single‐family homes to the north,  Santiago Creek and vacant land to the east, Santiago Creek and a Sand and Gravel Pit to the south, and  Santiago Creek and vacant land to the west.  The project study area is shown in Figure 1.  Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity  The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located on the north side of Mabury Avenue,  which are as near as 80 feet east of the project site.  The nearest school is Linda Vista Elementary School,  which is located as near as 0.6 mile southwest of the project site.  1.3 Proposed Project Description  The proposed project is expected to break ground in June 2021 and be completed by December 2022.   The proposed project would consist of development of 22 single‐family residential lots. Lot sizes for  residential units would range from 9,112 square feet 14,092 to square feet. The proposed project would  include development and improvements to streets, sidewalks, and trails; and installation of an equestrian  trail. Access to the project site would be provided via Mabury Avenue. The building footprints, patios,  driveways, and pools would comprise approximately 132,000 square feet of impervious surfaces; streets  and sidewalks would comprise approximately 48,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. The proposed  site plan is shown in Figure 2 and the proposed fence and wall plan is shown in Figure 3.  1.4 Executive Summary  Standard Noise Regulatory Conditions  The proposed project will be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the City of  Orange and State of California.       Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 2    City of Orange Noise Regulations  The following lists the noise and vibration regulations from the Municipal Code that are applicable, but  not limited to the proposed project.   Section 8.24.040 Exterior Noise   Section 8.24.050(E) Construction Noise Exemptions  State of California Noise Regulations  The following lists the State of California noise regulations that are applicable, but not limited to the  proposed project.   California Vehicle Code Section 2700‐27207 – On Road Vehicle Noise Limits   California Vehicle Code Section 38365‐38350 – Off‐Road Vehicle Noise Limits  Summary of Analysis Results  The following is a summary of the proposed project’s impacts with regard to the State CEQA Guidelines  noise checklist questions.  Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of  the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable  standards of other agencies?  Less than significant impact.   Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?  Less than significant impact.   For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a  plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project  expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?  Less than significant impact.   1.5 Mitigation Measures from the Certified EIR  The proposed project is being analyzed as an addendum to the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact  Report Trails at Santiago Creek Specific Plan City of Orange, Orange County, California State Clearinghouse  No: 2017031020 (Certified EIR), prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, November 14, 2018.  The Noise‐ Related Mitigation Measures from the Certified EIR are provided below.  It should be noted that the  proposed homes are located in a much less noise intensive area than the preferred alternative analyzed  in the Certified EIR.  As such, not all listed mitigation is required to meet less than significant impacts for  the proposed project.  MM NOI‐1a  To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi‐part mitigation measure shall  be implemented for the proposed project:      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 3     The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal  combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and  appropriate for the equipment.   The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise‐generating equipment as far as  possible from sensitive receptors when cause of the noise complaints (starting too early,  bad muffler, etc.) and establishment reasonable measures necessary to correct the  problem.  The construction contractor shall visibly post a telephone number for the  disturbance coordinator at the construction site.    All on‐site construction activities, including deliveries and engine warm‐up, shall be  restricted to the hours between 7:00a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.   Construction, except emergency work, shall not be permitted on Sunday or federal  holidays.  MM NOI‐1b  To reduce potential future on‐site exterior traffic noise impacts at on‐site receptors adjacent to  East Santiago Canyon Road, the following multi‐part mitigation measure shall be implemented for  the proposed project:   Based on SoundPlan model runs, a 6‐foot high noise barrier, relative to the receptor  elevation, is required to comply with the City’s exterior noise standard for proposed  residential uses located adjacent to East Santiago Canyon Road.  The calculated noise  contours are shown in Exhibit 3.12 7. In order to meet the City’s exterior noise standard  for community uses, a 4‐foot high berm would be required along East Santiago Canyon  Road; or   A minimum setback distance of 164 feet from the centerline of East Santiago Canyon Road  shall be incorporated into the design feature.  The first row of residential uses constructed  164 feet from the centerline will also have front yards facing East Santiago Canyon Road.  MM NOI‐1c  To reduce potential future on‐site interior traffic noise impacts at on‐site receptors adjacent to  East Santiago Canyon Road, the following multi‐part mitigation measure shall be implemented for  the proposed project:   All proposed residential units located within 560 feet of the centerline of East Santiago  Canyon Road shall include an alternate form of ventilation, such as an air conditioning  system, in order to ensure that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time.   The building plans approved by the County shall reflect this requirement.   All second story habitable rooms of proposed residential units located within 164 feet of  the centerline of East Santiago Canyon Road shall include STC 30 rated windows in facades  that would be parallel and perpendicular to East Santiago Canyon Road; or,   Upon completion of the architectural plans, a detailed acoustical study shall be prepared  by a qualified noise analyst that analyzes the interior noise levels of the proposed  residential units and provides design features to reduce the interior noise levels to within  the 45 dBA CNEL standard.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 4    1.6 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project  This analysis found that adherence to the noise and vibration regulations detailed in Section 1.4 above  were adequate to limit all noise and vibration impacts to less than significant levels.  No mitigation  measures are required for the proposed project with respect to noise and vibration impacts.  Figure 1Project Location MapSOURCE: Google Maps.NProject Site Figure 2Proposed Site PlanSOURCE: Fuscoe Engineering.N Figure 3Proposed Fence & Wall PlanSOURCE: Fuscoe Engineering.N     Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 8    2.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS   Noise is defined as unwanted sound.  Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities,  when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.  Sound is produced by the  vibration of sound pressure waves in the air.  Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of  sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit which expresses the  ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level.  A‐weighted decibels (dBA)  approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by  discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum.  They are adjusted to  reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.    2.1 Noise Descriptors  Noise Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but are calculated from sound pressure levels  typically measured in A‐weighted decibels (dBA).  The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady  state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.   The peak traffic hour Leq is the noise metric used by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)  for all traffic noise impact analyses.  The Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections  for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours.  The time of day corrections require the addition of ten  decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.  While the Community Noise Equivalent Level  (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 decibels to sound levels during the  evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.  These additions are made to the sound levels at these time  periods because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours, there is a  decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds.  For this reason the  sound appears louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly.  The City of Orange  relies on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation‐related impacts on noise sensitive land uses.    2.2 Tone Noise   A pure tone noise is a noise produced at a single frequency and laboratory tests have shown that humans  are more perceptible to changes in noise levels of a pure tone.  For a noise source to contain a “pure  tone,” there must be a significantly higher A‐weighted sound energy in a given frequency band than in the  neighboring bands, thereby causing the noise source to “stand out” against other noise sources.  A pure  tone occurs if the sound pressure level in the one‐third octave band with the tone exceeds the average of  the sound pressure levels of the two contiguous one‐third octave bands by:   5 dB for center frequencies of 500 hertz (Hz) and above   8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz   15 dB for center frequencies of 125 Hz or less     2.3 Noise Propagation  From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum.  The most  obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases.  The manner in which noise  reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground  absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features.  Sound  from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward as it travels away from      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 9    the source in a spherical pattern.  The noise drop‐off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6  dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD).  Transportation noise sources such as roadways are  typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from  multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway.  Because of the geometry of a line source, the  noise drop‐off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD.    2.4 Ground Absorption  The sound drop‐off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and  receiver.  To account for this ground‐effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are  commonly used in traffic noise models, soft‐site and hard‐site conditions.  Soft‐site conditions account for  the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation.  For point  sources, a drop‐off rate of 7.5 dBA/DD is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as  compared with a 6.0 dBA/DD drop‐off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very  hard packed earth.  For line sources a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft‐site conditions compared  to the 3.0 dBA/DD drop‐off rate for hard‐site conditions.  Caltrans research has shown that the use of soft‐ site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)  traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 10    3.0 GROUND‐BORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS  Ground‐borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average  motion of zero. The effects of ground‐borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at  extreme vibration levels damage to buildings may occur.  Although ground‐borne vibration can be felt  outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking  of a building can be notable.  Ground‐borne noise is an effect of ground‐borne vibration and only exists  indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and  may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.   3.1 Vibration Descriptors   There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum  instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the  root mean square (rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity.  Due to the typically small amplitudes of  vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as (Lv) and is based on the rms  velocity amplitude.  A commonly used abbreviation is “VdB”, which in this text, is when Lv is based on the  reference quantity of 1 micro inch per second.   3.2 Vibration Perception   Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower.  These  continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB.  Off‐ site sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel‐ wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground‐borne  noise or vibration.    3.3 Vibration Propagation   The propagation of ground‐borne vibration is not as simple to model as airborne noise.  This is due to the  fact that noise in the air travels through a relatively uniform median, while ground‐borne vibrations travel  through the earth which may contain significant geological differences. There are three main types of  vibration propagation; surface, compression, and shear waves.  Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel  along the ground’s surface.  These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave  front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water.  P‐waves, or compression waves,  are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front.  The particle motion in  these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push‐pull” fashion).  P‐waves are analogous to airborne sound  waves.  S‐waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave  front.  However, unlike P‐waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side‐to‐side and perpendicular to  the direction of propagation.”  As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and  the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source.  As  stated above, this drop‐off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective  enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be  studied through actual field tests.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 11    4.0 REGULATORY SETTING  The project site is located in the City of Orange. Noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of  various federal, state, and local government agencies.  The agencies responsible for regulating noise are  discussed below.  4.1 Federal Regulations  The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act  of 1972, which serves three purposes:   Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce   Assisting state and local abatement efforts   Promoting noise education and research  The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was initially tasked with implementing the  Noise Control Act.  However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal  noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees.  For example, the  Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency prohibits exposure of workers to excessive  sound levels.  The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through  its various operating agencies.  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise of aircraft and  airports.  Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal  Transit Administration (FTA).  Transit noise is regulated by the federal Urban Mass Transit Administration  (UMTA), while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal  Highway Administration (FHWA).  Finally, the federal government actively advocates that local  jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise  sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that the  developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.  Although the proposed project is not under the jurisdiction of the FTA, the FTA is the only agency that  provides specific guidance for construction noise. The FTA recommends developing construction noise  criteria on a project‐specific basis that utilizes local noise ordinances if possible. However, local noise  ordinances usually relates to nuisance and hours of allowed activity and sometimes specify limits in terms  of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the noise impacts of a construction  project.  Project construction noise criteria should take into account the existing noise environment, the  absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent  land uses.  The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies  on the human effects and reaction to noise and a summary of the FTA findings for a general construction  noise assessment are provided below in Table A.   Table A – FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria  Land Use  Day  (dBA Leq(1‐hour))  Night  (dBA Leq(1‐hour))  Residential 90 80  Commercial 100 100  Industrial 100 100  Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 12    Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted  by the transportation sources, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation  system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.  4.2 State Regulations  Noise Standards  California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control  Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was  instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies.  One  significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix,” which allows  the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of  noise.  California Noise Insulation Standards  Title 24, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise Insulation Standards)  requires noise insulation in new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single‐family  detached housing) that provides an annual average noise level of no more than 45 dBA CNEL.  When such  structures are located within a 60‐dBA CNEL (or greater) noise contour, an acoustical analysis is required  to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45‐dBA CNEL annual threshold.  In addition, Title 21,  Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California Administrative Code requires that all habitable rooms, hospitals,  convalescent homes, and places of worship shall have an interior CNEL of 45 dB or less due to aircraft  noise.  Government Code Section 65302  Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California  adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan.  The local noise element must recognize  the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services.  The  guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable,  normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.  California Vehicle Code Section 27200‐27207 – On‐Road Vehicle Noise  California Vehicle Code Section 27200‐27207 provides noise limits for vehicles operated in California.  For  vehicles over 10,000 pounds noise is limited to 88 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1973, 86 dB for  vehicles manufactured before 1975, 83 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1988, and 80 dB for vehicles  manufactured after 1987.  All measurements are based at 50 feet from the vehicle.  California Vehicle Section 38365‐38380 – Off‐Road Vehicle Noise    California Vehicle Code Section 38365‐38380 provides noise limits for off‐highway motor vehicles  operated in California.  92 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1973, 88 dBA for vehicles manufactured  before 1975, 86 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1986, and 82 dBA for vehicles manufactured after  December 31, 1985.  All measurements are based at 50 feet from the vehicle.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 13    Vibration Standards  Title 14 of the California Administrative Code Section 15000 requires that all state and local agencies  implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which requires the analysis of  exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration.  However, no statute has been adopted by the  state that quantifies the level at which excessive groundborne vibration occurs.    Caltrans issued the Transportation‐ and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in 2004.  The  manual provides practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address  vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects.   However, this manual is also used as a reference point by many lead agencies and CEQA practitioners  throughout California, as it provides numeric thresholds for vibration impacts.  Thresholds are established  for continuous (construction‐related) and transient (transportation‐related) sources of vibration, which  found that the human response becomes distinctly perceptible at 0.25 inch per second PPV for transient  sources and 0.04 inch per second PPV for continuous sources.   4.3 Local Regulations  The City of Orange General Plan and Municipal Code establishes the following applicable policies related  to noise and vibration.    City of Orange General Plan  The City of Orange has developed its own land use compatibility standards based on recommended  parameters from the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research that rate compatibility.  Using  the State’s land use compatibility guidelines, the City has established interior and exterior noise standards.   The City’s compatibility standards provide only for normally acceptable conditions based on State  recommendations and City land use designations.  The City’s Land Use Compatibility standards are  presented in Table B.  Table B – City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources  Land Use CNEL (dBA)  Land Use Designations Uses Interior1,3 Exterior2  Estate Low Density Residential  Low Density Residential  Low Medium Density Residential  Single‐family, duplex, and multiple‐family 45 65  Mobile home park N/A 65  Medium Density Residential  Neighborhood  Mixed‐Use  Neighborhood Office Professional  Old Towne Mixed‐use  General Commercial  Yorba Commercial Overlay  Urban Mixed‐use  Urban Office Professional  Single‐family 45 65  Mobile home park N/A 65  Multiple‐family, mixed use 45 654,5  Transient lodging‐motels, hotels 45 65  Sports arenas, outdoor spectator sports N/A N/A  Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters 45 N/A  Office buildings, business, commercial and  professional 50 N/A  Light Industrial  Industrial Manufacturing, utilities, agriculture N/A N/A  Public Facilities and Institutions Schools, nursing homes, day care facilities,  hospitals, convalescent facilities, dormitories 45 65      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 14    Table B – City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources  Land Use CNEL (dBA)  Land Use Designations Uses Interior1,3 Exterior2  Government Facilities‐offices, fire stations,  community buildings 45 N/A  Places of Worship, Churches 45 N/A  Libraries 45 N/A  Utilities N/A N/A  Cemeteries N/A N/A  Recreation Commercial  Open Space  Open Space‐Park  Open Space‐Ridgeline  Resource Area  Playgrounds, neighborhood parks N/A 70  Golf courses, riding stables, water recreation,  cemeteries N/A N/A  Notes:  (1) Interior habitable environment excludes bathrooms, closets and corridors.  (2) Exterior noise level standard to be applied at outdoor activity areas; such as private yards, private patio or balcony of a multi‐family   residence. Where the location of an outdoor activity area is unknown or not applicable, the noise standard shall be applied inside the   property line of the receiving land use.  (3) Interior noise standards shall be satisfied with windows in the closed position.  Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per Uniform   Building Code (UBC) requirements.  (4) Within the Urban Mixed‐Use, Neighborhood Mixed‐Use, Old Towne Mixed‐Use, and Medium Density Residential land use   designations, exterior space standards apply only to common outdoor recreational areas.  (5) Within Urban Mixed‐Use and Medium Density Residential land use designations, exterior noise levels on private patios or balconies   located within 250 feet of freeways (I‐5, SR‐57, SR‐55, SR‐22, or SR‐241) and Smart Streets and Principal Arterial identified in the   Circulation & Mobility Element that exceed 70 dB should provide additional common open space.  N/A=Not Applicable to specified land use category or designation.  Source: City of Orange General Plan Table N‐3.      The City’s maximum allowable noise exposure levels from stationary sources are defined in Table N‐4 of  the General Plan and reprinted below in Table C.  Table C – City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Sources  Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)  Hourly Equivalent Level (Leq), dBA 55 45  Maximum Level (Lmax), dBA 70 65  Notes:  (1)  These standards apply to new or existing noise sensitive land uses affected by new or existing non‐transportation noise sources, as   determined at the outdoor activity area of the receiving land use.  However, these noise level standards do not apply to residential   units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings).  (2) Each of the noise levels specified above should be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech   or music, or for recurring impulsive noises.  Such noises are generally considered by residents to be particularly annoying and are a   primary source of noise complaints.  These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with   industrial or commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings).  (3) No standards have been included for interior noise levels.  Standards construction practices that comply with exterior noise levels   identified in this table generally result in acceptable interior noise levels.  (4) The City may impose noise level standards which are more or less restrictive than those specified above based upon determination   of existing low or high ambient noise levels.  If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the standards listed in Table N‐4, then the   noise level standards shall be increased at 3 dB increments to encompass the ambient noise environment.  Noise level standards   incorporating adjustments for existing ambient noise levels shall not exceed a maximum of 70 dB Leq.  Source: City of Orange General Plan Table N‐4.        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 15    For City analysis of noise impacts and determining appropriate mitigation under the California  Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in addition to the maximum allowable noise level standards outlined  in Tables N‐3 (Table B above) and N‐4 (Table C above) from the General Plan, an increase in ambient noise  levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the  following:   Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA, a project related permanent increase  in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater.   Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent  increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater.  In addition to the standards provided above, the City of Orange General Plan includes the following goals  and policies that are applicable to the proposed project  Goals and Policies  GOAL 2.0:  Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise‐sensitive land uses.  Policy 2.2:  Encourage coordinated site planning and traffic control measures that minimize traffic  noise in noise‐sensitive land use areas.  GOAL 7.0:  Minimize construction, maintenance vehicle, and nuisance noise in residential areas and  near noise‐sensitive land uses.  Policy 7.2:  Require developers and contractors to employ noise minimizing techniques during  construction and maintenance operations.  Policy 7.3:  Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise‐ sensitive land uses.  Policy 7.4:  Encourage limitations on the hours of operations and deliveries for commercial, mixed‐ use, and industrial uses abutting residential zones.  City of Orange Municipal Code  The City of Orange Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise.   Section 8.24.020 Definitions.  The following words, phrases and terms as used in this chapter shall have the meaning as indicated below:  A. “Ambient noise level” means the all‐encompassing noise level associated with a given environment,  being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the alleged offensive noise at the location and  approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made.  B. “Adjusted ambient noise level” means the measured ambient noise level plus 3 dB (A).  Three (3) dB (A)  is the industry‐accepted threshold of human perceptibility for a change in noise environment.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 16    Section 8.24.040 Exterior Noise Standards.  A. The following noise standards [Table D] for fixed noise sources, unless otherwise specifically indicated,  shall apply to all residential property:  Table D – City of Orange Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards  Standard Noise Level Time Period  Hourly Average (Leq) 55 dB (A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.  50 dB (A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.  Maximum Level 70 dB (A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.  65 dB (A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.  Source: City of Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.040.    B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation  of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes  the noise level when measured on any other residential property to exceed the noise standards identified  in Table 8.24.040.  For multi‐family residential or mixed use developments located within the City’s Urban  Mixed Use, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Old Towne Mixed Use or Medium Density Residential General Plan  land use districts, exterior noise standards shall apply to common recreation areas only and shall not apply  to private exterior space (such as a private yard, patio, or balcony)  C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standards identified in Table 8.24.040 of this  section, the “adjusted ambient noise level” shall be applied as the noise standard.  In cases where the  noise standard is adjusted due to a high ambient noise level, the noise standard shall not exceed the  “adjusted ambient noise level”, or 70 dB (A), whichever is less.  In cases where the ambient noise level is  already greater than 70 dB (A), the ambient noise level shall be applied as the noise standard.  D. Each of the noise limits specified in Table 8.240.040 shall be reduced by five dB(A) for impact or simple  tone noises, recurring impulsive noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music.  (Ord. No. 1‐4 § I, 8‐ 12‐14)  8.24.050 Exemptions from Chapter Provisions.  The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:  E. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property,  provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for  Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal  holiday. Noise generated outside of the hours specified are subject to the noise standards identified in  Table 8.24.040;  I. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided such activities take place  between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on any day except Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between  the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Sunday or a Federal holiday;  L. Mobile noise sources including but not limited to operational noise from trains, or automobiles or trucks  traveling on roadways. Transportation noise as related to noise/land use compatibility is subject to the  City's General Plan Noise Element;      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 17    M. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal Law. (Ord. No. 1‐ 4 § I, 8‐12‐14)  8.24.060 Special Provisions for Schools, Hospitals and Churches.  It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital, or  church, while the same is in use, to exceed the noise limits as specified in Section 8.24.040, or which noise  level unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions. (Ord. No. 1‐4 § I, 8‐12‐14)           Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 18    5.0 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS  Due to the existing restrictions on activities created from the COVID‐19 lockdown, it was determined that  if noise measurements were taken at this time, they would underestimate the typical existing or ambient  noise environment.  Vista Environmental has provided a couple of assessments of the existing noise  environment.  That are detailed separately below.  5.1 Existing Noise Levels from Certified EIR   In the Certified EIR the existing (year 2017) roadway noise environment was modeled, in order to show  the existing noise levels without the Sand and Gravel activities and Exhibit 3‐12.1 from the Certified EIR  has been reprinted with the addition of the proposed project site outline that is shown in Figure 4.  5.2 Existing Noise Level from 2012 Noise Report  The Noise Impact Analysis Rio Santiago Project, prepared by Vista Environmental, December 20, 2012  obtained noise measurements in the vicinity of the project site in 2009 and in 2011 and the results of the  noise level measurements are presented in Table E for the June 15‐16, 2009 noise measurements and in  Table F for the September 21‐21, 2011 noise measurements. It should be noted that Site A is located near  the intersection of Mt McKinley Boulevard and Mabury Avenue, approximately 500 feet west of the  proposed project and provides a reasonable representation of the anticipated noise levels at the project  site.  Figure 5 shows the locations of the noise measurement sites.  Table E – Noise Level Measurements On June 15‐16, 2009  Site  No. Primary Noise Source  Measured Noise Levels  dBA Leq dBA CNEL  Minimum  (Leq 10 min)  Maximum  (Leq 10 min)  A Mt McKinley Boulevard and  aircraft. 50.6 54.3 32.3 at  2:57 a.m.  59.7 at   8:00 a.m.  B Santiago Canyon Road 62.9 66.8 48.0 at  3:41 a.m.  68.2 at  5:49 p.m.  C Materials recycling facility  and Santiago Canyon Road 57.6 59.2 32.8 at   2:58 a.m.  66.1 at  11:10 a.m.  Source: Noise measurements taken by Vista Environmental on June 15 and 16, 2009.                        Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 19    Table F – Noise Level Measurements On September 21‐22, 2011  Site  No. Primary Noise Source  Measured Noise Levels  dBA Leq dBA CNEL  Minimum  (Leq 10 min)  Maximum  (Leq 10 min)  A Mt McKinley Boulevard and  aircraft. 50.0 52.6 37.1 at  3:59 a.m.  61.2 at   3:04 p.m.  B Santiago Canyon Road and  onsite backfilling 67.4 70.4 38.3 at  3:00 a.m.  73.4 at  8:14 a.m.  C Onsite backfilling and  Santiago Canyon Road 56.4 58.9 38.1 at   2:59 a.m.  65.5 at  12:06 p.m.  D Onsite backfilling and  aircraft. 50.7 53.3 37.1 at  4:12 a.m.  62.1 at  8:41 a.m.  Source: Noise measurements taken by Vista Environmental on September 21 and 22, 2011.    Table E above shows that the noise level measurements taken on June 15‐16, 2009 ranged from 50.6 to  62.9 dBA Leq, with the highest noise measurement occurring at Site B.  Table F above shows that the noise  level measurements taken on June 15‐15, 2009 ranged from 50.0 to 67.4 dBA Leq, with the highest noise  measurement occurring at Site B, which is the nearest measurement to Santiago Canyon Road and to the  backfilling equipment. A graph of the noise measurements Leq averaged over 10 minutes are shown in  Figure 5 for the June 15‐16 noise measurements and in Figure 6 for the September 21‐22, 2011 noise  measurements.  The noise monitoring data printouts are included in Appendix A.        Figure 4Existing Noise Contours from Certified EIRProject Site     Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 22    6.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS  6.1 Construction Noise  The noise impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the  FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).  The FHWA compiled noise measurement data  regarding the noise generating characteristics of several different types of construction equipment used  during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston.  Table G below provides a list of the construction  equipment anticipated to be used for each phase of construction as detailed in Air Quality, Energy and  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project (Air Quality Analysis),  prepared by Vista Environmental, May 8, 2020.  Table G – Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors  Equipment Description  Number of  Equipment  Acoustical Use  Factor1 (percent)  Spec 721.560 Lmax at  50 feet2 (dBA, slow3)  Actual Measured Lmax  at 50 feet4 (dBA, slow3)  Site Preparation        Rubber Tired Dozers 3 40 85 82  Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 40 84 N/A  Grading      Excavator 2 40 85 81  Grader 1 40 85 83  Rubber Tired Dozer 1 40 85 82  Scrapers 3 40 85 84  Tractor, Loader or Backhoe5 2 40 84 N/A  Building Construction        Crane 1 16 85 81  Forklift (Gradall) 2 40 85 83  Generator 1 50 82 81  Tractor, Loader or Backhoe5 3 40 84 N/A  Welder 1 40 73 74  Paving        Paver 2 50 85 77  Paving Equipment 2 50 85 77  Roller 2 20 85 80  Architectural Coating        Air Compressor 1 40 80 78  Notes:  1  Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday.  2  Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the RCNM program.  3  The “slow” response averages sound levels over 1‐second increments. A “fast” response averages sound levels over 0.125‐second increments.   4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston,  Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s.  5  For the tractor/loader/backhoe, the tractor noise level was utilized, since it is the loudest of the three types of equipment.  Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006 and CalEEMod default equipment mix.    Table G also shows the associated measured noise emissions for each piece of equipment from the RCNM  model and measured percentage of typical equipment use per day.  Construction noise impacts to the  nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated according to the equipment noise levels and usage      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 23    factors listed in Table G and through use of the RCNM. For each phase of construction, the nearest piece  of equipment was placed at the shortest distance of possible locations for the proposed activity to the  nearest sensitive receptor and each subsequent piece of equipment was placed an additional 50 feet  away.   6.2 Operations‐Related Noise  FHWA Model Methodology  The proposed project would result in increases in traffic noise to the nearby roadways as well as introduce  new sensitive receptors to the project site.  The project impacts to the offsite roadways were analyzed  through use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ‐ FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 (FHWA Model).  The FHWA  Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean  Emission Level (REMEL).  Adjustments are then made to the reference energy mean emission level to  account for: the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes  on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT) and the percentage of ADT which flows  during the day, evening and night, the travel speed, the vehicle mix on the roadway, which is a percentage  of the volume of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, the roadway grade, the angle of view of  the observer exposed to the roadway and site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the  ground, pavement or landscaping).  The following section provides a discussion of the software and  modeling input parameters used in this analysis and a discussion of the resultant existing noise model.  FHWA Model Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs  The roadway parameters used for this study are presented in Table H.  The roadway classifications are  based on the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.  The roadway speeds are based on the posted speed  limits.  The distance to the nearest sensitive receptor was determined by measuring the distance from the  roadway centerline to the nearest residence.  Since the study area is located in a suburban environment  and landscaping exists along the sides of all analyzed roadways, soft site conditions were modeled.   Table H – FHWA Model Roadway Parameters  Roadway Segment  General Plan  Classification  Vehicle Speed  (MPH)  Distance to Nearest  Receptor1 (feet)  Cannon Street North of Serrano Avenue Major Arterial 50 90  Cannon Street South of Serrano Avenue Major Arterial 45 80  Cannon Street South of Taft Avenue Major Arterial 45 60  Cannon Street South of Santiago Canyon Road Secondary Arterial 35 50  MT McKinley Blvd South of Serrano Avenue Local 25 50  Yellowstone Blvd South of Serrano Avenue Local 25 45  Serrano Avenue West of MT McKinley Blvd Primary Arterial 40 70  Serrano Avenue West of Yellowstone Boulevard Primary Arterial 40 50  Serrano Avenue East of Yellowstone Boulevard Primary Arterial 40 60  Taft Avenue West of Cannon Street Collector 35 60  Santiago Canyon  Road  West of Cannon Street Major Arterial 50 80  Notes:      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 24    1 Distance measured from nearest residential structure to centerline of roadway.  Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2020; and City of Orange, 2010.    The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report Tentative  Tract Map No. 18163 Project (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, April, 2020.   The Traffic Impact Analysis provides the ADT volumes for both without project and with project conditions  for the existing year, opening year 2022, and long‐term year 2040 scenarios.  The ADT volumes used in  this analysis are shown in Table I.  Table I – FHWA Model Average Daily Traffic Volumes   Roadway Segment  Average Daily Traffic Volumes  Existing  Existing  + Project  Opening  Year 2022  2022 +  Project  Long‐Term  2040  2040 +  Project  Cannon Street North of Serrano Avenue 20,776 20,797 21,806 21,827 30,705 30,726  Cannon Street South of Serrano Avenue 40,981 41,137 42,409 42,565 60,564 60,720  Cannon Street South of Taft Avenue 32,753 32,903 34,013 34,163 48,405 48,555  Cannon Street South of Santiago Canyon Road 9,610 9,640 9,840 9,880 13,500 13,520  MT McKinley  Boulevard  South of Serrano Avenue 1,480 1,610 1,480 1,610 1,480 1,610  Yellowstone  Boulevard  South of Serrano Avenue 1,510 1,640 1,510 1,640 1,510 1,640  Serrano Avenue West of MT McKinley Boulevard 24,050 24,280 24,520 24,780 34,220 34,450  Serrano Avenue West of Yellowstone Boulevard 23,030 23,120 23,480 23,630 33,200 33,300  Serrano Avenue East of Yellowstone Boulevard 21,970 23,120 22,430 23,630 32,150 32,180  Taft Avenue West of Cannon Street 4,030 4,030 4,130 4,130 5,750 5,750  Santiago Canyon  Road  West of Cannon Street 26,902 26,944 28,817 28,859 38,876 38,918  Santiago Canyon  Road  East of Cannon Street 29,879 29,973 32,082 32,176 47,805 47,899  Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2020.    The vehicle mixes used in the FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 Model is shown below in Table J.  The vehicle mix was  based on the vehicle mix used in the City of Orange General Plan Program Environment Impact Report for  the city’s roadways.  Table J – Roadway Vehicle Mix Vehicle Type  Traffic Flow Distributions  Day  (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)  Evening  (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.)  Night  (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Overall  Automobiles 72.75% 7.76% 16.49% 97.00%  Medium Trucks 1.50% 0.16% 0.34% 2.00%  Heavy Trucks 0.75% 0.08% 0.17% 1.00%      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 25    Source: Program Environmental Impact Report Orange General Plan, March 2010.    FHWA Model Source Assumptions  To assess the roadway noise generation in a uniform manner, all vehicles are analyzed at the single lane  equivalent acoustic center of the roadway being analyzed.  In order to determine the height above the  road grade where the noise is being emitted from, each type of vehicle has been analyzed independently  with autos at road grade, medium trucks at 2.3 feet above road grade, and heavy trucks at 8 feet above  road grade.  These elevations were determined through a noise‐weighted average of the elevation of the  exhaust pipe, tires and mechanical parts in the engine, which are the primary noise emitters from a  vehicle.  6.3 Vibration  Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used  on the site.  Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the  ground and diminish in strength with distance.  Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond  to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight  damage at the highest levels.  Table K gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction  activities.  The data in Table K provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.   Table K – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment  Equipment   Peak Particle Velocity  (inches/second)  Approximate Vibration Level  (Lv)at 25 feet  Pile driver (impact) Upper range  typical  1.518  0.644  112  104  Pile driver (sonic) Upper range  typical  0.734  0.170  105  93  Clam shovel drop (slurry wall)  0.202 94  Vibratory Roller  0.210 94  Hoe Ram  0.089 87  Large bulldozer  0.089 87  Caisson drill  0.089 87  Loaded trucks  0.076 86  Jackhammer  0.035 79  Small bulldozer  0.003 58  Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018.    The construction‐related vibration impacts have been calculated through the vibration levels shown  above in Table K and through typical vibration propagation rates.  The equipment assumptions were based  on the equipment lists provided above in Table G.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 26    7.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS  7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance   Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a  significant impact related to noise would occur if a proposed project is determined to result in:   Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the  vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise  ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;    Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or   For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where  such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would  the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.    7.2 Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards  The proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient  noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or  noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.  The following section calculates the potential  noise emissions associated with the temporary construction activities and long‐term operations of the  proposed project and compares the noise levels to the City standards.  Construction‐Related Noise  The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading  of the project site, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and roadways, and application of  architectural coatings.  Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project  would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of  nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.  The nearest sensitive  receptors are single‐family homes located as near as 80 feet north of the project site.  Section 8.24.050(E) of the Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the City noise standards that  occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.  on Sundays and holidays. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the  noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City  standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise  increase to the nearby residents and offsite workers.  In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial  temporary noise increase, the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds detailed above in Section 4.1  have been utilized, which shows that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction  noise exceeds 90 dBA Leq at any of the nearby sensitive receptors.  The calculated construction noise  results are shown below in Table L and the RCNM printouts are provided in Appendix B.          Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 27    Table L – Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Homes  Construction Phase  Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq)  at Nearest Homes to North  FTA Construction  Noise Threshold1  Exceed  Threshold?  Site Preparation 77 90 No  Grading  77 90 No  Building Construction 76 90 No  Paving 75 90 No  Painting 68 90 No  1 FTA Construction Noise Threshold obtained from Table A above.  Source: RCNM, Federal Highway Administration, 2006    Table L shows that the greatest noise impacts would occur during the site preparation and grading phases  of construction, with a noise level as high as 77 dBA Leq at the nearest homes to the north of the project  site.  Table L also shows that none of the construction phases would exceed the FTA construction noise  standard of 90 dBA for residential uses.  Therefore, through adherence to allowable construction times  provided in 8.24.050(E) of the Municipal Code, the construction activities for the proposed project would  not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of applicable noise  standards.  Impacts would be less than significant.  Operational‐Related Noise  The proposed project would consist of the development of 22 single‐family homes.  Potential noise  impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project would be from project‐generated  vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways.  In addition, the proposed development may be located in an  area that may exceed exterior and interior noise levels in excess of City standards at the proposed homes.  The noise impacts to the nearby existing homes and proposed homes have been analyzed separately  below.  Roadway Vehicular Noise Impacts to Nearby Homes  Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires.  The level of traffic  noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the  number of trucks in the flow of traffic.  The proposed project does not propose any uses that would require  a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed project would not alter the speed limit on any  existing roadway so the proposed project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise  impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the  proposed project.  According to the General Plan an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise  impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following:   Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA, a project related permanent  increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater.   Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent  increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater.  The potential offsite traffic noise impacts created by the on‐going operations of the proposed project have  been analyzed through utilization of the FHWA model and parameters described above in Section 6.2 and      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 28    the FHWA model traffic noise calculation spreadsheets are provided in Appendix C.  The proposed  project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been analyzed for the existing, opening year, and  long‐term year 2040 conditions that are discussed separately below.  Existing Conditions  The proposed project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison  of the Existing scenario to the Existing With Project scenario.  The results of this comparison are shown in  Table M.  Table M – Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions   dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1  Increase  Threshold2 Roadway Segment Existing  Existing Plus  Project   Project  Contribution  Cannon Street North of Serrano Avenue 68.0 68.0 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Serrano Avenue 70.7 70.7 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Taft Avenue 73.0 73.0 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Santiago Canyon Road 64.4 64.4 0.0 +3 dBA  MT McKinley Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 50.9 51.3 0.4 +5 dBA  Yellowstone Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 51.7 52.1 0.4 +5 dBA  Serrano Avenue West of MT McKinley Boulevard 67.6 67.6 0.0 +3 dBA  Serrano Avenue West of Yellowstone Boulevard 70.8 70.8 0.0 +3 dBA  Serrano Avenue East of Yellowstone Boulevard 68.6 68.8 0.2 +3 dBA  Taft Avenue West of Cannon Street 58.2 58.2 0.0 +5 dBA  Santiago Canyon Road West of Cannon Street 70.2 70.2 0.0 +3 dBA  Santiago Canyon Road East of Cannon Street 69.6 69.6 0.0 +3 dBA  Notes:  1  Distance to nearest residential use shown in Table H, does not take into account existing noise barriers.   2  Increase threshold based on the significance thresholds defined in the General Plan, which is derived from the threshold of human perception.   Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA‐RD‐77‐108.   Table M shows that the proposed project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the  generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase thresholds detailed  above.  Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient  noise levels for the existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.  Opening Year 2022 Conditions  The proposed project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison  of the Opening Year 2022 scenario to the Opening Year 2022 With Project scenario.  The results of this  comparison are shown in Table N.            Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 29    Table N – Opening Year 2022 Project Traffic Noise Contributions   dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1  Increase  Threshold2 Roadway Segment  Year  2022  Year 2022 Plus  Project   Project  Contribution  Cannon Street North of Serrano Avenue 68.2 68.2 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Serrano Avenue 70.9 70.9 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Taft Avenue 73.1 73.1 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Santiago Canyon Road 64.5 64.5 0.0 +3 dBA  MT McKinley Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 50.9 51.3 0.4 +5 dBA  Yellowstone Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 51.7 52.1 0.4 +5 dBA  Serrano Avenue West of MT McKinley Boulevard 67.6 67.7 0.1 +3 dBA  Serrano Avenue West of Yellowstone Boulevard 70.9 70.9 0.0 +3 dBA  Serrano Avenue East of Yellowstone Boulevard 68.7 68.9 0.2 +3 dBA  Taft Avenue West of Cannon Street 58.3 58.3 0.0 +5 dBA  Santiago Canyon Road West of Cannon Street 70.5 70.5 0.0 +3 dBA  Santiago Canyon Road East of Cannon Street 69.9 69.9 0.0 +3 dBA  Notes:  1  Distance to nearest residential use shown in Table H, does not take into account existing noise barriers.   2  Increase threshold based on the significance thresholds defined in the General Plan, which is derived from the threshold of human perception.   Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA‐RD‐77‐108.   Table N shows that the proposed project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the  generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase thresholds detailed  above.  Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient  noise levels for the opening year 2022 conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.  Long‐Term Year 2040 Conditions  The proposed project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison  of the Long‐Term Year 2040 scenario to the Long‐Term Year 2040 With Project scenario.  The results of  this comparison are shown in Table O.  Table O – Long‐Term Year 2040 Project Traffic Noise Contributions   dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1 Increase  Threshold2  Roadway Segment  Year  2040  Year 2040 Plus  Project   Project  Contribution  Cannon Street North of Serrano Avenue 69.7 69.7 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Serrano Avenue 72.4 72.4 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Taft Avenue 74.7 74.7 0.0 +3 dBA  Cannon Street South of Santiago Canyon Road 65.9 65.9 0.0 +3 dBA  MT McKinley Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 50.9 51.3 0.4 +5 dBA  Yellowstone Boulevard South of Serrano Avenue 51.7 52.1 0.4 +5 dBA  Serrano Avenue West of MT McKinley Boulevard 69.1 69.1 0.0 +3 dBA  Serrano Avenue West of Yellowstone Boulevard 72.4 72.4 0.0 +3 dBA  Serrano Avenue East of Yellowstone Boulevard 70.2 70.3 0.1 +3 dBA  Taff Avenue West of Cannon Street 59.8 59.8 0.0 +5 dBA      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 30    Table O – Long‐Term Year 2040 Project Traffic Noise Contributions   dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1 Increase  Threshold2  Roadway Segment  Year  2040  Year 2040 Plus  Project   Project  Contribution  Santiago Canyon Road West of Cannon Street 71.8 71.8 0.0 +3 dBA  Santiago Canyon Road East of Cannon Street 71.6 71.7 0.1 +3 dBA  Notes:  1  Distance to nearest residential use shown in Table H, does not take into account existing noise barriers.   2  Increase threshold based on the significance thresholds defined in the General Plan, which is derived from the threshold of human perception.   Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA‐RD‐77‐108.   Table O shows that the proposed project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the  generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase thresholds detailed  above.  Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient  noise levels for the long‐term year 2040 conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.  Noise Impacts to Proposed Homes  The proposed project would consist of the development of a residential community with 22 single‐family  homes.  According to the City’s General Plan, noise levels at new residential uses shall be limited to 65  dBA CNEL for exterior living areas and 45 dBA CNEL for interior living areas.  As detailed above in Section  5.2 details the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project site and in particular, Table E and  Table F shows that the noise level at Site A measured 54.3 dBA CNEL in 2009 and 52.6 dBA CNEL in 2011.  Site A is located near the intersection of Mt McKinley Boulevard and Mabury Avenue, approximately 500  feet west of the proposed project and provides a reasonable representation of the anticipated noise levels  at the project site.  A noise level of 54.3 dBA CNEL is well below the City’s exterior noise standard of 65  dBA CNEL.  In addition Table N‐5 of the General Plan details that a typical home with windows open  provides a minimum of 15 dB of exterior to interior noise reduction.  As such, the interior noise would be  39.3 dBA CNEL or less, which would be well below the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.   Therefore, the exterior and interior noise impacts to the proposed homes would be less than significant.  Level of Significance   Less than significant impact.     7.3 Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration  The proposed project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or  groundborne noise levels.  The following section analyzes the potential vibration impacts associated with  the construction and operations of the proposed project.  Construction‐Related Vibration Impacts  The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading  of the project site, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and roadways, and application of  architectural coatings.  Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed  project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off‐road equipment.  The nearest sensitive  receptors are single‐family homes located as near as 80 feet north of the project site.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 31    Section 5.10.3 of the City of Orange General Plan Program EIR (General Plan EIR), March 2010, determined  that a significant vibration impact would occur if vibration levels would exceed 0.2 inch per second PPV at  any nearby building.    The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer.  From  Table K above a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet.   Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest homes to the north (60 feet away)  would be 0.034 inch per second PPV.  The vibration level at the nearest homes would be below the 0.2  inch per second PPV threshold detailed above.  Impacts would be less than significant.    Operations‐Related Vibration Impacts  The proposed project would consist of the development of 22 single‐family homes.  The on‐going  operation of the proposed project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources other  than typical onsite vehicle operations for a residential development.  Therefore, a less than significant  vibration impact is anticipated from operation of the proposed project.  Level of Significance   Less than significant impact.  7.4 Aircraft Noise   The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise  levels from aircraft. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 10 miles south of  the project site and the typical landing pattern is directly over the project vicinity.  In order to determine  aircraft noise impacts to the project site, a noise measurement was taken of a commercial aircraft  overflight on the project site at 8:46 a.m. on Sunday, January 15, 2012.  The noise measurement recorded  noise levels of 55.3 dBA Leq and 61.1 dBA Lmax and the aircraft fly by lasted approximately one minute.   According to the County of Orange General Plan Noise Element, there are 73 commercial jet landings per  day that occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m..  This results in aircraft operating over the site 8 percent of  the time between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.. The noise at the project site from an aircraft flyover is less than the  City’s transportation‐related residential exterior noise threshold of 65 dBA CNEL.  Therefore, the proposed  project would create a less than significant exposure of persons to aircraft noise.    Level of Significance   Less than significant impact.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange  Page 32    8.0 REFERENCES    California Department of Transportation, 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State  Highway System, 2018.  California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise  Analytics Protocol, September 2013.  California Department of Transportation, Transportation‐ and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance  Manual, September 2013.  City of Orange, City of Orange General Plan, March 9, 2010.  City of Orange, Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, March, 2010.  City of Orange, Orange California Code of Ordinances Chapter 8.24 – Noise Control, August 12, 2014.  County of Orange. 2005. County of Orange General Plan. September.  Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018.  FirstCarbon Solutions, Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Trails at Santiago Creek Specific  Plan City of Orange, Orange County, California State Clearinghouse No: 2017031020, November 14, 2018  Linscott Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis Report Tentative Tract Map No. 18163 Project, April  2020.  U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January,  2006.  Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Tentative Tract  No. 18163 Project, May 8, 2020.  Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis Rio Santiago Project, December 20, 2020.      Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Appendix  A        APPENDIX A    2009 and 2011 Field Noise Measurements Printouts    Date Time=06/15/09 10:35:00 AM Date Time=06/15/09 11:02:00 AM Time=06/15/09 10:50:00 AM Sampling Time=3 Weighting=A Sampling Time=3 Freq Weighting=A Sampling Time=3 Freq Weighting=A Record Num= 29000 Weighting=Slow CNEL(24hr)=54.3 Record Num= 29000 Weighting=Slow CNEL(24hr)=66.8 Record Num= 29200 Weighting=Slow CNEL(24hr)=59.2 Leq 50.6 SEL Value=100.0 Ldn(24hr)= 53.7 Leq 62.9 SEL Value=112.3 Ldn(24hr)= 66.3 Leq 57.6 SEL Value=107.1 Ldn(24hr)= 58.9 MAX 71.1 Min Leq10min = 32.3 2:57:36 MAX 79.8 Min Leq10min = 48.0 3:41:09 MAX 78.9 Min Leq10min = 32.8 2:58:21 MIN 29.7 Max Leq10min = 59.7 8:00:00 MIN 32.7 Max Leq10min =68.2 17:49:45 MIN 30.7 Max Leq10min =66.1 11:10:00 SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL 44.5 10:35:00 44.5 44.5 65.2 11:02:00 65.2 65.2 53.1 10:50:00 53.1 53.1 56.2 10:35:03 56.2 56.2 60.3 11:02:03 60.3 60.3 58.9 10:50:03 58.9 58.9 55.1 10:35:06 55.1 55.1 62.5 11:02:06 62.5 62.5 59.5 10:50:06 59.5 59.5 53.2 10:35:09 53.2 53.2 59.2 11:02:09 59.2 59.2 60 10:50:09 60 60 51.2 10:35:12 51.2 51.2 64.6 11:02:12 64.6 64.6 61.5 10:50:12 61.5 61.5 46.9 10:35:15 46.9 46.9 58 11:02:15 58 58 61 10:50:15 61 61 53.2 10:35:18 53.2 53.2 54.4 11:02:18 54.4 54.4 60 10:50:18 60 60 47.7 10:35:21 47.7 47.7 56.4 11:02:21 56.4 56.4 59.4 10:50:21 59.4 59.4 47.7 10:35:24 47.7 47.7 63.1 11:02:24 63.1 63.1 59.6 10:50:24 59.6 59.6 51.1 10:35:27 51.1 51.1 62.7 11:02:27 62.7 62.7 57.8 10:50:27 57.8 57.8 48.8 10:35:30 48.8 48.8 62.3 11:02:30 62.3 62.3 54.9 10:50:30 54.9 54.9 48 10:35:33 48 48 62.2 11:02:33 62.2 62.2 59.7 10:50:33 59.7 59.7 48.2 10:35:36 48.2 48.2 61.4 11:02:36 61.4 61.4 60 10:50:36 60 60 48.5 10:35:39 48.5 48.5 60.9 11:02:39 60.9 60.9 61.6 10:50:39 61.6 61.6 53 10:35:42 53 53 61.7 11:02:42 61.7 61.7 60.6 10:50:42 60.6 60.6 54.1 10:35:45 54.1 54.1 60.5 11:02:45 60.5 60.5 62.8 10:50:45 62.8 62.8 54.4 10:35:48 54.4 54.4 63.8 11:02:48 63.8 63.8 63.3 10:50:48 63.3 63.3 56.9 10:35:51 56.9 56.9 63.4 11:02:51 63.4 63.4 71.9 10:50:51 71.9 71.9 62.4 10:35:54 62.4 62.4 63.3 11:02:54 63.3 63.3 65.4 10:50:54 65.4 65.4 59.2 10:35:57 59.2 59.2 68.8 11:02:57 68.8 68.8 54.3 10:50:57 54.3 54.3 61 10:36:00 61 61 70.4 11:03:00 70.4 70.4 55.2 10:51:00 55.2 55.2 58.6 10:36:03 58.6 58.6 64.7 11:03:03 64.7 64.7 59.7 10:51:03 59.7 59.7 56.3 10:36:06 56.3 56.3 56.5 11:03:06 56.5 56.5 58.9 10:51:06 58.9 58.9 55.7 10:36:09 55.7 55.7 52.8 11:03:09 52.8 52.8 57.9 10:51:09 57.9 57.9 54.2 10:36:12 54.2 54.2 51.4 11:03:12 51.4 51.4 63 10:51:12 63 63 55.9 10:36:15 55.9 55.9 49.4 11:03:15 49.4 49.4 59.1 10:51:15 59.1 59.1 53.3 10:36:18 53.3 53.3 49.8 11:03:18 49.8 49.8 59.9 10:51:18 59.9 59.9 49.3 10:36:21 49.3 49.3 52.7 11:03:21 52.7 52.7 59.1 10:51:21 59.1 59.1 48.8 10:36:24 48.8 48.8 58.2 11:03:24 58.2 58.2 58.3 10:51:24 58.3 58.3 47 10:36:27 47 47 60.2 11:03:27 60.2 60.2 58.5 10:51:27 58.5 58.5 45.2 10:36:30 45.2 45.2 59.7 11:03:30 59.7 59.7 57.3 10:51:30 57.3 57.3 44.2 10:36:33 44.2 44.2 62.2 11:03:33 62.2 62.2 62.5 10:51:33 62.5 62.5 48.2 10:36:36 48.2 48.2 58.5 11:03:36 58.5 58.5 58.4 10:51:36 58.4 58.4 45 10:36:39 45 45 57.5 11:03:39 57.5 57.5 61.8 10:51:39 61.8 61.8 43.9 10:36:42 43.9 43.9 57.7 11:03:42 57.7 57.7 61.7 10:51:42 61.7 61.7 42.6 10:36:45 42.6 42.6 59.6 11:03:45 59.6 59.6 78.9 10:51:45 78.9 78.9 43.9 10:36:48 43.9 43.9 63.3 11:03:48 63.3 63.3 73.3 10:51:48 73.3 73.3 43.9 10:36:51 43.9 43.9 68.9 11:03:51 68.9 68.9 57.9 10:51:51 57.9 57.9 42.9 10:36:54 42.9 42.9 67.5 11:03:54 67.5 67.5 56.6 10:51:54 56.6 56.6 43 10:36:57 43 43 69 11:03:57 69 69 54.3 10:51:57 54.3 54.3 42.8 10:37:00 42.8 42.8 64.6 11:04:00 64.6 64.6 72.7 10:52:00 72.7 72.7 43.1 10:37:03 43.1 43.1 65.3 11:04:03 65.3 65.3 58.8 10:52:03 58.8 58.8 42.1 10:37:06 42.1 42.1 64.7 11:04:06 64.7 64.7 59.1 10:52:06 59.1 59.1 42.7 10:37:09 42.7 42.7 66.9 11:04:09 66.9 66.9 61 10:52:09 61 61 41.8 10:37:12 41.8 41.8 62.3 11:04:12 62.3 62.3 59.1 10:52:12 59.1 59.1 41.9 10:37:15 41.9 41.9 55.2 11:04:15 55.2 55.2 60.5 10:52:15 60.5 60.5 43.6 10:37:18 43.6 43.6 54.9 11:04:18 54.9 54.9 59 10:52:18 59 59 41.4 10:37:21 41.4 41.4 57.4 11:04:21 57.4 57.4 58.8 10:52:21 58.8 58.8 41.5 10:37:24 41.5 41.5 60.9 11:04:24 60.9 60.9 69.2 10:52:24 69.2 69.2 40.9 10:37:27 40.9 40.9 62.9 11:04:27 62.9 62.9 60 10:52:27 60 60 40.8 10:37:30 40.8 40.8 60 11:04:30 60 60 68.7 10:52:30 68.7 68.7 40.8 10:37:33 40.8 40.8 55 11:04:33 55 55 56.4 10:52:33 56.4 56.4 40.8 10:37:36 40.8 40.8 61.5 11:04:36 61.5 61.5 54.4 10:52:36 54.4 54.4 41.3 10:37:39 41.3 41.3 61.9 11:04:39 61.9 61.9 56.3 10:52:39 56.3 56.3 42 10:37:42 42 42 62.9 11:04:42 62.9 62.9 53.3 10:52:42 53.3 53.3 42.4 10:37:45 42.4 42.4 58.6 11:04:45 58.6 58.6 55.1 10:52:45 55.1 55.1 43.4 10:37:48 43.4 43.4 54.2 11:04:48 54.2 54.2 54.8 10:52:48 54.8 54.8 42.4 10:37:51 42.4 42.4 53.3 11:04:51 53.3 53.3 54 10:52:51 54 54 42.4 10:37:54 42.4 42.4 52.4 11:04:54 52.4 52.4 50.3 10:52:54 50.3 50.3 45.6 10:37:57 45.6 45.6 58 11:04:57 58 58 53.1 10:52:57 53.1 53.1 41.3 10:38:00 41.3 41.3 60.3 11:05:00 60.3 60.3 50.7 10:53:00 50.7 50.7 41.8 10:38:03 41.8 41.8 62.4 11:05:03 62.4 62.4 48.8 10:53:03 48.8 48.8 42.5 10:38:06 42.5 42.5 61.2 11:05:06 61.2 61.2 51 10:53:06 51 51 44.2 10:38:09 44.2 44.2 62 11:05:09 62 62 48 10:53:09 48 48 43.2 10:38:12 43.2 43.2 64.3 11:05:12 64.3 64.3 44.8 10:53:12 44.8 44.8 44 10:38:15 44 44 62.4 11:05:15 62.4 62.4 43.4 10:53:15 43.4 43.4 42.9 10:38:18 42.9 42.9 60.2 11:05:18 60.2 60.2 43 10:53:18 43 43 43.1 10:38:21 43.1 43.1 63.3 11:05:21 63.3 63.3 44.6 10:53:21 44.6 44.6 42 10:38:24 42 42 66.2 11:05:24 66.2 66.2 50.3 10:53:24 50.3 50.3 41.5 10:38:27 41.5 41.5 67.9 11:05:27 67.9 67.9 46.6 10:53:27 46.6 46.6 41 10:38:30 41 41 65.3 11:05:30 65.3 65.3 47.3 10:53:30 47.3 47.3 41.3 10:38:33 41.3 41.3 61.6 11:05:33 61.6 61.6 46.4 10:53:33 46.4 46.4 41.6 10:38:36 41.6 41.6 57.6 11:05:36 57.6 57.6 44 10:53:36 44 44 42.9 10:38:39 42.9 42.9 54.4 11:05:39 54.4 54.4 43.4 10:53:39 43.4 43.4 42 10:38:42 42 42 50.6 11:05:42 50.6 50.6 42.9 10:53:42 42.9 42.9 42.8 10:38:45 42.8 42.8 55.3 11:05:45 55.3 55.3 51.6 10:53:45 51.6 51.6 43 10:38:48 43 43 60.1 11:05:48 60.1 60.1 54.2 10:53:48 54.2 54.2 45.1 10:38:51 45.1 45.1 54.4 11:05:51 54.4 54.4 46.3 10:53:51 46.3 46.3 44.5 10:38:54 44.5 44.5 55 11:05:54 55 55 44.3 10:53:54 44.3 44.3 42.6 10:38:57 42.6 42.6 51.9 11:05:57 51.9 51.9 46.8 10:53:57 46.8 46.8 43.2 10:39:00 43.2 43.2 60 11:06:00 60 60 48.2 10:54:00 48.2 48.2 43.5 10:39:03 43.5 43.5 60.7 11:06:03 60.7 60.7 51.1 10:54:03 51.1 51.1 42.3 10:39:06 42.3 42.3 62.6 11:06:06 62.6 62.6 51.3 10:54:06 51.3 51.3 42.3 10:39:09 42.3 42.3 61.5 11:06:09 61.5 61.5 46 10:54:09 46 46 41.8 10:39:12 41.8 41.8 56.5 11:06:12 56.5 56.5 47.6 10:54:12 47.6 47.6 41.6 10:39:15 41.6 41.6 54.9 11:06:15 54.9 54.9 48.6 10:54:15 48.6 48.6 41.6 10:39:18 41.6 41.6 53.9 11:06:18 53.9 53.9 48.6 10:54:18 48.6 48.6 41.4 10:39:21 41.4 41.4 57.4 11:06:21 57.4 57.4 45.7 10:54:21 45.7 45.7 40.8 10:39:24 40.8 40.8 55.4 11:06:24 55.4 55.4 50.3 10:54:24 50.3 50.3 40 10:39:27 40 40 57.4 11:06:27 57.4 57.4 53 10:54:27 53 53 40.3 10:39:30 40.3 40.3 59.4 11:06:30 59.4 59.4 48.1 10:54:30 48.1 48.1 40.2 10:39:33 40.2 40.2 62.8 11:06:33 62.8 62.8 48.8 10:54:33 48.8 48.8 41.6 10:39:36 41.6 41.6 65.9 11:06:36 65.9 65.9 50.2 10:54:36 50.2 50.2 40.9 10:39:39 40.9 40.9 63.4 11:06:39 63.4 63.4 54.8 10:54:39 54.8 54.8 41.3 10:39:42 41.3 41.3 62.4 11:06:42 62.4 62.4 55.7 10:54:42 55.7 55.7 41.9 10:39:45 41.9 41.9 61 11:06:45 61 61 56.4 10:54:45 56.4 56.4 40.9 10:39:48 40.9 40.9 57.2 11:06:48 57.2 57.2 59.1 10:54:48 59.1 59.1 42.3 10:39:51 42.3 42.3 53 11:06:51 53 53 59.2 10:54:51 59.2 59.2 42.5 10:39:54 42.5 42.5 53.2 11:06:54 53.2 53.2 61.1 10:54:54 61.1 61.1 43.2 10:39:57 43.2 43.2 52.2 11:06:57 52.2 52.2 60.8 10:54:57 60.8 60.8 44.7 10:40:00 48.5 44.7 44.7 55.9 11:07:00 62.5 55.9 55.9 60 10:55:00 61.8 60 60 44.4 10:40:03 48.5 44.4 44.4 61.2 11:07:03 62.4 61.2 61.2 59.1 10:55:03 61.8 59.1 59.1 47.3 10:40:06 48.4 47.3 47.3 61.6 11:07:06 62.4 61.6 61.6 57.8 10:55:06 61.8 57.8 57.8 45.8 10:40:09 48.3 45.8 45.8 67 11:07:09 62.4 67 67 57.5 10:55:09 61.8 57.5 57.5 44.9 10:40:12 48.2 44.9 44.9 67 11:07:12 62.4 67 67 56.4 10:55:12 61.8 56.4 56.4 46.2 10:40:15 48.2 46.2 46.2 62 11:07:15 62.4 62 62 55.6 10:55:15 61.8 55.6 55.6 51.2 10:40:18 48.2 51.2 51.2 58.4 11:07:18 62.4 58.4 58.4 52.9 10:55:18 61.8 52.9 52.9 55.3 10:40:21 48.1 55.3 55.3 61.1 11:07:21 62.4 61.1 61.1 51 10:55:21 61.8 51 51 56.4 10:40:24 48.1 56.4 56.4 64.3 11:07:24 62.4 64.3 64.3 49 10:55:24 61.8 49 49 54.2 10:40:27 48.1 54.2 54.2 59.8 11:07:27 62.4 59.8 59.8 48.6 10:55:27 61.8 48.6 48.6 52.1 10:40:30 48.0 52.1 52.1 60.3 11:07:30 62.4 60.3 60.3 53.4 10:55:30 61.8 53.4 53.4 49.2 10:40:33 48.0 49.2 49.2 57.8 11:07:33 62.4 57.8 57.8 54.1 10:55:33 61.8 54.1 54.1 52.7 10:40:36 48.0 52.7 52.7 52.8 11:07:36 62.4 52.8 52.8 54.5 10:55:36 61.8 54.5 54.5 45.8 10:40:39 48.0 45.8 45.8 55 11:07:39 62.5 55 55 54.5 10:55:39 61.8 54.5 54.5 44.7 10:40:42 47.9 44.7 44.7 60.4 11:07:42 62.5 60.4 60.4 52.6 10:55:42 61.8 52.6 52.6 46.3 10:40:45 47.9 46.3 46.3 62.5 11:07:45 62.6 62.5 62.5 49.1 10:55:45 61.9 49.1 49.1 44.6 10:40:48 47.8 44.6 44.6 66 11:07:48 62.6 66 66 48.2 10:55:48 61.9 48.2 48.2 43.8 10:40:51 47.7 43.8 43.8 64.6 11:07:51 62.6 64.6 64.6 48.1 10:55:51 61.8 48.1 48.1 44.1 10:40:54 47.5 44.1 44.1 65.4 11:07:54 62.6 65.4 65.4 48.5 10:55:54 61.6 48.5 48.5 44.5 10:40:57 46.8 44.5 44.5 65.3 11:07:57 62.6 65.3 65.3 50.2 10:55:57 61.6 50.2 50.2 43 10:41:00 46.5 43 43 64.2 11:08:00 62.5 64.2 64.2 50.6 10:56:00 61.6 50.6 50.6 42.5 10:41:03 45.8 42.5 42.5 65.3 11:08:03 62.4 65.3 65.3 52.6 10:56:03 61.6 52.6 52.6 43.3 10:41:06 45.4 43.3 43.3 63.3 11:08:06 62.4 63.3 63.3 51.8 10:56:06 61.6 51.8 51.8 41.7 10:41:09 45.2 41.7 41.7 68.2 11:08:09 62.3 68.2 68.2 50.3 10:56:09 61.6 50.3 50.3 42.6 10:41:12 45.0 42.6 42.6 68.6 11:08:12 62.3 68.6 68.6 55.5 10:56:12 61.6 55.5 55.5 43.1 10:41:15 44.8 43.1 43.1 61.7 11:08:15 62.3 61.7 61.7 53.8 10:56:15 61.5 53.8 53.8 43.2 10:41:18 44.6 43.2 43.2 54.2 11:08:18 62.4 54.2 54.2 50.9 10:56:18 61.5 50.9 50.9 43.7 10:41:21 44.4 43.7 43.7 66.2 11:08:21 62.4 66.2 66.2 49.5 10:56:21 61.5 49.5 49.5 44 10:41:24 44.4 44 44 65.9 11:08:24 62.4 65.9 65.9 52 10:56:24 61.6 52 52 43 10:41:27 44.4 43 43 64.7 11:08:27 62.4 64.7 64.7 51.1 10:56:27 61.6 51.1 51.1 41.4 10:41:30 44.4 41.4 41.4 66 11:08:30 62.4 66 66 49.7 10:56:30 61.7 49.7 49.7 41.2 10:41:33 44.4 41.2 41.2 65.3 11:08:33 62.3 65.3 65.3 50.1 10:56:33 61.7 50.1 50.1 40.9 10:41:36 44.4 40.9 40.9 65.8 11:08:36 62.3 65.8 65.8 54.8 10:56:36 61.8 54.8 54.8 41.1 10:41:39 44.4 41.1 41.1 62.8 11:08:39 62.3 62.8 62.8 56.7 10:56:39 61.8 56.7 56.7 41.6 10:41:42 44.4 41.6 41.6 62.2 11:08:42 62.3 62.2 62.2 57 10:56:42 61.9 57 57 Site C Site CSite A Site A Site B Site B SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL Site CSite A Site B 42.2 10:41:45 44.4 42.2 42.2 61.9 11:08:45 62.4 61.9 61.9 57.1 10:56:45 62.0 57.1 57.1 41.2 10:41:48 44.4 41.2 41.2 60 11:08:48 62.4 60 60 58 10:56:48 60.8 58 58 41.9 10:41:51 44.4 41.9 41.9 55.8 11:08:51 62.4 55.8 55.8 57.6 10:56:51 60.4 57.6 57.6 42.4 10:41:54 44.4 42.4 42.4 50.9 11:08:54 62.3 50.9 50.9 58.9 10:56:54 60.4 58.9 58.9 41.4 10:41:57 44.4 41.4 41.4 48.5 11:08:57 62.3 48.5 48.5 57.7 10:56:57 60.4 57.7 57.7 41.3 10:42:00 44.4 41.3 41.3 51.6 11:09:00 62.2 51.6 51.6 65.7 10:57:00 60.5 65.7 65.7 41.4 10:42:03 44.4 41.4 41.4 58.4 11:09:03 62.2 58.4 58.4 59.6 10:57:03 60.1 59.6 59.6 42 10:42:06 44.4 42 42 61.1 11:09:06 62.1 61.1 61.1 53.5 10:57:06 60.1 53.5 53.5 41.6 10:42:09 44.4 41.6 41.6 59.8 11:09:09 62.1 59.8 59.8 49.5 10:57:09 60.1 49.5 49.5 40.6 10:42:12 44.5 40.6 40.6 61.3 11:09:12 62.1 61.3 61.3 49.1 10:57:12 60.1 49.1 49.1 40.5 10:42:15 44.5 40.5 40.5 65.8 11:09:15 62.1 65.8 65.8 64.2 10:57:15 60.1 64.2 64.2 41.6 10:42:18 44.5 41.6 41.6 66 11:09:18 62.1 66 66 59.4 10:57:18 60.1 59.4 59.4 42.1 10:42:21 44.5 42.1 42.1 63.2 11:09:21 62.1 63.2 63.2 52.2 10:57:21 60.1 52.2 52.2 41.9 10:42:24 44.5 41.9 41.9 61.3 11:09:24 62.1 61.3 61.3 53.2 10:57:24 60.1 53.2 53.2 41 10:42:27 44.5 41 41 61.1 11:09:27 62.1 61.1 61.1 52.6 10:57:27 60.0 52.6 52.6 42.5 10:42:30 44.5 42.5 42.5 60.9 11:09:30 62.1 60.9 60.9 50.4 10:57:30 60.0 50.4 50.4 45.3 10:42:33 44.5 45.3 45.3 61.3 11:09:33 62.1 61.3 61.3 49 10:57:33 59.9 49 49 43.2 10:42:36 44.5 43.2 43.2 58.8 11:09:36 62.1 58.8 58.8 51.2 10:57:36 59.9 51.2 51.2 43.6 10:42:39 44.5 43.6 43.6 59 11:09:39 62.1 59 59 56 10:57:39 60.0 56 56 41.8 10:42:42 44.5 41.8 41.8 60.2 11:09:42 62.1 60.2 60.2 57.1 10:57:42 60.0 57.1 57.1 41.3 10:42:45 44.5 41.3 41.3 61.5 11:09:45 62.1 61.5 61.5 60.4 10:57:45 60.0 60.4 60.4 44.2 10:42:48 44.5 44.2 44.2 58.3 11:09:48 62.1 58.3 58.3 57.4 10:57:48 60.0 57.4 57.4 43.6 10:42:51 44.5 43.6 43.6 57.6 11:09:51 62.1 57.6 57.6 63.9 10:57:51 60.0 63.9 63.9 41.2 10:42:54 44.5 41.2 41.2 64 11:09:54 62.1 64 64 62.8 10:57:54 60.0 62.8 62.8 41.4 10:42:57 44.5 41.4 41.4 63.3 11:09:57 62.1 63.3 63.3 65 10:57:57 60.0 65 65 41.8 10:43:00 44.5 41.8 41.8 60.7 11:10:00 62.1 60.7 60.7 63.2 10:58:00 60.1 63.2 63.2 41.2 10:43:03 44.5 41.2 41.2 56.6 11:10:03 62.1 56.6 56.6 64.6 10:58:03 60.1 64.6 64.6 41.5 10:43:06 44.5 41.5 41.5 53.4 11:10:06 62.1 53.4 53.4 62.8 10:58:06 60.1 62.8 62.8 40.5 10:43:09 44.5 40.5 40.5 54.2 11:10:09 62.1 54.2 54.2 57.3 10:58:09 60.1 57.3 57.3 41.1 10:43:12 44.5 41.1 41.1 54.5 11:10:12 62.1 54.5 54.5 57.8 10:58:12 60.1 57.8 57.8 42 10:43:15 44.5 42 42 51.4 11:10:15 62.1 51.4 51.4 51.9 10:58:15 60.1 51.9 51.9 38.8 10:43:18 44.5 38.8 38.8 51.3 11:10:18 62.1 51.3 51.3 49.1 10:58:18 60.1 49.1 49.1 38.7 10:43:21 44.5 38.7 38.7 53.9 11:10:21 62.1 53.9 53.9 49.2 10:58:21 60.1 49.2 49.2 42.1 10:43:24 44.5 42.1 42.1 57.6 11:10:24 62.0 57.6 57.6 54.9 10:58:24 60.2 54.9 54.9 40.5 10:43:27 44.5 40.5 40.5 59 11:10:27 62.0 59 59 59.9 10:58:27 60.2 59.9 59.9 39.9 10:43:30 44.5 39.9 39.9 57.4 11:10:30 61.9 57.4 57.4 58 10:58:30 60.3 58 58 40.5 10:43:33 44.5 40.5 40.5 59.4 11:10:33 61.9 59.4 59.4 55.9 10:58:33 60.4 55.9 55.9 40.3 10:43:36 44.5 40.3 40.3 61.2 11:10:36 61.9 61.2 61.2 55.1 10:58:36 60.5 55.1 55.1 42.6 10:43:39 44.5 42.6 42.6 62.3 11:10:39 61.9 62.3 62.3 54.5 10:58:39 60.6 54.5 54.5 43.6 10:43:42 44.5 43.6 43.6 64.8 11:10:42 61.9 64.8 64.8 52.9 10:58:42 60.7 52.9 52.9 43.1 10:43:45 44.6 43.1 43.1 65.9 11:10:45 61.9 65.9 65.9 64.3 10:58:45 60.8 64.3 64.3 42.6 10:43:48 44.6 42.6 42.6 62.5 11:10:48 61.9 62.5 62.5 61.6 10:58:48 60.8 61.6 61.6 43 10:43:51 44.6 43 43 64.5 11:10:51 61.9 64.5 64.5 58.8 10:58:51 60.8 58.8 58.8 41.7 10:43:54 44.6 41.7 41.7 67.2 11:10:54 61.9 67.2 67.2 58.6 10:58:54 60.8 58.6 58.6 42.6 10:43:57 44.6 42.6 42.6 62.9 11:10:57 61.9 62.9 62.9 59.8 10:58:57 60.8 59.8 59.8 40.3 10:44:00 44.6 40.3 40.3 68 11:11:00 61.9 68 68 58.1 10:59:00 60.9 58.1 58.1 40.5 10:44:03 44.6 40.5 40.5 68.4 11:11:03 62.0 68.4 68.4 58.1 10:59:03 60.9 58.1 58.1 40.5 10:44:06 44.6 40.5 40.5 64.2 11:11:06 62.0 64.2 64.2 58 10:59:06 60.9 58 58 41.6 10:44:09 44.7 41.6 41.6 63.9 11:11:09 62.0 63.9 63.9 58.5 10:59:09 60.9 58.5 58.5 41 10:44:12 44.9 41 41 60.2 11:11:12 62.0 60.2 60.2 58.6 10:59:12 60.9 58.6 58.6 40.6 10:44:15 45.2 40.6 40.6 61.2 11:11:15 62.1 61.2 61.2 54.2 10:59:15 60.9 54.2 54.2 41.1 10:44:18 45.8 41.1 41.1 58.8 11:11:18 62.1 58.8 58.8 58.4 10:59:18 61.0 58.4 58.4 40.1 10:44:21 46.0 40.1 40.1 57.2 11:11:21 62.1 57.2 57.2 55.4 10:59:21 61.0 55.4 55.4 42 10:44:24 46.2 42 42 55.8 11:11:24 62.1 55.8 55.8 57.2 10:59:24 61.0 57.2 57.2 41.8 10:44:27 46.6 41.8 41.8 64.6 11:11:27 62.1 64.6 64.6 62.9 10:59:27 61.1 62.9 62.9 42.2 10:44:30 47.2 42.2 42.2 64 11:11:30 62.1 64 64 63.5 10:59:30 61.1 63.5 63.5 42.4 10:44:33 47.4 42.4 42.4 58.4 11:11:33 62.2 58.4 58.4 66.6 10:59:33 61.1 66.6 66.6 42.5 10:44:36 47.6 42.5 42.5 62.7 11:11:36 62.3 62.7 62.7 67.4 10:59:36 61.1 67.4 67.4 42 10:44:39 47.8 42 42 65.8 11:11:39 62.3 65.8 65.8 67.4 10:59:39 61.1 67.4 67.4 42.4 10:44:42 47.9 42.4 42.4 61.7 11:11:42 62.3 61.7 61.7 67 10:59:42 61.1 67 67 41.6 10:44:45 48.0 41.6 41.6 63.6 11:11:45 62.3 63.6 63.6 66.9 10:59:45 61.1 66.9 66.9 40.9 10:44:48 48.1 40.9 40.9 60.9 11:11:48 62.3 60.9 60.9 67.6 10:59:48 61.2 67.6 67.6 39.8 10:44:51 48.1 39.8 39.8 58.2 11:11:51 62.4 58.2 58.2 68.4 10:59:51 61.2 68.4 68.4 40 10:44:54 48.2 40 40 55.4 11:11:54 62.5 55.4 55.4 64.2 10:59:54 61.2 64.2 64.2 40.9 10:44:57 48.2 40.9 40.9 54.4 11:11:57 62.5 54.4 54.4 59.6 10:59:57 61.2 59.6 59.6 41.5 10:45:00 48.2 41.5 41.5 51.8 11:12:00 62.5 51.8 51.8 57.8 11:00:00 61.2 57.8 57.8 42.8 10:45:03 48.2 42.8 42.8 54.7 11:12:03 62.5 54.7 54.7 57.3 11:00:03 61.3 57.3 57.3 42.6 10:45:06 48.2 42.6 42.6 56.6 11:12:06 62.5 56.6 56.6 56.9 11:00:06 61.4 56.9 56.9 42.4 10:45:09 48.2 42.4 42.4 59.5 11:12:09 62.5 59.5 59.5 56.8 11:00:09 61.4 56.8 56.8 41.9 10:45:12 48.2 41.9 41.9 63.2 11:12:12 62.5 63.2 63.2 57.3 11:00:12 61.5 57.3 57.3 41.5 10:45:15 48.2 41.5 41.5 64.7 11:12:15 62.4 64.7 64.7 58 11:00:15 61.7 58 58 40.9 10:45:18 48.2 40.9 40.9 60.9 11:12:18 62.5 60.9 60.9 58.2 11:00:18 61.7 58.2 58.2 41.8 10:45:21 48.2 41.8 41.8 58.7 11:12:21 62.5 58.7 58.7 60.6 11:00:21 61.8 60.6 60.6 40.8 10:45:24 48.2 40.8 40.8 64 11:12:24 62.5 64 64 59.7 11:00:24 61.9 59.7 59.7 41.6 10:45:27 48.0 41.6 41.6 60.4 11:12:27 62.5 60.4 60.4 54.2 11:00:27 61.9 54.2 54.2 39.5 10:45:30 48.0 39.5 39.5 60.2 11:12:30 62.5 60.2 60.2 54.2 11:00:30 62.0 54.2 54.2 40.3 10:45:33 47.9 40.3 40.3 64.2 11:12:33 62.5 64.2 64.2 60.9 11:00:33 62.1 60.9 60.9 43.5 10:45:36 47.9 43.5 43.5 66.2 11:12:36 62.5 66.2 66.2 62.6 11:00:36 62.2 62.6 62.6 42.9 10:45:39 47.9 42.9 42.9 67.2 11:12:39 62.6 67.2 67.2 65.3 11:00:39 62.2 65.3 65.3 42 10:45:42 47.9 42 42 66.5 11:12:42 62.6 66.5 66.5 64 11:00:42 62.3 64 64 43.7 10:45:45 47.9 43.7 43.7 66.5 11:12:45 62.6 66.5 66.5 62.9 11:00:45 62.3 62.9 62.9 43.1 10:45:48 47.8 43.1 43.1 64.3 11:12:48 62.6 64.3 64.3 62.4 11:00:48 62.3 62.4 62.4 44.7 10:45:51 47.8 44.7 44.7 64.6 11:12:51 62.6 64.6 64.6 58.3 11:00:51 62.3 58.3 58.3 47.7 10:45:54 47.8 47.7 47.7 61.6 11:12:54 62.6 61.6 61.6 56.7 11:00:54 62.3 56.7 56.7 49.2 10:45:57 47.9 49.2 49.2 57.6 11:12:57 62.6 57.6 57.6 52.9 11:00:57 62.4 52.9 52.9 46.7 10:46:00 48.0 46.7 46.7 52.2 11:13:00 62.6 52.2 52.2 52.9 11:01:00 62.4 52.9 52.9 45.1 10:46:03 48.0 45.1 45.1 49.6 11:13:03 62.5 49.6 49.6 55.2 11:01:03 62.4 55.2 55.2 46.1 10:46:06 48.0 46.1 46.1 48.2 11:13:06 62.5 48.2 48.2 55.7 11:01:06 62.4 55.7 55.7 47.3 10:46:09 48.1 47.3 47.3 53.8 11:13:09 62.5 53.8 53.8 56.6 11:01:09 62.5 56.6 56.6 47.2 10:46:12 48.1 47.2 47.2 50.3 11:13:12 62.4 50.3 50.3 60 11:01:12 62.5 60 60 46.5 10:46:15 48.1 46.5 46.5 53.8 11:13:15 62.3 53.8 53.8 57.7 11:01:15 62.5 57.7 57.7 46.4 10:46:18 48.2 46.4 46.4 54.6 11:13:18 62.4 54.6 54.6 58.2 11:01:18 62.5 58.2 58.2 46.7 10:46:21 48.2 46.7 46.7 58 11:13:21 62.4 58 58 62.5 11:01:21 62.5 62.5 62.5 46.1 10:46:24 48.3 46.1 46.1 57.7 11:13:24 62.4 57.7 57.7 65.7 11:01:24 62.5 65.7 65.7 45.8 10:46:27 48.4 45.8 45.8 58.6 11:13:27 62.4 58.6 58.6 66.6 11:01:27 62.5 66.6 66.6 46.2 10:46:30 48.4 46.2 46.2 54.3 11:13:30 62.4 54.3 54.3 67.1 11:01:30 62.6 67.1 67.1 47.6 10:46:33 48.4 47.6 47.6 50.3 11:13:33 62.4 50.3 50.3 66.8 11:01:33 62.6 66.8 66.8 47 10:46:36 48.5 47 47 52.1 11:13:36 62.4 52.1 52.1 67.4 11:01:36 62.6 67.4 67.4 46.2 10:46:39 48.5 46.2 46.2 62.6 11:13:39 62.4 62.6 62.6 68.3 11:01:39 62.6 68.3 68.3 45.5 10:46:42 48.5 45.5 45.5 63.9 11:13:42 62.4 63.9 63.9 66.5 11:01:42 62.6 66.5 66.5 44.3 10:46:45 48.6 44.3 44.3 62.9 11:13:45 62.4 62.9 62.9 65.4 11:01:45 62.6 65.4 65.4 43.3 10:46:48 48.6 43.3 43.3 63.8 11:13:48 62.4 63.8 63.8 61.3 11:01:48 62.7 61.3 61.3 44.8 10:46:51 48.6 44.8 44.8 66.2 11:13:51 62.4 66.2 66.2 60.3 11:01:51 62.7 60.3 60.3 45.1 10:46:54 48.6 45.1 45.1 63.2 11:13:54 62.5 63.2 63.2 57.4 11:01:54 62.7 57.4 57.4 44.1 10:46:57 48.6 44.1 44.1 59.6 11:13:57 62.5 59.6 59.6 63.1 11:01:57 62.8 63.1 63.1 43.5 10:47:00 48.6 43.5 43.5 60 11:14:00 62.5 60 60 59.9 11:02:00 62.8 59.9 59.9 43.6 10:47:03 48.6 43.6 43.6 61.4 11:14:03 62.5 61.4 61.4 60.5 11:02:03 62.9 60.5 60.5 43.2 10:47:06 48.6 43.2 43.2 57.6 11:14:06 62.5 57.6 57.6 61.5 11:02:06 63.0 61.5 61.5 44.7 10:47:09 49.6 44.7 44.7 63.8 11:14:09 62.5 63.8 63.8 62.1 11:02:09 63.3 62.1 62.1 43.2 10:47:12 49.6 43.2 43.2 61.9 11:14:12 62.5 61.9 61.9 60.6 11:02:12 63.5 60.6 60.6 43 10:47:15 49.6 43 43 60.1 11:14:15 62.5 60.1 60.1 61.9 11:02:15 63.7 61.9 61.9 42.7 10:47:18 49.6 42.7 42.7 63.8 11:14:18 62.5 63.8 63.8 60 11:02:18 63.8 60 60 42.7 10:47:21 49.6 42.7 42.7 56.8 11:14:21 62.4 56.8 56.8 58.2 11:02:21 63.9 58.2 58.2 43.6 10:47:24 49.6 43.6 43.6 53.7 11:14:24 62.4 53.7 53.7 60.8 11:02:24 63.9 60.8 60.8 43 10:47:27 49.6 43 43 56.2 11:14:27 62.4 56.2 56.2 62.3 11:02:27 63.9 62.3 62.3 44.3 10:47:30 49.6 44.3 44.3 61.7 11:14:30 62.4 61.7 61.7 64.6 11:02:30 63.9 64.6 64.6 43.1 10:47:33 49.6 43.1 43.1 60.3 11:14:33 62.4 60.3 60.3 64.2 11:02:33 63.9 64.2 64.2 44 10:47:36 49.6 44 44 61.6 11:14:36 62.4 61.6 61.6 61.1 11:02:36 64.0 61.1 61.1 43.1 10:47:39 49.6 43.1 43.1 60.4 11:14:39 62.5 60.4 60.4 61.7 11:02:39 64.0 61.7 61.7 42.1 10:47:42 49.6 42.1 42.1 57.7 11:14:42 62.5 57.7 57.7 59.2 11:02:42 64.0 59.2 59.2 44.4 10:47:45 49.6 44.4 44.4 60.4 11:14:45 62.6 60.4 60.4 59.4 11:02:45 64.0 59.4 59.4 42.4 10:47:48 49.6 42.4 42.4 64.9 11:14:48 62.6 64.9 64.9 59.2 11:02:48 64.0 59.2 59.2 43.9 10:47:51 49.6 43.9 43.9 63.2 11:14:51 62.6 63.2 63.2 55.4 11:02:51 64.0 55.4 55.4 43.4 10:47:54 49.6 43.4 43.4 58.1 11:14:54 62.6 58.1 58.1 57 11:02:54 64.0 57 57 45 10:47:57 49.6 45 45 55.4 11:14:57 62.6 55.4 55.4 58.3 11:02:57 64.0 58.3 58.3 43.3 10:48:00 49.6 43.3 43.3 60.5 11:15:00 62.6 60.5 60.5 56.1 11:03:00 64.0 56.1 56.1 44 10:48:03 49.6 44 44 59.1 11:15:03 62.6 59.1 59.1 56 11:03:03 64.0 56 56 44.6 10:48:06 49.6 44.6 44.6 54.9 11:15:06 62.6 54.9 54.9 57.5 11:03:06 64.0 57.5 57.5 43 10:48:09 49.6 43 43 51.3 11:15:09 62.6 51.3 51.3 58.4 11:03:09 64.0 58.4 58.4 43.4 10:48:12 49.6 43.4 43.4 50.5 11:15:12 62.6 50.5 50.5 57.8 11:03:12 64.0 57.8 57.8 43.4 10:48:15 49.6 43.4 43.4 60.5 11:15:15 62.6 60.5 60.5 57.6 11:03:15 64.0 57.6 57.6 42.1 10:48:18 49.6 42.1 42.1 59.7 11:15:18 62.6 59.7 59.7 60.8 11:03:18 64.0 60.8 60.8 42.6 10:48:21 49.6 42.6 42.6 54.8 11:15:21 62.6 54.8 54.8 64 11:03:21 64.0 64 64 43 10:48:24 49.6 43 43 51.8 11:15:24 62.6 51.8 51.8 64.9 11:03:24 64.1 64.9 64.9 43 10:48:27 49.6 43 43 57.6 11:15:27 62.6 57.6 57.6 65.9 11:03:27 64.1 65.9 65.9 42.1 10:48:30 49.6 42.1 42.1 62.7 11:15:30 62.6 62.7 62.7 67.1 11:03:30 64.1 67.1 67.1 42.2 10:48:33 49.6 42.2 42.2 62.9 11:15:33 62.6 62.9 62.9 67.3 11:03:33 64.1 67.3 67.3 42.6 10:48:36 49.6 42.6 42.6 62.2 11:15:36 62.6 62.2 62.2 66.9 11:03:36 64.1 66.9 66.9 42.3 10:48:39 49.6 42.3 42.3 57.3 11:15:39 62.6 57.3 57.3 66.6 11:03:39 64.1 66.6 66.6 43.4 10:48:42 49.6 43.4 43.4 53.3 11:15:42 62.5 53.3 53.3 65.4 11:03:42 64.1 65.4 65.4 46.1 10:48:45 49.6 46.1 46.1 52.3 11:15:45 62.5 52.3 52.3 62.8 11:03:45 64.1 62.8 62.8 43.5 10:48:48 49.6 43.5 43.5 54 11:15:48 62.5 54 54 60.2 11:03:48 64.1 60.2 60.2 42.5 10:48:51 49.6 42.5 42.5 57.2 11:15:51 62.4 57.2 57.2 59.5 11:03:51 64.2 59.5 59.5 44.4 10:48:54 49.6 44.4 44.4 61.7 11:15:54 62.4 61.7 61.7 59.3 11:03:54 64.3 59.3 59.3 44.4 10:48:57 49.6 44.4 44.4 63.6 11:15:57 62.3 63.6 63.6 60.1 11:03:57 64.5 60.1 60.1 46 10:49:00 49.6 46 46 64.4 11:16:00 62.3 64.4 64.4 58.1 11:04:00 64.7 58.1 58.1 Date Time=09/21/11 4:34:00 PM Date Time=09/21/11 4:05:00 PM Date Time=09/21/11 3:51:00 PM Date Time=09/21/11 2:59:00 PM Sampling Time=3 Weighting=A Sampling Time=3 Freq Weighting=A Sampling Time=3 Weighting=A Sampling Time=3 Weighting=A Record Num= 28600 Weighting=Slow CNEL(24hr)=52.6 Record Num= 28400 Weighting=Slow CNEL(24hr)=70.4 Record Num= 28600 Weighting=SlowCNEL(24hr 58.9 Record Num= 28400 Weighting=Slow CNEL(24hr 53.3 Leq 50.0 SEL Value=99.4 Ldn(24hr)= 52.1 Leq 67.4 SEL Value=116.7 Ldn(24hr)= 69.9 Leq 56.4 SEL Value=26.9 Ldn(24hr)=58.4 Leq 50.7 SEL Value=100.1 Ldn(24hr)=52.8 MAX 76 Min Leq10min = 37.1 3:59:03 MAX 86.4 Min Leq10min = 38.3 3:00:48 MAX 80.3 Min Leq10min =38.1 2:59:21 MAX 74.2 Min Leq10min = 37.1 4:12:33 MIN 35.1 Max Leq10min = 61.2 15:04:39 MIN 33.5 Max Leq10min = 73.4 8:14:36 MIN 0 Max Leq10min =65.5 12:06:00 MIN 35.3 Max Leq10min =62.1 8:41:48 SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL 54.4 15:40:00 54.4 54.4 68.1 16:05:00 68.1 68.1 42.5 15:51:00 42.5 42.5 50 15:53:00 50 50 54.7 15:40:03 54.7 54.7 69.7 16:05:03 69.7 69.7 45.4 15:51:03 45.4 45.4 58 15:53:03 58 58 64.6 15:40:06 64.6 64.6 71.5 16:05:06 71.5 71.5 55 15:51:06 55 55 50.8 15:53:06 50.8 50.8 62.2 15:40:09 62.2 62.2 72.9 16:05:09 72.9 72.9 61.4 15:51:09 61.4 61.4 59.2 15:53:09 59.2 59.2 60.6 15:40:12 60.6 60.6 70.7 16:05:12 70.7 70.7 63.9 15:51:12 63.9 63.9 52.6 15:53:12 52.6 52.6 56 15:40:15 56 56 60.8 16:05:15 60.8 60.8 63.9 15:51:15 63.9 63.9 61.8 15:53:15 61.8 61.8 63.2 15:40:18 63.2 63.2 71.4 16:05:18 71.4 71.4 59.8 15:51:18 59.8 59.8 57 15:53:18 57 57 59.1 15:40:21 59.1 59.1 68.5 16:05:21 68.5 68.5 47 15:51:21 47 47 64.7 15:53:21 64.7 64.7 50.4 15:40:24 50.4 50.4 72.1 16:05:24 72.1 72.1 66.5 15:51:24 66.5 66.5 58.2 15:53:24 58.2 58.2 53.6 15:40:27 53.6 53.6 70.7 16:05:27 70.7 70.7 64.7 15:51:27 64.7 64.7 56.4 15:53:27 56.4 56.4 54 15:40:30 54 54 69.6 16:05:30 69.6 69.6 61.2 15:51:30 61.2 61.2 61.4 15:53:30 61.4 61.4 57.2 15:40:33 57.2 57.2 72.1 16:05:33 72.1 72.1 63.4 15:51:33 63.4 63.4 62.6 15:53:33 62.6 62.6 62.2 15:40:36 62.2 62.2 71.8 16:05:36 71.8 71.8 64 15:51:36 64 64 56.2 15:53:36 56.2 56.2 66.4 15:40:39 66.4 66.4 72.5 16:05:39 72.5 72.5 61.2 15:51:39 61.2 61.2 60.8 15:53:39 60.8 60.8 58.5 15:40:42 58.5 58.5 70.6 16:05:42 70.6 70.6 60.1 15:51:42 60.1 60.1 62.4 15:53:42 62.4 62.4 56.6 15:40:45 56.6 56.6 70.3 16:05:45 70.3 70.3 58.2 15:51:45 58.2 58.2 52.2 15:53:45 52.2 52.2 57.5 15:40:48 57.5 57.5 72.2 16:05:48 72.2 72.2 58.1 15:51:48 58.1 58.1 54.2 15:53:48 54.2 54.2 58 15:40:51 58 58 74.2 16:05:51 74.2 74.2 56.8 15:51:51 56.8 56.8 51 15:53:51 51 51 62.4 15:40:54 62.4 62.4 69.3 16:05:54 69.3 69.3 57.9 15:51:54 57.9 57.9 52.5 15:53:54 52.5 52.5 53.8 15:40:57 53.8 53.8 65.2 16:05:57 65.2 65.2 61.2 15:51:57 61.2 61.2 53.1 15:53:57 53.1 53.1 62 15:41:00 62 62 63.4 16:06:00 63.4 63.4 60.6 15:52:00 60.6 60.6 51.5 15:54:00 51.5 51.5 54 15:41:03 54 54 67.3 16:06:03 67.3 67.3 60 15:52:03 60 60 53.3 15:54:03 53.3 53.3 58.5 15:41:06 58.5 58.5 63.6 16:06:06 63.6 63.6 67.7 15:52:06 67.7 67.7 54.2 15:54:06 54.2 54.2 56.1 15:41:09 56.1 56.1 68.7 16:06:09 68.7 68.7 61.9 15:52:09 61.9 61.9 54.8 15:54:09 54.8 54.8 52.1 15:41:12 52.1 52.1 72 16:06:12 72 72 59 15:52:12 59 59 54.8 15:54:12 54.8 54.8 63.5 15:41:15 63.5 63.5 72.7 16:06:15 72.7 72.7 55.5 15:52:15 55.5 55.5 51.4 15:54:15 51.4 51.4 55.8 15:41:18 55.8 55.8 69 16:06:18 69 69 56.4 15:52:18 56.4 56.4 51.2 15:54:18 51.2 51.2 51.3 15:41:21 51.3 51.3 71.2 16:06:21 71.2 71.2 56 15:52:21 56 56 51 15:54:21 51 51 52.2 15:41:24 52.2 52.2 72.4 16:06:24 72.4 72.4 57.4 15:52:24 57.4 57.4 51.1 15:54:24 51.1 51.1 52.6 15:41:27 52.6 52.6 71.6 16:06:27 71.6 71.6 59 15:52:27 59 59 49.8 15:54:27 49.8 49.8 53.4 15:41:30 53.4 53.4 70.8 16:06:30 70.8 70.8 58.4 15:52:30 58.4 58.4 48.6 15:54:30 48.6 48.6 53.3 15:41:33 53.3 53.3 68.8 16:06:33 68.8 68.8 59.8 15:52:33 59.8 59.8 48.5 15:54:33 48.5 48.5 51.1 15:41:36 51.1 51.1 66.9 16:06:36 66.9 66.9 59.2 15:52:36 59.2 59.2 49.5 15:54:36 49.5 49.5 51.1 15:41:39 51.1 51.1 65.1 16:06:39 65.1 65.1 58.5 15:52:39 58.5 58.5 52 15:54:39 52 52 66.3 15:41:42 66.3 66.3 70.4 16:06:42 70.4 70.4 58.1 15:52:42 58.1 58.1 47.6 15:54:42 47.6 47.6 62.6 15:41:45 62.6 62.6 72.2 16:06:45 72.2 72.2 58.8 15:52:45 58.8 58.8 45.4 15:54:45 45.4 45.4 55.5 15:41:48 55.5 55.5 74.4 16:06:48 74.4 74.4 58.9 15:52:48 58.9 58.9 44.5 15:54:48 44.5 44.5 63.3 15:41:51 63.3 63.3 71.7 16:06:51 71.7 71.7 59 15:52:51 59 59 44.5 15:54:51 44.5 44.5 65.3 15:41:54 65.3 65.3 63.7 16:06:54 63.7 63.7 59.5 15:52:54 59.5 59.5 43.9 15:54:54 43.9 43.9 53.3 15:41:57 53.3 53.3 58 16:06:57 58 58 60.7 15:52:57 60.7 60.7 44.6 15:54:57 44.6 44.6 49.7 15:42:00 49.7 49.7 61 16:07:00 61 61 42.5 15:53:00 42.5 42.5 44.5 15:55:00 44.5 44.5 57.4 15:42:03 57.4 57.4 64 16:07:03 64 64 53.1 15:53:03 53.1 53.1 45.6 15:55:03 45.6 45.6 52.5 15:42:06 52.5 52.5 65 16:07:06 65 65 59.3 15:53:06 59.3 59.3 47.7 15:55:06 47.7 47.7 49.6 15:42:09 49.6 49.6 68.5 16:07:09 68.5 68.5 59.3 15:53:09 59.3 59.3 50.2 15:55:09 50.2 50.2 49.9 15:42:12 49.9 49.9 69.2 16:07:12 69.2 69.2 56.8 15:53:12 56.8 56.8 58.7 15:55:12 58.7 58.7 48.8 15:42:15 48.8 48.8 70 16:07:15 70 70 57.5 15:53:15 57.5 57.5 50 15:55:15 50 50 46.8 15:42:18 46.8 46.8 69.9 16:07:18 69.9 69.9 56.9 15:53:18 56.9 56.9 47.5 15:55:18 47.5 47.5 48.9 15:42:21 48.9 48.9 70.3 16:07:21 70.3 70.3 56.7 15:53:21 56.7 56.7 49.4 15:55:21 49.4 49.4 50.3 15:42:24 50.3 50.3 71 16:07:24 71 71 56.1 15:53:24 56.1 56.1 49.2 15:55:24 49.2 49.2 50.8 15:42:27 50.8 50.8 64.5 16:07:27 64.5 64.5 55.7 15:53:27 55.7 55.7 47.4 15:55:27 47.4 47.4 49.6 15:42:30 49.6 49.6 71.1 16:07:30 71.1 71.1 59.5 15:53:30 59.5 59.5 47.8 15:55:30 47.8 47.8 47.6 15:42:33 47.6 47.6 72.7 16:07:33 72.7 72.7 40.3 15:53:33 40.3 40.3 47.4 15:55:33 47.4 47.4 47.6 15:42:36 47.6 47.6 69.9 16:07:36 69.9 69.9 59.6 15:53:36 59.6 59.6 47.7 15:55:36 47.7 47.7 48.8 15:42:39 48.8 48.8 69.9 16:07:39 69.9 69.9 59.8 15:53:39 59.8 59.8 48 15:55:39 48 48 49.1 15:42:42 49.1 49.1 70.7 16:07:42 70.7 70.7 41.2 15:53:42 41.2 41.2 49.4 15:55:42 49.4 49.4 48.8 15:42:45 48.8 48.8 70.1 16:07:45 70.1 70.1 61.7 15:53:45 61.7 61.7 49.3 15:55:45 49.3 49.3 49.6 15:42:48 49.6 49.6 70.5 16:07:48 70.5 70.5 62 15:53:48 62 62 49.9 15:55:48 49.9 49.9 49 15:42:51 49 49 70.3 16:07:51 70.3 70.3 62.1 15:53:51 62.1 62.1 50.3 15:55:51 50.3 50.3 49.7 15:42:54 49.7 49.7 70 16:07:54 70 70 61.3 15:53:54 61.3 61.3 49.6 15:55:54 49.6 49.6 49.3 15:42:57 49.3 49.3 68.3 16:07:57 68.3 68.3 61.7 15:53:57 61.7 61.7 49.6 15:55:57 49.6 49.6 50.3 15:43:00 50.3 50.3 66.8 16:08:00 66.8 66.8 61.3 15:54:00 61.3 61.3 48.8 15:56:00 48.8 48.8 49.4 15:43:03 49.4 49.4 67.9 16:08:03 67.9 67.9 63.8 15:54:03 63.8 63.8 46.8 15:56:03 46.8 46.8 49.9 15:43:06 49.9 49.9 65.3 16:08:06 65.3 65.3 65.9 15:54:06 65.9 65.9 45 15:56:06 45 45 51.7 15:43:09 51.7 51.7 68.8 16:08:09 68.8 68.8 71.4 15:54:09 71.4 71.4 44.1 15:56:09 44.1 44.1 52.5 15:43:12 52.5 52.5 70 16:08:12 70 70 70.5 15:54:12 70.5 70.5 44 15:56:12 44 44 51.4 15:43:15 51.4 51.4 69.1 16:08:15 69.1 69.1 68.1 15:54:15 68.1 68.1 44.4 15:56:15 44.4 44.4 48.9 15:43:18 48.9 48.9 69.7 16:08:18 69.7 69.7 63.3 15:54:18 63.3 63.3 45.4 15:56:18 45.4 45.4 52 15:43:21 52 52 68.8 16:08:21 68.8 68.8 60 15:54:21 60 60 47.1 15:56:21 47.1 47.1 51.1 15:43:24 51.1 51.1 70.5 16:08:24 70.5 70.5 59.2 15:54:24 59.2 59.2 47.9 15:56:24 47.9 47.9 52.3 15:43:27 52.3 52.3 70.9 16:08:27 70.9 70.9 60 15:54:27 60 60 48 15:56:27 48 48 54.6 15:43:30 54.6 54.6 70.2 16:08:30 70.2 70.2 57.1 15:54:30 57.1 57.1 47.1 15:56:30 47.1 47.1 52 15:43:33 52 52 70.6 16:08:33 70.6 70.6 54.4 15:54:33 54.4 54.4 47 15:56:33 47 47 50.2 15:43:36 50.2 50.2 71.1 16:08:36 71.1 71.1 54.4 15:54:36 54.4 54.4 47.2 15:56:36 47.2 47.2 50.1 15:43:39 50.1 50.1 70.4 16:08:39 70.4 70.4 53.5 15:54:39 53.5 53.5 47.7 15:56:39 47.7 47.7 50.6 15:43:42 50.6 50.6 70.1 16:08:42 70.1 70.1 52.5 15:54:42 52.5 52.5 49.8 15:56:42 49.8 49.8 52.1 15:43:45 52.1 52.1 68.3 16:08:45 68.3 68.3 53.1 15:54:45 53.1 53.1 47.2 15:56:45 47.2 47.2 51.8 15:43:48 51.8 51.8 65 16:08:48 65 65 54.3 15:54:48 54.3 54.3 48.5 15:56:48 48.5 48.5 52.1 15:43:51 52.1 52.1 57 16:08:51 57 57 56.2 15:54:51 56.2 56.2 48.4 15:56:51 48.4 48.4 52.2 15:43:54 52.2 52.2 56.3 16:08:54 56.3 56.3 56.4 15:54:54 56.4 56.4 50.1 15:56:54 50.1 50.1 50.9 15:43:57 50.9 50.9 58.1 16:08:57 58.1 58.1 57.3 15:54:57 57.3 57.3 54.8 15:56:57 54.8 54.8 51.3 15:44:00 51.3 51.3 63.3 16:09:00 63.3 63.3 60.4 15:55:00 60.4 60.4 52 15:57:00 52 52 52.2 15:44:03 52.2 52.2 69.1 16:09:03 69.1 69.1 63.3 15:55:03 63.3 63.3 53 15:57:03 53 53 51.9 15:44:06 51.9 51.9 69.1 16:09:06 69.1 69.1 62.9 15:55:06 62.9 62.9 56 15:57:06 56 56 52.9 15:44:09 52.9 52.9 73.2 16:09:09 73.2 73.2 61.9 15:55:09 61.9 61.9 54.6 15:57:09 54.6 54.6 50.5 15:44:12 50.5 50.5 71 16:09:12 71 71 62.6 15:55:12 62.6 62.6 58.9 15:57:12 58.9 58.9 50.4 15:44:15 50.4 50.4 70.1 16:09:15 70.1 70.1 61.5 15:55:15 61.5 61.5 57.4 15:57:15 57.4 57.4 51.6 15:44:18 51.6 51.6 69.8 16:09:18 69.8 69.8 61.1 15:55:18 61.1 61.1 59 15:57:18 59 59 54.3 15:44:21 54.3 54.3 69.7 16:09:21 69.7 69.7 61 15:55:21 61 61 59.7 15:57:21 59.7 59.7 59.6 15:44:24 59.6 59.6 66.8 16:09:24 66.8 66.8 60.2 15:55:24 60.2 60.2 61.5 15:57:24 61.5 61.5 59.3 15:44:27 59.3 59.3 65 16:09:27 65 65 59.2 15:55:27 59.2 59.2 58 15:57:27 58 58 57.1 15:44:30 57.1 57.1 67.7 16:09:30 67.7 67.7 59.4 15:55:30 59.4 59.4 55.7 15:57:30 55.7 55.7 55.9 15:44:33 55.9 55.9 64.9 16:09:33 64.9 64.9 59.5 15:55:33 59.5 59.5 54.1 15:57:33 54.1 54.1 58.1 15:44:36 58.1 58.1 62.6 16:09:36 62.6 62.6 59.7 15:55:36 59.7 59.7 53.5 15:57:36 53.5 53.5 59.5 15:44:39 59.5 59.5 59.9 16:09:39 59.9 59.9 60.6 15:55:39 60.6 60.6 54.5 15:57:39 54.5 54.5 57.9 15:44:42 57.9 57.9 61.5 16:09:42 61.5 61.5 60.1 15:55:42 60.1 60.1 52.9 15:57:42 52.9 52.9 55.8 15:44:45 55.8 55.8 69.9 16:09:45 69.9 69.9 60.5 15:55:45 60.5 60.5 49.7 15:57:45 49.7 49.7 51.6 15:44:48 51.6 51.6 71.5 16:09:48 71.5 71.5 59.3 15:55:48 59.3 59.3 53.5 15:57:48 53.5 53.5 49.2 15:44:51 49.2 49.2 72.8 16:09:51 72.8 72.8 58.6 15:55:51 58.6 58.6 51.9 15:57:51 51.9 51.9 47.7 15:44:54 47.7 47.7 73.1 16:09:54 73.1 73.1 57.3 15:55:54 57.3 57.3 51.2 15:57:54 51.2 51.2 47.4 15:44:57 47.4 47.4 72.8 16:09:57 72.8 72.8 56.8 15:55:57 56.8 56.8 49.7 15:57:57 49.7 49.7 47.6 15:45:00 54.8 47.6 47.6 73 16:10:00 70.1 73 73 56.1 15:56:00 59.9 56.1 56.1 48.6 15:58:00 53.1 48.6 48.6 46.9 15:45:03 54.8 46.9 46.9 73.2 16:10:03 70.1 73.2 73.2 55 15:56:03 59.9 55 55 47.8 15:58:03 53.1 47.8 47.8 47.1 15:45:06 54.7 47.1 47.1 75 16:10:06 70.1 75 75 54.2 15:56:06 59.9 54.2 54.2 48.9 15:58:06 53.0 48.9 48.9 48.7 15:45:09 54.5 48.7 48.7 73 16:10:09 70.0 73 73 53.6 15:56:09 60.0 53.6 53.6 49.2 15:58:09 53.0 49.2 49.2 49 15:45:12 54.4 49 49 72.3 16:10:12 70.0 72.3 72.3 50.8 15:56:12 60.0 50.8 50.8 50 15:58:12 52.9 50 50 48.6 15:45:15 54.3 48.6 48.6 70 16:10:15 70.0 70 70 56.8 15:56:15 59.9 56.8 56.8 50 15:58:15 52.9 50 50 48.6 15:45:18 54.3 48.6 48.6 71.4 16:10:18 70.0 71.4 71.4 56.8 15:56:18 59.9 56.8 56.8 50 15:58:18 52.7 50 50 49.3 15:45:21 54.1 49.3 49.3 71.1 16:10:21 70.0 71.1 71.1 58 15:56:21 59.9 58 58 50.6 15:58:21 52.7 50.6 50.6 49.2 15:45:24 54.1 49.2 49.2 69.2 16:10:24 69.9 69.2 69.2 57.1 15:56:24 60.0 57.1 57.1 48.8 15:58:24 52.3 48.8 48.8 48.6 15:45:27 54.1 48.6 48.6 67.8 16:10:27 69.9 67.8 67.8 56.4 15:56:27 59.9 56.4 56.4 47.3 15:58:27 52.3 47.3 47.3 47.7 15:45:30 54.1 47.7 47.7 64.3 16:10:30 69.9 64.3 64.3 56 15:56:30 59.9 56 56 48.4 15:58:30 52.2 48.4 48.4 48.4 15:45:33 54.0 48.4 48.4 61.4 16:10:33 69.9 61.4 61.4 57.6 15:56:33 59.9 57.6 57.6 48 15:58:33 52.0 48 48 48.4 15:45:36 54.0 48.4 48.4 62.7 16:10:36 69.9 62.7 62.7 60.9 15:56:36 59.9 60.9 60.9 49.5 15:58:36 51.8 49.5 49.5 48.1 15:45:39 53.9 48.1 48.1 66.2 16:10:39 69.9 66.2 66.2 54 15:56:39 59.9 54 54 49 15:58:39 51.8 49 49 47.6 15:45:42 53.4 47.6 47.6 66.5 16:10:42 69.9 66.5 66.5 54.7 15:56:42 59.8 54.7 54.7 47.6 15:58:42 51.6 47.6 47.6 47.3 15:45:45 53.4 47.3 47.3 69.7 16:10:45 69.9 69.7 69.7 57.2 15:56:45 59.8 57.2 57.2 46.1 15:58:45 51.3 46.1 46.1 48.1 15:45:48 53.3 48.1 48.1 67.9 16:10:48 69.9 67.9 67.9 59.6 15:56:48 59.8 59.6 59.6 46 15:58:48 51.3 46 46 49.3 15:45:51 53.3 49.3 49.3 67 16:10:51 69.9 67 67 58.8 15:56:51 59.8 58.8 58.8 47.7 15:58:51 51.3 47.7 47.7 48.6 15:45:54 53.2 48.6 48.6 66.8 16:10:54 70.0 66.8 66.8 59.2 15:56:54 59.8 59.2 59.2 49.1 15:58:54 51.2 49.1 49.1 48.2 15:45:57 53.0 48.2 48.2 68.8 16:10:57 70.0 68.8 68.8 59.5 15:56:57 59.8 59.5 59.5 47.7 15:58:57 51.2 47.7 47.7 47.9 15:46:00 53.0 47.9 47.9 69.8 16:11:00 70.0 69.8 69.8 60 15:57:00 59.8 60 60 50.4 15:59:00 51.2 50.4 50.4 48 15:46:03 52.9 48 48 72.2 16:11:03 70.0 72.2 72.2 58.6 15:57:03 59.8 58.6 58.6 47.6 15:59:03 51.2 47.6 47.6 47.5 15:46:06 52.8 47.5 47.5 71.4 16:11:06 70.0 71.4 71.4 58 15:57:06 59.8 58 58 46 15:59:06 51.2 46 46 47.8 15:46:09 52.7 47.8 47.8 71.6 16:11:09 70.0 71.6 71.6 57.9 15:57:09 59.7 57.9 57.9 46.2 15:59:09 51.2 46.2 46.2 47 15:46:12 52.7 47 47 72.1 16:11:12 69.9 72.1 72.1 58.4 15:57:12 59.7 58.4 58.4 46.8 15:59:12 51.1 46.8 46.8 45.9 15:46:15 52.7 45.9 45.9 71.2 16:11:15 69.9 71.2 71.2 57.9 15:57:15 59.7 57.9 57.9 49.5 15:59:15 51.1 49.5 49.5 46 15:46:18 52.4 46 46 70.2 16:11:18 69.9 70.2 70.2 58.5 15:57:18 59.7 58.5 58.5 51 15:59:18 51.1 51 51 46 15:46:21 52.4 46 46 70.3 16:11:21 70.0 70.3 70.3 58.8 15:57:21 59.7 58.8 58.8 51.7 15:59:21 51.1 51.7 51.7 47.7 15:46:24 52.4 47.7 47.7 71.2 16:11:24 70.0 71.2 71.2 59.9 15:57:24 59.7 59.9 59.9 50 15:59:24 51.1 50 50 46.5 15:46:27 52.4 46.5 46.5 71.9 16:11:27 70.0 71.9 71.9 59.7 15:57:27 59.7 59.7 59.7 49.7 15:59:27 51.1 49.7 49.7 46.3 15:46:30 52.4 46.3 46.3 70.3 16:11:30 70.0 70.3 70.3 58 15:57:30 59.7 58 58 50.8 15:59:30 51.0 50.8 50.8 45.5 15:46:33 52.4 45.5 45.5 70.7 16:11:33 70.0 70.7 70.7 57.8 15:57:33 59.7 57.8 57.8 49.9 15:59:33 51.0 49.9 49.9 45.6 15:46:36 52.4 45.6 45.6 70.3 16:11:36 70.0 70.3 70.3 58.1 15:57:36 59.6 58.1 58.1 52 15:59:36 51.1 52 52 46.2 15:46:39 52.4 46.2 46.2 72.3 16:11:39 70.1 72.3 72.3 55.5 15:57:39 59.6 55.5 55.5 49.8 15:59:39 51.1 49.8 49.8 46.4 15:46:42 52.4 46.4 46.4 72 16:11:42 70.1 72 72 54.3 15:57:42 59.6 54.3 54.3 52.2 15:59:42 51.0 52.2 52.2 46.4 15:46:45 51.8 46.4 46.4 72.1 16:11:45 70.0 72.1 72.1 55.4 15:57:45 59.6 55.4 55.4 52.2 15:59:45 51.0 52.2 52.2 46.7 15:46:48 51.6 46.7 46.7 70.6 16:11:48 70.0 70.6 70.6 51.2 15:57:48 59.6 51.2 51.2 53.9 15:59:48 51.1 53.9 53.9 47.3 15:46:51 51.6 47.3 47.3 70.5 16:11:51 70.0 70.5 70.5 52.8 15:57:51 59.6 52.8 52.8 52.2 15:59:51 51.1 52.2 52.2 47.1 15:46:54 51.2 47.1 47.1 69.3 16:11:54 70.0 69.3 69.3 50.6 15:57:54 59.6 50.6 50.6 54.5 15:59:54 51.1 54.5 54.5 46.7 15:46:57 50.7 46.7 46.7 67.6 16:11:57 70.0 67.6 67.6 52.4 15:57:57 59.6 52.4 52.4 50.8 15:59:57 51.1 50.8 50.8 47.2 15:47:00 50.7 47.2 47.2 69.4 16:12:00 70.0 69.4 69.4 53.9 15:58:00 59.6 53.9 53.9 51 16:00:00 51.1 51 51 47.3 15:47:03 50.7 47.3 47.3 68 16:12:03 70.0 68 68 57 15:58:03 59.6 57 57 50.2 16:00:03 51.1 50.2 50.2 47.2 15:47:06 50.6 47.2 47.2 67 16:12:06 70.0 67 67 57.4 15:58:06 59.6 57.4 57.4 50.5 16:00:06 51.1 50.5 50.5 46.3 15:47:09 50.6 46.3 46.3 67 16:12:09 70.0 67 67 60 15:58:09 59.6 60 60 49.3 16:00:09 51.2 49.3 49.3 46.4 15:47:12 50.5 46.4 46.4 66.6 16:12:12 70.0 66.6 66.6 61.2 15:58:12 59.6 61.2 61.2 50.9 16:00:12 51.2 50.9 50.9 45.9 15:47:15 50.5 45.9 45.9 68.4 16:12:15 70.0 68.4 68.4 60.8 15:58:15 59.6 60.8 60.8 48.6 16:00:15 51.1 48.6 48.6 45.9 15:47:18 50.5 45.9 45.9 76.6 16:12:18 70.0 76.6 76.6 61.9 15:58:18 59.6 61.9 61.9 48.8 16:00:18 51.1 48.8 48.8 46.6 15:47:21 50.6 46.6 46.6 80.2 16:12:21 70.0 80.2 80.2 62 15:58:21 59.6 62 62 50 16:00:21 51.1 50 50 46 15:47:24 50.6 46 46 71.7 16:12:24 70.1 71.7 71.7 61.8 15:58:24 59.6 61.8 61.8 49.4 16:00:24 51.1 49.4 49.4 48.4 15:47:27 50.5 48.4 48.4 70.4 16:12:27 70.0 70.4 70.4 60.7 15:58:27 59.6 60.7 60.7 49.3 16:00:27 51.2 49.3 49.3 48.5 15:47:30 50.5 48.5 48.5 70.4 16:12:30 70.0 70.4 70.4 58.7 15:58:30 59.6 58.7 58.7 49.5 16:00:30 51.2 49.5 49.5 47.5 15:47:33 50.5 47.5 47.5 69.9 16:12:33 70.0 69.9 69.9 56.7 15:58:33 59.6 56.7 56.7 47.7 16:00:33 51.2 47.7 47.7 48.6 15:47:36 50.5 48.6 48.6 70.3 16:12:36 70.1 70.3 70.3 56.2 15:58:36 59.6 56.2 56.2 46.5 16:00:36 51.2 46.5 46.5 48.4 15:47:39 50.5 48.4 48.4 68.8 16:12:39 70.0 68.8 68.8 54.8 15:58:39 59.6 54.8 54.8 47 16:00:39 51.2 47 47 47.9 15:47:42 50.5 47.9 47.9 70.3 16:12:42 70.0 70.3 70.3 53.1 15:58:42 59.6 53.1 53.1 48.7 16:00:42 51.2 48.7 48.7 47.9 15:47:45 50.5 47.9 47.9 70.4 16:12:45 70.0 70.4 70.4 54.7 15:58:45 59.6 54.7 54.7 50.2 16:00:45 51.2 50.2 50.2 48 15:47:48 50.5 48 48 69.2 16:12:48 70.0 69.2 69.2 57.8 15:58:48 59.6 57.8 57.8 50.9 16:00:48 51.2 50.9 50.9 49.1 15:47:51 50.5 49.1 49.1 67.4 16:12:51 70.0 67.4 67.4 56.9 15:58:51 59.6 56.9 56.9 50.7 16:00:51 51.2 50.7 50.7 50.4 15:47:54 50.5 50.4 50.4 64.2 16:12:54 70.0 64.2 64.2 59 15:58:54 59.5 59 59 51.6 16:00:54 51.2 51.6 51.6 50.7 15:47:57 50.5 50.7 50.7 63.7 16:12:57 70.0 63.7 63.7 58.9 15:58:57 59.5 58.9 58.9 51.1 16:00:57 51.2 51.1 51.1 50.6 15:48:00 50.5 50.6 50.6 59.4 16:13:00 70.0 59.4 59.4 55.5 15:59:00 59.5 55.5 55.5 50 16:01:00 51.2 50 50 50.5 15:48:03 50.5 50.5 50.5 65.3 16:13:03 70.0 65.3 65.3 53.2 15:59:03 59.5 53.2 53.2 50.4 16:01:03 51.2 50.4 50.4 48.8 15:48:06 50.5 48.8 48.8 69.3 16:13:06 70.1 69.3 69.3 53.3 15:59:06 59.5 53.3 53.3 50.3 16:01:06 51.2 50.3 50.3 49.2 15:48:09 50.5 49.2 49.2 70.7 16:13:09 70.1 70.7 70.7 52.3 15:59:09 59.4 52.3 52.3 50.3 16:01:09 51.2 50.3 50.3 48.6 15:48:12 50.5 48.6 48.6 73 16:13:12 70.1 73 73 54.2 15:59:12 59.0 54.2 54.2 51.1 16:01:12 51.2 51.1 51.1 48.9 15:48:15 50.4 48.9 48.9 71.4 16:13:15 70.1 71.4 71.4 54.2 15:59:15 58.7 54.2 54.2 49.7 16:01:15 51.2 49.7 49.7 47.6 15:48:18 50.4 47.6 47.6 69.6 16:13:18 70.1 69.6 69.6 54.6 15:59:18 58.5 54.6 54.6 49 16:01:18 51.2 49 49 46.4 15:48:21 50.4 46.4 46.4 70.2 16:13:21 70.1 70.2 70.2 53.6 15:59:21 58.5 53.6 53.6 49.5 16:01:21 51.2 49.5 49.5 47.3 15:48:24 50.4 47.3 47.3 71.7 16:13:24 70.1 71.7 71.7 54.7 15:59:24 58.5 54.7 54.7 49.8 16:01:24 51.2 49.8 49.8 47.7 15:48:27 50.4 47.7 47.7 73.8 16:13:27 70.1 73.8 73.8 57.3 15:59:27 58.5 57.3 57.3 50.2 16:01:27 51.3 50.2 50.2 Site D Site C Site DSite A Site A Site B Site B Site C SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (10 min. Avg.) Ldn CNEL Site C Site DSite A Site B 47.3 15:48:30 50.3 47.3 47.3 72.7 16:13:30 70.1 72.7 72.7 59.2 15:59:30 58.5 59.2 59.2 52.4 16:01:30 51.3 52.4 52.4 49.7 15:48:33 50.3 49.7 49.7 72.5 16:13:33 70.2 72.5 72.5 59.5 15:59:33 58.5 59.5 59.5 49.7 16:01:33 51.3 49.7 49.7 57 15:48:36 50.3 57 57 71.6 16:13:36 70.2 71.6 71.6 59.6 15:59:36 58.5 59.6 59.6 53.5 16:01:36 51.3 53.5 53.5 51.4 15:48:39 50.3 51.4 51.4 71.6 16:13:39 70.2 71.6 71.6 60.7 15:59:39 58.5 60.7 60.7 52.3 16:01:39 51.3 52.3 52.3 53.4 15:48:42 50.3 53.4 53.4 72.8 16:13:42 70.2 72.8 72.8 60.8 15:59:42 58.5 60.8 60.8 54.9 16:01:42 51.3 54.9 54.9 48.6 15:48:45 50.2 48.6 48.6 71.5 16:13:45 70.3 71.5 71.5 60.9 15:59:45 58.6 60.9 60.9 55.7 16:01:45 51.3 55.7 55.7 48.8 15:48:48 50.2 48.8 48.8 70.8 16:13:48 70.3 70.8 70.8 59.9 15:59:48 58.6 59.9 59.9 55.8 16:01:48 51.3 55.8 55.8 48.1 15:48:51 50.2 48.1 48.1 69.8 16:13:51 70.3 69.8 69.8 60.3 15:59:51 58.6 60.3 60.3 54.4 16:01:51 51.3 54.4 54.4 50.5 15:48:54 50.2 50.5 50.5 68.7 16:13:54 70.4 68.7 68.7 60.4 15:59:54 58.5 60.4 60.4 51.2 16:01:54 51.3 51.2 51.2 50 15:48:57 50.2 50 50 64.2 16:13:57 70.4 64.2 64.2 59.4 15:59:57 58.5 59.4 59.4 51.4 16:01:57 51.3 51.4 51.4 50.8 15:49:00 50.1 50.8 50.8 63.7 16:14:00 70.4 63.7 63.7 60.1 16:00:00 58.6 60.1 60.1 49.6 16:02:00 51.2 49.6 49.6 51.5 15:49:03 50.1 51.5 51.5 59.1 16:14:03 70.4 59.1 59.1 61.6 16:00:03 58.5 61.6 61.6 49.2 16:02:03 51.2 49.2 49.2 55 15:49:06 50.1 55 55 65 16:14:06 70.3 65 65 59.8 16:00:06 58.5 59.8 59.8 50.3 16:02:06 51.2 50.3 50.3 52.4 15:49:09 50.1 52.4 52.4 61.4 16:14:09 70.3 61.4 61.4 61 16:00:09 58.4 61 61 50.7 16:02:09 51.1 50.7 50.7 52.3 15:49:12 50.0 52.3 52.3 59.5 16:14:12 70.3 59.5 59.5 55.4 16:00:12 58.4 55.4 55.4 52.4 16:02:12 51.1 52.4 52.4 51.2 15:49:15 50.0 51.2 51.2 62.6 16:14:15 70.3 62.6 62.6 53.8 16:00:15 58.3 53.8 53.8 52.3 16:02:15 50.9 52.3 52.3 50.6 15:49:18 50.0 50.6 50.6 65.9 16:14:18 70.3 65.9 65.9 54.1 16:00:18 58.3 54.1 54.1 52.4 16:02:18 50.9 52.4 52.4 49.6 15:49:21 50.0 49.6 49.6 62.4 16:14:21 70.3 62.4 62.4 56.5 16:00:21 58.3 56.5 56.5 49.8 16:02:21 50.7 49.8 49.8 50.8 15:49:24 50.0 50.8 50.8 53.9 16:14:24 70.3 53.9 53.9 57.2 16:00:24 58.3 57.2 57.2 49.8 16:02:24 50.6 49.8 49.8 51.1 15:49:27 49.8 51.1 51.1 50.4 16:14:27 70.3 50.4 50.4 58 16:00:27 58.3 58 58 49.2 16:02:27 50.3 49.2 49.2 49.2 15:49:30 49.6 49.2 49.2 48.7 16:14:30 70.3 48.7 48.7 58.2 16:00:30 58.2 58.2 58.2 48.8 16:02:30 50.2 48.8 48.8 48.4 15:49:33 49.5 48.4 48.4 54.7 16:14:33 70.3 54.7 54.7 58.9 16:00:33 58.2 58.9 58.9 48.8 16:02:33 50.1 48.8 48.8 47.7 15:49:36 49.4 47.7 47.7 69.8 16:14:36 70.3 69.8 69.8 58.1 16:00:36 58.2 58.1 58.1 48.9 16:02:36 50.1 48.9 48.9 47.1 15:49:39 49.3 47.1 47.1 67.3 16:14:39 70.3 67.3 67.3 57.4 16:00:39 58.2 57.4 57.4 48.2 16:02:39 50.1 48.2 48.2 47.2 15:49:42 49.0 47.2 47.2 68.5 16:14:42 70.2 68.5 68.5 58.8 16:00:42 58.2 58.8 58.8 48.2 16:02:42 50.0 48.2 48.2 46.9 15:49:45 48.9 46.9 46.9 68.8 16:14:45 70.2 68.8 68.8 55.9 16:00:45 58.2 55.9 55.9 48 16:02:45 50.0 48 48 47.6 15:49:48 48.8 47.6 47.6 69.8 16:14:48 70.2 69.8 69.8 56.4 16:00:48 58.2 56.4 56.4 48.3 16:02:48 50.0 48.3 48.3 48 15:49:51 48.8 48 48 71.1 16:14:51 70.2 71.1 71.1 55.4 16:00:51 58.2 55.4 55.4 47.7 16:02:51 49.9 47.7 47.7 48.3 15:49:54 48.8 48.3 48.3 68.4 16:14:54 70.2 68.4 68.4 54.3 16:00:54 58.2 54.3 54.3 47.3 16:02:54 49.9 47.3 47.3 48.6 15:49:57 48.8 48.6 48.6 65.8 16:14:57 70.1 65.8 65.8 56.4 16:00:57 58.2 56.4 56.4 48.4 16:02:57 49.9 48.4 48.4 51 15:50:00 48.8 51 51 65.5 16:15:00 70.1 65.5 65.5 57 16:01:00 58.2 57 57 48.8 16:03:00 49.9 48.8 48.8 53.5 15:50:03 48.8 53.5 53.5 69.7 16:15:03 70.1 69.7 69.7 58.4 16:01:03 58.2 58.4 58.4 47.9 16:03:03 49.9 47.9 47.9 53.2 15:50:06 48.8 53.2 53.2 69.8 16:15:06 70.1 69.8 69.8 60 16:01:06 58.2 60 60 48.1 16:03:06 49.9 48.1 48.1 47.5 15:50:09 48.8 47.5 47.5 68.6 16:15:09 70.0 68.6 68.6 60.4 16:01:09 58.2 60.4 60.4 48.4 16:03:09 49.9 48.4 48.4 47 15:50:12 48.8 47 47 67.9 16:15:12 70.0 67.9 67.9 60.2 16:01:12 58.2 60.2 60.2 48.3 16:03:12 49.9 48.3 48.3 46.3 15:50:15 48.8 46.3 46.3 64.6 16:15:15 70.0 64.6 64.6 62.6 16:01:15 58.2 62.6 62.6 48.6 16:03:15 49.9 48.6 48.6 46.9 15:50:18 48.8 46.9 46.9 63 16:15:18 70.0 63 63 62.3 16:01:18 58.3 62.3 62.3 46.9 16:03:18 49.9 46.9 46.9 46.3 15:50:21 48.8 46.3 46.3 58.5 16:15:21 70.0 58.5 58.5 60.9 16:01:21 58.3 60.9 60.9 46.3 16:03:21 49.9 46.3 46.3 45.2 15:50:24 48.8 45.2 45.2 56.8 16:15:24 70.0 56.8 56.8 61.5 16:01:24 58.3 61.5 61.5 46.5 16:03:24 49.9 46.5 46.5 45.2 15:50:27 48.8 45.2 45.2 58.8 16:15:27 70.0 58.8 58.8 61.6 16:01:27 58.3 61.6 61.6 48.7 16:03:27 49.9 48.7 48.7 46.4 15:50:30 48.8 46.4 46.4 64 16:15:30 70.1 64 64 64.9 16:01:30 58.3 64.9 64.9 48 16:03:30 50.0 48 48 46.7 15:50:33 48.9 46.7 46.7 70.3 16:15:33 70.1 70.3 70.3 61.2 16:01:33 58.4 61.2 61.2 49.2 16:03:33 50.0 49.2 49.2 47 15:50:36 48.9 47 47 70.4 16:15:36 70.1 70.4 70.4 61.6 16:01:36 58.4 61.6 61.6 49 16:03:36 50.0 49 49 47.2 15:50:39 48.9 47.2 47.2 69.2 16:15:39 70.1 69.2 69.2 60.1 16:01:39 58.4 60.1 60.1 48.6 16:03:39 50.0 48.6 48.6 46.3 15:50:42 48.9 46.3 46.3 68 16:15:42 70.1 68 68 58.4 16:01:42 58.5 58.4 58.4 47.6 16:03:42 50.0 47.6 47.6 46.3 15:50:45 48.9 46.3 46.3 71 16:15:45 70.1 71 71 58.2 16:01:45 58.5 58.2 58.2 46 16:03:45 50.0 46 46 45.6 15:50:48 48.9 45.6 45.6 72.5 16:15:48 70.1 72.5 72.5 59.4 16:01:48 58.6 59.4 59.4 45.6 16:03:48 50.0 45.6 45.6 45.3 15:50:51 49.0 45.3 45.3 74.4 16:15:51 70.2 74.4 74.4 58.9 16:01:51 58.6 58.9 58.9 45.1 16:03:51 50.0 45.1 45.1 44.9 15:50:54 49.0 44.9 44.9 73.3 16:15:54 70.2 73.3 73.3 58 16:01:54 58.6 58 58 45.7 16:03:54 50.0 45.7 45.7 44.1 15:50:57 49.0 44.1 44.1 73.2 16:15:57 70.2 73.2 73.2 59.8 16:01:57 58.6 59.8 59.8 45.7 16:03:57 50.0 45.7 45.7 45.6 15:51:00 49.1 45.6 45.6 71.2 16:16:00 70.1 71.2 71.2 58.4 16:02:00 58.6 58.4 58.4 48.3 16:04:00 50.0 48.3 48.3 45.2 15:51:03 49.2 45.2 45.2 69.4 16:16:03 70.1 69.4 69.4 58.8 16:02:03 58.6 58.8 58.8 47.1 16:04:03 50.0 47.1 47.1 44.3 15:51:06 49.2 44.3 44.3 67 16:16:06 70.1 67 67 53.1 16:02:06 58.6 53.1 53.1 51.8 16:04:06 50.0 51.8 51.8 48.4 15:51:09 49.4 48.4 48.4 63.3 16:16:09 70.1 63.3 63.3 57 16:02:09 58.6 57 57 52.5 16:04:09 50.0 52.5 52.5 46.6 15:51:12 49.7 46.6 46.6 69.2 16:16:12 70.1 69.2 69.2 50.7 16:02:12 58.6 50.7 50.7 50.9 16:04:12 50.0 50.9 50.9 46.3 15:51:15 50.1 46.3 46.3 69.4 16:16:15 70.1 69.4 69.4 58.2 16:02:15 58.6 58.2 58.2 50 16:04:15 50.0 50 50 46.5 15:51:18 50.5 46.5 46.5 68.5 16:16:18 70.1 68.5 68.5 59.7 16:02:18 58.6 59.7 59.7 49.2 16:04:18 50.0 49.2 49.2 47 15:51:21 51.3 47 47 71.4 16:16:21 70.1 71.4 71.4 41.1 16:02:21 58.6 41.1 41.1 47.8 16:04:21 49.9 47.8 47.8 47.8 15:51:24 51.8 47.8 47.8 73.9 16:16:24 70.2 73.9 73.9 59.4 16:02:24 58.6 59.4 59.4 48.1 16:04:24 49.9 48.1 48.1 52 15:51:27 52.3 52 52 72.3 16:16:27 70.2 72.3 72.3 52 16:02:27 58.6 52 52 47.2 16:04:27 49.9 47.2 47.2 53.6 15:51:30 52.6 53.6 53.6 72.4 16:16:30 70.2 72.4 72.4 57.2 16:02:30 58.6 57.2 57.2 47 16:04:30 49.9 47 47 52.9 15:51:33 52.8 52.9 52.9 71.6 16:16:33 70.2 71.6 71.6 55.4 16:02:33 58.6 55.4 55.4 47.3 16:04:33 49.9 47.3 47.3 52.2 15:51:36 52.9 52.2 52.2 72.4 16:16:36 70.2 72.4 72.4 57.2 16:02:36 58.6 57.2 57.2 48.3 16:04:36 49.9 48.3 48.3 52 15:51:39 52.9 52 52 72 16:16:39 70.2 72 72 56.3 16:02:39 58.6 56.3 56.3 50.5 16:04:39 49.9 50.5 50.5 52.3 15:51:42 52.9 52.3 52.3 71.8 16:16:42 70.2 71.8 71.8 54.1 16:02:42 58.6 54.1 54.1 49.9 16:04:42 49.9 49.9 49.9 52.8 15:51:45 53.0 52.8 52.8 72.7 16:16:45 70.2 72.7 72.7 56.3 16:02:45 58.6 56.3 56.3 49.5 16:04:45 49.9 49.5 49.5 51.7 15:51:48 53.0 51.7 51.7 71.6 16:16:48 70.1 71.6 71.6 56.7 16:02:48 58.6 56.7 56.7 48.6 16:04:48 49.8 48.6 48.6 51.6 15:51:51 53.0 51.6 51.6 71.3 16:16:51 70.1 71.3 71.3 58.1 16:02:51 58.6 58.1 58.1 49.8 16:04:51 49.8 49.8 49.8 51.4 15:51:54 53.0 51.4 51.4 66.2 16:16:54 70.2 66.2 66.2 55.8 16:02:54 58.6 55.8 55.8 49.6 16:04:54 49.8 49.6 49.6 51.2 15:51:57 53.1 51.2 51.2 61.3 16:16:57 70.2 61.3 61.3 58.1 16:02:57 58.6 58.1 58.1 51 16:04:57 49.7 51 51 51.7 15:52:00 53.1 51.7 51.7 58.1 16:17:00 70.3 58.1 58.1 59 16:03:00 58.7 59 59 50.7 16:05:00 49.7 50.7 50.7 48.4 15:52:03 53.1 48.4 48.4 63.4 16:17:03 70.3 63.4 63.4 61.4 16:03:03 58.7 61.4 61.4 51.4 16:05:03 49.7 51.4 51.4 47.6 15:52:06 53.1 47.6 47.6 65.4 16:17:06 70.3 65.4 65.4 55.7 16:03:06 58.7 55.7 55.7 50.2 16:05:06 49.6 50.2 50.2 47.2 15:52:09 53.1 47.2 47.2 62.8 16:17:09 70.3 62.8 62.8 53.7 16:03:09 58.7 53.7 53.7 51.4 16:05:09 49.6 51.4 51.4 49.1 15:52:12 53.1 49.1 49.1 61 16:17:12 70.3 61 61 57.2 16:03:12 58.7 57.2 57.2 51.2 16:05:12 49.6 51.2 51.2 49.6 15:52:15 53.1 49.6 49.6 69.6 16:17:15 70.3 69.6 69.6 58.4 16:03:15 58.6 58.4 58.4 50.3 16:05:15 49.6 50.3 50.3 49.4 15:52:18 53.1 49.4 49.4 73.2 16:17:18 70.1 73.2 73.2 57.6 16:03:18 58.6 57.6 57.6 52.3 16:05:18 49.6 52.3 52.3 48.5 15:52:21 53.1 48.5 48.5 72 16:17:21 70.1 72 72 57.8 16:03:21 58.6 57.8 57.8 54.1 16:05:21 49.6 54.1 54.1 48.4 15:52:24 53.1 48.4 48.4 71.3 16:17:24 70.1 71.3 71.3 58.6 16:03:24 58.5 58.6 58.6 53.4 16:05:24 49.6 53.4 53.4 48.3 15:52:27 53.1 48.3 48.3 71.3 16:17:27 70.1 71.3 71.3 60.5 16:03:27 58.5 60.5 60.5 51.6 16:05:27 49.6 51.6 51.6 48.2 15:52:30 53.1 48.2 48.2 68.5 16:17:30 70.1 68.5 68.5 58.5 16:03:30 58.5 58.5 58.5 55.1 16:05:30 49.6 55.1 55.1 49.5 15:52:33 53.1 49.5 49.5 69 16:17:33 70.1 69 69 59.3 16:03:33 58.5 59.3 59.3 49.8 16:05:33 49.6 49.8 49.8 50.7 15:52:36 53.1 50.7 50.7 72.9 16:17:36 70.1 72.9 72.9 59.2 16:03:36 58.5 59.2 59.2 48.6 16:05:36 49.6 48.6 48.6 48.1 15:52:39 53.1 48.1 48.1 70.9 16:17:39 70.0 70.9 70.9 40.3 16:03:39 58.5 40.3 40.3 49.3 16:05:39 49.6 49.3 49.3 46.6 15:52:42 53.1 46.6 46.6 69.9 16:17:42 70.0 69.9 69.9 40.4 16:03:42 58.5 40.4 40.4 48.4 16:05:42 49.6 48.4 48.4 46.3 15:52:45 53.1 46.3 46.3 66.6 16:17:45 70.0 66.6 66.6 40.1 16:03:45 58.5 40.1 40.1 49.4 16:05:45 49.6 49.4 49.4 46.5 15:52:48 53.1 46.5 46.5 66.2 16:17:48 70.0 66.2 66.2 58.8 16:03:48 58.6 58.8 58.8 50.3 16:05:48 49.6 50.3 50.3 45.9 15:52:51 53.1 45.9 45.9 68.8 16:17:51 70.0 68.8 68.8 59.7 16:03:51 58.6 59.7 59.7 49.8 16:05:51 49.6 49.8 49.8 47.7 15:52:54 53.1 47.7 47.7 71.7 16:17:54 70.0 71.7 71.7 58.8 16:03:54 58.6 58.8 58.8 51.1 16:05:54 49.5 51.1 51.1 47.6 15:52:57 53.1 47.6 47.6 69.1 16:17:57 70.1 69.1 69.1 59 16:03:57 58.6 59 59 50.2 16:05:57 49.5 50.2 50.2 46.8 15:53:00 53.1 46.8 46.8 67.6 16:18:00 70.1 67.6 67.6 57.4 16:04:00 58.6 57.4 57.4 49.1 16:06:00 49.5 49.1 49.1 47.6 15:53:03 53.1 47.6 47.6 68.9 16:18:03 70.1 68.9 68.9 59.1 16:04:03 58.6 59.1 59.1 49.7 16:06:03 49.5 49.7 49.7 48.5 15:53:06 53.1 48.5 48.5 70.2 16:18:06 70.1 70.2 70.2 58.5 16:04:06 58.7 58.5 58.5 49.2 16:06:06 49.5 49.2 49.2 47.3 15:53:09 53.1 47.3 47.3 71.1 16:18:09 70.0 71.1 71.1 56.1 16:04:09 58.7 56.1 56.1 49 16:06:09 49.4 49 49 48 15:53:12 53.1 48 48 69.7 16:18:12 70.0 69.7 69.7 56 16:04:12 58.7 56 56 46.7 16:06:12 49.4 46.7 46.7 46.2 15:53:15 53.1 46.2 46.2 70.2 16:18:15 70.0 70.2 70.2 56.5 16:04:15 58.7 56.5 56.5 48.2 16:06:15 49.4 48.2 48.2 47 15:53:18 53.1 47 47 72.2 16:18:18 70.0 72.2 72.2 58 16:04:18 58.7 58 58 47.9 16:06:18 49.4 47.9 47.9 45.4 15:53:21 53.1 45.4 45.4 71.4 16:18:21 70.1 71.4 71.4 58.3 16:04:21 58.8 58.3 58.3 49.4 16:06:21 49.4 49.4 49.4 46.6 15:53:24 53.1 46.6 46.6 70.6 16:18:24 70.1 70.6 70.6 59 16:04:24 58.8 59 59 50 16:06:24 49.4 50 50 46.4 15:53:27 53.1 46.4 46.4 72.9 16:18:27 70.0 72.9 72.9 59.3 16:04:27 58.8 59.3 59.3 49.7 16:06:27 49.4 49.7 49.7 46.5 15:53:30 53.1 46.5 46.5 71.8 16:18:30 70.0 71.8 71.8 58.9 16:04:30 58.8 58.9 58.9 50.4 16:06:30 49.4 50.4 50.4 47 15:53:33 53.1 47 47 73.5 16:18:33 70.0 73.5 73.5 59.7 16:04:33 58.8 59.7 59.7 50.6 16:06:33 49.4 50.6 50.6 46.2 15:53:36 53.1 46.2 46.2 74 16:18:36 70.0 74 74 58.8 16:04:36 58.8 58.8 58.8 50.1 16:06:36 49.4 50.1 50.1 46.3 15:53:39 53.1 46.3 46.3 74.2 16:18:39 70.0 74.2 74.2 57.7 16:04:39 58.8 57.7 57.7 49.9 16:06:39 49.4 49.9 49.9 48.4 15:53:42 53.0 48.4 48.4 71.4 16:18:42 70.0 71.4 71.4 58.1 16:04:42 58.8 58.1 58.1 47.8 16:06:42 49.3 47.8 47.8 48.9 15:53:45 53.0 48.9 48.9 71.7 16:18:45 69.9 71.7 71.7 54.6 16:04:45 58.7 54.6 54.6 48.5 16:06:45 49.3 48.5 48.5 46.5 15:53:48 53.0 46.5 46.5 73 16:18:48 69.9 73 73 53.9 16:04:48 58.7 53.9 53.9 49.5 16:06:48 49.2 49.5 49.5 46.2 15:53:51 53.0 46.2 46.2 73.2 16:18:51 69.9 73.2 73.2 53.5 16:04:51 58.7 53.5 53.5 47.8 16:06:51 49.1 47.8 47.8 47.5 15:53:54 53.0 47.5 47.5 73.3 16:18:54 69.9 73.3 73.3 56.1 16:04:54 58.7 56.1 56.1 47.9 16:06:54 49.1 47.9 47.9 46.8 15:53:57 53.0 46.8 46.8 71.2 16:18:57 69.9 71.2 71.2 57.9 16:04:57 58.7 57.9 57.9 46.2 16:06:57 49.1 46.2 46.2 47 15:54:00 53.1 47 47 71.4 16:19:00 70.0 71.4 71.4 59.2 16:05:00 58.7 59.2 59.2 45.7 16:07:00 49.0 45.7 45.7 46.6 15:54:03 53.1 46.6 46.6 70.9 16:19:03 70.0 70.9 70.9 40.5 16:05:03 58.7 40.5 40.5 45.6 16:07:03 49.0 45.6 45.6 46.3 15:54:06 53.0 46.3 46.3 65.7 16:19:06 70.1 65.7 65.7 59.4 16:05:06 58.7 59.4 59.4 46 16:07:06 49.1 46 46 46.6 15:54:09 53.0 46.6 46.6 58.3 16:19:09 70.1 58.3 58.3 42.1 16:05:09 58.7 42.1 42.1 45 16:07:09 49.1 45 45 47.5 15:54:12 53.0 47.5 47.5 56.9 16:19:12 70.1 56.9 56.9 41.2 16:05:12 58.7 41.2 41.2 45.2 16:07:12 49.1 45.2 45.2 48.7 15:54:15 53.0 48.7 48.7 66.2 16:19:15 70.2 66.2 66.2 59.3 16:05:15 58.7 59.3 59.3 46.2 16:07:15 49.1 46.2 46.2 50.2 15:54:18 53.0 50.2 50.2 60 16:19:18 70.2 60 60 58.8 16:05:18 58.7 58.8 58.8 48.7 16:07:18 49.1 48.7 48.7 49.8 15:54:21 53.0 49.8 49.8 65.6 16:19:21 70.2 65.6 65.6 57.3 16:05:21 58.7 57.3 57.3 48.6 16:07:21 49.1 48.6 48.6 48.5 15:54:24 53.0 48.5 48.5 64.2 16:19:24 70.2 64.2 64.2 55.3 16:05:24 58.8 55.3 55.3 48.2 16:07:24 49.1 48.2 48.2 47.2 15:54:27 53.0 47.2 47.2 62.5 16:19:27 70.2 62.5 62.5 56 16:05:27 58.8 56 56 47.4 16:07:27 49.1 47.4 47.4 47.8 15:54:30 53.0 47.8 47.8 63.2 16:19:30 70.2 63.2 63.2 57.4 16:05:30 58.7 57.4 57.4 49.2 16:07:30 49.1 49.2 49.2 48 15:54:33 53.0 48 48 63.3 16:19:33 70.2 63.3 63.3 57.4 16:05:33 58.8 57.4 57.4 48.9 16:07:33 49.1 48.9 48.9 47 15:54:36 53.0 47 47 57.6 16:19:36 70.2 57.6 57.6 56.5 16:05:36 58.7 56.5 56.5 49 16:07:36 49.1 49 49 46.1 15:54:39 53.0 46.1 46.1 55 16:19:39 70.2 55 55 57.4 16:05:39 58.8 57.4 57.4 49.2 16:07:39 49.1 49.2 49.2 46.4 15:54:42 53.0 46.4 46.4 55.1 16:19:42 70.2 55.1 55.1 59.1 16:05:42 58.8 59.1 59.1 46.4 16:07:42 49.1 46.4 46.4 47.4 15:54:45 53.0 47.4 47.4 61.6 16:19:45 70.2 61.6 61.6 58.3 16:05:45 58.8 58.3 58.3 46.6 16:07:45 49.1 46.6 46.6 47.8 15:54:48 53.0 47.8 47.8 70.4 16:19:48 70.2 70.4 70.4 58.1 16:05:48 58.8 58.1 58.1 46 16:07:48 49.1 46 46 49.2 15:54:51 53.0 49.2 49.2 69.4 16:19:51 70.2 69.4 69.4 58 16:05:51 58.8 58 58 46.3 16:07:51 49.1 46.3 46.3 47.6 15:54:54 53.0 47.6 47.6 66.2 16:19:54 70.2 66.2 66.2 57.8 16:05:54 58.8 57.8 57.8 45.5 16:07:54 49.1 45.5 45.5 46.7 15:54:57 53.0 46.7 46.7 68.2 16:19:57 70.3 68.2 68.2 57.8 16:05:57 58.8 57.8 57.8 45.3 16:07:57 49.1 45.3 45.3 46.7 15:55:00 53.0 46.7 46.7 71.9 16:20:00 70.3 71.9 71.9 59.2 16:06:00 58.8 59.2 59.2 47.8 16:08:00 49.2 47.8 47.8 47.4 15:55:03 53.0 47.4 47.4 70.4 16:20:03 70.3 70.4 70.4 58.7 16:06:03 58.8 58.7 58.7 48.7 16:08:03 49.2 48.7 48.7 53.5 15:55:06 53.0 53.5 53.5 69.4 16:20:06 70.3 69.4 69.4 59.6 16:06:06 58.8 59.6 59.6 48.5 16:08:06 49.3 48.5 48.5 48.5 15:55:09 53.0 48.5 48.5 70.2 16:20:09 70.3 70.2 70.2 58.6 16:06:09 58.8 58.6 58.6 51 16:08:09 49.3 51 51 48.2 15:55:12 53.1 48.2 48.2 69.6 16:20:12 70.4 69.6 69.6 59.1 16:06:12 58.8 59.1 59.1 52.5 16:08:12 49.4 52.5 52.5 49.5 15:55:15 53.1 49.5 49.5 69.4 16:20:15 70.4 69.4 69.4 60 16:06:15 58.8 60 60 50.7 16:08:15 49.5 50.7 50.7 51.3 15:55:18 53.1 51.3 51.3 68.4 16:20:18 70.4 68.4 68.4 60 16:06:18 58.7 60 60 50.9 16:08:18 49.5 50.9 50.9 51.2 15:55:21 53.1 51.2 51.2 63.3 16:20:21 70.4 63.3 63.3 58.8 16:06:21 58.7 58.8 58.8 51.4 16:08:21 49.6 51.4 51.4 50.3 15:55:24 53.1 50.3 50.3 65.3 16:20:24 70.4 65.3 65.3 60.3 16:06:24 58.7 60.3 60.3 51.3 16:08:24 49.7 51.3 51.3 49.4 15:55:27 53.1 49.4 49.4 71 16:20:27 70.4 71 71 61.7 16:06:27 58.6 61.7 61.7 50.3 16:08:27 49.7 50.3 50.3 49.4 15:55:30 53.1 49.4 49.4 72.8 16:20:30 70.4 72.8 72.8 62.6 16:06:30 58.6 62.6 62.6 51.1 16:08:30 49.7 51.1 51.1 48.4 15:55:33 53.1 48.4 48.4 71.2 16:20:33 70.4 71.2 71.2 62.7 16:06:33 58.5 62.7 62.7 49.9 16:08:33 49.7 49.9 49.9 49.5 15:55:36 53.1 49.5 49.5 70.4 16:20:36 70.4 70.4 70.4 62.2 16:06:36 58.5 62.2 62.2 49.6 16:08:36 49.7 49.6 49.6 50.1 15:55:39 53.1 50.1 50.1 69.7 16:20:39 70.4 69.7 69.7 63 16:06:39 58.5 63 63 50.2 16:08:39 49.7 50.2 50.2 50.4 15:55:42 53.1 50.4 50.4 70.7 16:20:42 70.4 70.7 70.7 62 16:06:42 58.5 62 62 49.7 16:08:42 49.8 49.7 49.7 52.2 15:55:45 53.1 52.2 52.2 70 16:20:45 70.3 70 70 60.8 16:06:45 58.5 60.8 60.8 47.9 16:08:45 49.8 47.9 47.9 54.6 15:55:48 53.2 54.6 54.6 70.6 16:20:48 70.3 70.6 70.6 60.8 16:06:48 58.5 60.8 60.8 48.2 16:08:48 49.8 48.2 48.2 53 15:55:51 53.2 53 53 72.2 16:20:51 70.3 72.2 72.2 60.4 16:06:51 58.5 60.4 60.4 48 16:08:51 49.8 48 48 50.9 15:55:54 53.2 50.9 50.9 70.1 16:20:54 70.2 70.1 70.1 60.1 16:06:54 58.5 60.1 60.1 48.2 16:08:54 49.8 48.2 48.2 54.5 15:55:57 53.2 54.5 54.5 69.3 16:20:57 70.2 69.3 69.3 59.6 16:06:57 58.5 59.6 59.6 48.4 16:08:57 49.8 48.4 48.4 57.1 15:56:00 53.2 57.1 57.1 67.7 16:21:00 70.2 67.7 67.7 59.2 16:07:00 58.5 59.2 59.2 48.6 16:09:00 49.8 48.6 48.6 53.4 15:56:03 53.2 53.4 53.4 67.4 16:21:03 70.2 67.4 67.4 59.4 16:07:03 58.5 59.4 59.4 46 16:09:03 49.8 46 46 56.9 15:56:06 53.2 56.9 56.9 64.5 16:21:06 70.2 64.5 64.5 59.2 16:07:06 58.5 59.2 59.2 46.4 16:09:06 49.8 46.4 46.4 61.7 15:56:09 53.2 61.7 61.7 64.2 16:21:09 70.2 64.2 64.2 59.8 16:07:09 58.5 59.8 59.8 45.8 16:09:09 49.8 45.8 45.8 63 15:56:12 53.2 63 63 71.2 16:21:12 70.2 71.2 71.2 59.5 16:07:12 58.5 59.5 59.5 45.8 16:09:12 49.8 45.8 45.8 63 15:56:15 53.2 63 63 69.4 16:21:15 70.2 69.4 69.4 58.9 16:07:15 58.5 58.9 58.9 46.7 16:09:15 49.7 46.7 46.7 66.7 15:56:18 53.2 66.7 66.7 70.4 16:21:18 70.2 70.4 70.4 60.5 16:07:18 58.5 60.5 60.5 49 16:09:18 49.7 49 49 65.1 15:56:21 53.2 65.1 65.1 74.6 16:21:21 70.2 74.6 74.6 60.3 16:07:21 58.5 60.3 60.3 48.9 16:09:21 49.7 48.9 48.9 66 15:56:24 53.2 66 66 74.8 16:21:24 70.2 74.8 74.8 59.7 16:07:24 58.5 59.7 59.7 47.1 16:09:24 49.7 47.1 47.1 62.9 15:56:27 53.2 62.9 62.9 74.4 16:21:27 70.2 74.4 74.4 58.7 16:07:27 58.6 58.7 58.7 47.8 16:09:27 49.7 47.8 47.8 63.6 15:56:30 53.2 63.6 63.6 72.6 16:21:30 70.2 72.6 72.6 56.5 16:07:30 58.6 56.5 56.5 48.3 16:09:30 49.7 48.3 48.3 56.1 15:56:33 53.1 56.1 56.1 74.7 16:21:33 70.2 74.7 74.7 57.1 16:07:33 58.7 57.1 57.1 48.3 16:09:33 49.7 48.3 48.3 54.6 15:56:36 53.1 54.6 54.6 73.6 16:21:36 70.2 73.6 73.6 57.5 16:07:36 58.7 57.5 57.5 48.9 16:09:36 49.7 48.9 48.9 56 15:56:39 53.1 56 56 68.6 16:21:39 70.2 68.6 68.6 55.7 16:07:39 58.8 55.7 55.7 47.9 16:09:39 49.7 47.9 47.9 51.4 15:56:42 53.1 51.4 51.4 65.5 16:21:42 70.2 65.5 65.5 55.9 16:07:42 58.8 55.9 55.9 47.5 16:09:42 49.7 47.5 47.5 50.3 15:56:45 53.1 50.3 50.3 61.2 16:21:45 70.2 61.2 61.2 56.6 16:07:45 58.8 56.6 56.6 49.1 16:09:45 49.7 49.1 49.1 50.2 15:56:48 53.1 50.2 50.2 68.5 16:21:48 70.2 68.5 68.5 56.4 16:07:48 58.9 56.4 56.4 48.6 16:09:48 49.7 48.6 48.6 57.2 15:56:51 53.1 57.2 57.2 68.1 16:21:51 70.2 68.1 68.1 57.3 16:07:51 58.9 57.3 57.3 47.3 16:09:51 49.7 47.3 47.3 58.8 15:56:54 53.1 58.8 58.8 69.7 16:21:54 70.2 69.7 69.7 57.3 16:07:54 58.9 57.3 57.3 47.2 16:09:54 49.7 47.2 47.2 53.6 15:56:57 53.0 53.6 53.6 71.4 16:21:57 70.2 71.4 71.4 59.5 16:07:57 58.9 59.5 59.5 46.5 16:09:57 49.8 46.5 46.5 51.4 15:57:00 53.0 51.4 51.4 75.2 16:22:00 70.2 75.2 75.2 58.1 16:08:00 58.9 58.1 58.1 45.6 16:10:00 49.8 45.6 45.6 50 15:57:03 53.0 50 50 73.9 16:22:03 70.2 73.9 73.9 56.9 16:08:03 58.9 56.9 56.9 46.2 16:10:03 49.8 46.2 46.2 49.5 15:57:06 53.0 49.5 49.5 70.6 16:22:06 70.2 70.6 70.6 55.7 16:08:06 58.9 55.7 55.7 46.9 16:10:06 49.8 46.9 46.9 47.7 15:57:09 53.0 47.7 47.7 72.3 16:22:09 70.3 72.3 72.3 55.8 16:08:09 58.9 55.8 55.8 46.7 16:10:09 49.8 46.7 46.7 47.8 15:57:12 53.0 47.8 47.8 71.9 16:22:12 70.3 71.9 71.9 53.3 16:08:12 58.9 53.3 53.3 46.3 16:10:12 49.8 46.3 46.3 47.4 15:57:15 53.0 47.4 47.4 72.5 16:22:15 70.3 72.5 72.5 53.5 16:08:15 58.9 53.5 53.5 46.7 16:10:15 49.8 46.7 46.7 48 15:57:18 53.0 48 48 75 16:22:18 70.2 75 75 54.2 16:08:18 58.9 54.2 54.2 46.7 16:10:18 49.9 46.7 46.7 47.7 15:57:21 53.0 47.7 47.7 73.9 16:22:21 70.2 73.9 73.9 56.5 16:08:21 58.9 56.5 56.5 46.7 16:10:21 49.9 46.7 46.7 48.4 15:57:24 53.0 48.4 48.4 71.1 16:22:24 70.2 71.1 71.1 58.2 16:08:24 58.9 58.2 58.2 46.8 16:10:24 49.9 46.8 46.8 48 15:57:27 53.0 48 48 67.9 16:22:27 70.2 67.9 67.9 56.4 16:08:27 58.9 56.4 56.4 46.7 16:10:27 49.9 46.7 46.7 47.8 15:57:30 53.0 47.8 47.8 64.5 16:22:30 70.2 64.5 64.5 59.5 16:08:30 58.9 59.5 59.5 46.8 16:10:30 49.9 46.8 46.8     Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Appendix  B        APPENDIX B    RCNM Model Construction Noise Calculation Printouts  Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 5/8/2020 Case Description: Orange TTM No 18163 - Site Preparation ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Nearest Homes to North Residential 50 50 50 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dozer No 40 81.7 80 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 130 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 180 0 Tractor No 40 84 230 0 Tractor No 40 84 280 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 380 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Dozer 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 73.4 69.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 70.5 66.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 70.7 66.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 69.0 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 67.6 63.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 66.4 62.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 78 77 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 5/8/2020 Case Description: Orange TTM No 18163 - Grading ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Nearest Homes to North Residential 50 50 50 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 80 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 130 0 Grader No 40 85 180 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 230 0 Scraper No 40 83.6 280 0 Scraper No 40 83.6 330 0 Scraper No 40 83.6 380 0 Tractor No 40 84 430 0 Tractor No 40 84 480 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 72.4 68.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Grader 73.9 69.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 68.4 64.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 68.6 64.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 67.2 63.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 66.0 62.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 65.3 61.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 64.4 60.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77 77 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 5/8/2020 Case Description: Orange TTM No 18163 - Building Construction ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Nearest Homes to North Residential 50 50 50 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Crane No 16 80.6 80 0 Gradall No 40 83.4 130 0 Gradall No 40 83.4 180 0 Generator No 50 80.6 230 0 Tractor No 40 84 280 0 Tractor No 40 84 330 0 Tractor No 40 84 380 0 Welder / Torch No 40 74 430 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 76.5 68.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Gradall 75.1 71.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Gradall 72.3 68.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 67.4 64.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 69.0 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 67.6 63.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 66.4 62.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 55.3 51.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 5/8/2020 Case Description: Orange TTM No 18163 - Paving ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Nearest Homes to North Residential 50 50 50.0 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Paver No 50 77.2 60 0 Paver No 50 77.2 110 0 Paver No 50 77.2 160 0 Paver No 50 77.2 210 0 Roller No 20 80 260 0 Roller No 20 80 310 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Paver 75.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 70.4 67.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 67.1 64.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 64.8 61.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 65.7 58.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 64.2 57.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 76 75 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 5/8/2020 Case Description: Orange TTM No 18163 - Painting ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Nearest Homes to North Residential 50.0 50.0 50.0 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 100 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Compressor (air) 71.6 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 72 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.     Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project, Noise Impact Analysis  City of Orange   Appendix  C        APPENDIX C    FHWA Model Offsite Traffic Noise Calculations Printouts       Scenario: EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163Vehicle Type DayEvening NightDailyDayEvening NightDailyAutomobiles 72.75% 7.76% 16.49% 97.00% 73.60% 13.60% 10.22% 97.40%Site Conditions: SoftMedium Trucks 1.50% 0.16% 0.34% 2.00% 0.90% 0.90% 0.04% 1.84%Heavy Trucks 0.75% 0.08% 0.17% 1.00% 0.35% 0.04% 0.35% 0.74%Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: North of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 20776 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 0.75 -3.04 -1.20 67.63 65.45 61.75 60.26 67.72 68.01 70 dBA:64 66Medium Trucks 78.79 -16.11 -3.04 -1.20 58.44 39.41 35.71 34.21 41.68 41.97 65 dBA:137 143Heavy Trucks 83.02 -19.12 -3.04 -1.20 59.66 37.62 33.92 32.42 39.89 40.17 60 dBA:295 309Total:68.70 65.47 61.77 60.27 67.74 68.0355 dBA:636 665Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 40981 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 4.16 -1.99 -1.20 70.31 68.14 64.44 62.94 70.41 70.69 70 dBA:85 89Medium Trucks 77.62 -13.16 -1.99 -1.20 61.27 42.70 39.00 37.50 44.97 45.26 65 dBA:184 192Heavy Trucks 82.14 -15.71 -1.99 -1.20 63.24 41.20 37.50 36.00 43.47 43.75 60 dBA:396 414Total:71.52 68.16 64.46 62.96 70.43 70.7155 dBA:854 893Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Taft AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 32753 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 3.18 1.22 -1.20 72.55 70.38 66.68 65.18 72.65 72.93 70 dBA:90 94Medium Trucks 77.62 -14.13 1.22 -1.20 63.51 44.94 41.24 39.74 47.21 47.50 65 dBA:195 203Heavy Trucks 82.14 -16.68 1.22 -1.20 65.48 43.44 39.74 38.24 45.71 46.00 60 dBA:419 438Total:73.76 70.40 66.70 65.20 72.67 72.9655 dBA:904 944Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 40.79 ft)FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELNOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Vehicle Mix (City of Orange GP) Vehicle Mix (Collector or local) Scenario: EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Santiago Canyon RoadAverage Daily Traffic: 9610 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Secondary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -1.05 1.12 -1.20 63.98 61.81 58.11 56.61 64.08 64.37 70 dBA:20 21Medium Trucks 74.83 -19.46 1.12 -1.20 55.29 37.81 34.11 32.61 40.08 40.37 65 dBA:44 46Heavy Trucks 80.05 -20.92 1.12 -1.20 59.05 37.01 33.31 31.81 39.28 39.57 60 dBA:94 98Total:65.61 61.84 58.14 56.64 64.11 64.4055 dBA:202 212Road Name: MT McKinley Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1480 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.71 -0.06 -1.20 50.47 48.30 44.60 43.10 50.57 50.85 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.58 -0.06 -1.20 42.25 26.23 22.53 21.03 28.50 28.79 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.58 -0.06 -1.20 49.90 27.86 24.16 22.66 30.13 30.42 60 dBA:12 12Total:53.54 48.36 44.66 43.17 50.63 50.9255 dBA:26 27Road Name:Yellowstone Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1510 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.63 0.64 -1.20 51.25 49.08 45.38 43.88 51.35 51.64 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.50 0.64 -1.20 43.03 27.01 23.31 21.82 29.28 29.57 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.50 0.64 -1.20 50.69 28.65 24.95 23.45 30.92 31.20 60 dBA:12 13Total:54.33 49.15 45.45 43.95 51.42 51.7055 dBA:26 27Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of MT McKinley BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 24050 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.35 -1.36 -1.20 67.15 64.98 61.28 59.78 67.25 67.54 70 dBA:46 48Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.47 -1.36 -1.20 58.28 40.22 36.52 35.02 42.49 42.78 65 dBA:99 104Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.51 -1.36 -1.20 61.09 39.05 35.35 33.85 41.32 41.60 60 dBA:214 224Total:68.54 65.01 61.31 59.81 67.28 67.5655 dBA:461 482Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 41.42 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 49.64 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 45 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 44.6 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 70 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 60.62 ft) Scenario: EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 23030 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.16 2.09 -1.20 70.41 68.24 64.54 63.04 70.51 70.80 70 dBA:54 57Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.66 2.09 -1.20 61.54 43.48 39.78 38.28 45.75 46.04 65 dBA:117 122Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.70 2.09 -1.20 64.35 42.31 38.61 37.11 44.58 44.86 60 dBA:252 263Total:71.80 68.27 64.57 63.07 70.54 70.8255 dBA:543 567Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: East of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 21970 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 1.96 0.06 -1.20 68.18 66.01 62.31 60.81 68.28 68.57 70 dBA:46 48Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.87 0.06 -1.20 59.31 41.25 37.55 36.05 43.52 43.81 65 dBA:100 104Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.91 0.06 -1.20 62.12 40.07 36.38 34.88 42.34 42.63 60 dBA:215 224Total:69.57 66.04 62.34 60.84 68.31 68.5955 dBA:463 483Road Name: Taft Avenue Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 4030 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: CollectorCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -4.83 -1.26 -1.20 57.83 55.65 51.95 50.46 57.92 58.21 70 dBA:910Medium Trucks 74.83 -23.23 -1.26 -1.20 49.14 31.66 27.96 26.46 33.93 34.21 65 dBA:20 21Heavy Trucks 80.05 -24.69 -1.26 -1.20 52.89 30.85 27.15 25.66 33.12 33.41 60 dBA:44 46Total:59.46 55.68 51.99 50.49 57.95 58.2455 dBA:94 99Road Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 26902 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 1.87 -1.99 -1.20 69.80 67.63 63.93 62.43 69.90 70.18 70 dBA:79 83Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.99 -1.99 -1.20 60.61 41.58 37.88 36.39 43.85 44.14 65 dBA:170 178Heavy Trucks 83.02 -18.00 -1.99 -1.20 61.83 39.79 36.09 34.59 42.06 42.35 60 dBA:366 383Total:70.87 67.64 63.94 62.45 69.91 70.2055 dBA:789 825Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 35.71 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 59.7 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 48.73 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: East of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 29879 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 2.33 -3.04 -1.20 69.20 67.03 63.33 61.83 69.30 69.59 70 dBA:81 85Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.53 -3.04 -1.20 60.02 40.99 37.29 35.79 43.26 43.55 65 dBA:175 183Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.54 -3.04 -1.20 61.24 39.19 35.50 34.00 41.47 41.75 60 dBA:376 393Total:70.28 67.05 63.35 61.85 69.32 69.6155 dBA:811 847Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft) Scenario: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Project Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163Vehicle Type Day Evening Night Daily Day Evening Night DailyAutomobiles 72.75% 7.76% 16.49% 97.00% 73.60% 13.60% 10.22% 97.40%Site Conditions: SoftMedium Trucks 1.50% 0.16% 0.34% 2.00% 0.90% 0.90% 0.04% 1.84%Heavy Trucks 0.75% 0.08% 0.17% 1.00% 0.35% 0.04% 0.35% 0.74%Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: North of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 20797 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 0.75 -3.04 -1.20 67.63 65.46 61.76 60.26 67.73 68.01 70 dBA:64 67Medium Trucks 78.79 -16.10 -3.04 -1.20 58.45 39.42 35.72 34.22 41.69 41.97 65 dBA:137 143Heavy Trucks 83.02 -19.12 -3.04 -1.20 59.66 37.62 33.92 32.42 39.89 40.18 60 dBA:295 309Total:68.70 65.47 61.78 60.28 67.74 68.0355 dBA:637 665Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 41137 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 4.17 -1.99 -1.20 70.33 68.15 64.45 62.96 70.42 70.71 70 dBA:86 89Medium Trucks 77.62 -13.14 -1.99 -1.20 61.29 42.71 39.02 37.52 44.98 45.27 65 dBA:184 193Heavy Trucks 82.14 -15.70 -1.99 -1.20 63.25 41.21 37.51 36.02 43.48 43.77 60 dBA:397 415Total:71.53 68.17 64.47 62.98 70.44 70.7355 dBA:856 895Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Taft AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 32903 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 3.20 1.22 -1.20 72.57 70.40 66.70 65.20 72.67 72.95 70 dBA:91 95Medium Trucks 77.62 -14.11 1.22 -1.20 63.53 44.96 41.26 39.76 47.23 47.52 65 dBA:195 204Heavy Trucks 82.14 -16.67 1.22 -1.20 65.50 43.46 39.76 38.26 45.73 46.02 60 dBA:421 440Total:73.78 70.42 66.72 65.22 72.69 72.9755 dBA:906 947FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELNOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft)Vehicle Mix (City of Orange GP) Vehicle Mix (Collector or local)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 40.79 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Project Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Santiago Canyon RoadAverage Daily Traffic: 9640 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Secondary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -1.04 1.12 -1.20 63.99 61.82 58.12 56.62 64.09 64.38 70 dBA:20 21Medium Trucks 74.83 -19.44 1.12 -1.20 55.31 37.82 34.13 32.63 40.09 40.38 65 dBA:44 46Heavy Trucks 80.05 -20.91 1.12 -1.20 59.06 37.02 33.32 31.83 39.29 39.58 60 dBA:94 98Total:65.63 61.85 58.15 56.66 64.12 64.4155 dBA:203 212Road Name: MT McKinley Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1610 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.35 -0.06 -1.20 50.84 48.66 44.96 43.46 50.93 51.22 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.22 -0.06 -1.20 42.61 26.59 22.89 21.40 28.86 29.15 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.22 -0.06 -1.20 50.27 28.23 24.53 23.03 30.50 30.78 60 dBA:13 13Total:53.91 48.73 45.03 43.53 51.00 51.2855 dBA:27 28Road Name:Yellowstone Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1640 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.27 0.64 -1.20 51.61 49.44 45.74 44.24 51.71 52.00 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.14 0.64 -1.20 43.39 27.37 23.67 22.17 29.64 29.93 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.14 0.64 -1.20 51.05 29.00 25.31 23.81 31.27 31.56 60 dBA:13 13Total:54.68 49.51 45.81 44.31 51.78 52.0655 dBA:27 29Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of MT McKinley BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 24280 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.39 -1.36 -1.20 67.20 65.02 61.32 59.83 67.29 67.58 70 dBA:46 48Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.43 -1.36 -1.20 58.32 40.26 36.56 35.06 42.53 42.82 65 dBA:100 104Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.47 -1.36 -1.20 61.13 39.09 35.39 33.89 41.36 41.64 60 dBA:215 225Total:68.58 65.05 61.35 59.85 67.32 67.6155 dBA:464 485NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 49.64 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 45 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 44.6 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 70 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 60.62 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 41.42 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Project Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 23120 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.18 2.09 -1.20 70.43 68.26 64.56 63.06 70.53 70.82 70 dBA:54 57Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.64 2.09 -1.20 61.56 43.50 39.80 38.30 45.77 46.05 65 dBA:117 123Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.69 2.09 -1.20 64.36 42.32 38.62 37.13 44.59 44.88 60 dBA:253 264Total:71.82 68.28 64.58 63.09 70.55 70.8455 dBA:544 569Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: East of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 23120 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.18 0.06 -1.20 68.41 66.23 62.53 61.03 68.50 68.79 70 dBA:48 50Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.64 0.06 -1.20 59.53 41.47 37.77 36.27 43.74 44.03 65 dBA:103 108Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.69 0.06 -1.20 62.34 40.30 36.60 35.10 42.57 42.85 60 dBA:222 232Total:69.79 66.26 62.56 61.06 68.53 68.8155 dBA:479 500Road Name: Taft Avenue Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 4030 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: CollectorCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -4.83 -1.26 -1.20 57.83 55.65 51.95 50.46 57.92 58.21 70 dBA:910Medium Trucks 74.83 -23.23 -1.26 -1.20 49.14 31.66 27.96 26.46 33.93 34.21 65 dBA:20 21Heavy Trucks 80.05 -24.69 -1.26 -1.20 52.89 30.85 27.15 25.66 33.12 33.41 60 dBA:44 46Total:59.46 55.68 51.99 50.49 57.95 58.2455 dBA:94 99Road Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 26944 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 1.88 -1.99 -1.20 69.81 67.63 63.93 62.44 69.90 70.19 70 dBA:79 83Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.98 -1.99 -1.20 60.62 41.59 37.89 36.39 43.86 44.15 65 dBA:170 178Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.99 -1.99 -1.20 61.84 39.80 36.10 34.60 42.07 42.35 60 dBA:367 383Total:70.88 67.65 63.95 62.45 69.92 70.2155 dBA:790 826Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 35.71 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 59.7 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 48.73 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Project Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: East of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 29973 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 2.34 -3.04 -1.20 69.22 67.04 63.34 61.85 69.31 69.60 70 dBA:81 85Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.52 -3.04 -1.20 60.03 41.00 37.30 35.81 43.27 43.56 65 dBA:175 183Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.53 -3.04 -1.20 61.25 39.21 35.51 34.01 41.48 41.77 60 dBA:377 394Total:70.29 67.06 63.36 61.86 69.33 69.6255 dBA:812 849NOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: OPENING YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163Vehicle Type DayEvening NightDailyDayEvening NightDailyAutomobiles 72.75% 7.76% 16.49% 97.00% 73.60% 13.60% 10.22% 97.40%Site Conditions: SoftMedium Trucks 1.50% 0.16% 0.34% 2.00% 0.90% 0.90% 0.04% 1.84%Heavy Trucks 0.75% 0.08% 0.17% 1.00% 0.35% 0.04% 0.35% 0.74%Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: North of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 21806 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 0.96 -3.04 -1.20 67.84 65.66 61.96 60.47 67.93 68.22 70 dBA:66 69Medium Trucks 78.79 -15.90 -3.04 -1.20 58.65 39.62 35.92 34.42 41.89 42.18 65 dBA:142 148Heavy Trucks 83.02 -18.91 -3.04 -1.20 59.87 37.83 34.13 32.63 40.10 40.38 60 dBA:305 319Total:68.91 65.68 61.98 60.48 67.95 68.2455 dBA:657 687Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 42409 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 4.30 -1.99 -1.20 70.46 68.28 64.59 63.09 70.55 70.84 70 dBA:87 91Medium Trucks 77.62 -13.01 -1.99 -1.20 61.42 42.85 39.15 37.65 45.12 45.40 65 dBA:188 197Heavy Trucks 82.14 -15.56 -1.99 -1.20 63.39 41.35 37.65 36.15 43.62 43.90 60 dBA:406 424Total:71.67 68.31 64.61 63.11 70.58 70.8655 dBA:874 913Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Taft AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 34013 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 3.35 1.22 -1.20 72.71 70.54 66.84 65.34 72.81 73.10 70 dBA:93 97Medium Trucks 77.62 -13.97 1.22 -1.20 63.68 45.10 41.40 39.91 47.37 47.66 65 dBA:200 209Heavy Trucks 82.14 -16.52 1.22 -1.20 65.64 43.60 39.90 38.41 45.87 46.16 60 dBA:430 450Total:73.92 70.56 66.86 65.36 72.83 73.1255 dBA:927 968Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 40.79 ft)FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELVehicle Mix (City of Orange GP) Vehicle Mix (Collector or local)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft) Scenario: OPENING YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Santiago Canyon RoadAverage Daily Traffic: 9840 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Secondary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -0.95 1.12 -1.20 64.08 61.91 58.21 56.71 64.18 64.47 70 dBA:21 21Medium Trucks 74.83 -19.35 1.12 -1.20 55.40 37.91 34.21 32.72 40.18 40.47 65 dBA:44 46Heavy Trucks 80.05 -20.82 1.12 -1.20 59.15 37.11 33.41 31.91 39.38 39.67 60 dBA:95 100Total:65.72 61.9458.2456.75 64.21 64.5055 dBA:206 215Road Name: MT McKinley Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1480 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.71 -0.06 -1.20 50.47 48.30 44.60 43.10 50.57 50.85 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.58 -0.06 -1.20 42.25 26.23 22.53 21.03 28.50 28.79 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.58 -0.06 -1.20 49.90 27.86 24.16 22.66 30.13 30.42 60 dBA:12 12Total:53.5448.36 44.66 43.17 50.63 50.9255 dBA:26 27Road Name:Yellowstone Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1510 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.63 0.64 -1.20 51.25 49.08 45.38 43.88 51.35 51.64 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.50 0.64 -1.20 43.03 27.01 23.31 21.82 29.28 29.57 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.50 0.64 -1.20 50.69 28.65 24.95 23.45 30.92 31.20 60 dBA:12 13Total:54.33 49.15 45.45 43.95 51.42 51.7055 dBA:26 27Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of MT McKinley BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 24520 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.44 -1.36 -1.20 67.24 65.07 61.37 59.87 67.34 67.62 70 dBA:47 49Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.39 -1.36 -1.20 58.36 40.30 36.60 35.11 42.57 42.86 65 dBA:101 105Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.43 -1.36 -1.20 61.17 39.13 35.43 33.93 41.40 41.69 60 dBA:217 226Total:68.63 65.09 61.39 59.89 67.36 67.6555 dBA:467 488Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 45 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 44.6 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 70 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 60.62 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 41.42 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 49.64 ft) Scenario: OPENING YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 23480 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.25 2.09 -1.20 70.50 68.32 64.63 63.13 70.60 70.88 70 dBA:55 57Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.58 2.09 -1.20 61.62 43.56 39.86 38.37 45.83 46.12 65 dBA:118 124Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.62 2.09 -1.20 64.43 42.39 38.69 37.19 44.66 44.95 60 dBA:255 267Total:71.89 68.35 64.65 63.15 70.62 70.9155 dBA:550 575Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: East of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 22430 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.05 0.06 -1.20 68.27 66.10 62.40 60.90 68.37 68.66 70 dBA:47 49Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.78 0.06 -1.20 59.40 41.34 37.64 36.14 43.61 43.90 65 dBA:101 106Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.82 0.06 -1.20 62.21 40.16 36.47 34.97 42.43 42.72 60 dBA:218 228Total:69.66 66.13 62.43 60.93 68.40 68.6855 dBA:469 490Road Name: Taft Avenue Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 4130 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: CollectorCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -4.72 -1.26 -1.20 57.93 55.76 52.06 50.56 58.03 58.32 70 dBA:10 10Medium Trucks 74.83 -23.13 -1.26 -1.20 49.24 31.76 28.06 26.57 34.03 34.32 65 dBA:21 22Heavy Trucks 80.05 -24.59 -1.26 -1.20 53.00 30.96 27.26 25.76 33.23 33.52 60 dBA:45 47Total:59.57 55.79 52.09 50.59 58.06 58.3555 dBA:96 100Road Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 28817 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 2.17 -1.99 -1.20 70.10 67.92 64.22 62.73 70.19 70.48 70 dBA:83 86Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.69 -1.99 -1.20 60.91 41.88 38.18 36.69 44.15 44.44 65 dBA:178 186Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.70 -1.99 -1.20 62.13 40.09 36.39 34.89 42.36 42.65 60 dBA:384 401Total:71.17 67.9464.2462.75 70.21 70.5055 dBA:826 864Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 59.7 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 35.71 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 48.73 ft) Scenario: OPENING YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: East of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 32082 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 2.64 -3.04 -1.20 69.51 67.34 63.64 62.14 69.61 69.90 70 dBA:85 89Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.22 -3.04 -1.20 60.33 41.30 37.60 36.10 43.57 43.86 65 dBA:183 191Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.23 -3.04 -1.20 61.54 39.50 35.80 34.31 41.77 42.06 60 dBA:395 412Total:70.59 67.36 63.66 62.16 69.63 69.9155 dBA:850 888NOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: OPENING YEAR 2022 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163Vehicle Type DayEvening NightDailyDayEvening NightDailyAutomobiles 72.75% 7.76% 16.49% 97.00% 73.60% 13.60% 10.22% 97.40%Site Conditions: SoftMedium Trucks 1.50% 0.16% 0.34% 2.00% 0.90% 0.90% 0.04% 1.84%Heavy Trucks 0.75% 0.08% 0.17% 1.00% 0.35% 0.04% 0.35% 0.74%Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: North of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 21827 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 0.96 -3.04 -1.20 67.84 65.67 61.97 60.47 67.94 68.22 70 dBA:66 69Medium Trucks 78.79 -15.89 -3.04 -1.20 58.66 39.63 35.93 34.43 41.90 42.18 65 dBA:142 148Heavy Trucks 83.02 -18.91 -3.04 -1.20 59.87 37.83 34.13 32.63 40.10 40.39 60 dBA:305 319Total:68.91 65.68 61.99 60.49 67.95 68.2455 dBA:657 687Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 42565 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 4.32 -1.99 -1.20 70.47 68.30 64.60 63.10 70.57 70.86 70 dBA:88 92Medium Trucks 77.62 -12.99 -1.99 -1.20 61.44 42.86 39.16 37.67 45.13 45.42 65 dBA:189 197Heavy Trucks 82.14 -15.55 -1.99 -1.20 63.40 41.36 37.66 36.16 43.63 43.92 60 dBA:407 425Total:71.68 68.32 64.62 63.12 70.59 70.8855 dBA:876 916Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Taft AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 34163 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 3.37 1.22 -1.20 72.73 70.56 66.86 65.36 72.83 73.12 70 dBA:93 97Medium Trucks 77.62 -13.95 1.22 -1.20 63.70 45.12 41.42 39.93 47.39 47.68 65 dBA:200 209Heavy Trucks 82.14 -16.50 1.22 -1.20 65.66 43.62 39.92 38.42 45.89 46.18 60 dBA:431 451Total:73.9470.58 66.88 65.38 72.85 73.1455 dBA:929 971Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 40.79 ft)FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELNOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Vehicle Mix (City of Orange GP) Vehicle Mix (Collector or local) Scenario: OPENING YEAR 2022 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Santiago Canyon RoadAverage Daily Traffic: 9880 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Secondary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -0.93 1.12 -1.20 64.10 61.93 58.23 56.73 64.20 64.49 70 dBA:21 22Medium Trucks 74.83 -19.34 1.12 -1.20 55.41 37.93 34.23 32.73 40.20 40.49 65 dBA:44 46Heavy Trucks 80.05 -20.80 1.12 -1.20 59.17 37.13 33.43 31.93 39.40 39.69 60 dBA:96 100Total:65.73 61.96 58.26 56.76 64.23 64.5255 dBA:206 215Road Name: MT McKinley Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1610 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.35 -0.06 -1.20 50.84 48.66 44.96 43.46 50.93 51.22 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.22 -0.06 -1.20 42.61 26.59 22.89 21.40 28.86 29.15 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.22 -0.06 -1.20 50.27 28.23 24.53 23.03 30.50 30.78 60 dBA:13 13Total:53.91 48.73 45.03 43.53 51.00 51.2855 dBA:27 28Road Name:Yellowstone Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1640 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.27 0.64 -1.20 51.61 49.44 45.74 44.24 51.71 52.00 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.14 0.64 -1.20 43.39 27.37 23.67 22.17 29.64 29.93 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.14 0.64 -1.20 51.05 29.00 25.31 23.81 31.27 31.56 60 dBA:13 13Total:54.68 49.51 45.81 44.31 51.78 52.0655 dBA:27 29Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of MT McKinley BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 24780 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.48 -1.36 -1.20 67.28 65.11 61.41 59.91 67.38 67.67 70 dBA:47 49Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.34 -1.36 -1.20 58.41 40.35 36.65 35.15 42.62 42.91 65 dBA:101 106Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.38 -1.36 -1.20 61.22 39.18 35.48 33.98 41.45 41.73 60 dBA:218 228Total:68.67 65.1461.4459.9467.41 67.6955 dBA:470 491Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 41.42 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 49.64 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 45 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 44.6 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 70 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 60.62 ft) Scenario: OPENING YEAR 2022 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 23630 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.28 2.09 -1.20 70.53 68.35 64.65 63.16 70.62 70.91 70 dBA:55 58Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.55 2.09 -1.20 61.65 43.59 39.89 38.39 45.86 46.15 65 dBA:119 124Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.59 2.09 -1.20 64.46 42.42 38.72 37.22 44.69 44.97 60 dBA:256 268Total:71.92 68.38 64.68 63.18 70.65 70.9455 dBA:552 577Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: East of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 23630 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 2.28 0.06 -1.20 68.50 66.33 62.63 61.13 68.60 68.88 70 dBA:49 51Medium Trucks 76.31 -15.55 0.06 -1.20 59.63 41.56 37.87 36.37 43.83 44.12 65 dBA:105 109Heavy Trucks 81.16 -17.59 0.06 -1.20 62.43 40.39 36.69 35.19 42.66 42.95 60 dBA:225 236Total:69.89 66.35 62.65 61.16 68.62 68.9155 dBA:486 508Road Name: Taft Avenue Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 4130 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: CollectorCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -4.72 -1.26 -1.20 57.93 55.76 52.06 50.56 58.03 58.32 70 dBA:10 10Medium Trucks 74.83 -23.13 -1.26 -1.20 49.24 31.76 28.06 26.57 34.03 34.32 65 dBA:21 22Heavy Trucks 80.05 -24.59 -1.26 -1.20 53.00 30.96 27.26 25.76 33.23 33.52 60 dBA:45 47Total:59.57 55.79 52.09 50.59 58.06 58.3555 dBA:96 100Road Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 28859 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 2.18 -1.99 -1.20 70.10 67.93 64.23 62.73 70.20 70.49 70 dBA:83 86Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.68 -1.99 -1.20 60.92 41.89 38.19 36.69 44.16 44.45 65 dBA:178 186Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.69 -1.99 -1.20 62.14 40.09 36.40 34.90 42.37 42.65 60 dBA:384 401Total:71.18 67.95 64.25 62.75 70.22 70.5155 dBA:827 865Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 35.71 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 59.7 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 48.73 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: OPENING YEAR 2022 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: East of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 32176 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 2.65 -3.04 -1.20 69.53 67.35 63.65 62.15 69.62 69.91 70 dBA:85 89Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.21 -3.04 -1.20 60.34 41.31 37.61 36.11 43.58 43.87 65 dBA:183 192Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.22 -3.04 -1.20 61.56 39.52 35.82 34.32 41.79 42.07 60 dBA:395 413Total:70.60 67.37 63.67 62.17 69.6469.9355 dBA:852 890Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft) Scenario: YEAR 2040 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163Vehicle Type DayEvening NightDailyDayEvening NightDailyAutomobiles 72.75% 7.76% 16.49% 97.00% 73.60% 13.60% 10.22% 97.40%Site Conditions: SoftMedium Trucks 1.50% 0.16% 0.34% 2.00% 0.90% 0.90% 0.04% 1.84%Heavy Trucks 0.75% 0.08% 0.17% 1.00% 0.35% 0.04% 0.35% 0.74%Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: North of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 30705 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 2.44 -3.04 -1.20 69.32 67.15 63.45 61.95 69.42 69.71 70 dBA:83 86Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.41 -3.04 -1.20 60.14 41.11 37.41 35.91 43.38 43.66 65 dBA:178 186Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.42 -3.04 -1.20 61.35 39.31 35.61 34.12 41.58 41.87 60 dBA:383 400Total:70.40 67.17 63.47 61.97 69.4469.7255 dBA:825 863Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 60564 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 5.85 -1.99 -1.20 72.01 69.83 66.13 64.64 72.10 72.39 70 dBA:111 116Medium Trucks 77.62 -11.46 -1.99 -1.20 62.97 44.39 40.70 39.20 46.66 46.95 65 dBA:239 250Heavy Trucks 82.14 -14.02 -1.99 -1.20 64.93 42.89 39.19 37.70 45.16 45.45 60 dBA:514 538Total:73.21 69.85 66.15 64.66 72.12 72.4155 dBA:1108 1158Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Taft AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 48405 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 4.88 1.22 -1.20 74.25 72.07 68.37 66.88 74.34 74.63 70 dBA:117 123Medium Trucks 77.62 -12.44 1.22 -1.20 65.21 46.64 42.94 41.44 48.91 49.19 65 dBA:253 264Heavy Trucks 82.14 -14.99 1.22 -1.20 67.18 45.13 41.44 39.94 47.40 47.69 60 dBA:544 569Total:75.46 72.09 68.39 66.90 74.36 74.6555 dBA:1172 1225FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELNOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft)Vehicle Mix (City of Orange GP) Vehicle Mix (Collector or local)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 40.79 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: YEAR 2040 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Santiago Canyon RoadAverage Daily Traffic: 13500 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Secondary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 0.42 1.12 -1.20 65.46 63.28 59.58 58.09 65.55 65.84 70 dBA:25 27Medium Trucks 74.83 -17.98 1.12 -1.20 56.77 39.29 35.59 34.09 41.56 41.84 65 dBA:55 57Heavy Trucks 80.05 -19.44 1.12 -1.20 60.53 38.48 34.79 33.29 40.75 41.04 60 dBA:118 123Total:67.09 63.32 59.62 58.12 65.59 65.8755 dBA:254 265Road Name: MT McKinley Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1480 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.71 -0.06 -1.20 50.47 48.30 44.60 43.10 50.57 50.85 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.58 -0.06 -1.20 42.25 26.23 22.53 21.03 28.50 28.79 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.58 -0.06 -1.20 49.90 27.86 24.16 22.66 30.13 30.42 60 dBA:12 12Total:53.5448.36 44.66 43.17 50.63 50.9255 dBA:26 27Road Name:Yellowstone Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1510 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.63 0.64 -1.20 51.25 49.08 45.38 43.88 51.35 51.64 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.50 0.64 -1.20 43.03 27.01 23.31 21.82 29.28 29.57 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.50 0.64 -1.20 50.69 28.65 24.95 23.45 30.92 31.20 60 dBA:12 13Total:54.33 49.15 45.45 43.95 51.42 51.7055 dBA:26 27Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of MT McKinley BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 34220 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 3.88 -1.36 -1.20 68.69 66.51 62.81 61.32 68.78 69.07 70 dBA:58 61Medium Trucks 76.31 -13.94 -1.36 -1.20 59.81 41.75 38.05 36.55 44.02 44.31 65 dBA:126 131Heavy Trucks 81.16 -15.98 -1.36 -1.20 62.62 40.58 36.88 35.38 42.85 43.13 60 dBA:271 283Total:70.08 66.5462.8461.3468.81 69.1055 dBA:583 609NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 49.64 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 45 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 44.6 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 70 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 60.62 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 41.42 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: YEAR 2040 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 33200 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 3.75 2.09 -1.20 72.00 69.83 66.13 64.63 72.10 72.39 70 dBA:69 72Medium Trucks 76.31 -14.07 2.09 -1.20 63.13 45.07 41.37 39.87 47.34 47.62 65 dBA:149 156Heavy Trucks 81.16 -16.11 2.09 -1.20 65.93 43.89 40.19 38.70 46.16 46.45 60 dBA:322 336Total:73.39 69.85 66.16 64.66 72.13 72.4155 dBA:693 724Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: East of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 32150 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 3.61 0.06 -1.20 69.84 67.66 63.96 62.47 69.93 70.22 70 dBA:60 62Medium Trucks 76.31 -14.21 0.06 -1.20 60.96 42.90 39.20 37.70 45.17 45.46 65 dBA:128 134Heavy Trucks 81.16 -16.25 0.06 -1.20 63.77 41.73 38.03 36.53 44.00 44.29 60 dBA:277 289Total:71.23 67.69 63.99 62.49 69.96 70.2555 dBA:596 623Road Name: Taft Avenue Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 5750 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: CollectorCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -3.28 -1.26 -1.20 59.37 57.20 53.50 52.00 59.47 59.75 70 dBA:12 13Medium Trucks 74.83 -21.69 -1.26 -1.20 50.68 33.20 29.50 28.00 35.47 35.76 65 dBA:26 27Heavy Trucks 80.05 -23.15 -1.26 -1.20 54.44 32.40 28.70 27.20 34.67 34.95 60 dBA:56 58Total:61.00 57.23 53.53 52.03 59.50 59.7955 dBA:120 125Road Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 38876 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 3.47 -1.99 -1.20 71.40 69.22 65.53 64.03 71.49 71.78 70 dBA:101 105Medium Trucks 78.79 -13.39 -1.99 -1.20 62.21 43.18 39.48 37.99 45.45 45.74 65 dBA:217 227Heavy Trucks 83.02 -16.40 -1.99 -1.20 63.43 41.39 37.69 36.19 43.66 43.95 60 dBA:468 489Total:72.47 69.2465.5464.05 71.51 71.8055 dBA:1009 1055Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 35.71 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 59.7 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 48.73 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: YEAR 2040 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: East of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 47805 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 4.37 -3.04 -1.20 71.24 69.07 65.37 63.87 71.34 71.63 70 dBA:111 116Medium Trucks 78.79 -12.49 -3.04 -1.20 62.06 43.03 39.33 37.83 45.30 45.59 65 dBA:239 250Heavy Trucks 83.02 -15.50 -3.04 -1.20 63.28 41.24 37.54 36.04 43.51 43.79 60 dBA:515 538Total:72.32 69.09 65.39 63.89 71.36 71.6555 dBA:1109 1159NOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: YEAR 2040 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163Vehicle Type DayEvening NightDailyDayEvening NightDailyAutomobiles 72.75% 7.76% 16.49% 97.00% 73.60% 13.60% 10.22% 97.40%Site Conditions: SoftMedium Trucks 1.50% 0.16% 0.34% 2.00% 0.90% 0.90% 0.04% 1.84%Heavy Trucks 0.75% 0.08% 0.17% 1.00% 0.35% 0.04% 0.35% 0.74%Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: North of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 30726 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 2.45 -3.04 -1.20 69.32 67.15 63.45 61.95 69.42 69.71 70 dBA:83 86Medium Trucks 78.79 -14.41 -3.04 -1.20 60.14 41.11 37.41 35.91 43.38 43.67 65 dBA:178 186Heavy Trucks 83.02 -17.42 -3.04 -1.20 61.36 39.32 35.62 34.12 41.59 41.87 60 dBA:383 401Total:70.40 67.17 63.47 61.97 69.4469.7355 dBA:826 863Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 60720 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 5.86 -1.99 -1.20 72.02 69.84 66.14 64.65 72.11 72.40 70 dBA:111 116Medium Trucks 77.62 -11.45 -1.99 -1.20 62.98 44.41 40.71 39.21 46.68 46.96 65 dBA:239 250Heavy Trucks 82.14 -14.00 -1.99 -1.20 64.95 42.90 39.21 37.71 45.17 45.46 60 dBA:515 539Total:73.23 69.86 66.16 64.67 72.13 72.4255 dBA:1110 1160Road Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Taft AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 48555 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 45 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 69.34 4.89 1.22 -1.20 74.26 72.09 68.39 66.89 74.36 74.64 70 dBA:117 123Medium Trucks 77.62 -12.42 1.22 -1.20 65.22 46.65 42.95 41.45 48.92 49.21 65 dBA:253 265Heavy Trucks 82.14 -14.98 1.22 -1.20 67.19 45.15 41.45 39.95 47.42 47.71 60 dBA:545 570Total:75.47 72.11 68.41 66.91 74.38 74.6655 dBA:1175 1228Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 40.79 ft)FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELNOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Vehicle Mix (City of Orange GP) Vehicle Mix (Collector or local) Scenario: YEAR 2040 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Cannon Street Segment: South of Santiago Canyon RoadAverage Daily Traffic: 13520 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Secondary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 0.43 1.12 -1.20 65.46 63.29 59.59 58.09 65.56 65.85 70 dBA:25 27Medium Trucks 74.83 -17.98 1.12 -1.20 56.78 39.29 35.59 34.10 41.56 41.85 65 dBA:55 57Heavy Trucks 80.05 -19.44 1.12 -1.20 60.53 38.49 34.79 33.29 40.76 41.05 60 dBA:118 123Total:67.10 63.32 59.62 58.12 65.59 65.8855 dBA:254 266Road Name: MT McKinley Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1610 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.35 -0.06 -1.20 50.84 48.66 44.96 43.46 50.93 51.22 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.22 -0.06 -1.20 42.61 26.59 22.89 21.40 28.86 29.15 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.22 -0.06 -1.20 50.27 28.23 24.53 23.03 30.50 30.78 60 dBA:13 13Total:53.91 48.73 45.03 43.53 51.00 51.2855 dBA:27 28Road Name:Yellowstone Boulevard Segment: South of Serrano AvenueAverage Daily Traffic: 1640 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 25 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: LocalCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 59.44 -7.27 0.64 -1.20 51.61 49.44 45.74 44.24 51.71 52.00 70 dBA:33Medium Trucks 71.09 -27.14 0.64 -1.20 43.39 27.37 23.67 22.17 29.64 29.93 65 dBA:66Heavy Trucks 78.74 -27.14 0.64 -1.20 51.05 29.00 25.31 23.81 31.27 31.56 60 dBA:13 13Total:54.68 49.51 45.81 44.31 51.78 52.0655 dBA:27 29Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of MT McKinley BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 34450 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 3.91 -1.36 -1.20 68.72 66.54 62.84 61.35 68.81 69.10 70 dBA:59 61Medium Trucks 76.31 -13.91 -1.36 -1.20 59.84 41.78 38.08 36.58 44.05 44.34 65 dBA:126 132Heavy Trucks 81.16 -15.95 -1.36 -1.20 62.65 40.61 36.91 35.41 42.88 43.16 60 dBA:272 284Total:70.10 66.57 62.87 61.37 68.8469.1255 dBA:586 612Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 41.42 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 49.64 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 45 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 44.6 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 70 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 60.62 ft) Scenario: YEAR 2040 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: West of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 33300 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 3.77 2.09 -1.20 72.02 69.84 66.14 64.65 72.11 72.40 70 dBA:69 73Medium Trucks 76.31 -14.06 2.09 -1.20 63.14 45.08 41.38 39.88 47.35 47.64 65 dBA:150 156Heavy Trucks 81.16 -16.10 2.09 -1.20 65.95 43.91 40.21 38.71 46.18 46.46 60 dBA:322 337Total:73.40 69.87 66.17 64.67 72.1472.4355 dBA:694 726Road Name: Serrano Avenue Segment: East of Yellowstone BoulevardAverage Daily Traffic: 32180 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 40 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Primary ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 67.36 3.62 0.06 -1.20 69.84 67.67 63.97 62.47 69.94 70.23 70 dBA:60 62Medium Trucks 76.31 -14.21 0.06 -1.20 60.97 42.91 39.21 37.71 45.18 45.46 65 dBA:129 134Heavy Trucks 81.16 -16.25 0.06 -1.20 63.77 41.73 38.03 36.54 44.00 44.29 60 dBA:277 289Total:71.23 67.69 63.99 62.50 69.96 70.2555 dBA:597 624Road Name: Taft Avenue Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 5750 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 35 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: CollectorCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 65.11 -3.28 -1.26 -1.20 59.37 57.20 53.50 52.00 59.47 59.75 70 dBA:12 13Medium Trucks 74.83 -21.69 -1.26 -1.20 50.68 33.20 29.50 28.00 35.47 35.76 65 dBA:26 27Heavy Trucks 80.05 -23.15 -1.26 -1.20 54.44 32.40 28.70 27.20 34.67 34.95 60 dBA:56 58Total:61.00 57.23 53.53 52.03 59.50 59.7955 dBA:120 125Road Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: West of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 38918 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 3.47 -1.99 -1.20 71.40 69.23 65.53 64.03 71.50 71.79 70 dBA:101 106Medium Trucks 78.79 -13.38 -1.99 -1.20 62.22 43.19 39.49 37.99 45.46 45.75 65 dBA:218 227Heavy Trucks 83.02 -16.39 -1.99 -1.20 63.43 41.39 37.69 36.20 43.66 43.95 60 dBA:469 490Total:72.48 69.25 65.55 64.05 71.52 71.8055 dBA:1010 1055Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 80 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 66.81 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 35.71 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 59.7 ft)NOISE PARAMETERS AT 60 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 48.73 ft)Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels Scenario: YEAR 2040 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONSProject Name: City of Orange TTM No. 18163FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODELRoad Name: Santiago Canyon Road Segment: East of Cannon StreetAverage Daily Traffic: 47899 Vehicles Vehicle Speed: 50 MPH Vehicle Mix: 1 Roadway Classification: Major ArterialCenterline Distance toNoise Contour (in feet)Vehicle Type REMELTraffic Adj. Dist Adj. Finite Adj Leq Peak Leq Day Leq Eve. Leq Night Ldn CNEL Ldn CNELAutomobiles 71.12 4.38 -3.04 -1.20 71.25 69.08 65.38 63.88 71.35 71.64 70 dBA:111 116Medium Trucks 78.79 -12.48 -3.04 -1.20 62.07 43.04 39.34 37.84 45.31 45.60 65 dBA:239 250Heavy Trucks 83.02 -15.49 -3.04 -1.20 63.29 41.24 37.55 36.05 43.51 43.80 60 dBA:515 539Total:72.33 69.10 65.40 63.90 71.37 71.6655 dBA:1110 1160Noise Adjustments Unmitigated Noise Levels NOISE PARAMETERS AT 90 FEET FROM CENTERLINE (Equiv. Lane Dist: 78.51 ft) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18163 Orange, California April 17, 2020 Prepared for: FIRST CARBON SOLUTIONS 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 LLG Ref. 2-20-4273-1 Prepared by: Under the Supervision of: Daniel A. Kloos, P.E. Keil D. Maberry, P.E. Associate Principal Principal and Justin Tucker Transportation Engineer II LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Site Access .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Project Specific Improvements ..................................................................................... 4 3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Existing Street System .................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 5 3.3 Existing Pedestrian Circulation..................................................................................... 6 3.4 Existing Public Transit .................................................................................................. 6 3.5 Existing Bicycle Circulation ......................................................................................... 6 3.6 Existing Intersection Conditions ................................................................................... 7 3.6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) ................................................................................................................. 7 3.7 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) .............. 7 3.8 Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................................... 8 3.9 Existing Level of Service Results ................................................................................. 8 3.9.1 Intersections ...................................................................................................... 8 3.9.2 Roadway Segments ........................................................................................... 8 4.0 Traffic Forecasting Methodology ........................................................................................ 13 5.0 Project Traffic Characteristics ............................................................................................ 14 5.1 Project Traffic Generation .......................................................................................... 14 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment .............................................................. 14 5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................... 14 6.0 Future Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................... 16 6.1 Year 2022 Without Project Traffic Conditions ........................................................... 16 6.1.1 Ambient Growth Traffic ................................................................................. 16 6.1.2 Cumulative Projects Traffic ............................................................................ 16 6.1.3 Year 2022 Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 16 6.2 Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 17 7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology ................................................................................ 20 7.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................................... 20 7.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios .............................................................................. 20 8.0 Existing With Project Analysis ............................................................................................ 21 8.1 Intersections ................................................................................................................ 21 8.1.1 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 21 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 8.2 Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................... 21 8.2.1 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................... 22 9.0 Year 2022 With Project Analysis......................................................................................... 25 9.1 Intersections ................................................................................................................ 25 9.1.1 Year 2022 Without Project Traffic Conditions ............................................... 25 9.1.2 Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions .................................................... 25 9.2 Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................... 26 9.2.1 Year 2022 Without Project Traffic Conditions ............................................... 26 9.2.2 Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions .................................................... 26 10.0 Year 2040 Buildout With Project Analysis ......................................................................... 29 10.1 Intersections ................................................................................................................ 29 10.1.1 Year 2040 Buildout Without Project Traffic Conditions ................................ 29 10.1.2 Year 2040 Buildout With Project Traffic Conditions ..................................... 29 10.2 Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................... 30 10.2.1 Year 2040 Buildout Without Project Traffic Conditions ................................ 30 10.2.2 Year 2040 With Project Traffic Conditions .................................................... 30 11.0 Site Access and Internal Circulation Evaluation ............................................................... 33 11.1 Site Access Evaluation ................................................................................................ 33 11.2 Internal Circulation Evaluation ................................................................................... 33 12.0 Recommended Improvements ............................................................................................. 34 12.1 Project-Specific Improvements ................................................................................... 34 12.2 Planned Improvements................................................................................................ 34 12.3 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions ................................................................... 35 12.4 Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions ................................................................ 35 12.5 Year 2040 Buildout With Project Traffic Conditions ................................................. 36 13.0 Congestion Management Program (CMP) ......................................................................... 37 14.0 Construction Traffic ............................................................................................................. 38 15.0 Summary Of Findings And Conclusions ............................................................................ 39 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc iii APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Existing Traffic Count Data A-I Intersection Counts A-II Roadway Segment Counts B. Existing With Project Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets B-I Existing Traffic Conditions B-II Existing With Project Traffic Conditions C. Year 2022 With Project Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets C-I Year 2022 Cumulative Traffic Conditions C-II Year 2022 Cumulative With Project Traffic Conditions D. Year 2040 Buildout With Project Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets D-I Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions D-II Year 2040 Buildout With Project Traffic Conditions LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc iv LIST OF FIGURES SECTION—FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 1–1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 3 2–1 Existing Site Aerial ........................................................................................................... 4 2–2 Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 4 3–1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls ........................................... 6 3–2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 6 3–3 Existing PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ..................................................... 6 5–1 Project Trip Distribution Pattern ................................................................................... 15 5–2 AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 15 5–3 PM Peak Hour and Daily Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................... 15 5–4 Existing With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................. 15 5–5 Existing With Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ............................. 15 6–1 Location of Cumulative Projects ................................................................................... 19 6–2 AM Peak Hour Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ................................................ 19 6–3 PM Peak Hour and Daily Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ............................... 19 6–4 Year 2022 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................... 19 6–5 Year 2022 Without Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes .................... 19 6–6 Year 2022 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................... 19 6–7 Year 2022 With Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ......................... 19 6-8 Year 2040 Buildout Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................... 19 6–9 Year 2040 Buildout Without Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes .... 19 6–10 Year 2040 Buildout With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................... 19 6–11 Year 2040 Buildout With Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes .......... 19 12–1 Year 2040 Planned Improvements ................................................................................ 36 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc v LIST OF TABLES SECTION—TABLE # PAGE 3–1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections...................................................... 9 3–2 Roadway Link Capacities ............................................................................................... 10 3–3 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................................................................ 11 3–4 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................................... 12 5–1 Project Traffic Generation Forecast ................................................................................ 15 6–1 Location and Description of Cumulative Projects.......................................................... 18 6–2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Generation Forecast .......................................................... 19 8–1 Existing With Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ................................. 23 8–2 Existing With Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary.......................... 24 9–1 Year 2022 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ................................................... 27 9–2 Year 2022 Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................................ 28 10–1 Year 2040 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................... 31 10–2 Year 2040 Buildout Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................. 32 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18163 April 17, 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Tentative Tract No. 18163 Project (hereinafter referred to as Project). The Project applicant, Milan REI X, LLC, proposes to construct a maximum of 22 single-family dwelling units. The Project site is generally located along the south side of Mabury Road at Yellowstone Boulevard and adjacent to the north side of the Sully Miller property in the City of Orange, California and requires access through the existing Mabury Ranch development. The City of Orange Zoning designation for the Project site is R-1-8 (8,000 SF lots) and the City of Orange General Plan Designation is LDR (Low Density Residential). This report documents the findings and recommendations of a traffic impact analysis conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine the potential impacts associated with the Project. The traffic analysis evaluates the existing operating conditions at five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments within the Project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed Project, and forecasts future operating conditions without and with the proposed Project. Where necessary, intersection and/or roadway segment improvements/ mitigation measures are identified. This traffic report satisfies the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007, and where applicable, is consistent with the procedures outlined in the most current Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County. The Project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed. Existing traffic information has been collected at five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments on a “typical” weekday for use in the preparation of intersection and roadway segment level of service calculations. Information concerning cumulative projects (planned and/or approved) in the vicinity of the proposed Project has been researched at the City of Orange and the City of Villa Park. Based on our research, there are five (5) cumulative projects in the City of Orange and one (1) cumulative project in the City of Villa Park within the vicinity of the subject site. These six (6) planned and/or approved cumulative projects were considered in the cumulative traffic analysis for this Project. This traffic report analyzes existing and future weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour traffic conditions for a near-term (Year 2022) traffic setting upon completion of the proposed Project. Daily and peak hour traffic forecasts for the Year 2022 horizon year have been projected by increasing existing traffic volumes by an annual growth rate of one percent (1.0%) per year and adding traffic volumes generated by six (6) cumulative projects. Year 2040 Buildout traffic LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 2 conditions were also analyzed, utilizing buildout traffic data from The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated September 13, 2018. 1.1 Study Area The five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments selected for evaluation were determined based on application of the “51 or more peak hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007. The intersections and roadway segments listed below provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation. The jurisdiction where the study intersection or study roadway segment is located is also shown. Key Study Intersections 1. Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road (City of Orange) 2. Cannon Street at Taft Avenue (City of Orange) 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue (City of Orange) 4. Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue (City of Orange) 5. Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue (City of Orange) Key Roadway Segments A. Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue (City of Orange) B. Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue (City of Orange) C. Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road (City of Orange) D. Santiago Canyon Road between Hewes Street and Cannon Street (City of Orange) E. Santiago Canyon Road between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard (City of Orange) Figure 1-1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the proposed Project and depicts the study locations and surrounding street system. The Level of Service (LOS) investigations at these key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic-related impacts associated with area growth, cumulative projects and the proposed Project. When necessary, this report recommends intersection and/or roadway segment improvements that may be required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service and/or mitigate the impact of the Project. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 3 Included in this Traffic Impact Analysis are: ▪ Existing traffic counts, ▪ Estimated Project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, ▪ Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, ▪ Daily, AM, and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing conditions, ▪ Daily, AM, and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing with Project conditions, ▪ Daily, AM, and PM peak hour capacity analyses for future (Year 2022) conditions without and with Project traffic, ▪ Daily, AM, and PM peak hour capacity analyses for buildout (Year 2040) conditions without and with Project traffic, ▪ Site Access Evaluation, ▪ Recommended Improvements, ▪ Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis, and ▪ Construction Traffic Impacts. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is generally located along the south side of Mabury Road at Yellowstone Boulevard and adjacent to the north side of the Sully Miller property in the City of Orange, California and requires access through the existing Mabury Ranch development. Figure 2-1 presents an aerial depiction of the existing site, which is currently vacant. Figure 2-2 presents the proposed site plan for the proposed Project. Review of the proposed site plan indicates that the proposed Project will consist of a maximum of 22 single-family dwelling units. The proposed Project is expected to be completed and fully occupied by the Year 2022. 2.1 Site Access As shown in Figure 2-2, access to the proposed Project will be provided via “A” Street, located directly opposite Yellowstone Boulevard, along Mabury Avenue. 2.2 Project Specific Improvements The following project design feature that will be constructed by the proposed Project is recommended to ensure that adequate ingress and egress to the project site is provided: ▪ “A” Street/Yellowstone Boulevard at Mabury Avenue: Construct the south leg of the intersection and provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane (i.e. one shared left/through/right-turn lane). Install a stop sign and stop bar on the south leg. The installation of these improvements is subject to the approval of the City of Orange. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 5 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Street System Regional access to the site is provided via the SR-55 Freeway and the SR-241 Freeway. The principal local network of streets serving the proposed Project includes Santiago Canyon Road, Cannon Street, Serrano Avenue and Mabury Avenue. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of these key area streets. The descriptions are based on an inventory of existing roadway conditions. Santiago Canyon Road is generally a four-lane, divided roadway oriented in the east-west direction. On-street parking is generally not permitted along this roadway within the vicinity of the Project. The posted speed limit on Santiago Canyon Road is 50 miles per hour (mph) within the vicinity of Cannon Street. A traffic signal controls the study intersection of Santiago Canyon Road at Cannon Street. Cannon Street is a four-lane, divided roadway oriented in the north-south direction. On-street parking is generally not permitted along this roadway within the vicinity of the Project. The posted speed limit on Cannon Street is 50 mph north of Serrano Avenue, 45 mph between Serrano Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road and 40 mph south of Santiago Canyon Road. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue, Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road. Serrano Avenue is a four-lane, divided roadway oriented in the east-west direction. On-street parking is generally not permitted along this roadway within the vicinity of the Project. The posted speed limit on Serrano Avenue is 40 mph. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Serrano Avenue at Cannon Street, Mt. McKinley Boulevard and Yellowstone Boulevard. Mabury Avenue is a two-lane, undivided roadway oriented in the east-west direction. Mabury Avenue borders the project site to the north and will provide access to the project site via “A” Street, located directly opposite Yellowstone Boulevard. On-street parking is generally permitted along this roadway within the vicinity of the Project. The posted speed limit on Mabury Avenue is 25 mph. Figure 3-1 presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions for the arterials and intersections evaluated in this report. This figure identifies the number of travel lanes for key arterials, as well as intersection configurations and controls for the key area study intersections. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments have been identified as the locations at which to evaluate existing and future traffic operating conditions. Some portion of potential project-related traffic will pass through each of these intersections/roadway segments, and their analysis will reveal the expected relative impacts of the Project. These key intersections and key roadway segments were selected for evaluation based on application of the “51 or more peak hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 6 Existing daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for key study intersections #1, #2 and #3 and key roadway segments A, B, C, D and E were obtained from The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated September 13, 2018. The traffic counts from The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report were conducted in January 2017. These Year 2017 traffic counts were factored up by the City-approved growth factor of 1.0% per year (3.0% total growth) to reflect current Year 2020 existing baseline traffic conditions. For key study intersections #4 and #5, Intersection #3 AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volume data was utilized for the traffic volume data along Serrano Avenue and ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition was utilized to develop the AM peak hour and PM peak hour turning movement volumes for the side streets at these intersections (i.e. northbound left-turns, northbound right-turns, eastbound right-turns and westbound left-turns). Specifically, the number of residential homes were counted within Mabury Ranch (i.e. totals 251 residential homes), the peak hour trips were developed, accordingly, using ITE Land Use 210: Single Family Detached Housing trip rates, and the trips were assigned based on their location to the intersections of Mt. McKinley Boulevard/Serrano Avenue and Yellowstone Boulevard/Serrano Avenue. Additionally, eastbound departure traffic volumes and westbound approach traffic volumes from key study intersection #3 (i.e. Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue) were then utilized to develop the eastbound and westbound through traffic volumes at key study intersections #4 and #5. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the five (5) key study intersections evaluated in this report, respectively. Figure 3-3 also presents the existing average daily traffic volumes for the five (5) key roadway segments in the vicinity of the Project. Appendix A contains the detailed peak hour count sheets for the key study intersections evaluated in this report. Appendix A also contains the average daily traffic volumes for the key roadway segments. 3.3 Existing Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation is provided via existing public sidewalks along Mabury Avenue, Yellowstone Boulevard, Mt. McKinley Boulevard and other key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Additionally, an equestrian path (Santiago Creek Trail) is provided along the south side of Mabury Avenue. 3.4 Existing Public Transit There is no existing public transit in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. 3.5 Existing Bicycle Circulation Class II bike lanes (on-road bike lanes delineated by painted strips and other features) exist along the following roadway segments within the vicinity of the Project: ▪ Santiago Canyon Road ▪ Taft Avenue ▪ Cannon Street LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 7 Additionally, Class I bike paths (off-road bike paths) exist west of Jamboree Road, extending from Chapman Avenue to the Irvine Park, west of Hewes Street, extending from Bond Avenue to Villa Park Road, north of Villa Park Road, extending from Hewes Street to Cannon Street, and west of Cannon Street, extending approximately 1,000 feet north of Santiago Canyon Road. 3.6 Existing Intersection Conditions Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the five (5) key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections. 3.6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) In conformance with City of Orange requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Per City of Orange requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3-1. 3.7 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) Existing daily operating conditions for the five (5) key roadway segments have been investigated according to the daily volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of each link. The daily V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment with the volume based on 24-hour traffic count data and the capacity based on the street classifications contained within the City of Orange General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element. The daily roadway link capacity of each street classification according to the City of Orange General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element is presented in Table 3-2, along with the six corresponding service levels and associated V/C ratios. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 8 3.8 Level of Service Criteria According to the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element and stated in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections and LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments. 3.9 Existing Level of Service Results 3.9.1 Intersections Table 3-3 summarizes the existing peak hour service level calculations for the five (5) key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry. Review of Table 3-3 indicates that two (2) of the five (5) key study intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and/or PM peak hours. The remaining three (3) key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable service level during the AM and PM peak hours. The locations projected to operate at an adverse LOS are as follows: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Cannon Street at Taft Avenue 1.013 F -- -- 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue -- -- 0.938 E Appendix B presents the ICU/LOS calculations for the five (5) key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. 3.9.2 Roadway Segments Table 3-4 summarizes the existing service level calculations for the five (5) key roadway segments based on existing 24-hour traffic volumes and current roadway geometry. The first column (1) shows the number of lanes, the second column (2) shows the arterial classification and the third column (3) shows the existing LOS “E” capacity. The fourth column (4) shows the daily volume, V/C ratio and resulting level of service. Review of Table 3-4 indicates that one (1) of the five (5) key roadway segments currently operates at an unacceptable level of service on a daily basis. Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) currently operates at unacceptable LOS F on a daily basis. The remaining four (4) key roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 9 TABLE 3-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS1 Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description A  0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.61 – 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71 – 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81 – 0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E 0.91 – 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.00 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. 1 Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212 – Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 10 TABLE 3-2 ROADWAY LINK CAPACITIES Facility Type Number of Lanes Level of Service Criteria With Associated Roadway Capacity Daily Values (VPD) Level of Service (LOS) A B C D E2 F Principal 8-lanes divided 45,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 -- Major 6-lanes divided 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,700 56,300 -- Primary 4-lanes divided 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,750 37,500 -- Secondary 4-lanes undivided 14,400 16,800 19,200 21,600 24,000 -- Collector 2-lanes undivided 7,200 8,400 9,600 10,800 12,000 -- V/C Ratio ≤ 0.60 0.61-0.70 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 0.91-1.00 ≥ 1.00 Notes: ▪ VPD = vehicles per day 2 Source: City of Orange General Plan; Circulation and Mobility. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 11 TABLE 3-3 EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Key Intersection Time Period Jurisdiction Minimum Acceptable LOS Control Type ICU LOS 1. Cannon Street at AM City of D 6 Traffic 0.770 C Santiago Canyon Road PM Orange Signal 0.760 C 2. Cannon Street at AM City of D 5 Traffic 1.013 F Taft Avenue PM Orange Signal 0.893 D 3. Cannon Street at AM City of D 3 Traffic 0.871 D Serrano Avenue PM Orange Signal 0.938 E 4. Mt. McKinley Boulevard at AM City of D 3 Traffic 0.478 A Serrano Avenue PM Orange Signal 0.524 A 5. Yellowstone Boulevard at AM City of D 3 Traffic 0.462 A Serrano Avenue PM Orange Signal 0.507 A LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 12 TABLE 3-4 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment (1) No. of Existing Lanes (2) Existing Configuration (3) Existing Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Existing Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS A. Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 20,776 0.554 A B. Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 40,981 1.093 F C. Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Rd 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 32,753 0.873 D D. Santiago Canyon Road between Hewes Street and Cannon Street 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 26,902 0.717 C E. Santiago Canyon Road between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 29,879 0.797 C LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 13 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the proposed Project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the Project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is trip distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound Project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/anticipated travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of Project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and Project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed Project is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast Project traffic. The need for site- specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated and the significance of the Project’s impacts identified. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 14 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017]. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the Project and also presents the forecast daily and peak hour project traffic volumes for a “typical” weekday. As shown in the middle portion of Table 5-1, the trip generation potential for the Project was estimated using ITE Land Use 210: Single-Family Detached Housing trip rates. Review of the lower portion of Table 5-1 indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 208 daily trips, with 16 trips (4 inbound, 12 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 22 trips (14 inbound, 8 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Figure 5-1 presents the traffic distribution pattern for the proposed Project. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations: ▪ directional flows on the freeways in the immediate vicinity of the Project site (i.e. SR-55 Freeway and SR-241 Freeway), ▪ the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. Santiago Canyon Road), ▪ expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channeli zation and presence of traffic signals, and ▪ ingress/egress availability at the Project site. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the Project are presented in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, respectively. Figure 5-3 also presents the daily project traffic volumes. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 5-2 and 5-3 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-1 and the traffic generation forecast presented in Table 5-1. 5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions The existing plus project traffic conditions have been generated based upon existing conditions and the estimated project traffic. These forecast traffic conditions have been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, which require that the potential impacts of a Project be evaluated upon the circulation system as it currently exists. This traffic volume scenario and the related intersection capacity analyses will identify the roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the direct traffic impacts of the Project, if any. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 present projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the five (5) key study intersections with the addition of the trips generated by the proposed Project to existing traffic volumes, respectively. Figure 5-5 also presents the existing plus project daily traffic volumes. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 15 TABLE 5-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST3 ITE Land Use Code / Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Factors: ▪ 210: Single-Family Detached Housing (TE/DU) 9.44 25% 75% 0.74 63% 37% 0.99 Proposed Project Generation Forecast: ▪ Tentative Tract No. 18163 (22 DU) 208 4 12 16 14 8 22 Notes: • TE/DU = trip end per dwelling unit 3 Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 16 6.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6.1 Year 2022 Without Project Traffic Conditions 6.1.1 Ambient Growth Traffic Horizon year, background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future cumulative projects in the study area, as well as account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The future growth in traffic volumes has been calculated at one percent (1.0%) per year. Applied to the Year 2020 existing traffic volumes, this factor results in a 2.0% growth in existing volumes to the near-term horizon Year 2022. 6.1.2 Cumulative Projects Traffic In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, the status of other known development projects (cumulative projects) in the vicinity of the proposed Project has been researched at the City of Orange and the City of Villa Park. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed Project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. Based on our research, there are five (5) cumulative projects in the City of Orange and one (1) cumulative project in the City of Villa Park within the vicinity of the subject site that have either been built but not yet fully occupied, or are being processed for approval. These six (6) cumulative projects have been included as part of the cumulative background setting. Table 6-1 provides a brief description and location for each of the six (6) cumulative projects. Figure 6-1 graphically illustrates the location of the six (6) cumulative projects. These cumulative projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic, which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections and key roadway segments. Table 6-2 presents the development totals and resultant trip generation for the six (6) cumulative projects. As shown in Table 6-2, the cumulative projects are forecast to generate a total of 12,890 daily trips, with 1,038 trips (321 inbound and 717 outbound) forecast during the AM peak hour and 1,245 trips (860 inbound and 385 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the six (6) cumulative projects are presented in Figures 6-2 and 6-3, respectively. Figure 6-3 also presents the daily cumulative project traffic volumes. 6.1.3 Year 2022 Traffic Volumes Figures 6-4 and 6-5 present the AM and PM peak hour cumulative traffic volumes (existing traffic + ambient growth traffic + cumulative project traffic) at the five (5) key study intersections for the Year 2022, respectively. Figure 6-5 also presents the Year 2022 daily cumulative traffic volumes for the key roadway segments. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 17 Figures 6-6 and 6-7 illustrate the Year 2022 forecast AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed Project, respectively. Figure 6-7 also presents the Year 2022 With Project traffic volumes for the key roadway segments. 6.2 Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Volumes Year 2040 buildout without project traffic volumes for key study intersections #1, #2 and #3 and key roadway segments A, B, C, D and E were obtained from The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated September 13, 2018. For key study intersections #4 and #5, the existing AM peak hour and PM peak hour turning movement volumes (i.e. northbound left-turns, northbound right-turns, eastbound right-turns and westbound left-turns) were maintained since Mabury Ranch is built out and will not experience any further traffic volume growth. Year 2040 eastbound departure traffic volumes and westbound approach traffic volumes from key study intersection #3 (i.e. Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue) were utilized to develop the eastbound and westbound through traffic volumes at key study intersections #4 and #5. It should be noted that the trips associated with the Materials Recycling & Backfilling Operation (i.e. cumulative project #5) were added to the Year 2040 background traffic volumes to account for the continued operation of the site and provide a conservative forecast. Figures 6-8 and 6-9 present the AM and PM peak hour Year 2040 buildout without Project traffic volumes at the five (5) key study intersections, respectively. Figure 6-9 also presents the Year 2040 daily buildout without Project traffic volumes for the key roadway segments. Figures 6-10 and 6-11 illustrate the Year 2040 forecast AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed Project, respectively. Figure 6-11 also presents the Year 2040 daily with Project traffic volumes for the key roadway segments. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 18 TABLE 6-1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS4 No. Cumulative Project Location/Address Description City of Orange Development 1. Salem Lutheran Church Expansion5 Southwest corner of Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road 7.388 TSF Church Expansion 2. Arena Site (Single-Family Homes) Southeast corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Nicky Way 6 DU Single-Family 3. Santiago Hills II6 North and south sides of Santiago Canyon Road, west of SR-241 1,066 DU Single-Family 114 DU Condominiums 9.4-Acre Park 4. Olson Project South of Washington Avenue and Hamlin Street 37 DU Townhomes 5. Materials Recycling & Backfilling Operation North side of Santiago Canyon Road at Nicky Way Materials Recycling & Backfilling Operation City of Villa Park Development 6. Mesa Drive Residential Mesa Drive, between Henderson Way and Canyon Crest Street 20 DU Single-Family 4 Source: Cities of Orange and Villa Park Planning Departments. 5 Source: 3135 Salem Lutheran Church Expansion TIA, prepared by LLG Engineers. 6 Source: Santiago Hills II Traffic Study, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 19 TABLE 6-2 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST7 Cumulative Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 1. Salem Lutheran Church Expansion8 67 3 2 5 3 2 5 2. Arena Site 57 1 3 4 4 2 6 3. Santiago Hills II9 11,620 275 659 934 812 349 1,161 4. Olson Project 271 4 13 17 13 8 21 5. Materials Recycling & Backfilling Operation10 686 34 29 63 15 17 32 6. Mesa Drive Residential 189 4 11 15 13 7 20 Cumulative Projects Total Trip Generation Potential 12,890 321 717 1,038 860 385 1,245 7 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2017)]. 8 Source: 3135 Salem Lutheran Church Expansion TIA, prepared by LLG Engineers. 9 Source: Santiago Hills II Traffic Study, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 10 Source: Based on traffic counts conducted during normal operation in October/November 2010 and adjusted to account for a 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM operation. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 20 7.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The relative impact of the proposed Project during the AM peak hour/PM peak hour and on a daily basis was evaluated based on the analysis of future operating conditions at the five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments, without, then with the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to- capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection and roadway segment. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection and key roadway segment was then evaluated using the following traffic impact criteria. 7.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Orange are considered significant if: Intersections: ▪ An unacceptable peak hour LOS at any of the key intersections is projected. According to the City’s Circulation Element and stated in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections; and ▪ The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1% of capacity (ICU increase  0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (ICU > 0.900). Roadway Segments: ▪ An unacceptable daily Level of Service (LOS) at any of the key roadway segments is projected. According to the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element and stated in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments; and ▪ The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1% of capacity (V/C increase  0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900). 7.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios The following scenarios are those for which volume/capacity calculations have been performed at the five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments for Existing with Project, near-term (Year 2022) and long-term (Year 2040) traffic conditions: (a) Existing Traffic Conditions; (b) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions; (c) Scenario (b) with Improvements, if necessary; (d) Year 2022 Without Project traffic conditions, (e) Year 2022 With Project traffic conditions, (f) Scenario (e) with Improvements, if necessary; (g) Year 2040 Buildout traffic conditions; (h) Year 2040 Buildout With Project traffic conditions; and (i) Scenario (h) with Mitigation, if necessary. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 21 8.0 EXISTING WITH PROJECT ANALYSIS The following summarizes the Existing With Project level of service results for the five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments. 8.1 Intersections Table 8-1 summarizes the peak hour level of service results at the five (5) key study intersections for existing with project traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 8-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 3-3). The second column (2) lists existing with project traffic conditions. The third column (3) shows the increase in ICU value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. 8.1.1 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (2) and (3) of Table 8-1 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersections of Cannon Street/Taft Avenue and Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining three (3) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project-generated traffic to existing traffic. Appendix B also presents the existing with project ICU/LOS calculations for the five (5) key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. 8.2 Roadway Segments Table 8-2 summarizes the roadway segment level of service results at the five (5) key roadway segments for existing with project traffic conditions. The first column (1) shows the number of lanes, the second column (2) shows the arterial classification and the third column (3) shows the existing LOS “E” capacity. The fourth column (4) presents a summary of existing daily traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 3-4). The fifth column (5) lists existing with project daily traffic conditions. Column 5 also shows the increase in V/C ratio value due to the added daily project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 22 8.2.1 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Review of Column 5 of Table 8-2 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining four (4) key roadway segments currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 23 TABLE 8-1 EXISTING WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersections Time Period Minimum Acceptable LOS (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions (3) Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Yes/No 1. Cannon Street at AM D 0.770 C 0.771 C 0.001 No Santiago Canyon Road PM 0.760 C 0.762 C 0.002 No 2. Cannon Street at AM D 1.013 F 1.015 F 0.002 No Taft Avenue PM 0.893 D 0.896 D 0.003 No 3. Cannon Street at AM D 0.871 D 0.874 D 0.003 No Serrano Avenue PM 0.938 E 0.945 E 0.007 No 4. Mt. McKinley Boulevard at AM D 0.478 A 0.483 A 0.005 No Serrano Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.530 A 0.006 No 5. Yellowstone Boulevard at AM D 0.462 A 0.464 A 0.002 No Serrano Avenue PM 0.507 A 0.512 A 0.005 No LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 24 TABLE 8-2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment (1) No. of Existing Lanes (2) Arterial Classification (3) Existing Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Existing Traffic Conditions (5) Existing With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Incr. Sign. Imp. (Yes/No) A. Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 20,776 0.554 A 20,797 0.555 A 0.001 No B. Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 40,981 1.093 F 41,137 1.097 F 0.004 No C. Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Rd 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 32,753 0.873 D 32,903 0.877 D 0.004 No D. Santiago Canyon Road between Hewes Street and Cannon Street 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 26,902 0.717 C 26,944 0.719 C 0.002 No E. Santiago Canyon Road between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 29,879 0.797 C 29,973 0.799 C 0.002 No LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 25 9.0 YEAR 2022 WITH PROJECT ANALYSIS The following summarizes the Year 2022 With Project level of service results for the five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments. 9.1 Intersections Table 9-1 summarizes the peak hour level of service results at the five (5) key study intersections for Year 2022 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 9-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 3-3). The second column (2) lists projected cumulative traffic conditions (existing plus ambient traffic plus cumulative project traffic) based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2022 traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in ICU value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) presents the resultant level of service with the inclusion of recommended traffic improvements, where needed, to achieve an acceptable level of service. 9.1.1 Year 2022 Without Project Traffic Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2022) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic will adversely impact two (2) of the five (5) key study intersections. The remaining three (3) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic. The locations projected to operate at an adverse LOS are as follows: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Cannon Street at Taft Avenue 1.036 F 0.917 E 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue -- -- 0.956 E 9.1.2 Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (3) and (4) of Table 9-1 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersections of Cannon Street/Taft Avenue and Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining three (3) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2022. Appendix C presents the Year 2022 cumulative with project ICU/LOS calculations for the five (5) key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 26 9.2 Roadway Segments Table 9-2 summarizes the roadway segment level of service results at the five (5) key roadway segments for Year 2022 traffic conditions. The first column (1) shows the number of lanes, the second column (2) shows the arterial classification, and the third column (3) shows the existing LOS “E” capacity. The fourth column (4) presents a summary of projected Year 2022 cumulative daily traffic conditions. The fifth column (5) lists Year 2022 With Project daily traffic conditions. Column (5) also shows the increase in V/C ratio value due to the added daily project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. 9.2.1 Year 2022 Without Project Traffic Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2022) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic, two (2) of the five (5) key roadway segments are forecast to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) and Roadway Segment C (Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road) are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F on a daily basis in the Year 2022. The remaining three (3) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service on a daily basis with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic. 9.2.2 Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 9-2 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) and Roadway Segment C (Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road) are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining three (3) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2022 traffic condition. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 27 TABLE 9-1 YEAR 2022 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersections Time Period Minimum Acceptable LOS (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2022 Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Project Significant Impact (5) Year 2022 With Project With Mitigation ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Cannon Street at AM D 0.770 C 0.796 C 0.797 C 0.001 No -- -- Santiago Canyon Road PM 0.760 C 0.794 C 0.796 C 0.002 No -- -- 2. Cannon Street at AM D 1.013 F 1.036 F 1.039 F 0.003 No -- -- Taft Avenue PM 0.893 D 0.917 E 0.920 E 0.003 No -- -- 3. Cannon Street at AM D 0.871 D 0.892 D 0.895 D 0.003 No -- -- Serrano Avenue PM 0.938 E 0.956 E 0.963 E 0.007 No -- -- 4. Mt. McKinley Boulevard at AM D 0.478 A 0.486 A 0.491 A 0.005 No -- -- Serrano Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.532 A 0.539 A 0.007 No -- -- 5. Yellowstone Boulevard at AM D 0.462 A 0.469 A 0.472 A 0.003 No -- -- Serrano Avenue PM 0.507 A 0.516 A 0.521 A 0.005 No -- -- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 28 TABLE 9-2 YEAR 2022 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment (1) No. of Existing Lanes (2) Arterial Classification (3) Existing Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Year 2022 Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Incr. Sign. Imp. (Yes/No) A. Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 21,806 0.581 A 21,827 0.582 A 0.001 No B. Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 42,409 1.131 F 42,565 1.135 F 0.004 No C. Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Rd 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 34,013 0.907 E 34,163 0.911 E 0.004 No D. Santiago Canyon Road between Hewes Street and Cannon Street 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 28,817 0.768 C 28,859 0.770 C 0.002 No E. Santiago Canyon Road between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 32,082 0.856 D 32,176 0.858 D 0.002 No LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 29 10.0 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT ANALYSIS The following summarizes the Year 2040 Buildout With Project level of service results for the five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments. Consistent with The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated September 13, 2018, the level of service results for the key study intersections and key roadway segments include improvements planned by the City of Orange. Refer to Section 12.2 for details of the planned improvements. In addition, the circulation network utilized in the Year 2040 analysis reflects the buildout of the City of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) that was approved as part of the 2010 City of Orange General Plan Update. 10.1 Intersections Table 10-1 summarizes the peak hour level of service results at the five (5) key study intersections for Year 2040 Buildout traffic conditions. The structure of this table is similar to the near-term (Year 2022) capacity analysis summary presented in Table 9-1. 10.1.1 Year 2040 Buildout Without Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 10-1 shows that projected Year 2040 buildout without project traffic will adversely impact one (1) of the five (5) key study intersections. The remaining four (4) key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS under Year 2040 buildout without project traffic conditions. The location projected to operate at an adverse LOS is as follows: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue 0.960 E 1.314 F 10.1.2 Year 2040 Buildout With Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (3) and (4) of Table 10-1 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersection of Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining four (4) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2040. Appendix D presents the Year 2040 Buildout ICU/LOS calculations for the five (5) key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 30 10.2 Roadway Segments Table 10-2 summarizes the roadway segment level of service results at the five (5) key roadway segments for Year 2040 traffic conditions. The structure of this table is similar to the Year 2022 daily capacity analysis summary presented in Table 9-2. 10.2.1 Year 2040 Buildout Without Project Traffic Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2040) buildout traffic conditions indicates that one (1) of the five (5) key roadway segments is forecast to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F on a daily basis in the Year 2040. The remaining four (4) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service on a daily basis in the Year 2040. 10.2.2 Year 2040 With Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 10-2 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F on a daily basis in the Year 2040 with the addition of Project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining four (4) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic in the Year 2040 traffic condition. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 31 TABLE 10-1 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersections Time Period Minimum Acceptable LOS (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Year 2040 Buildout Without Project Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2040 Buildout With Project Traffic Conditions (4) Project Significant Impact (5) Year 2040 Buildout With Project With Mitigation ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Yes/No ICU LOS 1. Cannon Street at AM D 0.770 C 0.836 D 0.837 D 0.001 No -- -- Santiago Canyon Road PM 0.760 C 0.858 D 0.860 D 0.002 No -- -- 2. Cannon Street at AM D 1.013 F 0.872 D 0.874 D 0.002 No -- -- Taft Avenue PM 0.893 D 0.879 D 0.880 D 0.001 No -- -- 3. Cannon Street at AM D 0.871 D 0.960 E 0.962 E 0.002 No -- -- Serrano Avenue PM 0.938 E 1.314 F 1.321 F 0.007 No -- -- 4. Mt. McKinley Boulevard at AM D 0.478 A 0.621 B 0.626 B 0.005 No -- -- Serrano Avenue PM 0.524 A 0.712 C 0.718 C 0.006 No -- -- 5. Yellowstone Boulevard at AM D 0.462 A 0.605 B 0.607 B 0.002 No -- -- Serrano Avenue PM 0.507 A 0.695 B 0.700 B 0.005 No -- -- LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 32 TABLE 10-2 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment (1) No. of Future Lanes (2) Arterial Classification (3) Future Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Year 2040 Buildout Without Project Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2040 Buildout With Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Incr. Sign. Imp. (Yes/No) A. Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue 6D Major Arterial 56,300 30,705 0.545 A 30,726 0.546 A 0.001 No B. Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue 6D Major Arterial 56,300 60,564 1.076 F 60,720 1.079 F 0.003 No C. Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Rd 6D Major Arterial 56,300 48,405 0.860 D 48,555 0.862 D 0.002 No D. Santiago Canyon Road between Hewes Street and Cannon Street 6D Major Arterial 56,300 38,876 0.691 B 38,918 0.691 B 0.000 No E. Santiago Canyon Road between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard 6D Major Arterial 56,300 47,805 0.849 D 47,899 0.851 D 0.002 No LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 33 11.0 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION EVALUATION 11.1 Site Access Evaluation As shown previously in Figure 2-2, access to the proposed Project will be provided via “A” Street, located directly opposite Yellowstone Boulevard, along Mabury Avenue. This location will be controlled by a two-way stop (i.e. stop signs and stop bar for Yellowstone Boulevard and “A” Street). Given that this location is located within a residential neighborhood and will experience relatively low traffic volumes, it is qualitatively concluded that this location will operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2022 plus Project and Year 2040 plus Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. 11.2 Internal Circulation Evaluation The on-site circulation layout of the proposed Project as illustrated in Figure 2-2 on an overall basis is generally adequate and does not create significant vehicle-pedestrian conflict points. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are generally adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash trucks, as well as fire trucks. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 34 12.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS For those intersections and roadway segments where projected traffic volumes are expected to result in significant cumulative impacts, this report recommends traffic improvements that change the intersection and/or roadway segments geometry to increase capacity. These capacity improvements involve roadway widening and/or re-striping to reconfigure (add lanes) roadways to specific approaches of a key intersection and/or roadway segment. The identified improvements are expected to: ➢ Address the impact of existing traffic, Project traffic and future non-project (ambient traffic growth and cumulative) traffic, and ➢ Improve Levels of Service to an acceptable range and/or to pre-project conditions. 12.1 Project-Specific Improvements The following project design feature that will be constructed by the proposed Project is recommended to ensure that adequate ingress and egress to the project site is provided: ▪ “A” Street/Yellowstone Boulevard at Mabury Avenue: Construct the south leg of the intersection and provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane (i.e. one shared left/through/right-turn lane). Install a stop sign and stop bar on the south leg. The installation of these improvements is subject to the approval of the City of Orange. 12.2 Planned Improvements The following improvements are included in the Year 2040 Buildout traffic analysis and reflect the City’s MPAH. It should be noted that the improvements listed below are consistent with those contained in The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated September 13, 2018. ▪ No. 1 – Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a second northbound left-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe the southbound approach of Cannon Street to provide three southbound left-turn lanes, three southbound through lanes and a southbound free right-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a third eastbound through lane and an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a second westbound left-turn lane and a third westbound through lane. ▪ No. 2 – Cannon Street at Taft Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Canon Street to provide a third northbound through lane and a third southbound through lane. ▪ No. 3 – Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a third southbound through lane. ▪ Roadway Segment A – Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 35 ▪ Roadway Segment B – Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. ▪ Roadway Segment C – Cannon Street, between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. ▪ Roadway Segment D – Santiago Canyon Road, between Hewes Street and Cannon Street: Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. ▪ Roadway Segment E – Santiago Canyon Road, between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard: Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. Figure 12-1 graphically illustrates all of the aforementioned Year 2040 planned improvements. 12.3 Existing With Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Table 8-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections under the “Existing With Project” traffic scenario. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. The results of the “Existing With Project” daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Table 8-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. 12.4 Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Table 9-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections under the “Year 2022 With Project” traffic scenario. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. The results of the “Year 2022 With Project” daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Table 9-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 36 12.5 Year 2040 Buildout With Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Table 10-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections under the “Year 2040 Buildout With Project” traffic scenario. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. The results of the “Year 2040 Buildout With Project” daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Table 10-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 37 13.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) This analysis is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the current Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be 3.0% or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities’ capacity. However, as noted in this traffic study, the proposed Project is expected to generate 208 daily trips, and thus does not meet the criteria required for a CMP traffic analysis. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project will not have any significant traffic impacts on the Congestion Management Program Highway System. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 38 14.0 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC This section of the report summarizes the construction traffic activities associated with the proposed Project, which primarily includes site grading/excavation, building foundation/framing/construction, and paving/concrete/landscape. The following section describes the potential construction related trips associated with each construction activity and provides an assessment as to whether the anticipated construction activity will have an impact on the existing street system. Site Grading/Excavation will be temporary and will occur during times permitted by City Ordinance. The construction traffic pattern will include a temporary connection across Santiago Creek into the existing Sully Miller site and access the roadway system via Santiago Canyon Road similar to the construction plan for the approved Trails at Santiago Creek Project. The traffic associated with hauling of site grading/excavation and employees will be less than what was assumed in the approved EIR Trails at Santiago Creek Project, which was determined to be less than significant. Building Foundation/Framing/Construction will be temporary and will occur during times permitted by City Ordinance. The construction traffic pattern will include a temporary connection across Santiago Creek into the existing Sully Miller site and access the roadway system via Santiago Canyon Road similar to the construction plan for the approved Trails at Santiago Creek Project. The traffic associated with the Building Foundation/Framing/Construction phase, which will include employee traffic and minimal truck traffic, will be less than what was assumed in the approved EIR Trails at Santiago Creek Project, which was determined to be less than significant. Paving/Concrete/Landscape will be temporary and will occur during times permitted by City Ordinance. The construction traffic pattern will include accessing the site via Yellowstone Boulevard through Mabury Ranch. The traffic associated with the Paving/Concrete/Landscape phase, which will include employee traffic and minimal truck traffic, will be less than what was assumed in the approved EIR Trails at Santiago Creek Project, which was determined to be less than significant. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 39 15.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ▪ Project Description – The Project site is generally located along the south side of Mabury Road at Yellowstone Boulevard and adjacent to the north side of the Sully Miller property in the City of Orange, California and requires access through the existing Mabury Ranch development. The proposed site plan indicates that the proposed Project will consist of a maximum of 22 single- family dwelling units. The proposed Project is expected to be completed and fully occupied by the Year 2022. Access to the proposed Project will be provided via “A” Street, located directly opposite Yellowstone Boulevard, along Mabury Avenue. ▪ Study Scope – The following five (5) key study intersections and five (5) key roadway segments selected for evaluation were determined based on application of the “51 or more peak hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 15, 2007. Key Study Intersections 1. Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road (City of Orange) 2. Cannon Street at Taft Avenue (City of Orange) 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue (City of Orange) 4. Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue (City of Orange) 5. Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue (City of Orange) Key Roadway Segments A. Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue (City of Orange) B. Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue (City of Orange) C. Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road (City of Orange) D. Santiago Canyon Road between Hewes Street and Cannon Street (City of Orange) E. Santiago Canyon Road between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard (City of Orange) Detailed peak hour level of service analyses were prepared for Existing Traffic Conditions, Existing With Project Traffic Conditions, Year 2022 Without Project traffic conditions, Year 2022 With Project traffic conditions, Year 2040 Buildout Without Project traffic conditions and Year 2040 Buildout With Project traffic conditions at these locations. ▪ Existing Traffic Conditions – Two (2) of the five (5) key study intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and/or PM peak hours. The remaining three (3) key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable service level during the AM and PM peak hours. The locations projected to operate at an adverse LOS are as follows: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 2. Cannon Street at Taft Avenue 1.013 F -- -- 3. Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue -- -- 0.938 E LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 40 One (1) of the five (5) key roadway segments currently operates at an unacceptable level of service on a daily basis. Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) currently operates at unacceptable LOS F on a daily basis. The remaining four (4) key roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis ▪ Project Trip Generation – The proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 208 daily trips, with 16 trips (4 inbound, 12 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 22 trips (14 inbound, 8 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. ▪ Cumulative Projects Traffic Characteristics – Six (6) cumulative projects were considered as part of the cumulative background setting. The six (6) cumulative projects are forecast to generate a total of 12,899 daily trips, with 1,039 trips (321 inbound and 718 outbound) forecast during the AM peak hour and 1,246 trips (860 inbound and 386 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. ▪ Existing With Project Traffic Conditions – The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersections of Cannon Street/Taft Avenue and Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining three (3) key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project-generated traffic to existing traffic. The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining four (4) key roadway segments currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic ▪ Year 2022 With Project Traffic Conditions – The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersections of Cannon Street/Taft Avenue and Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining three (3) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2022. The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 41 Although Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) and Roadway Segment C (Cannon Street between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road) are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining three (3) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2022 traffic condition ▪ Year 2040 Buildout With Project Traffic Conditions – The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersection of Cannon Street/Serrano Avenue is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS E and/or LOS F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the ICU value. The remaining four (4) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2040. The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although Roadway Segment B (Cannon Street between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue) is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F on a daily basis in the Year 2040 with the addition of Project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 0.010 to the V/C ratio. The remaining four (4) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic in the Year 2040 traffic condition. ▪ Site Access Evaluation – Access to the proposed Project will be provided via “A” Street, located directly opposite Yellowstone Boulevard, along Mabury Avenue. This location will be controlled by a two-way stop (i.e. stop signs and stop bar for Yellowstone Boulevard and “A” Street). Given that this location is located within a residential neighborhood and will experience relatively low traffic volumes, it is qualitatively concluded that this location will operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2022 plus Project and Year 2040 plus Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. ▪ Internal Circulation Evaluation – The on-site circulation layout of the proposed Project as illustrated in Figure 2-2 on an overall basis is generally adequate and does not create significant vehicle-pedestrian conflict points. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are generally adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash trucks, as well as fire trucks. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 42 ▪ Project-Specific Improvements – The following project design feature that will be constructed by the proposed Project is recommended to ensure that adequate ingress and egress to the project site is provided: ➢ “A” Street/Yellowstone Boulevard at Mabury Avenue: Construct the south leg of the intersection and provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane (i.e. one shared left/through/right-turn lane). Install a stop sign and stop bar on the south leg. The installation of these improvements is subject to the approval of the City of Orange. ▪ Planned Improvements – The following improvements are included in the Year 2040 Buildout traffic analysis and reflect the City’s MPAH. It should be noted that the improvements listed below are consistent with those contained in The Trails at Santiago Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated September 13, 2018. ➢ No. 1 – Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a second northbound left-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe the southbound approach of Cannon Street to provide three southbound left-turn lanes, three southbound through lanes and a southbound free right-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a third eastbound through lane and an exclusive eastbound right- turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a second westbound left-turn lane and a third westbound through lane. ➢ No. 2 – Cannon Street at Taft Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Canon Street to provide a third northbound through lane and a third southbound through lane. ➢ No. 3 – Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a third southbound through lane. ➢ Roadway Segment A – Cannon Street north of Serrano Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. ➢ Roadway Segment B – Cannon Street, between Serrano Avenue and Taft Avenue: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. ➢ Roadway Segment C – Cannon Street, between Taft Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road: Widen and/or restripe Cannon Street to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. ➢ Roadway Segment D – Santiago Canyon Road, between Hewes Street and Cannon Street: Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. ➢ Roadway Segment E – Santiago Canyon Road, between Nicky Way and Orange Park Boulevard: Widen and/or restripe Santiago Canyon Road to provide a 3rd through lane in each direction. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273 Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163 TIA - Orange, 04-17-20.doc 43 ▪ Existing Plus Project Recommended Improvements – The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Table 8-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections under the “Existing With Project” traffic scenario. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. The results of the “Existing With Project” daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Table 8-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. ▪ Year 2022 Plus Project Recommended Improvements – The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Table 9-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections under the “Year 2022 With Project” traffic scenario. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. The results of the “Year 2022 With Project” daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Table 9-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. ▪ Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Recommended Improvements – The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Table 10-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key study intersections under the “Year 2040 Buildout With Project” traffic scenario. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. The results of the “Year 2040 Buildout With Project” daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Table 10-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the five (5) key roadway segments. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. ▪ Congestion Management Program (CMP) – The proposed Project will not have any significant traffic impacts on the Congestion Management Program Highway System. ▪ Construction Traffic Impacts – The construction traffic activities associated with the proposed Tentative Tract No. 18163 residential project, which primarily includes site grading/excavation, building foundation/framing/construction, and paving/concrete/landscaping will be temporary and will not have any significant traffic impacts on the surrounding transportation system. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273-1 Tentative Tract No, 18163 TIA, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Dividers.doc APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT DATA A-1 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-16-3695-1 Kendall-Palm Commercial, San Bernardino N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Sub-Dividers.doc APPENDIX A-I INTERSECTION COUNTS A-2 File Name : H1701005 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 1 City: ORANGE N-S Direction: CANNON STREET E-W Direction: SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements CANNON STREET Southbound SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 07:00 174 105 405 65 60 4 5 20 19 13 176 36 1082 07:15 194 100 418 72 111 2 1 30 22 12 180 36 1178 07:30 168 85 365 81 126 12 13 31 41 24 222 61 1229 07:45 166 91 379 102 121 8 15 40 58 25 208 59 1272 Total 702 381 1567 320 418 26 34 121 140 74 786 192 4761 08:00 143 88 415 95 148 1 5 49 47 9 213 85 1298 08:15 128 86 328 110 157 2 7 31 17 8 209 63 1146 08:30 119 69 311 83 118 4 4 17 11 7 207 57 1007 08:45 112 55 219 88 97 3 0 27 24 14 144 65 848 Total 502 298 1273 376 520 10 16 124 99 38 773 270 4299 *** BREAK *** 16:00 87 35 97 339 191 3 3 53 24 18 100 140 1090 16:15 75 43 102 357 206 5 0 64 6 20 123 143 1144 16:30 88 32 75 384 221 3 1 62 19 25 86 181 1177 16:45 101 40 90 397 217 2 0 78 18 32 109 165 1249 Total 351 150 364 1477 835 13 4 257 67 95 418 629 4660 17:00 71 38 97 361 255 5 1 102 27 19 93 178 1247 17:15 95 26 114 328 267 2 3 108 26 30 113 139 1251 17:30 85 27 129 295 259 9 5 142 20 17 112 138 1238 17:45 82 46 139 254 240 5 2 136 26 23 97 125 1175 Total 333 137 479 1238 1021 21 11 488 99 89 415 580 4911 Grand Total 1888 966 3683 3411 2794 70 65 990 405 296 2392 1671 18631 Apprch %28.9 14.8 56.3 54.4 44.5 1.1 4.5 67.8 27.7 6.8 54.9 38.3 Total %10.1 5.2 19.8 18.3 15 0.4 0.3 5.3 2.2 1.6 12.8 9 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-3 File Name : H1701005 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 2 City: ORANGE N-S Direction: CANNON STREET E-W Direction: SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD CANNON STREET Southbound SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 07:15 194 100 418 712 72 111 2 185 1 30 22 53 12 180 36 228 1178 07:30 168 85 365 618 81 126 12 219 13 31 41 85 24 222 61 307 1229 07:45 166 91 379 636 102 121 8 231 15 40 58 113 25 208 59 292 1272 08:00 143 88 415 646 95 148 1 244 5 49 47 101 9 213 85 307 1298 Total Volume 671 364 1577 2612 350 506 23 879 34 150 168 352 70 823 241 1134 4977 % App. Total 25.7 13.9 60.4 39.8 57.6 2.6 9.7 42.6 47.7 6.2 72.6 21.3 PHF .865 .910 .943 .917 .858 .855 .479 .901 .567 .765 .724 .779 .700 .927 .709 .923 .959 CANNON STREET SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD CANNON STREET Right 671 Thru 364 Left 1577 InOut Total 741 2612 3353 Right350 Thru506 Left23 OutTotalIn2434 879 3313 Left 168 Thru 150 Right 34 Out TotalIn 457 352 809 Left241 Thru823 Right70 TotalOutIn1345 1134 2479 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 Turning Movements Peak Hour Data North Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-4 File Name : H1701005 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 3 City: ORANGE N-S Direction: CANNON STREET E-W Direction: SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD CANNON STREET Southbound SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:45 101 40 90 231 397 217 2 616 0 78 18 96 32 109 165 306 1249 17:00 71 38 97 206 361 255 5 621 1 102 27 130 19 93 178 290 1247 17:15 95 26 114 235 328 267 2 597 3 108 26 137 30 113 139 282 1251 17:30 85 27 129 241 295 259 9 563 5 142 20 167 17 112 138 267 1238 Total Volume 352 131 430 913 1381 998 18 2397 9 430 91 530 98 427 620 1145 4985 % App. Total 38.6 14.3 47.1 57.6 41.6 0.8 1.7 81.1 17.2 8.6 37.3 54.1 PHF .871 .819 .833 .947 .870 .934 .500 .965 .450 .757 .843 .793 .766 .945 .871 .935 .996 CANNON STREET SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD CANNON STREET Right 352 Thru 131 Left 430 InOut Total 2431 913 3344 Right1381 Thru998 Left18 OutTotalIn866 2397 3263 Left 91 Thru 430 Right 9 Out TotalIn 247 530 777 Left620 Thru427 Right98 TotalOutIn1441 1145 2586 Peak Hour Begins at 16:45 Turning Movements Peak Hour Data North Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-5 File Name : h1701003 Site Code : 00003874 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 1 City: ORANGE N-S Direction: CANNON STREET E-W Direction: TAFT AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements CANNON STREET Southbound TAFT AVENUE Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound TAFT AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 07:00 42 617 0 0 0 1 1 95 11 35 0 28 830 07:15 35 634 1 1 1 0 0 125 15 42 1 31 886 07:30 66 698 0 0 0 1 0 143 16 44 1 44 1013 07:45 45 655 0 1 1 0 1 165 22 45 0 45 980 Total 188 2604 1 2 2 2 2 528 64 166 2 148 3709 08:00 39 535 0 0 1 0 0 198 16 40 1 40 870 08:15 41 517 0 0 0 0 1 188 22 32 0 28 829 08:30 39 500 0 0 1 1 0 138 16 30 0 30 755 08:45 31 393 1 1 0 0 0 155 14 30 0 25 650 Total 150 1945 1 1 2 1 1 679 68 132 1 123 3104 16:00 33 189 0 0 0 0 0 496 24 14 0 57 813 16:15 38 177 0 0 0 1 0 493 28 17 0 57 811 16:30 39 181 0 0 0 0 0 592 30 12 0 46 900 16:45 47 236 1 1 0 1 0 559 33 16 0 75 969 Total 157 783 1 1 0 2 0 2140 115 59 0 235 3493 17:00 42 231 0 0 0 0 0 539 30 13 0 60 915 17:15 41 233 0 0 0 0 0 527 32 21 0 84 938 17:30 32 235 1 1 0 0 0 566 33 16 0 75 959 17:45 40 222 0 0 0 0 0 588 23 14 1 71 959 Total 155 921 1 1 0 0 0 2220 118 64 1 290 3771 Grand Total 650 6253 4 5 4 5 3 5567 365 421 4 796 14077 Apprch %9.4 90.5 0.1 35.7 28.6 35.7 0.1 93.8 6.1 34.5 0.3 65.2 Total %4.6 44.4 0 0 0 0 0 39.5 2.6 3 0 5.7 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-6 File Name : h1701003 Site Code : 00003874 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 2 CANNON STREET Southbound TAFT AVENUE Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound TAFT AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 07:15 35 634 1 670 1 1 0 2 0 125 15 140 42 1 31 74 886 07:30 66 698 0 764 0 0 1 1 0 143 16 159 44 1 44 89 1013 07:45 45 655 0 700 1 1 0 2 1 165 22 188 45 0 45 90 980 08:00 39 535 0 574 0 1 0 1 0 198 16 214 40 1 40 81 870 Total Volume 185 2522 1 2708 2 3 1 6 1 631 69 701 171 3 160 334 3749 % App. Total 6.8 93.1 0 33.3 50 16.7 0.1 90 9.8 51.2 0.9 47.9 PHF .701 .903 .250 .886 .500 .750 .250 .750 .250 .797 .784 .819 .950 .750 .889 .928 .925 CANNON STREET TAFT AVENUE TAFT AVENUE CANNON STREET Right 185 Thru 2522 Left 1 InOut Total 793 2708 3501 Right2 Thru3 Left1 OutTotalIn5 6 11 Left 69 Thru 631 Right 1 Out TotalIn 2694 701 3395 Left160 Thru3 Right171 TotalOutIn257 334 591 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 Turning Movements Peak Hour Data North Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-7 File Name : h1701003 Site Code : 00003874 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 3 CANNON STREET Southbound TAFT AVENUE Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound TAFT AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:45 47 236 1 284 1 0 1 2 0 559 33 592 16 0 75 91 969 17:00 42 231 0 273 0 0 0 0 0 539 30 569 13 0 60 73 915 17:15 41 233 0 274 0 0 0 0 0 527 32 559 21 0 84 105 938 17:30 32 235 1 268 1 0 0 1 0 566 33 599 16 0 75 91 959 Total Volume 162 935 2 1099 2 0 1 3 0 2191 128 2319 66 0 294 360 3781 % App. Total 14.7 85.1 0.2 66.7 0 33.3 0 94.5 5.5 18.3 0 81.7 PHF .862 .990 .500 .967 .500 .000 .250 .375 .000 .968 .970 .968 .786 .000 .875 .857 .975 CANNON STREET TAFT AVENUE TAFT AVENUE CANNON STREET Right 162 Thru 935 Left 2 InOut Total 2487 1099 3586 Right2 Thru0 Left1 OutTotalIn2 3 5 Left 128 Thru 2191 Right 0 Out TotalIn 1002 2319 3321 Left294 Thru0 Right66 TotalOutIn290 360 650 Peak Hour Begins at 16:45 Turning Movements Peak Hour Data North Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-8 File Name : H1701002 Site Code : 00001944 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 1 City: ORANGE N-S Direction: CANNON STREET E-W Direction: SERRANO AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements CANNON STREET Southbound SERRANO AVENUE Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound DEAD END Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 07:00 0 397 2 22 0 321 33 85 0 0 0 0 860 07:15 0 367 7 37 0 347 44 119 0 0 0 0 921 07:30 0 397 8 45 0 308 60 118 0 0 0 0 936 07:45 0 400 7 33 0 269 58 146 0 0 0 0 913 Total 0 1561 24 137 0 1245 195 468 0 0 0 0 3630 08:00 0 349 11 43 0 273 69 163 0 0 0 0 908 08:15 0 313 17 31 0 231 81 146 0 0 0 0 819 08:30 0 285 9 14 0 219 70 96 0 0 0 0 693 08:45 0 210 9 22 0 212 64 131 0 0 0 0 648 Total 0 1157 46 110 0 935 284 536 0 0 0 0 3068 16:00 0 142 16 14 0 95 305 239 0 0 0 0 811 16:15 0 141 31 12 0 101 293 261 0 0 0 0 839 16:30 0 121 19 17 0 106 340 309 0 0 0 0 912 16:45 0 147 23 17 0 100 339 303 0 0 0 0 929 Total 0 551 89 60 0 402 1277 1112 0 0 0 0 3491 17:00 0 166 22 8 0 94 360 316 0 0 0 0 966 17:15 0 147 15 13 0 125 347 289 0 0 0 0 936 17:30 0 153 25 17 0 86 343 260 0 0 0 0 884 17:45 0 174 21 16 0 122 335 284 0 0 0 0 952 Total 0 640 83 54 0 427 1385 1149 0 0 0 0 3738 Grand Total 0 3909 242 361 0 3009 3141 3265 0 0 0 0 13927 Apprch %0 94.2 5.8 10.7 0 89.3 49 51 0 0 0 0 Total %0 28.1 1.7 2.6 0 21.6 22.6 23.4 0 0 0 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-9 File Name : H1701002 Site Code : 00001944 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 2 CANNON STREET Southbound SERRANO AVENUE Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound DEAD END Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 07:15 0 367 7 374 37 0 347 384 44 119 0 163 0 0 0 0 921 07:30 0 397 8 405 45 0 308 353 60 118 0 178 0 0 0 0 936 07:45 0 400 7 407 33 0 269 302 58 146 0 204 0 0 0 0 913 08:00 0 349 11 360 43 0 273 316 69 163 0 232 0 0 0 0 908 Total Volume 0 1513 33 1546 158 0 1197 1355 231 546 0 777 0 0 0 0 3678 % App. Total 0 97.9 2.1 11.7 0 88.3 29.7 70.3 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .946 .750 .950 .878 .000 .862 .882 .837 .837 .000 .837 .000 .000 .000 .000 .982 CANNON STREET DEAD END SERRANO AVENUE CANNON STREET Right 0 Thru 1513 Left 33 InOut Total 704 1546 2250 Right158 Thru0 Left1197 OutTotalIn264 1355 1619 Left 0 Thru 546 Right 231 Out TotalIn 2710 777 3487 Left0 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 Turning Movements Peak Hour Data North Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-10 File Name : H1701002 Site Code : 00001944 Start Date : 1/18/2017 Page No : 3 CANNON STREET Southbound SERRANO AVENUE Westbound CANNON STREET Northbound DEAD END Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:30 16:30 0 121 19 140 17 0 106 123 340 309 0 649 0 0 0 0 912 16:45 0 147 23 170 17 0 100 117 339 303 0 642 0 0 0 0 929 17:00 0 166 22 188 8 0 94 102 360 316 0 676 0 0 0 0 966 17:15 0 147 15 162 13 0 125 138 347 289 0 636 0 0 0 0 936 Total Volume 0 581 79 660 55 0 425 480 1386 1217 0 2603 0 0 0 0 3743 % App. Total 0 88 12 11.5 0 88.5 53.2 46.8 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .875 .859 .878 .809 .000 .850 .870 .963 .963 .000 .963 .000 .000 .000 .000 .969 CANNON STREET DEAD END SERRANO AVENUE CANNON STREET Right 0 Thru 581 Left 79 InOut Total 1272 660 1932 Right55 Thru0 Left425 OutTotalIn1465 480 1945 Left 0 Thru 1217 Right 1386 Out TotalIn 1006 2603 3609 Left0 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 16:30 Turning Movements Peak Hour Data North Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 A-11 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-16-3695-1 Kendall-Palm Commercial, San Bernardino N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Sub-Dividers.doc APPENDIX A-II ROADWAY SEGMENTS COUNTS A-12 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 ORANGESite::CANNON STREETLocation Date::N/O SERRANO AVENUESegment 01/18/17 :LL&GClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 28 110 465 11 25 106 446 53 911921620 12:15 118 4 1125 2309 12:30 119 7 989 21716 12:45 118 3 1305 2488 01:00 22 91 427 4 14 110 382 36 809720111 01:15 122 7 815 20312 01:30 94 2 1048 19810 01:45 120 1 872 2073 02:00 5 144 590 1 3 104 461 8 1,05122483 02:15 134 1 901 2242 02:30 144 1 1282 2723 02:45 168 0 1390 3070 03:00 8 197 845 6 21 142 566 29 1,41123398 03:15 204 9 1401 34410 03:30 216 1 1454 3615 03:45 228 5 1391 3676 04:00 41 266 1,182 5 46 152 632 87 1,814641811 04:15 296 7 1669 46216 04:30 322 14 13211 45425 04:45 298 20 18215 48035 05:00 108 311 1,231 30 231 170 714 339 1,9451848148 05:15 308 47 16618 47465 05:30 312 64 18842 500106 05:45 300 90 19030 490120 06:00 292 286 1,181 151 1,023 189 538 1,315 1,71950475201 06:15 304 188 13075 434263 06:30 326 314 12865 454379 06:45 265 370 91102 356472 07:00 629 190 527 423 1,626 76 260 2,255 787108266531 07:15 128 414 85156 213570 07:30 132 393 51185 183578 07:45 77 396 48180 125576 08:00 635 76 260 370 1,219 59 269 1,854 529222135592 08:15 68 338 76153 144491 08:30 64 286 69122 133408 08:45 52 225 65138 117363 09:00 434 50 189 158 571 50 158 1,005 347128100286 09:15 46 168 46106 92274 09:30 52 125 40116 92241 09:45 41 120 2284 63204 10:00 358 35 106 105 381 34 112 739 2188069185 10:15 37 92 3682 73174 10:30 20 84 25112 45196 10:45 14 100 1784 31184 11:00 417 14 55 100 390 20 48 807 1039634196 11:15 13 96 12111 25207 11:30 18 110 7110 25220 11:45 10 84 9100 19184 Totals 2,977 7,058 5,550 4,586 8,527 11,644 Split%60.6 65.1 39.434.9 Day Totals 10,136 20,17110,035 Day Splits 49.7 50.3 Peak Hour 07:15 04:30 07:00 05:15 07:15 05:00 Volume 743 1,239 1,626 733 2,316 1,945 Factor 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.97 Data File :D1701004* A-13 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 ORANGESite::CANNON STREETLocation Date::SERRANO AVE TO TAFT AVESegment 01/18/17 :LL&GClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 60 204 766 22 48 240 994 108 1,7601744439 12:15 195 8 23815 43323 12:30 195 9 25816 45325 12:45 172 9 25812 43021 01:00 33 154 729 8 27 242 928 60 1,657939617 01:15 196 12 2528 44820 01:30 183 6 23411 41717 01:45 196 1 2005 3966 02:00 13 234 1,030 1 14 232 1,032 27 2,06274668 02:15 216 5 2523 4688 02:30 252 4 2542 5066 02:45 328 4 2941 6225 03:00 12 376 1,642 5 44 289 1,139 56 2,78126657 03:15 394 13 2723 66616 03:30 414 10 2876 70116 03:45 458 16 2911 74917 04:00 34 533 2,331 20 138 322 1,260 172 3,591685526 04:15 562 34 3048 86642 04:30 602 26 2988 90034 04:45 634 58 33612 97070 05:00 112 628 2,428 89 740 300 1,364 852 3,79214928103 05:15 612 143 34919 961162 05:30 607 214 35540 962254 05:45 581 294 36039 941333 06:00 345 592 2,312 358 2,394 312 1,000 2,739 3,31254904412 06:15 604 538 27871 882609 06:30 622 686 22688 848774 06:45 494 812 184132 678944 07:00 658 364 1,116 960 3,576 168 527 4,234 1,6431095321,069 07:15 292 936 146162 4381,098 07:30 260 838 95188 3551,026 07:45 200 842 118199 3181,041 08:00 802 164 604 766 2,532 120 519 3,334 1,1232372841,003 08:15 166 650 158215 324865 08:30 140 638 131162 271800 08:45 134 478 110188 244666 09:00 596 116 429 435 1,452 93 284 2,048 713158209593 09:15 114 368 76154 190522 09:30 106 369 69148 175517 09:45 93 280 46136 139416 10:00 493 73 226 274 1,004 58 184 1,497 410112131386 10:15 68 238 48130 116368 10:30 52 237 42145 94382 10:45 33 255 36106 69361 11:00 641 31 124 256 974 26 77 1,615 20114257398 11:15 36 246 18162 54408 11:30 38 254 13170 51424 11:45 19 218 20167 39385 Totals 3,799 13,737 12,943 9,308 16,742 23,045 Split%59.6 77.3 40.422.7 Day Totals 22,251 39,78717,536 Day Splits 44.1 55.9 Peak Hour 07:30 04:45 07:00 05:15 07:00 04:45 Volume 839 2,481 3,576 1,376 4,234 3,821 Factor 0.89 0.98 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.98 Data File :D1701005* A-14 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 ORANGESite::CANNON STREETLocation Date::TAFT AVE TO SANTIAGO CYN RDSegment 01/18/17 :LL&GClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 55 188 690 14 25 151 651 80 1,3411833932 12:15 172 3 14414 31617 12:30 178 6 16812 34618 12:45 152 2 18811 34013 01:00 33 138 646 8 22 170 596 55 1,2421130819 01:15 150 9 1586 30815 01:30 172 4 1369 30813 01:45 186 1 1327 3188 02:00 12 178 889 1 11 154 657 23 1,54663327 02:15 214 5 1482 3627 02:30 215 2 1692 3844 02:45 282 3 1862 4685 03:00 13 336 1,490 4 27 204 800 40 2,29035407 03:15 354 8 1751 5299 03:30 404 6 1936 59712 03:45 396 9 2283 62412 04:00 27 516 2,263 12 90 212 849 117 3,112272814 04:15 530 18 2088 73826 04:30 590 20 1935 78325 04:45 627 40 23612 86352 05:00 95 642 2,374 56 477 192 926 572 3,3001083466 05:15 590 100 25413 844113 05:30 578 134 25032 828166 05:45 564 187 23040 794227 06:00 286 554 2,207 246 1,656 242 697 1,942 2,90445796291 06:15 582 362 15958 741420 06:30 585 460 16081 745541 06:45 486 588 136102 622690 07:00 615 360 1,033 676 2,686 104 344 3,301 1,377110464786 07:15 249 690 102147 351837 07:30 240 644 64172 304816 07:45 184 676 74186 258862 08:00 765 126 533 625 1,988 75 323 2,753 856223201848 08:15 164 511 90205 254716 08:30 132 464 82151 214615 08:45 111 388 76186 187574 09:00 550 118 412 308 1,023 54 176 1,573 588146172454 09:15 114 274 45140 159414 09:30 90 241 43123 133364 09:45 90 200 34141 124341 10:00 418 70 219 163 652 39 125 1,070 344102109265 10:15 60 159 3696 96255 10:30 60 141 28118 88259 10:45 29 189 22102 51291 11:00 560 25 111 166 645 17 57 1,205 16812642292 11:15 28 156 15146 43302 11:30 36 174 9142 45316 11:45 22 149 16146 38295 Totals 3,429 12,867 9,302 6,201 12,731 19,068 Split%67.5 73.1 32.526.9 Day Totals 15,503 31,79916,296 Day Splits 51.2 48.8 Peak Hour 07:30 04:30 07:00 05:15 07:15 04:45 Volume 786 2,449 2,686 976 3,363 3,369 Factor 0.88 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98 Data File :D1701006* A-15 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 ORANGESite::SANTIAGO CANYON ROADLocation Date::HEWES ST TO CANNON STSegment 01/18/17 :LL&GClient Interval Combined Day:WB EB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 26 189 776 13 43 158 645 69 1,421734720 12:15 195 14 1857 38021 12:30 194 10 1488 34218 12:45 198 6 1544 35210 01:00 21 172 681 15 29 142 561 50 1,242831423 01:15 167 6 1509 31715 01:30 167 3 1323 2996 01:45 175 5 1371 3126 02:00 12 189 841 5 14 136 624 26 1,465532510 02:15 196 6 1324 32810 02:30 202 2 1622 3644 02:45 254 1 1941 4482 03:00 20 271 1,053 1 9 198 865 29 1,91834694 03:15 240 3 2444 4847 03:30 254 3 2056 4599 03:45 288 2 2187 5069 04:00 67 310 1,263 3 21 259 1,040 88 2,3031356916 04:15 306 7 22517 53124 04:30 322 8 25615 57823 04:45 325 3 30022 62525 05:00 273 352 1,416 7 91 298 1,123 364 2,5393065037 05:15 363 17 28364 64681 05:30 349 23 26672 61595 05:45 352 44 276107 628151 06:00 686 360 1,077 38 466 297 1,062 1,152 2,139115657153 06:15 274 86 303138 577224 06:30 240 136 252193 492329 06:45 203 206 210240 413446 07:00 1,235 148 445 232 1,088 176 667 2,323 1,112245324477 07:15 108 284 205328 313612 07:30 92 256 158330 250586 07:45 97 316 128332 225648 08:00 1,153 65 277 282 1,043 150 549 2,196 826329215611 08:15 89 284 139324 228608 08:30 62 258 133264 195522 08:45 61 219 127236 188455 09:00 830 42 177 201 640 105 420 1,470 597206147407 09:15 43 155 116198 159353 09:30 57 136 108220 165356 09:45 35 148 91206 126354 10:00 665 32 82 122 457 96 252 1,122 334163128285 10:15 21 106 56146 77252 10:30 14 102 51156 65258 10:45 15 127 49200 64327 11:00 704 22 55 120 474 31 100 1,178 15517253292 11:15 13 109 32160 45269 11:30 10 125 19160 29285 11:45 10 120 18212 28332 Totals 5,692 8,143 4,375 7,908 10,067 16,051 Split%50.7 43.5 49.356.5 Day Totals 12,283 26,11813,835 Day Splits 53.0 47.0 Peak Hour 07:15 05:15 07:45 04:45 07:15 05:15 Volume 1,319 1,424 1,140 1,147 2,457 2,546 Factor 0.99 0.98 0.90 0.96 0.95 0.97 Data File :D1701010* A-16 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 ORANGESite::SANTIAGO CANYON ROADLocation Date::NICKY WAY TO ORANGE PARK BLVDSegment 01/18/17 :LL&GClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 17 109 524 10 29 182 667 46 1,1911229122 12:15 123 11 1641 28712 12:30 132 2 1583 2905 12:45 160 6 1631 3237 01:00 9 152 506 9 20 146 671 29 1,177329812 01:15 122 4 1642 2866 01:30 124 5 1871 3116 01:45 108 2 1743 2825 02:00 12 115 536 4 10 192 957 22 1,49323076 02:15 102 3 2024 3047 02:30 157 0 2254 3824 02:45 162 3 3382 5005 03:00 20 179 679 2 7 360 1,525 27 2,204853910 03:15 182 1 3325 5146 03:30 162 2 3992 5614 03:45 156 2 4345 5907 04:00 67 194 736 6 40 498 2,308 107 3,044669212 04:15 202 9 5669 76818 04:30 168 5 63423 80228 04:45 172 20 61029 78249 05:00 303 185 893 10 110 626 2,333 413 3,2263681146 05:15 244 26 58852 83278 05:30 241 32 58589 826121 05:45 223 42 534126 757168 06:00 1,312 194 619 42 305 492 1,850 1,617 2,469181686223 06:15 170 58 490244 660302 06:30 154 85 462391 616476 06:45 101 120 406496 507616 07:00 2,393 102 321 116 768 294 780 3,161 1,101590396706 07:15 79 196 190580 269776 07:30 68 210 172607 240817 07:45 72 246 124616 196862 08:00 2,085 64 269 238 885 88 343 2,970 612630152868 08:15 72 273 107546 179819 08:30 73 178 83503 156681 08:45 60 196 65406 125602 09:00 809 66 191 148 585 56 243 1,394 434288122436 09:15 54 149 68222 122371 09:30 36 142 71175 107317 09:45 35 146 48124 83270 10:00 470 32 91 102 446 44 107 916 19813976241 10:15 25 90 26102 51192 10:30 23 140 20111 43251 10:45 11 114 17118 28232 11:00 501 16 46 126 540 18 71 1,041 11714434270 11:15 13 138 22125 35263 11:30 10 124 21112 31236 11:45 7 152 10120 17272 Totals 7,998 5,411 3,745 11,855 11,743 17,266 Split%31.3 31.9 68.768.1 Day Totals 15,600 29,00913,409 Day Splits 46.2 53.8 Peak Hour 07:15 05:15 07:30 04:30 07:30 04:45 Volume 2,433 902 967 2,458 3,366 3,251 Factor 0.97 0.92 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.98 Data File :D1701011* A-17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273-1 Tentative Tract No, 18163 TIA, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Dividers.doc APPENDIX B EXISTING WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS B-1 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-16-3695-1 Kendall-Palm Commercial, San Bernardino N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Sub-Dividers.doc APPENDIX B-I EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS B-2 AM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:06:53 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.770 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights:Include Ovl Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 173 155 35 1624 375 691 248 848 72 24 521 361 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 173 155 35 1624 375 691 248 848 72 24 521 361 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 173 155 35 1624 375 691 248 848 72 24 521 361 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 173 155 35 1624 375 691 248 848 72 24 521 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 173 155 35 1624 375 691 248 848 72 24 521 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 173 155 35 1624 375 691 248 848 72 24 521 0 OvlAdjVol:567 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.63 0.37 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 2774 626 5100 1700 1700 3400 3134 266 1700 3400 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.32 0.22 0.41 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.15 0.00 OvlAdjV/S:0.33 Crit Moves: ******** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-3 AM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:06:53 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):1.013 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service:F ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights:Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 650 1 1 2598 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 650 1 1 2598 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 71 650 1 1 2598 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 650 1 1 2598 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 650 1 1 2598 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 71 650 1 1 2598 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 OvlAdjVol:105 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.86 0.14 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.17 0.50 0.33 Final Sat.: 1700 3395 5 1700 3167 233 1670 30 1700 283 850 567 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S:0.06 Crit Moves: ******** ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-4 AM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:06:53 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.871 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 562 238 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1233 0 163 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 562 238 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1233 0 163 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 562 238 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1233 0 163 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 562 238 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1233 0 163 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 562 238 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1233 0 163 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 562 238 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1233 0 163 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 3400 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.17 0.14 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.10 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-5 AM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:06:53 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.478 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 252 20 3 1337 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 252 20 3 1337 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 252 20 3 1337 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 252 20 3 1337 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 252 20 3 1337 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 252 20 3 1337 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3150 250 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.39 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-6 AM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:06:53 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.462 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 242 20 4 1280 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 242 20 4 1280 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 242 20 4 1280 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 242 20 4 1280 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 242 20 4 1280 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 242 20 4 1280 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3140 260 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.38 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-7 PM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:20:40 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.760 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 443 9 443 135 363 639 440 101 19 1028 1422 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 443 9 443 135 363 639 440 101 19 1028 1422 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 94 443 9 443 135 363 639 440 101 19 1028 1422 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 94 443 9 443 135 363 639 440 101 19 1028 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 94 443 9 443 135 363 639 440 101 19 1028 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 94 443 9 443 135 363 639 440 101 19 1028 0 OvlAdjVol: 44 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3332 68 5100 1700 1700 3400 2765 635 1700 3400 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.30 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-8 PM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:20:40 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.893 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 83 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 132 2257 0 2 963 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 132 2257 0 2 963 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 132 2257 0 2 963 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 132 2257 0 2 963 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 132 2257 0 2 963 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 132 2257 0 2 963 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.70 0.30 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 1700 2898 502 1700 0 1700 567 0 1133 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-9 PM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:20:40 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.938 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 116 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1254 1428 81 598 0 0 0 0 438 0 57 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1254 1428 81 598 0 0 0 0 438 0 57 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1254 1428 81 598 0 0 0 0 438 0 57 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1254 1428 81 598 0 0 0 0 438 0 57 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1254 1428 81 598 0 0 0 0 438 0 57 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1254 1428 81 598 0 0 0 0 438 0 57 OvlAdjVol: 1209 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 3400 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.84 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.03 OvlAdjV/S: 0.71 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-10 PM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:20:40 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.524 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1444 65 12 456 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1444 65 12 456 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1444 65 12 456 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1444 65 12 456 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1444 65 12 456 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1444 65 12 456 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3254 146 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.01 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-11 PM Existing Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:20:40 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.507 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1384 67 12 428 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1384 67 12 428 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1384 67 12 428 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1384 67 12 428 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1384 67 12 428 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1384 67 12 428 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3243 157 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-12 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-16-3695-1 Kendall-Palm Commercial, San Bernardino N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Sub-Dividers.doc APPENDIX B-II EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS B-13 AM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:22:01 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.771 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 47 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 173 155 35 1629 376 693 249 848 72 24 521 363 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 173 155 35 1629 376 693 249 848 72 24 521 363 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 173 155 35 1629 376 693 249 848 72 24 521 363 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 173 155 35 1629 376 693 249 848 72 24 521 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 173 155 35 1629 376 693 249 848 72 24 521 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 173 155 35 1629 376 693 249 848 72 24 521 0 OvlAdjVol: 568 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.63 0.37 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 2774 626 5100 1700 1700 3400 3134 266 1700 3400 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.32 0.22 0.41 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.15 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.33 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-14 AM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:22:01 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.015 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 653 1 1 2607 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 653 1 1 2607 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 71 653 1 1 2607 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 653 1 1 2607 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 653 1 1 2607 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 71 653 1 1 2607 191 165 3 176 1 3 2 OvlAdjVol: 105 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.86 0.14 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.17 0.50 0.33 Final Sat.: 1700 3395 5 1700 3168 232 1670 30 1700 283 850 567 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-15 AM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:22:01 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.874 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 562 241 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1242 0 164 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 562 241 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1242 0 164 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 562 241 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1242 0 164 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 562 241 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1242 0 164 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 562 241 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1242 0 164 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 562 241 34 1558 0 0 0 0 1242 0 164 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 3400 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.17 0.14 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.10 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-16 AM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:22:01 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.483 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 253 22 3 1341 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 253 22 3 1341 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 253 22 3 1341 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 253 22 3 1341 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 253 22 3 1341 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 253 22 3 1341 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3128 272 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.39 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-17 AM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:22:01 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.464 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 242 21 5 1280 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 242 21 5 1280 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 242 21 5 1280 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 242 21 5 1280 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 242 21 5 1280 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 242 21 5 1280 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3129 271 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.38 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-18 PM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:23:27 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.762 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 444 9 447 136 365 642 440 101 19 1028 1428 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 444 9 447 136 365 642 440 101 19 1028 1428 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 94 444 9 447 136 365 642 440 101 19 1028 1428 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 94 444 9 447 136 365 642 440 101 19 1028 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 94 444 9 447 136 365 642 440 101 19 1028 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 94 444 9 447 136 365 642 440 101 19 1028 0 OvlAdjVol: 44 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3332 68 5100 1700 1700 3400 2765 635 1700 3400 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.30 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-19 PM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:23:27 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.896 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 85 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 132 2267 0 2 969 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 132 2267 0 2 969 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 132 2267 0 2 969 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 132 2267 0 2 969 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 132 2267 0 2 969 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 132 2267 0 2 969 167 303 0 68 1 0 2 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 1700 2900 500 1700 0 1700 567 0 1133 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-20 PM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:23:27 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.945 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 123 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1254 1439 82 598 0 0 0 0 444 0 58 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1254 1439 82 598 0 0 0 0 444 0 58 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1254 1439 82 598 0 0 0 0 444 0 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1254 1439 82 598 0 0 0 0 444 0 58 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1254 1439 82 598 0 0 0 0 444 0 58 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1254 1439 82 598 0 0 0 0 444 0 58 OvlAdjVol: 1217 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 3400 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.85 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.03 OvlAdjV/S: 0.72 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-21 PM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:23:27 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.530 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1449 72 12 459 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1449 72 12 459 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1449 72 12 459 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1449 72 12 459 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1449 72 12 459 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1449 72 12 459 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3239 161 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.01 0.14 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-22 PM Existing + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:23:27 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Existing + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.512 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1384 72 14 428 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1384 72 14 428 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1384 72 14 428 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1384 72 14 428 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1384 72 14 428 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1384 72 14 428 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3232 168 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA B-23 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273-1 Tentative Tract No, 18163 TIA, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Dividers.doc APPENDIX C YEAR 2022 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS C-1 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-16-3695-1 Kendall-Palm Commercial, San Bernardino N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Sub-Dividers.doc APPENDIX C-I YEAR 2022 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS C-2 AM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:25:00 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.796 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights:Include Ovl Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 176 159 36 1669 385 707 256 907 73 24 599 395 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 176 159 36 1669 385 707 256 907 73 24 599 395 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 176 159 36 1669 385 707 256 907 73 24 599 395 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 176 159 36 1669 385 707 256 907 73 24 599 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 176 159 36 1669 385 707 256 907 73 24 599 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 176 159 36 1669 385 707 256 907 73 24 599 0 OvlAdjVol:579 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.63 0.37 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 2772 628 5100 1700 1700 3400 3147 253 1700 3400 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.33 0.23 0.42 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.18 0.00 OvlAdjV/S:0.34 Crit Moves: ******** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-3 AM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:25:00 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):1.036 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service:F ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights:Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 72 693 1 1 2666 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 72 693 1 1 2666 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 72 693 1 1 2666 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 72 693 1 1 2666 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 72 693 1 1 2666 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 72 693 1 1 2666 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 OvlAdjVol:108 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.86 0.14 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.17 0.50 0.33 Final Sat.: 1700 3395 5 1700 3167 233 1670 30 1700 283 850 567 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S:0.06 Crit Moves: ******** ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-4 AM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:25:00 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.892 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service:D ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control:Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights:Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 604 243 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1258 0 166 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 604 243 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1258 0 166 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 604 243 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1258 0 166 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 604 243 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1258 0 166 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 604 243 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1258 0 166 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 604 243 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1258 0 166 OvlAdjVol:0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 3400 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.18 0.14 0.02 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.10 OvlAdjV/S:0.00 Crit Moves:******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-5 AM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:25:00 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.486 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service:A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 258 20 3 1364 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 258 20 3 1364 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 258 20 3 1364 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 258 20 3 1364 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 258 20 3 1364 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 258 20 3 1364 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.14 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3155 245 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.40 0.00 Crit Moves: ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-6 AM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:25:00 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.469 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service:A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 248 20 4 1306 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 248 20 4 1306 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 248 20 4 1306 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 248 20 4 1306 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 248 20 4 1306 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 248 20 4 1306 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3146 254 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.38 0.00 Crit Moves: ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-7 PM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:26:22 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.794 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 96 455 9 486 139 373 655 519 103 19 1086 1466 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 96 455 9 486 139 373 655 519 103 19 1086 1466 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 96 455 9 486 139 373 655 519 103 19 1086 1466 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 96 455 9 486 139 373 655 519 103 19 1086 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 96 455 9 486 139 373 655 519 103 19 1086 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 96 455 9 486 139 373 655 519 103 19 1086 0 OvlAdjVol: 46 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3334 66 5100 1700 1700 3400 2837 563 1700 3400 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.32 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-8 PM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:26:22 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.917 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 98 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 135 2323 0 2 1019 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 135 2323 0 2 1019 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 135 2323 0 2 1019 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 135 2323 0 2 1019 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 135 2323 0 2 1019 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 135 2323 0 2 1019 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 1700 2914 486 1700 0 1700 567 0 1133 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-9 PM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:26:22 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.956 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 138 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1300 1457 83 648 0 0 0 0 447 0 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1300 1457 83 648 0 0 0 0 447 0 59 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1300 1457 83 648 0 0 0 0 447 0 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1300 1457 83 648 0 0 0 0 447 0 59 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1300 1457 83 648 0 0 0 0 447 0 59 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1300 1457 83 648 0 0 0 0 447 0 59 OvlAdjVol: 1234 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 3400 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.38 0.86 0.05 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.03 OvlAdjV/S: 0.73 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-10 PM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:26:22 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.532 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1473 65 12 466 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1473 65 12 466 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1473 65 12 466 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1473 65 12 466 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1473 65 12 466 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 1473 65 12 466 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3256 144 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.01 0.14 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-11 PM 2022 Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:26:22 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.516 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1412 67 12 438 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1412 67 12 438 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1412 67 12 438 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1412 67 12 438 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1412 67 12 438 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 1412 67 12 438 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3246 154 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.43 0.01 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-12 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-16-3695-1 Kendall-Palm Commercial, San Bernardino N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Sub-Dividers.doc APPENDIX C-II YEAR 2022 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS C-13 AM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:29:49 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.797 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 176 159 36 1674 386 709 257 907 73 24 599 397 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 176 159 36 1674 386 709 257 907 73 24 599 397 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 176 159 36 1674 386 709 257 907 73 24 599 397 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 176 159 36 1674 386 709 257 907 73 24 599 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 176 159 36 1674 386 709 257 907 73 24 599 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 176 159 36 1674 386 709 257 907 73 24 599 0 OvlAdjVol: 580 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.63 0.37 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 2772 628 5100 1700 1700 3400 3147 253 1700 3400 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.33 0.23 0.42 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.18 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.34 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-14 AM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:29:49 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.039 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 72 696 1 1 2675 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 72 696 1 1 2675 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 72 696 1 1 2675 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 72 696 1 1 2675 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 72 696 1 1 2675 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 72 696 1 1 2675 196 168 3 180 1 3 2 OvlAdjVol: 108 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.86 0.14 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.17 0.50 0.33 Final Sat.: 1700 3395 5 1700 3168 232 1670 30 1700 283 850 567 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.21 0.20 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-15 AM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:29:49 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.895 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 604 246 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1267 0 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 604 246 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1267 0 167 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 604 246 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1267 0 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 604 246 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1267 0 167 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 604 246 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1267 0 167 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 604 246 36 1605 0 0 0 0 1267 0 167 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 3400 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.18 0.14 0.02 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.10 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-16 AM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:29:49 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.491 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 260 22 3 1369 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 260 22 3 1369 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 260 22 3 1369 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 260 22 3 1369 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 260 22 3 1369 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 260 22 3 1369 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3135 265 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.40 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-17 AM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:29:49 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.472 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 249 21 5 1308 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 249 21 5 1308 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 249 21 5 1308 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 249 21 5 1308 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 249 21 5 1308 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 249 21 5 1308 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3136 264 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.38 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-18 PM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:33:54 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.796 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 96 456 9 490 140 375 658 519 103 19 1086 1472 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 96 456 9 490 140 375 658 519 103 19 1086 1472 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 96 456 9 490 140 375 658 519 103 19 1086 1472 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 96 456 9 490 140 375 658 519 103 19 1086 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 96 456 9 490 140 375 658 519 103 19 1086 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 96 456 9 490 140 375 658 519 103 19 1086 0 OvlAdjVol: 46 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3334 66 5100 1700 1700 3400 2837 563 1700 3400 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.32 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-19 PM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:33:54 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.920 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 135 2333 0 2 1025 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 135 2333 0 2 1025 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 135 2333 0 2 1025 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 135 2333 0 2 1025 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 135 2333 0 2 1025 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 135 2333 0 2 1025 170 310 0 69 1 0 2 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.72 0.28 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 1700 2916 484 1700 0 1700 567 0 1133 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-20 PM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:33:54 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.963 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 149 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1300 1468 84 648 0 0 0 0 453 0 60 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1300 1468 84 648 0 0 0 0 453 0 60 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1300 1468 84 648 0 0 0 0 453 0 60 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1300 1468 84 648 0 0 0 0 453 0 60 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1300 1468 84 648 0 0 0 0 453 0 60 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1300 1468 84 648 0 0 0 0 453 0 60 OvlAdjVol: 1242 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 3400 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.38 0.86 0.05 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.04 OvlAdjV/S: 0.73 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-21 PM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:33:54 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.539 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1480 72 12 470 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1480 72 12 470 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1480 72 12 470 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1480 72 12 470 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1480 72 12 470 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 1480 72 12 470 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3242 158 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.01 0.14 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-22 PM 2022 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 16:33:54 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2022 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.521 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1415 72 14 439 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1415 72 14 439 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1415 72 14 439 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1415 72 14 439 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1415 72 14 439 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 1415 72 14 439 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3235 165 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.01 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA C-23 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4273-1 Tentative Tract No, 18163 TIA, Orange N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Dividers.doc APPENDIX D YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS D-1 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-16-3695-1 Kendall-Palm Commercial, San Bernardino N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Sub-Dividers.doc APPENDIX D-I YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS D-2 AM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:32:15 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.836 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service:D ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights:Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 145 177 51 2011 563 604 166 784 70 154 1406 1212 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 177 51 2011 563 604 166 784 70 154 1406 1212 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 145 177 51 2011 563 604 166 784 70 154 1406 1212 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 145 177 51 2011 563 0 166 784 70 154 1406 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 145 177 51 2011 563 0 166 784 70 154 1406 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 145 177 51 2011 563 0 166 784 70 154 1406 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.55 0.45 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 2639 761 5100 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.39 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.05 0.28 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ************ ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-3 AM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:32:15 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.872 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 73 Level Of Service:D ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights:Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 96 1441 1 1 2955 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 96 1441 1 1 2955 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 96 1441 1 1 2955 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 96 1441 1 1 2955 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 96 1441 1 1 2955 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 96 1441 1 1 2955 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 OvlAdjVol:141 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.76 0.24 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.12 0.50 0.38 Final Sat.: 1700 5096 4 1700 4692 408 1670 30 1700 213 850 638 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S:0.08 Crit Moves: ******** ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-4 AM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:32:15 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.960 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 144 Level Of Service:E ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control:Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights:Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1337 321 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1664 0 219 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1337 321 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1664 0 219 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1337 321 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1664 0 219 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1337 321 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1664 0 219 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1337 321 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1664 0 219 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1337 321 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1664 0 219 OvlAdjVol:0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.19 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.13 OvlAdjV/S:0.00 Crit Moves: **** ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-5 AM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:32:15 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.621 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service:B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 347 20 3 1824 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 347 20 3 1824 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 347 20 3 1824 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 347 20 3 1824 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 347 20 3 1824 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 347 20 3 1824 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3215 185 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.54 0.00 Crit Moves: ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-6 AM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:32:15 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.605 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service:B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 337 20 4 1767 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 337 20 4 1767 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 337 20 4 1767 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 337 20 4 1767 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 337 20 4 1767 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 0 10 0 0 0 0 337 20 4 1767 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3210 190 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.52 0.00 Crit Moves: ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-7 PM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:36:10 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.858 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 68 Level Of Service:D ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights:Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 152 492 59 1607 237 397 526 1053 150 35 900 1849 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 152 492 59 1607 237 397 526 1053 150 35 900 1849 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 152 492 59 1607 237 397 526 1053 150 35 900 1849 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 152 492 59 1607 237 0 526 1053 150 35 900 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 152 492 59 1607 237 0 526 1053 150 35 900 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 152 492 59 1607 237 0 526 1053 150 35 900 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.79 0.21 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 3036 364 5100 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.05 0.00 0.15 0.21 0.09 0.01 0.18 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ************ ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-8 PM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:36:10 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.879 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 76 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 188 2687 0 3 2132 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 188 2687 0 3 2132 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 188 2687 0 3 2132 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 188 2687 0 3 2132 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 188 2687 0 3 2132 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 188 2687 0 3 2132 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.70 0.30 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.75 Final Sat.: 1700 5100 0 1700 4590 510 1700 0 1700 425 0 1275 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-9 PM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:36:10 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.314 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1101 2032 116 1744 0 0 0 0 623 0 81 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1101 2032 116 1744 0 0 0 0 623 0 81 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1101 2032 116 1744 0 0 0 0 623 0 81 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1101 2032 116 1744 0 0 0 0 623 0 81 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1101 2032 116 1744 0 0 0 0 623 0 81 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1101 2032 116 1744 0 0 0 0 623 0 81 OvlAdjVol: 1721 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.32 1.20 0.07 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.05 OvlAdjV/S: 1.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-10 PM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:36:10 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.712 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 2083 65 12 665 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 2083 65 12 665 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 2083 65 12 665 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 2083 65 12 665 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 2083 65 12 665 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 2083 65 12 665 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3297 103 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.01 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-11 PM 2040 Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:36:10 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.695 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service:B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 2023 67 12 637 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 2023 67 12 637 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 2023 67 12 637 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 2023 67 12 637 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 2023 67 12 637 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 0 7 0 0 0 0 2023 67 12 637 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3291 109 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: ******** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-12 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-16-3695-1 Kendall-Palm Commercial, San Bernardino N:\4200\2204273 - The Trails at Santiago Creek EIR Addendum, Orange\Report\4273 Sub-Dividers.doc APPENDIX D-II YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS D-13 AM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:38:52 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.837 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service:D ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights:Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 145 177 51 2016 564 606 167 784 70 154 1406 1214 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 177 51 2016 564 606 167 784 70 154 1406 1214 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 145 177 51 2016 564 606 167 784 70 154 1406 1214 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 145 177 51 2016 564 0 167 784 70 154 1406 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 145 177 51 2016 564 0 167 784 70 154 1406 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 145 177 51 2016 564 0 167 784 70 154 1406 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.55 0.45 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 2639 761 5100 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.40 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.05 0.28 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ************ ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-14 AM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:38:52 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.874 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 74 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 96 1444 1 1 2964 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 96 1444 1 1 2964 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 96 1444 1 1 2964 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 96 1444 1 1 2964 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 96 1444 1 1 2964 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 96 1444 1 1 2964 257 223 4 237 1 4 3 OvlAdjVol: 141 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.76 0.24 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.12 0.50 0.38 Final Sat.: 1700 5096 4 1700 4693 407 1670 30 1700 213 850 638 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-15 AM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:38:52 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.962 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 148 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1337 324 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1673 0 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1337 324 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1673 0 220 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1337 324 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1673 0 220 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1337 324 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1673 0 220 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1337 324 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1673 0 220 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1337 324 46 1552 0 0 0 0 1673 0 220 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.19 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.13 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-16 AM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:38:52 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.626 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 348 22 3 1828 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 348 22 3 1828 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 348 22 3 1828 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 348 22 3 1828 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 348 22 3 1828 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 0 10 0 0 0 0 348 22 3 1828 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3198 202 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.54 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-17 AM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:38:52 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.607 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service:B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 337 21 5 1767 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 337 21 5 1767 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 337 21 5 1767 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 337 21 5 1767 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 337 21 5 1767 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 64 0 12 0 0 0 0 337 21 5 1767 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3201 199 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.52 0.00 Crit Moves: ******** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-18 PM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:40:22 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Cannon Street at Santiago Canyon Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.860 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Santiago Canyon Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 152 493 59 1611 238 399 529 1053 150 35 900 1855 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 152 493 59 1611 238 399 529 1053 150 35 900 1855 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 152 493 59 1611 238 399 529 1053 150 35 900 1855 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 152 493 59 1611 238 0 529 1053 150 35 900 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 152 493 59 1611 238 0 529 1053 150 35 900 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 152 493 59 1611 238 0 529 1053 150 35 900 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.79 0.21 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 3037 363 5100 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.05 0.00 0.16 0.21 0.09 0.01 0.18 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-19 PM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:40:22 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Cannon Street at Taft Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.880 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 76 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Taft Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 188 2697 0 3 2138 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 188 2697 0 3 2138 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 188 2697 0 3 2138 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 188 2697 0 3 2138 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 188 2697 0 3 2138 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 188 2697 0 3 2138 237 431 0 97 1 0 3 OvlAdjVol: 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.70 0.30 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.75 Final Sat.: 1700 5100 0 1700 4591 509 1700 0 1700 425 0 1275 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-20 PM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:40:22 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Cannon Street at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.321 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cannon Street Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1101 2043 117 1744 0 0 0 0 629 0 82 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1101 2043 117 1744 0 0 0 0 629 0 82 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1101 2043 117 1744 0 0 0 0 629 0 82 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1101 2043 117 1744 0 0 0 0 629 0 82 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1101 2043 117 1744 0 0 0 0 629 0 82 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1101 2043 117 1744 0 0 0 0 629 0 82 OvlAdjVol: 1728 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3400 1700 1700 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.32 1.20 0.07 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.05 OvlAdjV/S: 1.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-21 PM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:40:22 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Mt. McKinley Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.718 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Mt. McKinley Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 2088 72 12 668 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 2088 72 12 668 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 2088 72 12 668 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 2088 72 12 668 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 2088 72 12 668 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 43 0 7 0 0 0 0 2088 72 12 668 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3287 113 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.01 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: ******** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-22 PM 2040 + Proj Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:40:22 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Year 2040 + Project 4273 - Tentative Tract No. 18163, Orange -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Yellowstone Boulevard at Serrano Avenue ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.700 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service:B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Yellowstone Boulevard Serrano Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 2023 72 14 637 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 2023 72 14 637 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 2023 72 14 637 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 2023 72 14 637 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 2023 72 14 637 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 43 0 8 0 0 0 0 2023 72 14 637 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 0 3283 117 1700 3400 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: ******** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG Costa Mesa, CA D-23 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK