Eastvale City Council
May 11, 2022

R-1 18
20 28
@2.5' Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, dense
SPT-1 4
6 9
@5' SAND: gray to brown, slightly moist, medium dense
R-2 4
9 12
@7.5' Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense
SPT-2 2
7 9
@10' Silty SAND: olive brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
R-3 7
18 22
@15' Silty SAND: orangish olive brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
SPT-3 6
9 9
@20' CLAY with sand: light brown, moist, medium
dense
R-4 8
15 22
@25' Silty SAND w/ Clay: brown, moist, medium dense B-1 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @ 0 to 7.5' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@ 7.5' to 40' - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan
deposits (Qyf)
116.7 4.2 SM

2.9 SP

10.7 SM
110.6 13.3

21.3 CL
115.0 17.4 SM
1586
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H

EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:

Project Name:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:

Type of Rig:

Drop:

Drive Weight:

Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.

SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
640
635
630
625
620
615
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
5/21/2021
~671' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

SPT-4 3
5 7
@30' Sandy Lean CLAY: brown, moist, medium dense
R-5 8
10 15
@35' Sandy Lean CLAY: light brown, moist, very stiff
SPT-5 10
18 20
@40' Clayey SAND: orange brown, moist, dense
R-6 15
19 27
@45' Silty SAND/Sandy SILT: reddish brown, moist,
dense
SPT-6 16
19 25
@50' Silty SAND: orangish brown, moist, very dense
Total Depth = 51.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/21/2021

23.5 CL
103.3 23.2 CL

9.2 SC
120.2 15.3 SM/ML

9.1 SM
@ 40' to T.D. - Quaternary Very Old Alluvial Channel
deposits (Qvoa)
1587
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
670
665
660
655
650
645
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
5/21/2021
~673' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

R-1 9
11 18
@2.5' Silty SAND with Gravel: light gray, slightly moist, medium dense
SPT-1 6
9 13
@5' Sandy SILT: light gray, slightly moist, very stiff
R-2 12
15 21
@7.5' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
SPT-2 9
9 15
@10' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, moist, medium
dense
R-3 9
12 19
@15' Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense
SPT-3 10
12 15
@20' SAND with Gravel: grayish light brown, moist,
dense, poorly graded
R-4 12
15 19
@25' Silty CLAY transition to Silty SAND to Sandy SILT:
olive gray to orangish brown, moist, verty stiff to medium dense B-1 Last Edited: 5/27/2021
@0' to 5' Artificial Undocumented Fill
@5' to T.D. Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
104.1 5.4 SM

11.7 SM/ML
118.8 14.1 SM

13.6 122.1 8.5

3.7 SP

99.7 14.9 SP/SM
1588
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H

EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:

Project Name:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:

Type of Rig:

Drop:

Drive Weight:

Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.

SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
640
635
630
625
620
615
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
5/21/2021
~673' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

SPT-4 9
9 12
@30' Clayey SAND: orangish light brown, moist,
medium dense
R-5 9
12 20
@35' Silty SAND to Sandy SILT: brown, moist, medium
dense to very stiff
SPT-5 12
15 21
@40' Sandy Lean CLAY: brown, moist, dense
R-6 27
25 50/4"
@45' SAND: brown, moist, very dense, poorly graded
SPT-6 8
12 15
@50' CLAY w/ Sand: light brown, moist, hard
Total Depth = 51.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/21/2021

20.2 SC
111.7 16.9 SM

19.6 CL
118.5 6.0 SP

28.3 CL
1589
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
665
660
655
650
645
640
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3
5/21/2021
~667' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

R-1 12
28 34
@2.5' Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, dense
SPT-1 10
12 15
@5' Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, dense
R-2 10
15 19
@7.5' Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-2 7
9 11
@10' SAND: grayish light brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
R-3 13
19 22
@15' Clayey SAND: orangish light brown, slightly moist, dense
SPT-3 8
12 16
@20' Sandy SILT: light brown, moist, dense
R-4 9
12 13
@25' Sandy SILT: light brown, moist, medium dense
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/21/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0' to 2.5' Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@2.5' to T.D. Quaternary Young Fan Deposits (Qyf)
116.3 5.2 SM

6.8 103.2 3.2 SM

2.1 SP
105.5 12.6 SC

22.2 ML
105.8 22.7 ML
1590
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
660
655
650
645
640
635
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
5/24/2021
~663' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By MJG

R-1 8
8 13
@2.5' Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-1 6
7 9
@5' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
R-2 12
15 21
@7.5' Sandy CLAY: grayish light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
SPT-2 6
9 11
@10' Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
R-3 12
18 20
@15' Clayey SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-3 9
10 15
@20' CLAY: light brown, moist, medium dense to very
stiff
R-4 12
50/5" @25' Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, hard to very dense Total Depth = 26'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/24/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0' to 2.5' Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@2.5' to T.D. Quaternary Young Fan Deposits (Qyf)
106.7 1.9 SM

4.0 114.8 7.0 CL

12.3 SM
107.7 8.0 SC
32 CL
118.9 12.8 CL
1591
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
655
650
645
640
635
630
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-5
5/24/2021
~659' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By MJG

R-1 9
14 17
@2.5' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
SPT-1 5
9 9
@5' Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
R-2 8
12 14
@7.5' Clayey SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-2 4
4 6
@10' Sandy SILT: olive light brown, moist, medium
dense to stiff
R-3 27
38 50/4"
@15' Poorly Graded SAND: light gray, slightly moist,
very dense
SPT-3 4
5 6
@20' Sandy SILT: brown, moist, stiff to medium dense
R-4 9
12 18
@25' Clayey SAND: brown, moist, very stiff to medium
dense
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/24/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0' to 2.5' Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@2.5' to T.D. Quaternary Young Fan Deposits (Qyf)
108.3 2.9 SM

8.2 SM
103.0 13.1 SC

25.2 ML
113.2 1.5 SP

25.4 ML
103.0 18.9 SC
1592
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
660
655
650
645
640
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-6
5/24/2021
~665' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

R-1 7
9 9
@2.5' SILT: light gray, slightly moist, medium dense
SPT-1 5
7 9
@5' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
R-2 7
9 12
@7.5' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
SPT-2 12
18 21
@10' SAND w/ Gravel: brown, moist, dense, poorly
graded
R-3 10
12 18
@15' SILT: olive light brown, moist, very stiff
SPT-3 8
10 10
@20' Sandy SILT to SILT: olive brown, moist, very stiff R-4 12
15 19
@25' Sandy SILT: orangish brown, moist, medium dense
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/24/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0' to 2.5' Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@2.5' to T.D.' Quaternary Young Fan Deposits (Qyf)
115.3 5.1 ML

6.4 SM

2.3 SP

97.9 19.6 ML

21.4 ML

90.5 25.5 ML
1593
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
665
660
655
650
645
640
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-7
5/24/2021
~668' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

R-1 9
12 12
@2.5' Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-1 9
10 10
@5' Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, medium dense R-2 7
9 12
@7.5' Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-2 7
7 9
@10' Silty SAND to Sandy SILT: light brown, slightly
moist, medium dense to very stiff
R-3 12
18 22
@15' Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-3 5
7 9
@20' Sandy CLAY: light brown, moist, very stiff
R-4 9
12 18
@25' CLAY: light brown, moist, very stiff
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/24/2021 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0' to 2.5' Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@2.5' to T.D.' Quaternary Young Fan Deposits (Qyf)
104.1 3.6 SM

8.3 106.3 7.2 SM

8.3 111.4 5.3

24.4 CL

95.4 27.1 CL
1594
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
670
665
660
655
650
645
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-8
5/24/2021
~671' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

R-1 4
7 9
@2.5' Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-1 4
4 7
@5' Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, medium dense R-2 9
10 15
@7.5' Sandy SILT: light gray, slightly moist, medium
dense to very stiff
SPT-2 5
7 9
@10' CLAY: light gray, slightly moist, very stiff
R-3 12
19 21
@15' SILT: light gray, slightly moist, very stiff
SPT-3 15
19 19
@20' SAND: brownish light gray, slightly moist, dense,
poorly graded
R-4 14
15 19
@25' Clayey SAND transition to Silty SAND w/ Clay:
brown, slightly moist, medium dense
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/24/2021 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0' to 2.5' Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@2.5' to T.D.' Quaternary Young Fan Deposits (Qyf)
110.2 1.9 SM

8.6 103.0 9.6 ML

10.6 CL

94.8 15.5 MH

3.8 SP
115.3 15.2 SC/CL
1595
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
675
670
665
660
655
650
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-9
5/24/2021
~676' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

R-1 6
6 6
@2.5' Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, loose
SPT-1 4
6 9
@5' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
R-2 9
13 17
@7.5' Silty SAND to Sandy SILT: gray, slightly moist,
medium dense to very stiff
SPT-2 5
7 9
@10' Sandy SILT: brownish gray, slightly moist, very
stiff
R-3 12
18 21
@15' SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense
SPT-3 9
9 13
@20' Sandy CLAY: orangish brown, moist, medium
dense
R-4 10
11 15
@25' Silty SAND: orangish brown to brown, moist,
medium dense to very stiff
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/24/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0' to 5' Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@5' to T.D.' Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye)
112.1 9.8 SM

8.2 118.1 12.3 SM/ML

17.0 ML
120.4 8.1 SM

17.8 CL
109.0 8.0 SM
1596
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
680
675
670
665
660
655
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-10
5/24/2021
~682' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

R-1 9
7 9
@2.5' Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium
dense
SPT-1 4
7 7
@5' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
R-2 12
14 15
@7.5' CLAY/Clayey Silty SAND: grayish brown, moist,
medium dense
SPT-2 3
5 5
@10' Sandy SILT: orangish brown, moist, stiff
R-3 13
16 21
@15' Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense
SPT-3 5
7 8
@20' Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, medium dense to stiff
R-4 9
15 21
@25' Silty SAND: light brown, moist, very stiff to medium dense
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/24/2021 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0' to 5' Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@5' to T.D.' Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye)
105.6 8.2 SM

13.0 SM
113.2 15.1 CL/SC

25.8 ML
115.4 6.0 SM

20.1 CL
111.7 8.9 SM
1597
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
665
660
655
650
645
640
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-1
5/21/2021
~668' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

SPT-1 4
6 7
@7.5' SAND with Gravel: light gray, slightly moist,
medium dense
Total Depth = 10'
Groundwater Not Encountered
3" Perforated Pipe Surrounded by Gravel Installed on
5/21/2021 and Presoaked on 5/24/2021
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/25/2021 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0 to .5' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@.5 to T.D. - QuaternaryAlluvial Fan Deposits

3.9 SM
1598
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
660
655
650
645
640
635
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-2
5/21/2021
~663' MSL
8"
CME 95
30"
140 pounds
Choice Drilling
Eastvale
21116-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE

SPT-1 4
6 6
@7.5' CLAY with Sand: light gray, slightly moist, medium dense
Total Depth = 10'
Groundwater Not Encountered
3" Perforated Pipe Surrounded by Gravel Installed on
5/21/2021 and Presoaked on 5/24/2021
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/25/2021 Last Edited: 5/27/2021 @0 to .5' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
@.5 to T.D. - QuaternaryAlluvial Fan Deposits

9.8 CL
1599
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-1 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 670 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND with gravel: gray, dry, loose to medium dense, trash down to 5' to 5.5' (nails, tarps, plastic, etc.) Afu G-1 B @ 5.5' - SAND: light brown to gray, slightly moist to moist, loose, fine grained Qyf G-2, G-3 Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021 @ 5.5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan deposits (Qyf) @ 0' to 5.5' - Artifical Fill - Undocumented (Afu) 1600
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-2 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 668 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND with gravel: gray, dry, loose in upper 1'-2' then medium dense beyond 2', rootlets, minor trash present, some cobbles (~3" diameter) Afu SM G-1 B @ 2.75' - SAND/SAND with Silt: gray to light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense, (~10") metal pipe running north to south through trench at ~3.25' below the surface G-2, B-1 C @ 5.83' - Silty SAND/Sandy SILT: dark gray, moist, fine sand Qye G-3 Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 ABC Last Edited: 6/9/2021 @ 5.83' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian deposits (Qye) @ 0' to 5.83' - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) 1601
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-3 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 667 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light brown, dry, loose, rootlets Afu SM B @ 0.5' - Silty SAND to Silt: gray with white mottle, moist, varied density with depth, ~6" layer of softer moist sand at 7' grading into a stiffer silt. Qyf G-1, G-2, G-3, B-1 Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021 @ 0' to .5' - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) @ .5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan deposits (Qyf) 1602
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-4 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 677 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N 80 E A @ 0' - Silty SAND/ Sandy Silt: gray, slightly moist, loose, roots SM B @ 1' Silty SAND: olive gray, slightly moist to moist, trash (tarp, rope, charcoal) G-1, G-2 C @ 5' Silty SAND: olive gray to gray, slightly moist, medium dense, some cobbles Qye G-3 Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 ABC Last Edited: 6/9/2021 @ 0' to 5' - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) Afu @ 5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian deposits (Qye) 1603
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-5 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 672 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N 80 E A @ 0' - Pure cow dung down to 6", mixed organics and silt past 6" to 1'. dry and loose overall G-1 B @ 1' - Silty SAND with gravel: olive gray, moist to slightly moist, medium dense, gravel, roots, grading into unit "C" SM G-2 C @ 2' - Silty SAND: olive gray, slightly moist, dense, minor gravel present Qyf G-3 D @ 5' Silt: gray to olive gray, slightly moist, dense, some oxidation ML G-4 Total Depth: 11' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 ABCD Last Edited: 6/9/2021 @ 0' to T.D. - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) Afu @ 2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan deposits (Qyf) 1604
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-6 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 672 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light brown to light gray, dead vegetation, dry, loose Afu SM B @ 0.5' - Silty SAND: light gray, dry, charcoal pieces, medium dense, mixed gravel, disturbed appearance G-1 C @ 2.5' - Silty SAND: gray, dry to slightly moist (moisture increases with depth), medium dense G-2, B-5 D @ 6' - SAND: gray sand transitioning into 6" thick layer of finer sand which is oxidized along the bottom, this grades back into the coarser gray sand, layer is friable, with visible moisture darkening material at 10' and the 6" finer sand layer SP G-3 Total Depth: 10.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 ABCD Last Edited: 6/9/2021 Qyf @ 0' to 2.5' - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) @ 2.5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan deposits (Qyf) 1605
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-7 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 671 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light brown, gray, dry, loose, dead vegetation and roots SM B @ 0.83' - SILT: white to gray, dry, slightly indurated, porous (~5%), rootlets ML G-1, B-1 C @ 4.2' - SILT: olive gray, few pores, roots, dry, medium dense Qyf G-2 D @ 7' - 6" thick clay seam - dark gray, slightly moist, low plasticity, medium dense CL G-3 E @ 7.5' - Silty SAND: olive gray, slightly moist, less dense than previous layers SM G-4 Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 ABCDE Last Edited: 6/9/2021 @ 0' to 4.2' - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) @ 4.2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan deposits (Qyf) Afu 1606
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-8 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 666 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light gray, dry, dead vegetation, rootlets B @ 0.83' - SILT: gray, roots, mildly porous, dry, medium dense, grades into "C" Qyf ML G-1 C @ 5' - SAND: light gray, loose, dry, some caving, coarse grained with tightly packed layers of 3" rocks, rounded to subangular SP G-2, G-3 Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 ABC Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu @ 0' to 0.83' - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) @ 0.83' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan deposits (Qyf) 1607
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-9 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 662 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light gray, dead vegetation, dry, loose Afu SM B @ 0.83' - SILT: light gray to brown, porous (~5-10%), charcoal pieces, rootlets, 10" concrete pipe filled with mud runs north to south through trench G-1, G-2 C @ 5' - SILT: olive gray, slightly moist, dense to medium dense Qyf ML G-3 Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 ABC Last Edited: 6/9/2021 @ 0' to 5' - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) @ 5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan deposits (Qyf) 1608
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-10 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 662 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: light gray, dry, cracked, dead vegetation and roots, loose ML B @ 0.83' - SILT: light gray, dry, slightly porous, minor rootlets, dense to medium dense, some mottled white mineralization & oxidation stains @ contact with "C" Qyf G-1, B-1 C @ 5' - SILT - olive gray, light gray, dry to slightly moist, decrease in density from "B" iron oxide. G-2 Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 ABC Last Edited: 6/9/2021 @ 0' to 0.83' - Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Afu) @ 0.83' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan deposits (Qyf) Afu 1609
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-1 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 665 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Sandy SILT: dry, gray brown, loose, rootlets, sand is fine grained Afu SM G1 B @ 1' - SILT: white, dry, medium dense to dense, minor rootlets ML G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021
1610
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-2 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 664 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light brown, dry, loose, rootlets SM G-1 B @ 1' - Silt: light gray, medium dense, dry ML G-2 Total Depth: 3.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021 Afu
1611
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-3 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 669 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light brown, loose, dry Afu SM G-1 B @ 1' - SILT: gray, medium dense, white mottle, minor rootlets, dry ML G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021
1612
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-4 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 670 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N 80 E A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light brown, dry, loose, rootlets Afu SM G-1 B @ 1' - SILT: gray, dry, medium dense, slightly porous (<5%) Qyf ML G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021
1613
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-5 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 672 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: light brown, dry, loose, rootlets Afu SM G-1 B @ 1' - SILT: light gray, slightly moist, medium dense Qyf ML G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021
1614
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-6 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 679 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: brown to gray, dry, loose Afu SM G-1 B @ 0.83' - Silty SAND: light gray brown, dry to slightly moist ML G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021
1615
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-7 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 682 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Asphalt section Afu B @ 0.25' - Compacted base C @ 1.3' - SILT: moist, gray, dense ML G-1 Total Depth: 3.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 A B C Last Edited: 6/9/2021
1616
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-8 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 676 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Cow Dung B @ 1.3' - Silty SAND: olive gray, slightly moist, some white mineralization G-1, G-2 C @ 2.6' - SAND with gravel: olive gray, slightly moist, medium dense Qyf SP G-3 Total Depth: 4.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 ABC Last Edited: 6/9/2021 Afu SM
1617
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-9 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 680 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Cow Dung G-1 B @ 1.5' - SILT: olive gray, slightly moist, trace of gravel at bottom of trench ML G-2 Total Depth: 4.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021 Afu
1618
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/21/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-10 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 675 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N 80 E A @ 0' - Cow Dung G-1 B @ 1.5' - Silty SAND: olive brown, dry to slightly moist, slight gravel presence, medium dense to dense ML G-2 Total Depth: 4.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/21/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/9/2021 Afu
1619
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-11 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 679 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Cow Dung B @ 1' - SILT: olive gray, slightly moist, medium dense to dense ML G-1 C @ 3.5' - SAND: gray, loose, slightly moist, gravel Qyf SP G-2 Total Depth: 4.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 ABC Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1620
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-12 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 670 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silty SAND: brown, dry, loose, rootlets Afu SM G-1 B @ 1' - SILT: dry, medium dense to dense, some gravel, slightly disturbed appearance ML G-2 Total Depth: 4.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021
1621
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-13 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 675 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W @ 0' - Silty SAND: light brown, dry, loose, dead vegetation and rootlets SM G-1 @ 1.5' - Silty SAND: olive gray, dry, medium dense, some minor rootlets G-2 @ 3.2' - SILT: gray, dry, medium dense Qyf ML G-3 Total Depth: 4' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 Last Edited: 6/10/2021
1622
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-14 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 673 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: light brown, dry, loose, rootlets, dead vegetation Afu ML B @ 0.83' - SILT: olive gray, dry to slightly moist, medium dense, roots to total depth, minor gravel presence G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 3.6' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021
1623
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-15 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 670 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Silt: light gray, dry to loose, roots/dead vegetation, grades into "B" Afu ML G-1 B @ 1' - SILT: light gray, dry, medium dense to dense, slightly porous, some random gravel fragments, bottom 10" grades into olive gray silt G-2 Total Depth: 3.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021
1624
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-16 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 675 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Cow Dung G-1 B @ 1' - SILT: olive gray, slightly moist, dense ML G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1625
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-17 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 675 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Cow Dung B @ 1' - SILT: olive gray, slightly moist, trace gravel, slightly porous ML G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1626
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/25/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-18 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 676 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - Cow Dung B @ 1' - SILT: olive gray, medium dense, slightly moist, upper 3' is disturbed, lower 10" appears undisturbed and free of debris ML G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 3.83' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/25/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1627
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-19 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 670 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: light gray, dry, loose, rootlets B @ 0.5' - SILT: light gray, dry, medium dense to dense, slightly porous (5-10%) ML G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1628
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-20 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 668 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' SILT: light gray, dry, loose, rootlets B @ 1' SILT: light gray, dry, dense, slightly porous ML G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 4' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1629
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-21 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 667 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: light brown to gray, dry, loose, dead vegetation B @ 0.83' - SILT: gray to light gray, dry, medium dense, slightly porous (~10%) looks disturbed, rootlets ML G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 4' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1630
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-22 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 661 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: light brown to gray, dry, loose, dead vegetation, roots G-1 B @ 1.5' - SILT: light gray, slightly moist, porous (5-10%) SM G-2 Total Depth: 3.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1631
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-23 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 659 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: light gray, loose, dead grass, dry SM B @ 1'- SILT: light gray, dry, dense, roots, porous (~10%) G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1632
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-24 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 660 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: light gray, dry, loose, cracked, roots Afu SM B @ 1' - SILT: light gray, dry, medium dense looks disturbed, porous (~5-10%), transitions to olive gray silt at 2' which is slightly moist. G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021
1633
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-25 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 666 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: light gray, dry, cracked, loose ML B @ 1' - SILT: light gray, dry, dense, slightly disturbed from 1'-2', past 2' begins to transition to an undisturbed olive gray silt which persists to the bottom of the trench. G-1, G-2 Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1634
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: TNHC - Eastvale Project Number : 21116-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date : 5/26/2021 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: OTP-26 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 674 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A @ 0' - SILT: dry, gray, loose ML B @ 2.5' - Cow Dung, farmer stated there is a stockpile of cow dung 15' deep beyond this point Total Depth: 4' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 5/26/2021 AB Last Edited: 6/10/2021 Afu
1635
Appendix C
Laboratory Test Results
1636
Project No. 21116‐01 C‐1 June 21, 2021

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the site soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results.

Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on driven samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples.

Grain Size Distribution/Fines Content: Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140). Where applicable, the portion retained on the No. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D6913 (sieve).

Sample Location Description % Passing #
200 Sieve
I-2 Clay with Sand 83
Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits (“Atterberg Limits”) were determined per ASTM D4318 for engineering classification of fine-grained material and presented in the table below. The USCS soil classification indicated in the table below is based on the portion of sample passing the No. 40 sieve and may not necessarily be representative of the entire sample. The plot is provided in this Appendix.

Sample Location Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index (%)
USCS
Soil
Classification
HS-8 @ 7.5 ft 32 21 11 CL
Consolidation: One consolidation test was performed per ASTM D2435. A sample (2.4 inches in diameter and 1-inch in height) was placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied. The sample was allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step were recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The consolidation pressure curve is provided in this Appendix. 1637
Project No. 21116‐01 C‐2 June 21, 2021
Collapse/Swell Potential: One collapse test was performed per ASTM D4546. A sample (2.4 inches in diameter and 1-inch in height) was placed in a consolidometer and loaded to the approximate in-situ effective stress. The curve is presented in this Appendix.

Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical material was determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The result of this test is presented in the table below:

Sample
Location
Sample
Description
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
HS-3 @ 0-5 ft Brown Silty Sand 125.0 8.5
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected representative samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test per ASTM D4829.

Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential*
HS-2 @ 0-5 ft 11 Very Low
* Per ASTM D4829
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate content of a select sample was determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The test result is presented in the table below.

Sample Location Sulfate Content, ppm
HS-1 @ 0-5 ft 78
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested per CTM 422. The results are presented below.

Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm
HS-1 @ 0-5 ft 100
Organic Matter Content of Soils: Organic matter content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2974 (Test Methods A & C). The results are presented in this Table 6. 1638
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics

0.5'‐1.5' 16.3

1.5'‐2' 0.9 1'‐2' 1.4
3'‐4' 0.5
6'‐9' 0.3 4'‐5.17' 0.2 3'‐5' 0.8 7'‐8' 0.4
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics 0'‐1' 6.5 0'‐1' 12.9 0'‐1' 7.0 0'‐0.5' 15.8
1'‐3' 0.4 1'‐3' 0.5 1'‐3' 0.7 0.5'‐3' 0.4
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics 0'‐1' 8.2 0'‐0.83' 8.8 0'‐1' >10
1'‐3' 0.7 0.83'‐3' 0.8 1.5' 2.3

3.5' 0.8 2'‐2.6' 0.5
3'‐4.5' 0.2
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics 0'‐1' 1.5 0'‐1' >10 0'‐1' >10 0'‐1' 10.0
1'‐3' 0.6 1.5'‐2' 1.2 1'‐2' 0.9 1'‐3.5' 0.9
2'‐4.5' 0.5 3.5'‐4.5' 0.1
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics 0'‐1' 8.7 0'‐1' >10 0'‐1' 3.0 0'‐1' 33.2
1'‐3' 0.6 1'‐2' 0.6 1'‐3.5' 0.6 1'‐3' 1.2
4' 0.5 2'‐3' 0.5
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics 0'‐1' >10 0'‐1' >10
1'‐2' 1.2 1'‐2' 1.2 1'‐2' 1.4 1'‐2' 0.9
2'‐3' 1.3 3'‐3.5' 0.8 2'‐3' 0.9 2'‐4' 0.6
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics 0'‐1' >10 0'‐1' >10 0'‐1' >10
1'‐2' 1.0 1'‐1.5' 2.8 1'‐2' 1.1 1'‐2' 0.8
2'‐4' 0.5 2'‐3' 0.7 2'‐3' 0.8 2'‐3' 0.4
Legend
Depth (ft) % Organics > 5%     Recommended for Offsite Removal 2 to 5%     Recommended for Mixing/Blending with "Clean" Soils 1'‐2' 0.8 < 2%      "Clean" Soils
2'‐3' 0.9 Note: * Indicates Soil Visually Confirmed to Have greater than 10% Organics at 0'‐1' Date
Project Name
Project Number
ENG./GEOL.

Jun-21

BJE/BPG
21116-01
TNHC - Eastvale
OTP‐23*
TP‐1   TP‐2
OTP‐1 OTP‐2
OTP‐5OTP‐6
OTP‐9OTP‐10*
OTP‐19
Table 6
Summary of Measured
Organic Content vs Depth of
Sample
OTP‐21*
OTP‐25
OTP‐13
OTP‐17*
OTP‐14*
OTP‐18*
OTP‐22*
TP‐5
OTP‐3
OTP‐7
OTP‐11*
OTP‐15
OTP‐20
OTP‐24
TP‐9
OTP‐4
OTP‐8*
OTP‐12
OTP‐16
1639
Appendix D
Infiltration Test Data
1640
Boring Number:

Test hole dimensions (if circular)
10 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 9:14 9:39 25.0 7.53 9.10 1.57
2 9:40 10:05 25.0 7.65 9.33 1.68
Main Test Data
1 10:06 10:16 10.0 7.90 8.45 0.55 3.3
2 10:17 10:27 10.0 7.82 8.33 0.51 2.9
3 10:28 10:38 10.0 8.11 8.67 0.56 3.8
4 10:39 10:49 10.0 8.00 8.53 0.53 3.3
5 10:50 11:00 10.0 7.85 8.47 0.62 3.7
6 11:01 11:11 10.0 7.91 8.52 0.61 3.8

3.750640478

3.8 Sketch: Notes:

Time Interval, t
(min)
Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Yes
Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Observed Infiltration Rate (Does Not Include Any Factor of Safety) Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water  (feet)
Final Depth
to Water (feet) Trial No.

Pit Length (feet):

Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Final Depth to
Water, Df (feet) Trial No.

Eastvale
Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):

Observed
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Start Time
(24:HR)
Greater Than or
Equal to

0.5 feet (yes/no)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Yes
Project Number:

Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Date:
*measured at time of test
5/25/2021
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
21116‐01
Boring Diameter (inches):

I‐1
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672     tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name:

Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):
1641
Boring Number:

Test hole dimensions (if circular)
10 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 7:03 7:28 25.0 7.56 7.82 0.26
2 7:29 7:54 25.0 7.63 7.89 0.26
Main Test Data
1 8:50 9:20 30.0 7.60 7.99 0.39 0.7
2 9:21 9:51 30.0 7.63 8.00 0.37 0.6
3 9:52 10:22 30.0 7.59 7.91 0.32 0.5
4 10:23 10:53 30.0 7.61 7.95 0.34 0.6
5 10:54 11:24 30.0 7.65 7.93 0.28 0.5
6 11:25 11:55 30.0 7.60 7.93 0.33 0.5
7 11:56 12:26 30.0 7.64 7.95 0.31 0.5
8 12:27 12:57 30.0 7.65 7.94 0.29 0.5
9 12:58 13:28 30.0 7.61 7.96 0.35 0.6
10 13:29 13:59 30.0 7.58 7.89 0.31 0.5
11 14:00 14:30 30.0 7.58 7.91 0.33 0.5
12 14:31 15:01 30.0 7.62 7.95 0.33 0.6

0.55423373

0.6 Sketch: Notes:

Final Depth to
Water, Df (feet)
Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Observed
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Observed Infiltration Rate (Does Not Include Any Factor of Safety) Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to

0.5 feet (yes/no)
No
No
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No.

Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval, t
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Trial No.

Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water  (feet)
Final Depth
to Water (feet)
*measured at time of test
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):

Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):

Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):

Date: 5/25/2021
I‐2
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672     tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Eastvale
Project Number: 21116‐01
1642
Appendix E
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
for Rough Grading
1643
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading

1.0 General

1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moistureconditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1 1644
contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the
Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction.

2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.

If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor.

2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2 1645

2.3 Over-excavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.

2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 Fill Material

3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.

3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3 1646

3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.

4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction

4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing
Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4 1647

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.

4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.

5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only.

The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 Trench Backfills

7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.

7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5 1648
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
32 Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or Other Information on Past Site Use

 On File with City
1659
33 Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility
LID Technical Infeasibility Analysis
 N/A. Project is able to meet LID BMP requirements onsite. 1660
34 Appendix 6: BMP Design Details
BMP Sizing, Design Details and other Supporting Documentation 1661
Date
D85= 0.86 inches
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume on
Plans (cubic
feet)
1A 2002660 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 1200186.1
1B 723208 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 433415.7
1C 668544 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 400655.7
1D 1287889 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 771826.7
1E 558821 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 334899.2
1F 322031 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 192991.9
2 571177 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 342304.1
3 20004 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 11988.3
4 27082 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 16230.1
5 37514 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 22482
6 32384 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 19407.6
7 91523 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 54849.4
8 93166 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 55834
9 52777 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 31629
10 72452 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 43420.2
11 17237 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 10330.1
12 81864 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 49060.8
13 20030 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 12003.9
14 40079 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 24019.2
15 57984 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 34749.6
16 95700 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 57352.6
17 97608 Mixed Surface Types 0.8 0.60 58496.1
1 1
6971734 4178132.3 0.86 298736.5 TBD
Notes:

BMP Identification
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Design Rainfall Depth
BMP NAME / ID DMAS 1 THROUGH 17
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Designed by Tommy Hsu Case No TBD
Company Project Number/Name Leal Ranch
Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Volume, VBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend: Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. 11/29/2021 Total
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP 1662
Date
I = 0.20 in/hr
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project
Surface Type
(use pull-down menu)
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Rainfall
Intensity
(in/hr)
Design Flow
Rate (cfs)
Proposed
Flow Rate
(cfs)
1A 2002660 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.60 1200186.1
1B 723208 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 433415.7
1C 668544 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 400655.7
1D 1287889 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 771826.7
1E 558821 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 334899.2
1F 322031 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 192991.9
2 571177 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 342304.1
3 20004 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 11988.3
4 27082 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 16230.1
5 37514 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 22482
6 32384 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 19407.6
7 91523 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 54849.4
8 93166 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 55834
9 52777 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 31629
10 72452 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 43420.2
11 17237 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 10330.1
12 81864 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 49060.8
13 20030 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 12003.9
14 40079 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 24019.2
15 57984 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 34749.6
16 95700 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 57352.6
17 97608 Mixed Surface
Types

0.8 0.599296 58496.1
1 1
1 6971734 4178132.3 0.20 19.2 TBD
Notes:

Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP Design Rainfall Intensity
Total
DMAs
BMP Identification
BMP NAME / ID DMAS 1 THROUGH 17
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Design Rainfall Depth
Designed by Tommy Hsu Case No TBD
Company Project Number/Name Leal Ranch
Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Flow Rate, QBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend: Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name Hunsaker & Associates 11/29/2021
1663
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

3.5 Bioretention Facility
Description
Bioretention Facilities are shallow, vegetated basins underlain by an engineered soil media.

Healthy plant and biological activity in the root zone maintain and renew the macro‐pore space in the soil and maximize plant uptake of pollutants and runoff. This keeps the Best Management Practice (BMP) from becoming clogged and allows more of the soil column to function as both a sponge (retaining water) and a highly effective and self‐maintaining biofilter.

In most cases, the bottom of a Bioretention Facility is unlined, which also provides an opportunity for infiltration to the extent the underlying onsite soil can accommodate. When the infiltration rate of the underlying soil is exceeded, fully biotreated flows are discharged via underdrains. Bioretention Facilities therefore will inherently achieve the maximum feasible level of infiltration and evapotranspiration and achieve the minimum feasible (but highly biotreated) discharge to the storm drain system.

Siting Considerations
These facilities work best when they are designed in a relatively level area. Unlike other BMPs, Bioretention Facilities can be used in smaller landscaped spaces on the site, such as:
 Parking islands
 Medians
 Site entrances
Landscaped areas on the site (such as may otherwise be required through minimum landscaping ordinances), can often be designed as Bioretention Facilities. This can be accomplished by:
 Depressing landscaped areas below adjacent impervious surfaces, rather than elevating those areas
 Grading the site to direct runoff from those impervious surfaces into the Bioretention Facility, rather than away from the landscaping
 Sizing and designing the depressed landscaped area as a Bioretention Facility as described in this Fact Sheet
Type of BMP LID – Bioretention
Treatment Mechanisms Infiltration, Evapotranspiration, Evaporation, Biofiltration Maximum Drainage Area This BMP is intended to be integrated into a project’s landscaped area in a distributed manner. Typically, contributing drainage areas to Bioretention Facilities range from less than 1 acre to a maximum of around 10 acres.

Other Names Rain Garden, Bioretention Cell, Bioretention Basin, Biofiltration Basin, Landscaped Filter Basin, Porous Landscape Detention
1664
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

Bioretention Facilities should however not be used downstream of areas where large amounts of sediment can clog the system. Placing a Bioretention Facility at the toe of a steep slope should also be avoided due to the potential for clogging the engineered soil media with erosion from the slope, as well as the potential for damaging the vegetation.

Design and Sizing Criteria
The recommended cross section necessary for a Bioretention Facility includes:
 Vegetated area
 18' minimum depth of engineered soil media
 12' minimum gravel layer depth with 6' perforated pipes (added flow control features such as orifice plates may be required to mitigate for HCOC conditions) While the 18‐inch minimum engineered soil media depth can be used in some cases, it is recommended to use 24 inches or a preferred 36 inches to provide an adequate root zone for the chosen plant palate. Such a design also provides for improved removal effectiveness for nutrients. The recommended ponding depth inside of a Bioretention Facility is 6 inches; measured from the flat bottom surface to the top of the water surface as shown in Figure 1.

Because this BMP is filled with an engineered soil media, pore space in the soil and gravel layer is assumed to provide storage volume. However, several considerations must be noted:
 Surcharge storage above the soil surface (6 inches) is important to assure that design flows do not bypass the BMP when runoff exceeds the soil’s absorption rate.  In cases where the Bioretention Facility contains engineered soil media deeper than 36 inches, the pore space within the engineered soil media can only be counted to the 36‐ inch depth.
 A maximum of 30 percent pore space can be used for the soil media whereas a maximum of 40 percent pore space can be use for the gravel layer.

Figure 1: Standard Layout for a Bioretention Facility 1665

BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

Engineered Soil Media Requirements
The engineered soil media shall be comprised of 85 percent mineral component and 15 percent organic component, by volume, drum mixed prior to placement. The mineral component shall be a Class A sandy loam topsoil that meets the range specified in Table 1 below. The organic component shall be nitrogen stabilized compost1, such that nitrogen does not leach from the media.

Table 1: Mineral Component Range Requirements
Percent Range Component
70‐80 Sand
15‐20 Silt
5‐10 Clay
The trip ticket, or certificate of compliance, shall be made available to the inspector to prove the engineered mix meets this specification.

Vegetation Requirements
Vegetative cover is important to minimize erosion and ensure that treatment occurs in the Bioretention Facility. The area should be designed for at least 70 percent mature coverage throughout the Bioretention Facility. To prevent the BMP from being used as walkways, Bioretention Facilities shall be planted with a combination of small trees, densely planted shrubs, and natural grasses. Grasses shall be native or ornamental; preferably ones that do not need to be mowed. The application of fertilizers and pesticides should be minimal. To maintain oxygen levels for the vegetation and promote biodegradation, it is important that vegetation not be completely submerged for any extended period of time. Therefore, a maximum of 6 inches of ponded water shall be used in the design to ensure that plants within the Bioretention Facility remain healthy.

A 2 to 3‐inch layer of standard shredded aged hardwood mulch shall be placed as the top layer inside the Bioretention Facility. The 6‐inch ponding depth shown in Figure 1 above shall be measured from the top surface of the 2 to 3‐inch mulch layer.

Curb Cuts
To allow water to flow into the Bioretention Facility, 1‐foot‐wide (minimum) curb cuts should be placed approximately every 10 feet around the perimeter of the Bioretention Facility. Figure 2 shows a curb cut in a Bioretention Facility. Curb cut flow lines must be at or above the VBMP water surface level.

1 For more information on compost, visit the US Composting Council website at: http://compostingcouncil.org/ 1666

BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

Figure 2: Curb Cut located in a Bioretention Facility
To reduce erosion, a gravel pad shall be placed
at each inlet point to the Bioretention Facility.

The gravel should be 1‐ to 1.5‐inch diameter in
size. The gravel should overlap the curb cut
opening a minimum of 6 inches. The gravel pad
inside the Bioretention Facility should be flush
with the finished surface at the curb cut and
extend to the bottom of the slope.

In addition, place an apron of stone or concrete,
a foot square or larger, inside each inlet to
prevent vegetation from growing up and
blocking the inlet.  See Figure 3.

Terracing the Landscaped Filter Basin
It is recommended that Bioretention Facilities be level. In the event the facility site slopes and lacks proper design, water would fill the lowest point of the BMP and then discharge from the basin without being treated. To ensure that the water will be held within the Bioretention Facility on sloped sites, the BMP must be terraced with nonporous check dams to provide the required storage and treatment capacity.

The terraced version of this BMP shall be used on non‐flat sites with no more than a 3 percent slope. The surcharge depth cannot exceed 0.5 feet, and side slopes shall not exceed 4:1. Table 2 below shows the spacing of the check dams, and slopes shall be rounded up (i.e., 2.5 percent slope shall use 10' spacing for check dams).

Table 2: Check Dam Spacing
6” Check Dam Spacing
Slope Spacing
1% 25'
2% 15'
3% 10'
Figure 3: Apron located in a Bioretention Facility
1667

BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

Roof Runoff
Roof downspouts may be directed towards Bioretention Facilities. However, the downspouts must discharge onto a concrete splash block to protect the Bioretention Facility from erosion.

Retaining Walls
It is recommended that Retaining Wall Type 1A, per Caltrans Standard B3‐3 or equivalent, be constructed around the entire perimeter of the Bioretention Facility. This practice will protect the sides of the Bioretention Facility from collapsing during construction and maintenance or from high service loads adjacent to the BMP. Where such service loads would not exist adjacent to the BMP, an engineered alternative may be used if signed by a licensed civil engineer.

Side Slope Requirements
Bioretention Facilities Requiring Side Slopes
The design should assure that the Bioretention Facility does not present a tripping hazard.

Bioretention Facilities proposed near pedestrian areas, such as areas parallel to parking spaces or along a walkway, must have a gentle slope to the bottom of the facility. Side slopes inside of a Bioretention Facility shall be 4:1. A typical cross section for the Bioretention Facility is shown in Figure 1.

Bioretention Facilities Not Requiring Side Slopes
Where cars park perpendicular to the Bioretention Facility, side slopes are not required. A 6‐ inch maximum drop may be used, and the Bioretention Facility must be planted with trees and shrubs to prevent pedestrian access. In this case, a curb is not placed around the Bioretention Facility,
but wheel stops shall be used to prevent vehicles from entering the Bioretention Facility, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Bioretention Facility Layout without Side Slopes 1668

BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

Planter Boxes
Bioretention Facilities can also be placed above ground as planter boxes. Planter boxes must have a minimum width of 2 feet, a maximum surcharge depth of 6 inches, and no side slopes are necessary. Planter boxes must be constructed so as to ensure that the top surface of the engineered soil media will remain level. This option may be constructed of concrete, brick, stone or other stable materials that will not warp or bend. Chemically treated wood or galvanized steel, which has the ability to contaminate stormwater, should not be used. Planter boxes must be lined with an impermeable liner on all sides, including the bottom. Due to the impermeable liner, the inside bottom of the planter box shall be designed and constructed with a cross fall, directing treated flows within the subdrain layer toward the point where subdrain exits the planter box, and subdrains shall be oriented with drain holes oriented down. These provisions will help avoid excessive stagnant water within the gravel underdrain layer. Similar to the in‐ground Bioretention Facility versions, this BMP benefits from healthy plants and biological activity in the root zone. Planter boxes should be planted with appropriately selected vegetation.

Figure 5: Planter Box
Source: LA Team Effort
Overflow
An overflow route is needed in the Bioretention Facility design to bypass stored runoff from storm events larger than VBMP or in the event of facility or subdrain clogging. Overflow systems must connect to an acceptable discharge point, such as a downstream conveyance system as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 4. The inlet to the overflow structure shall be elevated inside the Bioretention Facility to be flush with the ponding surface for the design capture volume (VBMP) as shown in Figure 4. This will allow the design capture volume to be fully treated by the Bioretention Facility, and for larger events to safely be conveyed to downstream systems. The overflow inlet shall not be located in the entrance of a Bioretention Facility, as shown in Figure

6. 1669

BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

Underdrain Gravel and Pipes
An underdrain gravel layer and pipes shall be provided in accordance with Appendix B – Underdrains.

Figure 6: Incorrect Placement of an Overflow Inlet.

Inspection and Maintenance Schedule
The Bioretention Facility area shall be inspected for erosion, dead vegetation, soggy soils, or standing water. The use of fertilizers and pesticides on the plants inside the Bioretention Facility should be minimized.

Schedule Activity
Ongoing
 Keep adjacent landscape areas maintained. Remove clippings from landscape maintenance activities.
 Remove trash and debris
 Replace damaged grass and/or plants
 Replace surface mulch layer as needed to maintain a 2‐3 inch soil cover.

After storm events  Inspect areas for ponding
Annually  Inspect/clean inlets and outlets
1670
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

Bioretention Facility Design Procedure
1) Enter the area tributary, AT, to the Bioretention Facility. 2) Enter the Design Volume, VBMP, determined from Section 2.1 of this Handbook. 3) Select the type of design used. There are two types of Bioretention Facility designs: the standard design used for most project sites that include side slopes, and the modified design used when the BMP is located perpendicular to the parking spaces or with planter boxes that do not use side slopes.
4) Enter the depth of the engineered soil media, dS. The minimum depth for the engineered soil media can be 18' in limited cases, but it is recommended to use 24' or a preferred 36' to provide an adequate root zone for the chosen plant palette. Engineered soil media deeper than 36' will only get credit for the pore space in the first 36'. 5) Enter the top width of the Bioretention Facility.
6) Calculate the total effective depth, dE, within the Bioretention Facility. The maximum allowable pore space of the soil media is 30% while the maximum allowable pore space for the gravel layer is 40%.  Gravel layer deeper than 12' will only get credit for the pore space in the first 12'.
a. For the design with side slopes the following equation shall be used to determine the total effective depth. Where, dP is the depth of ponding within the basin. d୉ሺftሻ ൌ 0.3 ൈ ቂ൫w୘ሺftሻ ൈdୗሺftሻ൯ ൅ 4൫d୔ሺftሻ൯
ଶ
ቃ ൅ 0.4 ൈ 1ሺftሻ ൅d୔ሺftሻൣ4d୔ሺftሻ ൅ ൫w୘ሺftሻ െ 8d୔ሺftሻ൯൧ w୘ሺftሻ
This above equation can be simplified if the maximum ponding depth of 0.5’ is used. The equation below is used on the worksheet to find the minimum area required for the Bioretention Facility:
d୉ሺftሻ ൌ ሺ0.3 ൈ dୗሺftሻ ൅ 0.4 x 1ሺftሻሻ െቆ0.7 ሺftଶሻ
w୘ሺftሻ ቇ ൅ 0.5ሺftሻ
1671
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

b. For the design without side slopes the following equation shall be used to determine the total effective depth:
d୉ሺftሻ ൌd୔ሺftሻ ൅ ሾሺ0.3ሻ ൈdୗሺftሻ ൅ ሺ0.4ሻ ൈ 1ሺftሻሿ
The equation below, using the maximum ponding depth of 0.5', is used on the worksheet to find the minimum area required for the Bioretention Facility:
d୉ሺftሻ ൌ 0.5 ሺftሻ ൅ ሾሺ0.3ሻ ൈdୗሺftሻ ൅ ሺ0.4ሻ ൈ 1ሺftሻሿ
7) Calculate the minimum surface area, AM, required for the Bioretention Facility. This does not include the curb surrounding the Bioretention Facility or side slopes.

A୑ሺftଶሻ ൌ V୆୑୔ሺftଷሻ
d୉ ሺftሻ
8) Enter the proposed surface area.  This area shall not be less than the minimum required surface area.
9) Verify that side slopes are no steeper than 4:1 in the standard design, and are not required in the modified design.
10) Provide the diameter, minimum 6 inches, of the perforated underdrain used in the Bioretention Facility. See Appendix B for specific information regarding perforated pipes.
11) Provide the slope of the site around the Bioretention Facility, if used. The maximum slope is 3 percent for a standard design.
12) Provide the check dam spacing, if the site around the Bioretention Facility is sloped. 13) Describe the vegetation used within the Bioretention Facility. 1672
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

References Used to Develop this Fact Sheet
Anderson, Dale V. "Landscaped Filter Basin Soil Requirements." Riverside, May 2010.

California Department of Transportation. CalTrans Standard Plans. 15 September 2005. May 2010 <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/HTM/stdplns‐met‐new99.htm>.

Camp Dresser and McKee Inc.; Larry Walker Associates. California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2004.

Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Stormwater Quality Requirements for Development Applications. 3rd Edition. Contra Costa, 2006.

County of Los Angeles Public Works. Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual. Los Angeles, 2009.

Kim, Hunho, Eric A. Seagren and Allen P. Davis. "Engineered Bioretention for Removal of Nitrate from Stormwater Runoff." Water Environment Research 75.4 (2003): 355‐366.

LA Team Effort. LA Team Effort: FREE Planter Boxes for Businesses. 2 November 2009. May 2010 <http://lateameffort.blogspot.com/2009/11/free‐planter‐boxes‐for‐businesses‐est.html>.

Montgomery County Maryland Department of Permitting Services Water Resources Section.

Biofiltration (BF). Montgomery County, 2005.

Program, Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management. Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures. Ventura, 2002.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet Bioretention. Washington D.C, 1999.

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 ‐ Best Management Practices. Vol. 3. Denver, 2008. 3 vols.

Urbonas, Ben R. Stormwater Sand Filter Sizing and Design: A Unit Operations Approach. Denver:

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, 2002.
1673
35 Appendix 7: Hydromodification
Supporting Detail Relating to Hydrologic Conditions of Concern  Project does not have HCOCs for downstream areas.
1674
1675
WQMP Project Report
County of Riverside Stormwater Program
Santa Ana River Watershed Geodatabase
Saturday, October 23, 2021
Note: The information provided in this report and on the Stormwater Geodatabase for the County of Riverside Stormwater Program is intended to provide basic guidance in the preparation of the applicant�s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and should not be relied upon without independent verification.

Project Site Parcel Number(s): 164030014, 164030010, 164030013, 164030012, RW, 164030025, 164030024
Latitude/Longitude: 33.9791, -117.5627
Thomas Brothers Page:

Project Site Acreage: 145.48
Watershed(s): SANTA ANA
This Project Site Resides in the
following Hydrologic Unit(s)
(HUC):

HUC Name - HUC Number
Lower Cucamonga Creek - 180702030705
The HUCs Contribute stormwater
to the following 303d listed water
bodies and TMDLs which may
include drainage from your
proposed Project Site:

WBID Name - WBID Number
Cucamonga Creek Reach 1 (Valley Reach) -
CAR8012100019990211101136
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 -
CAR8012100019990211140353
These 303d listed Water bodies
and TMDLs have the following
Pollutants of Concern (POC):

Bacterial Indicators - Coliform Bacteria, Pathogens
Metals/Metalloids - Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Zinc
Is the Site subject to
Hydromodification: No
Limitations on Infiltration: Project Site Onsite Soils Group(s) - A, C Known Groundwater Contamination Plumes within
1000' - No
Adjacent Water Supply Wells(s) - No information
available please contact your local water agency for
more information. Your local contact agency is
JURUPA C.S.D.. Your local wholesaler contact agency
is METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas
within 200'(Fish and Wildlife
Habitat/Species):

None
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
within 200'(CVMSHCP): None
Riverside County - SWCT Report Page 1 of 2
http://rcstormwatertool.org/PermitTracker/report.asp?septic=&SECAREA=&PNUM=16... 10/23/2021 1676
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
within 200'(WRMSHCP):

Narrow Endemic Plants Survey Req. - NAP,Burrowing
Owl Survey Required Area,Narrow Endemic Plants
Survey Req. - Area 7
Groundwater elevation from Mean
Sea Level: 552
85th Percentile Design Storm
Depth (in): 0.858
Groundwater Basin: Chino-North
MSHCP/CVMSHCP Criteria Cell
(s): No Data
Retention Ordinance Information: No Data
Studies and Reports Related to
Project Site:

IBI Scores - Southern Cal
bulletin118_4-sc
water_fact_3_7.11
8039-SAR-Hydromodification
final UWMP 051011
JCSD Master Water Plan 2005
Comprehensive Bacteria Reduction Plan
Eastvale MDP
34th Annual Report Chino Basin Watermaster
2012 Annual Report of Santa Ana River
Eastvale ADP Map
Eastvale ADP Report
Riverside County - SWCT Report Page 2 of 2
http://rcstormwatertool.org/PermitTracker/report.asp?septic=&SECAREA=&PNUM=16... 10/23/2021 1677
36 Appendix 8: Source Control
1678

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
How to use this worksheet (also see instructions in Section G of the WQMP Template): 1. Review Column 1 and identify which of these potential sources of stormwater pollutants apply to your site. Check each box that applies.

2. Review Column 2 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable BMPs in your WQMP Exhibit.3. Review Columns 3 and 4 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable permanent controls and operational BMPs in your WQMP. Use the format shown in Table G.1on page 23 of this WQMP Template. Describe your specific BMPs in an accompanying narrative, and explain any special conditions or situations that required omitting BMPs or substituting alternative BMPs for those shown here.

IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 A. On-site storm drain
inlets
 Locations of inlets.
 Mark all inlets with the words
“Only Rain Down the Storm Drain” or similar. Catch Basin Markers may be available from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, call 951.955.1200 to verify. 
Maintain and periodically repaint or replace inlet markings. Provide stormwater pollution prevention information to new site owners, lessees, or operators. See applicable operational BMPs in Fact Sheet SC-44, “Drainage System Maintenance,” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com Include the following in lease agreements: “Tenant shall not allow anyone to discharge anything to storm drains or to store or deposit materials so as to create a potential discharge to storm drains.”  B. Interior floor drains
and elevator shaft sump pumps
 State that interior floor drains and
elevator shaft sump pumps will be plumbed to sanitary sewer.  Inspect and maintain drains to prevent
blockages and overflow.
 C. Interior parking
garages
 State that parking garage floor
drains will be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
 Inspect and maintain drains to prevent
blockages and overflow.
1679

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 D1. Need for future
indoor & structural pest control
 Note building design features that
discourage entry of pests.
 Provide Integrated Pest Management
information to owners, lessees, and operators.
 D2. Landscape/
Outdoor Pesticide Use

Show locations of native trees or areas of shrubs and ground cover to be undisturbed and retained. Show self-retaining landscape areas, if any. Show stormwater treatment and hydrograph modification management BMPs. (See instructions in Chapter 3, Step 5 and guidance in Chapter 5.) 
State that final landscape plans will accomplish all of the following. Preserve existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover to the maximum extent possible. Design landscaping to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution. Where landscaped areas are used to retain or detain stormwater, specify plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions. Consider using pest-resistant plants, especially adjacent to hardscape. To insure successful establishment, select plants appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air movement, ecological consistency, and plant interactions. 

Maintain landscaping using minimum or no pesticides. See applicable operational BMPs in “What you should know for…..Landscape and Gardening” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

Provide IPM information to new owners, lessees and operators. 1680

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 E. Pools, spas, ponds,
decorative fountains, and other water features.
 Show location of water feature and
a sanitary sewer cleanout in an accessible area within 10 feet. (Exception: Public pools must be plumbed according to County Department of Environmental Health Guidelines.) If the Co-Permittee requires pools
to be plumbed to the sanitary sewer, place a note on the plans and state in the narrative that this connection will be made according to local requirements.  See applicable operational BMPs in
“Guidelines for Maintaining Your Swimming Pool, Jacuzzi and Garden Fountain” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/  F. Food service

For restaurants, grocery stores, and other food service operations, show location (indoors or in a covered area outdoors) of a floor sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment. On the drawing, show a note that this drain will be connected to a grease interceptor before discharging to the sanitary sewer. 
Describe the location and features of the designated cleaning area. Describe the items to be cleaned in this facility and how it has been sized to insure that the largest items can be accommodated.  See the brochure, “The Food Service
Industry Best Management Practices for: Restaurants, Grocery Stores, Delicatessens and Bakeries” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Provide this brochure to new site owners, lessees, and operators.  G. Refuse areas

Show where site refuse and recycled materials will be handled and stored for pickup. See local municipal requirements for sizes and other details of refuse areas. If dumpsters or other receptacles are outdoors, show how the designated area will be covered, graded, and paved to prevent runon and show locations of berms to prevent runoff from the area. Any drains from dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas shall be connected to a grease removal device before discharge to sanitary sewer. 
State how site refuse will be handled and provide supporting detail to what is shown on plans. State that signs will be posted on or near dumpsters with the words “Do not dump hazardous materials here” or similar.  State how the following will be
implemented: Provide adequate number of receptacles. Inspect receptacles regularly; repair or replace leaky receptacles. Keep receptacles covered. Prohibit/prevent dumping of liquid or hazardous wastes. Post “no hazardous materials” signs. Inspect and pick up litter daily and clean up spills immediately. Keep spill control materials available on-site. See Fact Sheet SC-34, “Waste Handling and Disposal” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com 1681

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 H. Industrial processes.
 Show process area.
 If industrial processes are to be
located on site, state: “All process activities to be performed indoors. No processes to drain to exterior or to storm drain system.”  See Fact Sheet SC-10, “NonStormwater Discharges” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com See the brochure “Industrial & Commercial Facilities Best Management Practices for: Industrial, Commercial Facilities” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/ 1682

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 I. Outdoor storage of
equipment or materials. (See rows J and K for source control measures for vehicle cleaning, repair, and maintenance.) 
Show any outdoor storage areas, including how materials will be covered. Show how areas will be graded and bermed to prevent runon or run-off from area. Storage of non-hazardous liquids shall be covered by a roof and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system, and be contained by berms, dikes, liners, or vaults. Storage of hazardous materials and wastes must be in compliance with the local hazardous materials ordinance and a Hazardous Materials Management Plan for the site.

Include a detailed description of
materials to be stored, storage areas, and structural features to prevent pollutants from entering storm drains. Where appropriate, reference documentation of compliance with the requirements of Hazardous Materials Programs for:
 Hazardous Waste Generation
 Hazardous Materials Release
Response and Inventory
 California Accidental Release
(CalARP)
 Aboveground Storage Tank
 Uniform Fire Code Article 80
Section 103(b) & (c) 1991
 Underground Storage Tank
www.cchealth.org/groups/hazmat
/
 See the Fact Sheets SC-31, “Outdoor
Liquid Container Storage” and SC-33, “Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials ” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com 1683

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 J. Vehicle and
Equipment Cleaning
 Show on drawings as appropriate:
(1) Commercial/industrial facilities having vehicle/equipment cleaning needs shall either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. (2) Multi-dwelling complexes shall have a paved, bermed, and covered car wash area (unless car washing is prohibited on-site and hoses are provided with an automatic shutoff to discourage such use). (3) Washing areas for cars, vehicles, and equipment shall be paved, designed to prevent run-on to or runoff from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. (4) Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitary sewer, or a wastewater reclamation system shall be installed.  If a car wash area is not provided,
describe any measures taken to discourage on-site car washing and explain how these will be enforced. 
Describe operational measures to implement the following (if applicable): Washwater from vehicle and equipment washing operations shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. Refer to “Outdoor Cleaning Activities and Professional Mobile Service Providers” for many of the Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants categories below. Brochure can be found at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Car dealerships and similar may rinse cars with water only. 1684

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 K. Vehicle/Equipment
Repair and Maintenance

Accommodate all vehicle equipment repair and maintenance indoors. Or designate an outdoor work area and design the area to prevent run-on and runoff of stormwater. Show secondary containment for exterior work areas where motor oil, brake fluid, gasoline, diesel fuel, radiator fluid, acid-containing batteries or other hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are used or stored. Drains shall not be installed within the secondary containment areas. Add a note on the plans that states either (1) there are no floor drains, or (2) floor drains are connected to wastewater pretreatment systems prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer and an industrial waste discharge permit will be obtained. 
State that no vehicle repair or maintenance will be done outdoors, or else describe the required features of the outdoor work area. State that there are no floor drains or if there are floor drains, note the agency from which an industrial waste discharge permit will be obtained and that the design meets that agency’s requirements. State that there are no tanks, containers or sinks to be used for parts cleaning or rinsing or, if there are, note the agency from which an industrial waste discharge permit will be obtained and that the design meets that agency’s requirements. 
In the Stormwater Control Plan, note that all of the following restrictions apply to use the site: No person shall dispose of, nor permit the disposal, directly or indirectly of vehicle fluids, hazardous materials, or
rinsewater from parts cleaning into storm drains. No vehicle fluid removal shall be performed outside a building, nor on asphalt or ground surfaces, whether inside or outside a building, except in such a manner as to ensure that any spilled fluid will be in an area of secondary containment. Leaking vehicle fluids shall be contained or drained from the vehicle immediately. No person shall leave unattended drip parts or other open containers containing vehicle fluid, unless such containers are in use or in an area of secondary containment. Refer to “Automotive Maintenance & Car Care Best Management Practices for Auto Body Shops, Auto Repair Shops, Car Dealerships, Gas Stations and Fleet Service Operations”. Brochure can be found at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Refer to Outdoor Cleaning Activities and Professional Mobile Service Providers for many of the Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants categories below. Brochure can be found at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/ 1685

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 L. Fuel Dispensing
Areas

Fueling areas6 shall have
impermeable floors (i.e., portland cement concrete or equivalent smooth impervious surface) that are: a) graded at the minimum slope necessary to prevent ponding; and b) separated from the rest of the site by a grade break that prevents run-on of stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. Fueling areas shall be covered by a canopy that extends a minimum of ten feet in each direction from each pump. [Alternative: The fueling area must be covered and the cover’s minimum dimensions must be equal to or greater than the area within the grade break or fuel dispensing area1.] The canopy [or cover] shall not drain onto the fueling area.

The property owner shall dry sweep the fueling area routinely. See the Fact Sheet SD-30 , “Fueling Areas” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com 6 The fueling area shall be defined as the area extending a minimum of 6.5 feet from the corner of each fuel dispenser or the length at which the hose and nozzle assembly may be operated plus a minimum of one foot, whichever is greater.
1686

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 M. Loading Docks

Show a preliminary design for the loading dock area, including roofing and drainage. Loading docks shall be covered and/or graded to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loading area. Roof downspouts shall be positioned to direct stormwater away from the loading area. Water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer. Loading dock areas draining directly to the sanitary sewer shall be equipped with a spill control valve or equivalent device, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. Provide a roof overhang over the loading area or install door skirts (cowling) at each bay that enclose the end of the trailer. 
Move loaded and unloaded items indoors as soon as possible. See Fact Sheet SC-30, “Outdoor Loading and Unloading,” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com 1687

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 N. Fire Sprinkler Test
Water
 Provide a means to drain fire
sprinkler test water to the sanitary sewer.
 See the note in Fact Sheet SC-41,
“Building and Grounds Maintenance,” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com 
O. Miscellaneous Drain
or Wash Water or Other Sources Boiler drain lines Condensate drain lines Rooftop equipment Drainage sumps Roofing, gutters, and trim. Other sources 
Boiler drain lines shall be directly or indirectly connected to the sanitary sewer system and may not discharge to the storm drain system. Condensate drain lines may discharge to landscaped areas if the flow is small enough that runoff will not occur. Condensate drain lines may not discharge to the storm drain system. Rooftop equipment with potential to produce pollutants shall be roofed and/or have secondary containment. Any drainage sumps on-site shall feature a sediment sump to reduce the quantity of sediment in pumped water. Avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff. Include controls for other sources as specified by local reviewer. 1688

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 P. Plazas, sidewalks,
and parking lots.
 Sweep plazas, sidewalks, and parking
lots regularly to prevent accumulation of litter and debris. Collect debris from pressure washing to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Collect washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser and discharge to the sanitary sewer not to a storm drain. 1689
37 Appendix 9: O&M
Operation and Maintenance Plan and Documentation of Finance, Maintenance and Recording Mechanism  Provided in Final WQMP.
1690
Appendix 10: Educational Materials
BMP Fact Sheets, Maintenance Guidelines and Other End-User BMP Information  Provided in Final WQMP.
1691
W.O.
2749-44C

1692
Appendix I
1693
group, inc.
engineering

LEAL MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

NOISE IMPACT STUDY
City of Eastvale
1694

LEAL MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT

NOISE IMPACT STUDY
City of EASTVALE, California
Prepared for:

Mr. AJ Jarvis, President

THE NEW HOME COMPANY
15231 Laguna Canyon Rd Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Prepared by:

RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
4000 Westerly Place, Suite 280
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Bryan Estrada, AICP
Darshan Shivaiah, M.S.

April 8, 2022
1695
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 1-1

1.2 Site Location 1-1

1.3 Project Description 1-2

1.4 Summary of Analysis Results 1-3

1.5 Recommended Project Design Features 1-4

2.0 Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration .................................................. 2-1

2.1 Sound, Noise and Acoustics 2-1

2.2 Frequency and Hertz 2-1

2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels 2-1

2.4 Addition of Decibels 2-1

2.5 Human Responses to Changes in Noise Levels 2-2

2.6 Noise Descriptors 2-2

2.7 Sound Propagation 2-5

2.8 Vibration Description 2-7

2.9 Vibration Perception 2-7

2.10 Vibration Propagation 2-8

3.0 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Federal Regulations 3-1

3.2 State Regulations 3-2

3.3 City of Eastvale Noise Regulations 3-3

3.3.1 City of Eastvale Municipal Code Noise Standards 3-3

3.3.2 Construction Noise Regulations 3-3

4.0 Study Method and Procedures .............................................................. 4-1

4.1 Traffic Noise Modeling 4-2

4.2 Construction Noise Modeling 4-5

4.3 Construction Vibration Modeling 4-5

5.0 Existing Noise Environment................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Existing Traffic Noise Levels 5-1
1696
Table of Contents (Cont.)
Section Page

6.0 Operational Noise Impacts .................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Traffic Source Noise 6-1

6.1.1 Existing Conditions 6-1

6.1.2 Long Range Year Conditions 6-2

6.2 Stationary Noise Source Impacts 6-4

6.2.1 Residential Land Use 6-4

6.2.2 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Land Uses 6-4

6.2.3 Commercial and Civic Land Uses 6-5

6.3 Preliminary Interior Noise Analysis 6-5

6.4 Recommended Operational Design Features 6-6

7.0 Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts ........................................... 7-1

7.1 Typical Construction Noise Levels 7-1

7.2 Construction Noise Impact Analysis 7-2

7.3 Construction Vibration 7-5

7.4 Construction Project Design Features 7-6
1697
List of Attachments
Exhibits
Location Map ........................................................................................................... A Site Plan ................................................................................................................... B Tables
Land Use Summary ................................................................................................... 1 City of Eastvale Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards ........................................... 2 Roadway Parameters ................................................................................................. 3 Roadway Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ......................................................................... 4 Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix) for Arterial Roadways ............................................... 5 Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix) for Collector Roadways ............................................. 6 Existing Traffic Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 7 Roadway Noise Impact Analysis Existing Year Conditions ........................................... 8 Roadway Noise Impact Analysis Long Range Conditions ............................................ 9 Typical Construction Noise Levels .............................................................................. 10 Project Construction Noise Levels .............................................................................. 11 Typical Construction Vibration Levels ......................................................................... 12 Construction Vibration Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 13 Appendices
City of Eastvale Noise Standards ............................................................................... A Roadway Noise Calculation Result Sheets .................................................................. B Construction and Vibration Noise Calculation Result Sheets ....................................... C 1698
1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential noise impacts from the proposed LEAL Master Plan Amendment (project) and provide recommendations, if necessary, to minimize any project noise impacts. The assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and utilizes the noise standards set forth by the applicable Federal, State, and local agencies.

The following is provided in this report:
• A description of the study area and the proposed project • Information regarding the fundamentals of noise
• Identification of the regulatory setting and applicable noise standards • Analysis of the existing noise environment
• Analysis of the project’s operational noise impact to adjacent receptors • Analysis of the project’s construction noise and vibration impact to adjacent receptors • Summary of recommended project design features to reduce noise level impacts.

This analysis also reviews changes in noise levels that would occur as a result of the proposed project in comparison to the previously approved project described in the Leal Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Michael Baker International, July 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 2015 EIR).

1.2 Site Location
The proposed project site is located near the northwest corner (NWC) of Hamner Avenue and Limonite Avenue, in the City of Eastvale. The project site is bound by 58th Street to the north, Limonite Avenue to the south, Hamner Avenue to the east, and Scholar Avenue to the west. The project site is located approximately 666 feet above sea level and generally slopes from north to south.

The project site location map is provided in Exhibit A.

The project site is currently vacant and zoned for Leal Master Plan in the City of Eastvale Zoning Map. The City of Eastvale General Plan land use map designates the project site as Leal Policy Area.
1699
1-2
Several noise sensitive land use areas are present surrounding the project site, including; • Existing residential uses located to the north, approximately 50 feet from the project site, across 58th Street.
• Existing residential uses located to the south, approximately 120 feet from the project site, across Limonite Avenue.
• Existing residential uses located to the east, approximately 170 feet from the project site, across Hamner Avenue.
• Existing residential uses located to the west, approximately 75 feet from the project site, across Scholar Way.

1.3 Project Description
The project consists of amending the Leal Master Plan to allow for the construction and operation of a total of 2,500 residential dwelling units, a 1.6 acre community recreational center, 12.5 acres of community park, and 28.17 acres of mixed use development (including a new civic center, retail/commercial and residential uses).

The total gross site area is approximately 158.6 acres.

The buildout of the project will also include approximately 22.9 acres of roadway improvement to 58th Street, Limonite Avenue, Hamner Avenue and Scholar Way, along with new internal street improvements.

The site plan used for this analysis, provided by the HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, is illustrated in Exhibit B. Table 1 summarizes the land use assumptions used for this analysis. 1700
1-3
Table 1
Land Use Summary
Land Use CalEEMod Use Quantity Metric1 Acre
Single Family
Residential Single Family Detached 400 DU 47.148
Multifamily Residential
Townhomes/Condos 1,000 DU 35.277
Apartments 1,100 DU

28.169
Retail Regional Shopping Center 390.0 TSF
General Office General Office 65.0 TSF
Medical Office Medical Office Building 65.0 TSF
Civic Center
Government (Civic Center)

40.0 TSF

11.019
Fire Station 12.2 TSF
Police 10.0 TSF
Library Library 25.0 TSF
Parking Parking Structure 2,820.0 Spaces
Parking Parking Lot 978.0 Spaces
Recreational Center City Park 1.6 Acre 1.584
Park City Park 12.5 Acre 12.478
On-site / Off-site
Street Improvements Parking Lot 22.9 Acre 22.917
Total 158.592
1 D.U. – Dwelling units; T.S.F. – Thousand Square Feet
This report analyzes short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities and long-term noise impacts associated with the day-to-day operation of the project. The primary sources of long-term noise impacts would increase in vehicular traffic along surrounding roadways, on-site circulation and parking lot noise, HVAC units, and outdoor recreational noise.

1.4 Summary of Analysis Results
Based on the result of this analysis, the project is not expected to result in the 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.
1701
1-4
The amendment project is expected to generate 27,764 fewer trips compared to the previously approved 2015 EIR. As a result, the project’s traffic noise contribution to the surrounding roadways would be less than previously estimated in the 2015 EIR, and the project would not cause a significant increase in the ambient roadway noise levels in the vicinity of the site. The amendment project has reduced the amount of commercial land use in favor of a greater amount of residential use; which is generally considered a more compatible land use with the surrounding community from a noise standpoint.

Several standard construction best practices and project design features have been recommended to help ensure noise levels do not significantly impact the surrounding community.

1.5 Recommended Project Design Features
The following recommended project design features include standard rules and requirements, best practices and recognized design guidelines for reducing noise levels.

Design features are assumed to be part of the conditions of the project and integrated into its design. Design features are not typically considered mitigation under CEQA.

Operational Design Features

DF-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project shall demonstrate that building construction will achieve the minimum interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential units located along arterial roadways and/or adjacent to commercial uses, per the California Building Standards Code. The following noise control measures may be required for dwelling units located near adjacent roadways:
• Install sound barriers (masonry walls or walls with earth berms) between residences and noise sources.
• Install double-paned or upgraded STC sound rated windows. • Provide sound insulating exterior walls and roofing systems. • Locate and/or design attic vents to minimize sound propagation into each home.
1702
1-5
• Provide forced-air ventilation systems.
• Provide the necessary setbacks for dwelling units fronting along major roadways.

DF-2 The project shall comply with California Title 24 building insulation requirements for exterior walls, roofs and common separating assemblies (e.g. floor/ceiling assemblies and demising walls).

DF-3 For proper acoustical performance, all exterior windows, doors, and sliding glass doors should have a positive seal and leaks/cracks must be kept to a minimum.

DF-4 The final building plans shall ensure that HVAC units are not located within an area of the project site that would contribute to a noise level exceedance at any adjacent property line, per the City of Eastvale Municipal Code requirements. To meet the City’s noise standards the following measures should be followed:
• All HVAC equipment shall be shielded or enclosed from the line of sight of adjacent residential uses.
• The combined noise level of all units operating simultaneously shall not exceed the City of Eastvale daytime and nighttime exterior standards at the nearest surrounding property lines.

DF-5 Future residents, property management personnel, and commercial tenants will be required to comply with the City of Eastvale Municipal Code Noise Regulations, Chapter 8.52, which specify that no person shall create loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any person of normal sensitiveness.

To help ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Regulations, the following recommendations are provided:
• Deliveries, loading and unloading activities, and trash pick-up hours should be limited to daytime hours only (8 a.m. – 10 p.m.). 1703
1-6
• Limit engine idling time for all delivery vehicles and moving trucks to 5 minutes or less.

Construction Design Features
DF-6 Prepare a construction management plan and obtain a construction work permit from the City of Eastvale prior to starting construction. The construction management plan shall ensure all contractors implement construction best management practices to reduce construction noise levels.

Examples of best management practices may include the following:
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with muffles and other suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).

• Grading and construction contractors shall use quieter equipment as opposed to noisier equipment (such as rubber-tired equipment rather than track equipment), to the maximum extent feasible.
• If feasible, electric hook-ups shall be provided to avoid the use of generators. If electric service is determined to be infeasible for the site, only whisper-quiet generators shall be used (i.e., inverter generators capable of providing variable load.
• Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.
• Locate staging area, generators and stationary construction equipment as far from the adjacent residential homes as feasible. • Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• Provide notifications and signage in readily visible locations along the perimeter of construction sites that indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where neighbors can enquire about the construction process and register complaints to a designated construction noise disturbance coordinator.
1704
1-7
• Construction activities shall not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September and 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May.

DF-7 No impact pile driving or blasting activities shall be permitted on the project site during construction. If impact pile driving or blasting is required, a follow-up noise and vibration impact assessment shall be conducted prior to start of any activity.
1705
2-1

2.0 Fundamentals of Noise
This section of the report provides basic information about noise and vibration and presents some of the terms used in the report.

2.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
The sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. The sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic or stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted.

2.2 Frequency and Hertz
A continuous sound is described by its frequency (pitch) and its amplitude (loudness).

Frequency relates to the number of pressure oscillations per second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass sounding) and high-frequency sounds are high in pitch (squeak).

These oscillations per second (cycles) are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human ear can hear from the bass pitch starting out at 20 Hz all the way to the high pitch of 20,000 Hz.

2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness. The loudness of sound increases or decreases, as the amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micro-Newton per square inch meter (N/m2), also called micro-Pascal (μPa).

One μPa is approximately one hundred billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or Lp) is used to describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called decibels and abbreviated as dB.

2.4 Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by simple plus or minus addition. When two (2) sounds of equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater than the original single SPL.

In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3dB increase. 1706
2-2
If two (2) sounds differ by approximately 10 dB the higher sound level is the predominant sound.

2.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels1
In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, (A-weighted scale) and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. For purposes of this report as well as with most environmental documents, the A-scale weighing is typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibel (dBA). Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in the noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g. doubling the volume of traffic on a highway), would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.

2.6 Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant, while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels.

Following are the most commonly used noise descriptors along with brief definitions.

A-Weighted Sound Level
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Ambient Noise Level
The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. 1 Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 1707
2-3
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.

Decibel (dB)
A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals.
dB(A)
A-weighted sound level (see definition above).

Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ)

The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.

Habitable Room

Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces.

L(n)
The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90, and L99, etc.
1708
2-4
Noise
Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as “...excessive undesirable sound...”.

Percent Noise Levels

See L(n).

Sound Level (Noise Level)
The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

Sound Level Meter
An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL)
The dBA level which, if it lasted for one (1) second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.

2.7 Sound Propagation2
As sound propagates from a source it spreads geometrically. The sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The movement of vehicles down a roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical spreading versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.
2 Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 1709
2-5
As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use the hard site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels. Hard site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the receiver. Soft site conditions such as grass, soft dirt or landscaping attenuate noise at an additional rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall noise attenuation of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 6.0 dB per doubling of distance for a point source.

Research has demonstrated that atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise levels when noise receivers are located 200 feet and greater from a noise source.

Wind, temperature, air humidity, and turbulence can further impact how far sound can travel.

Figure 1 shows typical sound levels from indoor and outdoor noise sources. 1710
2-6
Figure 13
3 Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 1711
2-7

2.8 Vibration Descriptors
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.

Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude.

PPV
Known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second.

RMS
Known as the root mean squared (RMS) can be used to denote vibration amplitude.

VdB
A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source.

2.9 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. Outdoor 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. To counter the effects of ground-borne vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidance relative to vibration impacts.
1712
2-8

2.10 Vibration Propagation
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 wavefront, 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 wavefront. 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 wavefront. 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.
1713
3-1

3.0 Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Eastvale and noise regulations are addressed through the various federal, state, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

3.1 Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three (3) purposes:
• Publicize noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assist state and local abatement efforts
• Promote noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was originally tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows: The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible to regulate noise from aircraft and airports. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible to regulate noise from the interstate highway system.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers.

The Federal government and the State advocate that local jurisdiction use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway or, or alternatively that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.

Since the Federal government and the State have preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
1714
3-2

3.2 State Regulations
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.” The matrix allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.

The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 of the Building Standards Code which in some cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed the interior threshold.

The State mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines 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.

Noise insulation design standards for residences are identified in Section 1206 Sound Transmission of the 2019 California Building Standards Code. The City is required by the State Housing Law to adopt these State codes as minimum performance standards. The City may enact stricter noise standards throughout the city or on a case-by-case basis if deemed necessary. In brief, the Title 24 noise standards require the following for multifamily dwellings:

1. Party wall and floor-ceiling assembly designs must provide a minimum STC of 50, based on lab tests. Field tested assemblies must provide a minimum noise isolation class (NIC) of 45.

2. Floor-ceiling assembly designs must provide for a minimum impact insulation class (IIC) of 50, based on lab tests. Field tested assemblies must provide a minimum FIIC of

45. 3. Entry doors from interior corridors must provide an STC of 26 or more.

4. Penetrations or openings in sound rated assemblies must be treated to maintain required ratings.

5. Interior noise levels due to exterior sources must not exceed a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or a day-night level (LDN) of 45 dBA, in any habitable room. 1715
3-3
Thus, the interior limit is 45 dBA CNEL between dwelling units and from exterior noise sources to interior living spaces.

3.3 City of Eastvale Noise Regulations
The project is required to comply with the noise standards and thresholds established within the City of Eastvale Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 Noise Regulation. The noise standards from the Municipal code and the General Plan are provided in Appendix A.

3.3.1 City of Eastvale Municipal Code Noise Standards
The City of Eastvale Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 Noise Regulation, requires that a project shall not create loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any person of normal sensitiveness. Noise standards are defined in Table 1 of the Chapter 8.52 Noise Regulation of the Municipal Code and are applicable to the project site and surrounding noise sensitive uses.

Table 2 shows the exterior noise standards from the City of Eastvale Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 Noise Regulation Exterior Noise Standards for the project site and surrounding residential land uses.

Table 2
City of Eastvale Municipal Code
Exterior Noise Level Standards
Land Use Time Period Maximum Decibel Level (dBA)
Specific Plan – Residential
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 55
10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 45
Specific Plan – Commercial
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 65
10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 55
Open Space (Recreational Use)
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 45
10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 45
1 Source: City of Eastvale Municipal Code, Chapter 8.52 – Noise Regulation. 1716
3-4
Construction Noise Regulations
Chapter 8.52 Noise Regulations, Section 8.52.020 Exemptions of the City’s municipal code exempts the construction noise activities, provided;
• Private construction projects located one-quarter of a mile or more from an inhabited dwelling;
• Private construction projects located within one-quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling, provided that construction does not occur between the hours of:
i. 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September; ii. 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May;

3.3.2 City of Eastvale General Plan Noise Standards
The City of Eastvale General Plan Noise Element addresses noise goals and policies, implementation programs, compatibility guidelines and roadway noise levels. Goals and policies that apply to the proposed project include:

POLICY N-1: Protect noise-sensitive land uses from high levels of noise by restricting noise producing land uses from these areas.

POLICY N-3: Consider the following uses to be sensitive to noise and vibration, and discourage these uses in areas where existing or projected future noise levels would be in excess of 65 CNEL and/or vibration would be more than 0.0787 Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second):
• Schools;
• Hospitals;
• Rest Homes;
• Long Term Care Facilities;
• Mental Care Facilities;
• Residential Uses;
• Libraries;
• Passive Recreation Uses; and
• Places of worship
1717
3-5
POLICY N-4: Require noise sensitive land uses proposed in areas where existing or projected future noise levels would be in excess of 65 CNEL to have an acoustical specialist prepare a study of the noise problems and recommend structural and site design features that will adequately mitigate the noise problem.

POLICY N-5: Require that exterior noise forecasts use the appropriate Level of Service for the adjacent roadways, or a 20-year projection of traffic volumes (whichever is greater) for future noise forecasts. 1718
4-1

4.0 Study Method and Procedures
The following section describes the noise modeling procedures and assumptions used in the noise analysis.

4.1 Traffic Noise Modeling

Traffic noise from vehicular traffic was projected using a version of the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the key input parameters. The following outlines the key adjustments made to the computer model for the roadway inputs:
• Roadway classification – (e.g. freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc), • Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outer most travel lanes on each side of the roadway)
• Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes, Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks
• Roadway grade and angle of view
• Site Conditions (e.g. soft vs. hard)
• Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period The following outlines key adjustments to the computer model for the project site parameter inputs:
• Vertical and horizontal distances (Sensitive receptor distance from noise source) • Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (Noise barrier distance from sound source and receptor).
• Traffic noise source spectra
• Topography
Table 3 and Table 4 indicates the roadway parameters utilized for this study. 1719
4-2
Table 3
Roadway Parameters1
Roadway Segment Class. Lanes Speed
Limit Site
Limonite Avenue Archibald Avenue to Harrison
Avenue Urban Arterial 6 50 Hard
Limonite Avenue Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way Urban Arterial 6 50 Hard Limonite Avenue Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue Urban Arterial 5 45 Hard Limonite Avenue Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 45 Hard Limonite Avenue I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue Urban Arterial 6 50 Hard Hamner Avenue Citrus Street to Schleisman Road Urban Arterial 6 50 Hard Hamner Avenue Schleisman Road to 68th Street Urban Arterial 6 45 Hard Hamner Avenue 68th Street to 58th Street Urban Arterial 6 45 Hard Hamner Avenue Limonite Avenue to 58th Street Urban Arterial 5 45 Hard Hamner Avenue 58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue Urban Arterial 6 45 Hard Scholar Way Limonite Avenue to 68th Street Secondary
Collector 2 35 Hard
Scholar Way Bellgrave Avenue to Limonite Avenue Secondary Collector 4 35 Hard
1 Source: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Project, Traffic Impact Study, Eastvale, RK Engineering, November 2021. 1720
4-3
Table 4
Roadway Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1
Roadway Segment Existing
ADT
Existing
Plus Project
ADT
Long
Range
Long
Range Plus
Project
Limonite Avenue Archibald Avenue to Harrison Avenue 18,497 22,162 44,000 47,665 Limonite Avenue Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way 26,192 29,857 50,780 54,445 Limonite Avenue Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue 29,548 47,874 48,960 67,286 Limonite Avenue Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps 44,312 60,805 69,110 85,603 Limonite Avenue I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue 33,855 37,520 65,010 68,675 Hamner Avenue Citrus Street to Schleisman Road 20,619 24,284 25,400 29,065 Hamner Avenue Schleisman Road to 68th Street 11,831 15,496 15,030 18,695 Hamner Avenue 68th Street to 58th Street 20,186 22,019 22,730 24,563 Hamner Avenue Limonite Avenue to 58th Street 15,649 32,142 31,890 48,383 Hamner Avenue 58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue 15,649 32,142 31,890 48,383 Scholar Way Limonite Avenue to 68th Street 4,912 6,745 6,860 8,693 Scholar Way Bellgrave Avenue to Limonite Avenue 2,240 4,073 2,810 4,643 1 LEAL Masterplan Amendment Project, Traffic Impact Study, Eastvale, RK Engineering, November 2021.

Table 5 and Table 6 indicates the vehicle distribution and truck mix utilized for all roadways in this study area.

Table 5
Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix) for Arterial Roadways1

Motor-Vehicle
Type
Daytime %
(7 AM - 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM - 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM - 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 69.5 12.9 9.6 92
Medium Trucks 1.44 0.06 1.5 3
Heavy Trucks 2.4 0.1 2.5 5
1 Vehicle percentages are based on County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health. 1721
4-4
Table 6
Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix) for Collector Roadways1

Motor-Vehicle
Type
Daytime %
(7 AM - 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM - 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM - 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 73.6 13.6 10.22 97.42
Medium Trucks 0.9 0.04 0.9 1.84
Heavy Trucks 0.35 0.04 0.35 0.74
1 Vehicle percentages are based on County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health.

4.2 Construction Noise Modeling
The construction noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model, together with several key construction parameters.

Key inputs include distance to the sensitive receiver, equipment usage, and baseline parameters for the project site. This study evaluates the potential exterior noise impacts during each phase of construction.

Demolition activities are expected to occur at approximately 50 feet from the nearest existing residential uses to the north. Therefore, noise levels from demolition activities are analyzed at 50 feet. Noise levels from all other construction activities are conservatively estimated from 200 feet, whereas, in reality, the degree of construction noise will vary depending on the type of construction activity taking place and the location of the activity relative to the surrounding properties. Noise levels were projected for equipment operating over an 1-hour period from to the nearest sensitive receptor property line. • Construction phasing and equipment usage assumptions are referenced from the LEAL Master Plan AQ & GHG and Energy Impact Study, by RK Engineering, November 2021.

4.3 Construction Vibration Modeling
The construction vibration assessment is based on the methodology set-forth within the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. The vibration impacts from vibratory rollers and compactors, heavy truck loading and bulldozer activity is analyzed. All vibratory activity is analyzed as a continuous and/or frequent event and is required to comply with the applicable guidance thresholds criteria. It is expected 1722
4-5
that vibration levels will be highest during paving phase. No impact pile driving is expected as part of this project.

Vibratory impacts were calculated from the site area property line to the closest sensitive receptors and structures using the reference vibration levels, soil conditions and the reference equation PPV= PPV ref (25/D)^n (in/sec) (from Caltrans Manual) where:

PPV = reference measurement at 25 feet from vibration source D = distance from equipment to property line
n= vibration attenuation rate through ground (n=1.1 was utilized for this study) 1723
5-1

5.0 Existing Noise Environment
The existing noise environment for the project site and surrounding area has been established based on the modeled existing traffic noise levels by RK.

5.1 Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Table 7 shows the modeled existing traffic noise levels calculated at 100 feet from the centerline of roadway segments surrounding the site. The distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also shown. The noise levels were calculated using traffic volumes from the LEAL Masterplan Amendment Traffic Impact Study, RK Engineering Group, November 2021.

The traffic noise levels does not takes into account of the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may reduce traffic noise levels.

The roadway noise calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B. 1724
5-2
Table 7
Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway1 Segment
CNEL
at
100ft.
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)2
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Limonite Avenue Archibald Ave to Harrison
Ave 68.2 66 210 664 2,100
Limonite Avenue Harrison Avenue to
Scholar Way 69.7 94 297 940 2,973
Limonite Avenue Scholar Way to Hamner
Avenue 69.0 80 254 803 2,538
Limonite Avenue Hamner Avenue to I-15
Ramps 70.8 120 381 1,204 3,806
Limonite Avenue I-15 Ramps to Wineville
Avenue 70.8 122 384 1,215 3,843
Hamner Avenue Citrus Street to Schleisman
Road 68.7 74 234 740 2,341
Hamner Avenue Schleisman Road to 68th
Street 65.1 32 102 321 1,016
Hamner Avenue 68th Street to 58th Street 67.4 55 173 548 1,734 Hamner Avenue Limonite Avenue to 58th
Street 66.3 43 134 425 1,344
Hamner Avenue 58th Street to Bellgrave
Avenue 66.3 43 134 425 1,344
Scholar Way Limonite Avenue to 68th
Street 57.8 6 19 60 191
Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite
Ave 54.4 3 9 28 87
1 Noise levels calculated at 100 feet from the centerline of subject roadway. 2 Refer to Appendix B for projected noise level calculations. 1725
6-1

6.0 Operational Noise Impacts
This assessment analyzes the anticipated noise levels generated by the project and impacts caused by changes to the ambient environment. The main sources of noise generated by the project would include vehicular traffic noise along the adjacent roadways. Noise level impacts are compared to the City of Eastvale noise standards.

The project must demonstrate that noise levels generated by the project site would not result in a 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.

6.1 Traffic Source Noise
The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic from the operation of the proposed project on the nearby roadways were calculated for direct and cumulative project conditions.

6.1.1 Existing Conditions
The direct impact of project traffic added to the surrounding roadway network is shown in Table 8 for the existing year conditions. Roadway noise calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B.

The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance indicates that a change in noise level of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible and a change in noise level of 5 dBA is considered readily perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, and consistent with common practice in the County of Riverside, an increase of 5 dBA or more above ambient conditions would be considered the threshold of significance for causing a substantial permanent increase in noise. 1726
6-2
Table 8
Roadway Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL)1
Existing Year Conditions
Roadway2 Segment
CNEL at the Nearest Façade
Significant
Impact?3
Existing
Without
Project
Existing
with
Project
Change
as a
Result
of
Project
Limonite Avenue Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 68.2 69.0 0.8 NO Limonite Avenue Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way 69.7 70.3 0.6 NO Limonite Avenue Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue 69.0 71.3 2.3 NO Limonite Avenue Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps 70.8 72.2 1.4 NO Limonite Avenue I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue 70.8 71.3 0.5 NO Hamner Avenue Citrus Street to Schleisman Rd 68.7 69.4 0.7 NO Hamner Avenue Schleisman Road to 68th Street 65.1 66.2 1.1 NO Hamner Avenue 68th Street to 58th Street 67.4 67.8 0.4 NO Hamner Avenue Limonite Avenue to 58th Street 66.3 69.4 3.1 NO Hamner Avenue 58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue 66.3 69.4 3.1 NO Scholar Way Limonite Avenue to 58th Street 57.8 59.2 1.4 NO Scholar Way5 58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue 54.4 57.0 2.6 NO 1 Exterior noise levels are calculated at 5 feet above ground level. 2 Noise levels are calculated approximately 100 feet from the centerline of the subject roadway. 3 A significant noise impact would occur when project operational activities cause an increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA or more and the resulting noise level exceeds 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn.

Table 8 shows that the project would not result in a significant traffic noise level increase for all study area roadway segments.

6.1.2 Long Range Year Conditions
The cumulative impact of project traffic added to the surrounding roadway network with the addition of other potential cumulative development projects and area-wide growth is shown in Table 9 for Long Range Year conditions.

The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance indicates that a change in noise level of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible and a change in noise 1727
6-3
level of 5 dBA is considered readily perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, and consistent with common practice in the County of Riverside, an increase of 5 dBA or more above ambient conditions would be considered the threshold of significance for causing a substantial permanent increase in noise.

Table 9
Roadway Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL)1
Long Range Conditions
Roadway2 Segment
CNEL at the Nearest Façade
Significant
Impact? 3
Long
Range
Without
Project
Long
Range
with
Project
Change
as a
Result
of
Project
Limonite Avenue Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 72.0 72.3 0.3 NO Limonite Avenue Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way 72.6 72.9 0.3 NO Limonite Avenue Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue 71.2 72.6 1.4 NO Limonite Avenue Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps 72.7 73.7 1.0 NO Limonite Avenue I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue 73.7 73.9 0.2 NO Hamner Avenue Citrus Street to Schleisman Rd 69.6 70.2 0.6 NO Hamner Avenue Schleisman Road to 68th Street 66.1 67.1 1.0 NO Hamner Avenue 68th Street to 58th Street 67.9 68.2 0.3 NO Hamner Avenue Limonite Avenue to 58th Street 69.4 71.2 1.8 NO Hamner Avenue 58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue 69.4 71.2 1.8 NO Scholar Way Limonite Avenue to 58th Street 59.3 60.3 1.0 NO Scholar Way5 58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue 55.4 57.6 2.2 NO 1 Exterior noise levels are calculated at 5 feet above ground level. 2 Noise levels are calculated approximately 100 feet from the centerline of the subject roadway. 3 A significant noise impact would occur when project operational activities cause an increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA or more and the resulting noise level exceeds 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn.

Tables 9 shows that the project would not result in a significant traffic noise level increase for all study area roadway segments. The roadway noise calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
1728
6-4

6.2 Stationary Source Noise Impacts
Potential noise increases associated with each of the potential land uses in the proposed project are discussed below. Noise impacts were qualitatively assessed based on the potential land uses within the Master Plan area.

6.2.1 Residential Land Use
The proposed project allows for the future development of various residential land uses including medium- and high-density residential development and mixed-use development.

The typical sources of stationary noise from residential land uses would include on-site circulation and parking lot noise, mechanical pool/spa equipment, HVAC units, and outdoor recreational noise.

Noise from residential land uses are typically considered compatible with other adjacent residential uses and would not typically be categorized as loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any person of normal sensitiveness. In particular, social activities and vehicular related noise are generally substantially less during the noise sensitive nighttime hours.

Several project design features are provided to help ensure stationary noise from the residential land uses do not adversely affect the surrounding community.

6.2.2 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Land Uses
The proposed project allows for the development of several community features including gathering places, parks, open spaces, and trails.

The main sources of potential stationary noise impacts from the proposed land uses would include noise from children’s play areas and playgrounds, outdoor gathering and events, and/or vehicle parking areas.

Parks and open space are typically considered compatible land uses with other adjacent residential uses and would not typically generate loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any person of normal sensitiveness. Additionally, the parks will be closed during nighttime hours to help further reduce any potential noise impacts.

1729
6-5

6.2.3 Commercial and Civic Land Uses
The proposed project allows for the future development of various nonresidential land uses, including standard and mixed-use retail, commercial office, and civic center uses. The main sources of potential stationary noise impacts from the proposed commercial and civic center use would mainly include on-site circulation and parking lot noise, HVAC units, onsite truck operations, vehicle/equipment backup alarms, decompression of trailer truck brakes, and loading dock operations.

Based on the current Masterplan layout, commercial and civic land uses are generally expected to be located on the southeast corner of the project site, with the exception of the fire station which is proposed to be located at the northwest corner of the site. Fire and emergency services are exempt from the noise standards in the Eastvale Municipal Code; however, several design features will help reduce noise levels as much as possible.

Land uses surrounding the proposed commercial and civic land uses near the southwest portion of the site include, commercial uses to the east and south. The proposed land uses would typically be compatible with other adjacent off-site surrounding land uses. Several project design features and construction practices are provided to help ensure operational noise levels from the commercial and civic center uses do not adversely affect the surrounding community.

6.3 Preliminary Interior Noise Analysis
Traffic noise levels along the adjacent roadways are the primary source of ambient noise impacting the project site. This section of the analysis does not necessarily apply to CEQA, as recent court rulings have indicated that CEQA is primarily concerned with the project’s impact of the environment, not the environment’s impact on a project.

Future traffic noise levels along the roadway segments surrounding the project site represents the noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of each roadway segment and do not consider future noise barrier walls along the project property lines. The future roadway noise levels along the surrounding roadways are expected to range from 72.2 dBA CNEL along Limonite Avenue, 70.7 dBA CNEL along Hamner Avenue and 59.9 dBA CNEL along Scholarly Way.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent should demonstrate to the City building department that the proposed building shell and window assemblies will achieve 1730
6-6
exterior to interior noise reduction necessary to meet the State of California and City of Eastvale requirements.

Furthermore, the project shall comply with California Title 24 insulation building requirements for commercial, multi-family dwelling units for common separating assemblies (e.g., floor/ceiling assemblies and demising walls).

6.4 Recommended Operational Design Features
The following recommended project design features include standard rules and requirements, best practices and recognized design guidelines for reducing noise levels.

Design features are assumed to be part of the conditions of the project and integrated into its design. Design features are not typically considered mitigation under CEQA.

DF-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project shall demonstrate that building construction will achieve the minimum interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential units located along arterial roadways and/or adjacent to commercial uses, per the California Building Standards Code. The following noise control measures may be required for dwelling units located near adjacent roadways:
• Install sound barriers (masonry walls or walls with earth berms) between residences and noise sources.
• Install double-paned or upgraded STC sound rated windows. • Provide sound insulating exterior walls and roofing systems. • Locate and/or design attic vents to minimize sound propagation into each home.
• Provide forced-air ventilation systems.
• Provide the necessary setbacks for dwelling units fronting along major roadways.

DF-2 The project shall comply with California Title 24 building insulation requirements for exterior walls, roofs and common separating assemblies (e.g. floor/ceiling assemblies and demising walls).
1731
6-7
DF-3 For proper acoustical performance, all exterior windows, doors, and sliding glass doors should have a positive seal and leaks/cracks must be kept to a minimum.

DF-4 The final building plans shall ensure that HVAC units are not located within an area of the project site that would contribute to a noise level exceedance at any adjacent property line, per the City of Eastvale Municipal Code requirements. To meet the City’s noise standards the following measures should be followed:
• All HVAC equipment shall be shielded or enclosed from the line of sight of adjacent residential uses.
• The combined noise level of all units operating simultaneously shall not exceed the City of Eastvale daytime and nighttime exterior standards at the nearest surrounding property lines.

DF-5 Future residents, property management personnel, and commercial tenants will be required to comply with the City of Eastvale Municipal Code Noise Regulations, Chapter 8.52, which specify that no person shall create loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any person of normal sensitiveness.

To help ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Regulations, the following recommendations are provided:
• Deliveries, loading and unloading activities, and trash pick-up hours should be limited to daytime hours only (8 a.m. – 10 p.m.). • Limit engine idling time for all delivery vehicles and moving trucks to 5 minutes or less.
1732
7-1

7.0 Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts
Temporary construction noise and vibration impacts have been assessed from the project site to the surrounding adjacent land uses.

Chapter 8.52 Noise Regulations, Section 8.52.020 – Exemptions, of the City’s municipal code exempts the construction noise activities, provided; • Private construction projects located one-quarter of a mile or more from an inhabited dwelling;
• Private construction projects located within one-quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling, provided that construction does not occur between the hours of:
i. 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September; ii. 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May; Although construction activity may be exempt from the noise standards in the City’s Municipal Code, CEQA requires that potential noise impacts still be evaluated for significance. The City of Eastvale CEQA Significance Thresholds Guide does not have established criteria for construction noise impacts. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) criteria is referenced as an informational guide for the construction noise impact analysis4
. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction.

Construction phasing and equipment usage assumptions are referenced from:
• LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project AQ & GHG and Energy Impact Study, by RK Engineering Group, November 2021.

7.1 Typical Construction Noise Levels
Table 10 shows typical construction noise levels compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for common type construction equipment. Typical construction noise levels are used to estimate potential project construction noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors.
4 Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Section 7.

September 2018.
1733
7-2
Table 10
Typical Construction Noise Levels1
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Earth Moving
Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76
Front Loaders 73 - 84
Backhoes 73 - 92
Tractors 75 - 95
Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92
Pavers 85 - 87
Trucks 81 - 94
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixers 72 - 87
Concrete Pumps 81 - 83
Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86
Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87
Stationary
Pumps 68 - 71
Generators 71 - 83
Compressors 75 - 86
Impact Equipment
Pneumatic Wrenches 82 - 87
Jack Hammers, Rock Drills 80 - 99
Pile Drivers (Peak) 95-105
Other
Vibrators 68 - 82
Saws 71 - 82 1
Referenced Noise Levels from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

7.2 Construction Noise Impact Analysis
This assessment analyzes potential noise impacts during all expected phases of construction, including; demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Noise levels are calculated based on an average distance of equipment over an 1-hour period to the nearest adjacent property. The project’s estimated construction noise levels have been calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1. 1734
7-3
Demolition activities are expected to occur at approximately 50 feet from the nearest existing residential uses to the north. Therefore, noise levels from demolition activities are analyzed at 50 feet. Noise levels from all other construction activities are conservatively estimated from 200 feet, whereas, in reality, the degree of construction noise will vary depending on the type of construction activity taking place and the location of the activity relative to the surrounding properties.

Tables 11 shows the noise level impacts to the residential property lines to the east and south. Construction noise calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C. 1735
7-4
Table 11
Project Construction Noise Levels
Phase Equipment Quantity
Equipment
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Demolition2
Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 74.8
Excavators 3 76.7 84.6
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 77.7
Site Preparation1 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 65.6

75.6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 68.0
Grading1
Excavators 2 64.7

76.2 Graders 1 69.0
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 65.6
Scrapers 2 67.6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 68.0
Building
Construction1
Cranes 1 60.6

74.2 Forklifts 3 59.0
Generator Sets 1 65.6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 68.0
Welders 1 58.0
Paving1
Pavers 1 62.2
Paving Equipment 1 61.0 67.3
Rollers 2 61.0
Architectural
Coating1 Air Compressors 1 61.6 61.6
Worst Case Construction Phase Noise Level – Leq (dBA) 84.6 FTA Construction Noise Criteria (General Assessment) 90.0 Noise level exceeds FTA criteria? NO
1 Construction Noise Levels are analyzed at 200 feet
2 Demolition noise levels are conservatively analyzed at 50 feet. Noise level does not take into account of existing six (6) foot wall along residential uses to the north.

As shown in Table 11, project construction noise levels are expected to be below the recommended 1-hour general assessment construction noise threshold provided by the FTA for adverse community reaction at the adjacent residential uses. 1736
7-5

7.3 Construction Vibration
To determine the vibratory impacts during construction, reference construction equipment vibration levels were utilized and then extrapolated to the façade of the nearest adjacent structures. All structures surrounding the project site are “new residential structures”. No historical or fragile buildings are known to be located within the vicinity of the site.

The construction of the proposed project is not expected to require the use of substantial vibration inducing equipment or activities, such as pile drivers or blasting. The main sources of vibration impacts during construction of the project would be the operation of equipment such as bulldozer activity during demolition, loading trucks during grading and excavation, and vibratory rollers during paving.

The construction vibration assessment utilizes the referenced vibration levels and methodology set-forth within the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. Table 12 shows the referenced vibration levels.

Table 12
Typical Construction Vibration Levels1
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level
(LV) at 25 feet
Piledriver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Piledriver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105

0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
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
1 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. 1737
7-6
Table 13 shows the project’s construction-related vibration analysis at the nearest structures to the project construction area. Construction impacts are assessed from the general closest area on the project site to the nearest adjacent structure.

Table 13
Construction Vibration Impact Analysis
Construction
Activity
Distance to
Nearest
Structure
(ft)
Duration
Calculated
Vibration
Level - PPV
(in/sec)
City of Eastvale
Vibration
Threshold- PPV
(in/sec)
Significant
Impact
Large
Bulldozer 100 Continuous/Frequent 0.019

0.0787
NO
Vibratory
Roller 100 Continuous/Frequent 0.046 NO
Loaded Trucks 100 Continuous/Frequent 0.017 NO
Caisson
Drilling 100 Continuous/Frequent 0.019 NO
As shown in Table 13, project related construction activity is not expected to cause any potential damage to the nearest structures and is expected to be below the City of Eastvale

0.0787 PPV (in/sec) threshold.

Construction vibration calculation worksheets are shown in Appendix C.

7.4 Construction Design Features
The following recommended mitigation measures are provided to help ensure the project’s noise levels do not adversely impact the adjacent noise sensitive land uses:

DF-6 Prepare a construction management plan and obtain a construction work permit from the City of Eastvale prior to starting construction. The construction management plan shall ensure all contractors implement construction best management practices to reduce construction noise levels.

Examples of best management practices may include the following:
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with muffles and other suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).

1738
7-7
• Grading and construction contractors shall use quieter equipment as opposed to noisier equipment (such as rubber-tired equipment rather than track equipment), to the maximum extent feasible.
• If feasible, electric hook-ups shall be provided to avoid the use of generators. If electric service is determined to be infeasible for the site, only whisper-quiet generators shall be used (i.e., inverter generators capable of providing variable load.
• Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.
• Locate staging area, generators and stationary construction equipment as far from the adjacent residential homes as feasible. • Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• Provide notifications and signage in readily visible locations along the perimeter of construction sites that indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where neighbors can enquire about the construction process and register complaints to a designated construction noise disturbance coordinator.
• Construction activities shall not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September and 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May.

DF-7 No impact pile driving or blasting activities shall be permitted on the project site during construction. If impact pile driving or blasting is required, a follow-up noise and vibration impact assessment shall be conducted prior to start of any activity.
1739
Exhibits
1740
engineering
group, inc.

N
Location Map
Exhibit A
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT NOISE IMPACT STUDY, City of Eastvale, CA 2610-2021-03
Legend:
= Project Site
1741
engineering
group, inc.

N
Site Plan
Exhibit B
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT NOISE IMPACT STUDY, City of Eastvale, CA 2610-2021-04 1742
Appendices
1743
Appendix A

City of Eastvale
Noise Standard
1744
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
1/9
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
a.
b.
(10)
(11)
(12)
CHAPTER 8.52. - NOISE REGULATION
Sec. 8.52.010. - Reserved.

Sec. 8.52.020. - Exemptions.

Sound emanating from the following sources is exempt from the provisions of this chapter:

Facilities owned or operated by or for a governmental agency; Capital improvement projects of a governmental agency;
The maintenance or repair of public properties;
Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile;
Public or private schools and school-sponsored activities; Agricultural operations on land designated agriculture in the city general plan, or land zoned A-l (light agriculture), A-P (light agriculture with poultry), A-2 (heavy agriculture), A-D (agriculture-dairy) or C/V (citrus/vineyard), provided such operations are carried out in a manner consistent with accepted industry standards. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used during such operations, whether stationary or mobile;
Wind energy conversion systems (WECS), provided such systems comply with the WECS noise provisions of county Ordinance No. 348;
Private construction projects located one-quarter of a mile or more from an inhabited dwelling;
Private construction projects located within one-quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling, provided that construction does not occur between the hours of:
6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September; and 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May; Property maintenance, including, but not limited to, the operation of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.;
Motor vehicles, other than off-highway vehicles. This exemption does not include sound emanating from motor vehicle sound systems;
Heating and air conditioning equipment;
1745
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
2/9
(13)
(14)
(1)
(2)
Safety, warning and alarm devices, including, but not limited to, house and car alarms, and other warning devices that are designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare; The discharge of firearms consistent with all state laws. (Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
Sec. 8.52.030. - Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Audio equipment means a television, stereo, radio, tape player, compact disc player, mp3 player, I-POD or other similar device.

Decibel (dB) means a unit for measuring the relative amplitude of a sound equal approximately to the smallest difference normally detectable by the human ear, the range of which includes approximately 130 decibels on a scale beginning with zero decibels for the faintest detectable sound. Decibels are measured with a sound level meter using different methodologies defined as follows:

The term, "A-weighting (dBA)" means the standard A-weighted frequency response of a sound level meter, which de-emphasizes low and high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear for moderate sounds.

The term "maximum sound level (Lmax)" means the maximum sound level measured on a sound level meter.

Governmental agency means the United States, the state, the county, any city within the county, any special district within the county or any combination of these agencies.

Land use permit means a discretionary permit issued by the city pursuant to title 120 (planning and zoning) of this Code.

Motor vehicle means a vehicle that is self-propelled.

Motor vehicle sound system means a stereo, radio, tape player, compact disc player, mp3 player, I-POD or other similar device in a motor vehicle.

Noise means any loud, discordant or disagreeable sound.

Occupied property means property upon which is located a residence, business or industrial or manufacturing use.

Off-highway vehicle means a motor vehicle designed to travel over any terrain.

Public or private school means an institution conducting academic instruction at the preschool, elementary school, junior high school, high school or college level. 1746
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
3/9
Public property means property owned by a governmental agency or held open to the public, including, but not limited to, parks, streets, sidewalks, and alleys.

Sensitive receptor means a land use that is identified as sensitive to noise in the noise element of the city general plan, including, but not limited to, residences, schools, hospitals, churches, rest homes, cemeteries or public libraries.

Sound-amplifying equipment means a loudspeaker, microphone, megaphone or other similar device.

Sound level meter means an instrument meeting the standards of the American National Standards Institute for type 1 or type 2 sound level meters or an instrument that provides equivalent data. (Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
Sec. 8.52.040. - General sound level standards.

No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in the following table:

TABLE 1. SOUND LEVEL STANDARDS (dB Lmax)
General Plan Foundation Component Maximum Decibel
Level
Land Use Designation
General Plan
Land Use Designation Name Density 7:00 a.m.
—
10:00
p.m.
10:00
p.m.—
7:00 a.m.

Community development
EDR Estate density residential 2 acres 55 45
VLDR Very low-density residential 1 acre 55 45
LDR Low-density residential ½ acre 55 45
MDR Medium-density residential 2—5 55 45
1747
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
4/9
MHDR Medium high-density
residential
5—8 55 45
HDR High-density residential 8—14 55 45
VHDR Very high-density residential 14—20 55 45
H'TDR Highest density residential 20+ 55 45
CR Retail commercial 65 55
CO Office commercial 65 55
CT Tourist commercial 65 55
CC Community center 65 55
LI Light industrial 75 55
HI Heavy industrial 75 75
BP Business park 65 45
PF Public facility 65 45
SP Specific plan-residential 55 45
Specific plan-commercial 65 55
Specific plan-light industrial 75 55
Specific plan-heavy industrial 75 75
Rural community
EDR Estate density residential 2 acres 55 45
1748
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
5/9
VLDR Very low-density residential 1 acre 55 45
LDR Low-density residential ½ acre 55 45
Rural
RR Rural residential 5 acres 45 45
RM Rural mountainous 10 acres 45 45
RD Rural desert 10 acres 45 45
Agriculture
AG Agriculture 10 acres 45 45
Open space
C Conservation 45 45
CH Conservation habitat 45 45
REC Recreation 45 45
RUR Rural 20 acres 45 45
W Watershed 45 45
MR Mineral resources 75 45
(Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
Sec. 8.52.050. - Sound level measurement methodology.
1749
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
6/9
(1)
a.

1. 2.
b.
(2)
Sound level measurements may be made anywhere within the boundaries of an occupied property. The actual location of a sound level measurement shall be at the discretion of the enforcement officials identified in section 8.52.080. Sound level measurements shall be made with a sound level meter.

Immediately before a measurement is made, the sound level meter shall be calibrated utilizing an acoustical calibrator meeting the standards of the American National Standards Institute. Following a sound level measurement, the calibration of the sound level meter shall be reverified. Sound level meters and calibration equipment shall be certified annually.
(Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
Sec. 8.52.060. - Special sound sources standards.

The general sound level standards set forth in section 8.52.040 apply to sound emanating from all sources, including the special sound sources set forth in this section, and the person creating, or allowing the creation of, the sound is subject to the requirements of that section. The following special sound sources are also subject to the following additional standards, the failure to comply with which constitutes separate violations of this chapter:

Motor vehicles.

Off-highway vehicles.

No person shall operate an off-highway vehicle unless it is equipped with a USDAqualified spark arrester and a constantly operating and properly maintained muffler.

A muffler is not considered constantly operating and properly maintained if it is equipped with a cutout, bypass or similar device.

No person shall operate an off-highway vehicle unless the noise emitted by the vehicle is not more than 96 dBA if the vehicle was manufactured on or after January 1, 1986, or is not more than 101 dBA if the vehicle was manufactured before January 1, 1986.

For purposes of this subsection, emitted noise shall be measured a distance of 20 inches from the vehicle tailpipe using test procedures established by the Society of Automotive Engineers under Standard J-1287.

Sound systems. No person shall operate a motor vehicle sound system, whether affixed to the vehicle or not, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., such that the sound system is audible to the human ear inside any inhabited dwelling. No person shall operate a motor vehicle sound system, whether affixed to the vehicle or not, at any other time such that the sound system is audible to the human ear at a distance greater than 100 feet from the vehicle.

Power tools and equipment. No person shall operate any power tools or equipment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. such that the power tools or equipment are audible to 1750
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
7/9
(3)
(4)
a.
b.
(1)
a.
b.
c.
the human ear inside an inhabited dwelling other than a dwelling in which the power tools or equipment may be located. No person shall operate any power tools or equipment at any other time such that the power tools or equipment are audible to the human ear at a distance greater than 100 feet from the power tools or equipment.

Audio equipment. No person shall operate any audio equipment, whether portable or not, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. such that the equipment is audible to the human ear inside an inhabited dwelling other than a dwelling in which the equipment may be located. No person shall operate any audio equipment, whether portable or not, at any other time such that the equipment is audible to the human ear at a distance greater than 100 feet from the equipment.

Sound-amplifying equipment and live music. No person shall install, use or operate soundamplifying equipment, or perform, or allow to be performed, live music unless such activities comply with the following requirements. To the extent that these requirements conflict with any conditions of approval attached to an underlying land use permit, these requirements shall control:

Sound-amplifying equipment or live music is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

Sound emanating from sound-amplifying equipment or live music at any other time shall not be audible to the human ear at a distance greater than 200 feet from the equipment or music.
(Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
Sec. 8.52.070. - Exceptions.

Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in section 8.52.040 or 8.52.060 and may be characterized as construction-related, single-event or continuous event exceptions.

Application and processing.

Construction-related exceptions. An application for a construction-related exception shall be made to and considered by the city on forms provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. No public hearing is required.

Single-event exceptions. An application for a single-event exception shall be made to and considered by the city on forms provided by the planning department and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. No public hearing is required.

Continuous-event exceptions. An application for a continuous-event exception shall be made to the city on forms provided by the planning department and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. Upon receipt of an application for a 1751
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
8/9
(2)
(3)
(4)
continuous-event exception, the city shall set the matter for public hearing before the planning commission, notice of which shall be given as provided in the Eastvale Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the exceptions set forth in this section, an application for a continuous-event exception that is associated with an application for a land use permit shall be processed concurrently with the land use permit in the same manner that the land use permit is required to be processed.

Requirements for approval. The appropriate decision making body or officer shall not approve an exception application unless the applicant demonstrates that the activities described in the application would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. In determining whether activities are detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, the appropriate decision-making body or officer shall consider such factors as the proposed duration of the activities and their location in relation to sensitive receptors. If an exception application is approved, reasonable conditions may be imposed to minimize the public detriment, including, but not limited to, restrictions on sound level, sound duration and operating hours.

Appeals. The city's decision on an application for a construction-related exception is considered final. The city's decision on an application for a single-event exception is considered final. After making a decision on an application for a continuous-event exception, the appropriate decision-making body or officer shall mail notice of the decision to the applicant. Within ten calendar days after the mailing of such notice, the applicant or an interested person may appeal the decision to the city council. Upon receipt of an appeal and payment of the appropriate appeal fee, the city clerk shall set the matter for hearing not less than five days nor more than 30 days thereafter and shall give written notice of the hearing in the same manner as notice of the hearing was given by the appropriate hearing officer or body. The city council shall render its decision within 30 days after the appeal hearing is closed.

Effect of a pending continuous-event exception application. For a period of 180 days from the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, no person creating any sound prohibited by this chapter shall be considered in violation of this chapter if the sound is related to a use that is operating pursuant to an approved land use permit, if an application for a continuous-event exception has been filed to sanction the sound and if a decision on the application is pending.
(Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
Sec. 8.52.080. - Enforcement.
1752
11/22/21, 9:57 AM Eastvale, CA Code of Ordinances
9/9
(1)
(2)
(3)
The chief of police and planning director shall have the primary responsibility for enforcing this chapter; provided, however, the chief of police and planning director may be assisted by the public health department. Violations shall be prosecuted as described in section 8.52.100, but nothing in this chapter shall prevent the chief of police, planning director or the department of public health from engaging in efforts to obtain voluntary compliance by means of warnings, notices or educational programs. (Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
Sec. 8.52.090. - Duty to cooperate.

No person shall refuse to cooperate with, or obstruct, the enforcement officials identified in section

8.52.080 when they are engaged in the process of enforcing the provisions of this chapter. This duty to cooperate may require a person to extinguish a sound source so that it can be determined whether sound emanating from the source violates the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
Sec. 8.52.100. - Violations and penalties.

Any person who violates any provision of this chapter once or twice within a 180-day period shall be guilty of an infraction. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter more than twice within a 180- day period shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. Penalties shall not exceed the following amounts:

For the first violation within a 180-day period, the minimum mandatory fine shall be $500.00.

For the second violation within a 180-day period, the minimum mandatory fine shall be $750.00.

For any further violations within a 180-day period, the minimum mandatory fine shall be $1,000.00 or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding six months, or both. (Ord. No. 2011-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-26-2011)
1753
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 10-1

INTRODUCTION
“Noise” is unwanted sound. Sound can be measured
in a variety of ways, but the determination of whether
the sound is in fact noise is subjective. For example
children playing may be wonderful sound to some,
but not to others. And of course the sounds of playing during the early afternoon may be perceived differently than late in the evening. Laughter at 2 PM is charming; the same laughter at 2 AM can be annoying and disruptive to sleep.

Managing noise is both a quality of life issue and an
important means of encouraging commerce. If noise
standards are too stringent, businesses may have a
difficult time locating in Eastvale, and mitigation
from traffic noise or other sources may make it difficult to build new homes. If the noise standards are too lenient, the quality of life in the community may
suffer. This chapter of the General Plan attempts to
balance these issues and separate sound from noise in
the context of the City of Eastvale.

SETTING
Eastvale has a relatively quiet noise environment. The
primary sources of noise in the city are transportation-related. Interstate 15 and the other major transportation corridors in the community accommodate local and regional traffic; that creates noise. Sound
generated by vehicle traffic along roadways can be
expressed in terms of sound levels at a given distance
from the roadway. Other noise sources in the City
include outdoor speakers and alarms, air-conditioning, heating, generators, sirens, car and home stereos, etc. In the industrial area of Eastvale, outdoor equipment may create noise, although this is expected in an industrial setting and does not affect residential areas.
1754
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
10-2 GENERAL PLAN

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
The science of noise analysis has its own terminology that makes a straightforward discussion difficult. The terms shown in the definition block (see text box) are used to measure sound. The various sound levels are then used to develop or establish policy that affects noise generation and attenuation.

NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USES
A series of land uses have been deemed “sensitive” by the State of California. These land uses require an attention to noise to ensure that they can operate as designed. Sensitive uses typically include schools, hospitals, rest homes, long term care facilities, mental care facilities, homes, places of worship, libraries, and passive recreation areas. Activities conducted in proximity to these sensitive uses must consider their sound output, and ensure that they don't create unacceptable noise levels.

Similarly, noise generating uses need to be protected from encroachment by noise sensitive uses. Existing agricultural operations, industrial and commercial activity that generates noise should not be required to curtail their activity because of a newly constructed housing project or other noise-sensitive use.

Most communities handle noise issues by taking care to put compatible uses near each other and avoid placing noisy uses next to homes and other noise-sensitive uses.

The table and maps on the following pages illustrate future noise conditions that will need to be addressed as the City makes land use decisions.

Ambient Noise: The normal or existing level
of environmental noise at a given location.

CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level):

The average equivalent A-weighted sound
level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of five decibels to sound levels in
the evening (from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. )
and after the addition of 10 decibels to
sound levels in the night (from 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m.).
dBA (A-weighted decibel): The A-weighted
decibel scale discriminates upper and lower
frequencies in a manner approximating the
sensitivity of the human ear. The scale is
based on a reference pressure level of 20
micropascals.

Leq (Equivalent energy level): The average
acoustic energy content of noise during the
time it lasts. The City uses a 10- minute Leq
measurement.

Ldn (Day-Night Average Level): The average
equivalent A-weighted sound level during a
24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10
decibels to sound levels in the night (from
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
1755
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 10-3
How Loud Is It?
Sound Levels for Common Noise
Sources
Activity Noise Level
in Decibels
Limit of Hearing 0 dB
Normal Breathing 10 dB
Soft Whisper 30 dB
Library 40 dB
Refrigerator 50 dB
Rainfall 50 dB
Washing Machine 50-75 dB
Normal Conversation 60 dB
Hair Dryer 60-95 dB
Alarm Clock 65-80 dB
Power Mower 65-95 dB
Dumpster Pickup (@ 50’) 80 dB
Garbage Disposal 80-95 dB
Noisy Restaurant 85 dB
Train Approaching (Engines) 85-90 dB
Tractor 90 dB
Shouting in Ear 110 dB
Loud Rock Concert 120 dB
Jet Engine at Takeoff 150 dB
These are typical noise levels. Distance from the
source will reduce the noise level. A 10 dB increase
doubles perceived loudness. Continued exposure to
noise above 85 dB can cause hearing loss; the maximum exposure to 85 dB noise in the workplace is eight hours. A single exposure to 140 dB noise can
cause some hearing loss. Source: National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health.

Table N-1 provides information on projected noise levels along major roadways in the City—specifically, what the future noise level could be at a given distance from the centerline of the roadway. This information is useful to residents seeking information on neighborhoods and to planners who want to ensure that noise impacts are properly addressed when new development proposals are reviewed. The noise information is expressed in A-weighted decibels (dBA) and divided into bands or contours ranging from 55 to 70 dBA in 5 dBA increments. The contours are used in ordinances and policy statements.

Noise created by stationary sources (i.e., outdoor mechanical equipment) is difficult to predict, and will need to be addressed on a case-bycase basis.

TABLE N-1: DISTANCE TO NOISE LEVELS BY
MAJOR ROADWAY DESIGNATION1
Roadway Classification 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Urban Arterial – 6 Lanes 141 297 638 1,373
Urban Arterial – 4 Lanes 106 227 487 1,048
Major Highway 91 190 407 879
Secondary Highway 65 135 288 620
Collector Street 27 59 126 272
Source: Appendix I: Noise Element Data, Riverside County General Plan

1 Distance is measured from the centerline.
1756
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
10-4 GENERAL PLAN

NOISE MITIGATION STRATEGIES
When an existing or proposed land use emits sound that exceeds the City determined acceptable level, the sound is characterized as noise and subject to regulation. There are a number of methods of reducing noise from both the source and at the sensitive use. When design or regulatory methods are used to reduce noise, the methods attenuate or mitigate the noise. There are both indoor and outdoor standards for this type of mitigation. Policies included in this chapter provide a number of methods for mitigation; however, with changing technology and advances in design, this list is not comprehensive, and new methods should be considered. Note too that the responsibility for mitigation is dependent upon the planned land use and existing uses on and near a site.

Table N-3 provides several categories for noise compatibility that equate to standard development processing. As noted in the table, completely compatible uses are typically those that would be allowed by right in the zoning code.

Tentatively compatible uses are those that would be conditional uses. The remaining two columns, normally incompatible and completely incompatible, represent land uses where intensive study or even project denial might occur because of existing or projected noise levels.

NOISE SOURCES

AGRICULTURE
The City has adopted the Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance which conserves, protects, and encourages the development, improvement, and continued viability of agricultural land and industries for the long-term production of food and other agricultural products, and for the economic well-being of the County's residents. The Right-toFarm Ordinance also attempts to balance the rights of farmers to produce food and other agricultural products with the rights of non-farmers who own, occupy, or use land within or adjacent to agricultural areas. The City continues to support agriculture by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be deemed a nuisance.

STATIONARY NOISE
A stationary noise source is any entity in a fixed location that emits noise. Stationary noise sources are common in many noise-sensitive areas. Motors, appliances, air conditioners, lawn and garden equipment, power tools, and generators are often found in residential neighborhoods, as well as on or near the properties of schools, hospitals, and parks.

These structures are often a permanent fixture and are required for the particular land use. Industrial and manufacturing facilities are also stationary noise producers that may affect adjacent sensitive land uses. The emitted noise from the noise source can be mitigated to acceptable levels either at the source or on the adjacent property through the use of proper planning, setbacks, noise walls, acoustic-rated windows, dense landscaping, or by other noise control measures. 1757
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 10-5

TRANSPORTATION
The most common mobile noise sources in the City are transportation-related. Motor vehicle noise is characterized by the number of vehicles generating engine and tire noise on local roads and freeways, which often creates a higher sustained noise level in proximity to areas sensitive to noise exposure. Rail and aircraft operations, though less frequent, may generate extremely high noise levels that can be disruptive to daily activities in residential areas and noise sensitive uses. Transit associated with bus service in the City is part of the transportation noise consideration.

Airports
Aircraft flyovers are audible in Eastvale, as a result of aircraft approaching and departing from Chino Airport and Ontario International Airport. A substantial portion of the City underlies the general traffic patter envelope of Chino as clearly depicted in the most recently adopted version of the Chino land Use Compatibility Plan, available at www.rclaus.org. However, the noise is transient and not considered a major noise source unless they occur during the late evening and morning hours. According to the 2008 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, only about 10% of flights at Chino Airport occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Helicopters and heliports are also potential sources of noise, but due to the relatively low frequency and short duration of their operation in most circumstances, these operations do not significantly affect average noise levels within the City.

NOISE ATTENUATION
One of the most effective means of reducing noise in a sensitive area is to construct and design buildings in such a way that the noise is deflected, absorbed or mitigated so as not to affect the occupants. If the building has already been constructed, then landscaping, physical barriers, sound dampening technology and other design techniques can be used to absorb the noise. These building and design techniques should serve two purposes; to mitigate noise to acceptable indoor and outdoor levels, and to enhance the community character rather than detract from its surroundings.

VIBRATION
Another community annoyance related to noise is vibration. Vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency, where amplitude is characterized by displacement, velocity, and/or acceleration. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration.

Vibration can be felt outdoors, but the perceived intensity of vibration impacts are greater indoors, due to the shaking of the structure. Some of the most common sources of vibration come from trains and/or transit vehicles, construction 1758
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
10-6 GENERAL PLAN
equipment, airplanes, and large vehicles. Several land uses are especially sensitive to vibration, and, therefore, have a lower vibration threshold. These uses include, but are not limited to, concert halls, hospitals, libraries, vibrationsensitive research operations, residential areas, schools, and offices.

Table N-2, Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels, presents the human reaction to various levels of peak particle velocity. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hertz (Hz) range and usually occur around 15 Hz.

Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies. However, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies around 30 Hz at high speeds. It is more uncommon, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz.

TABLE N-2: HUMAN REACTION TO TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS
Peak Particle
Velocity
(inches/second)
Human Reaction

0.0059-0.0188 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion

0.0787 Vibrations readily perceptible

0.0984 Continuous vibration begins to annoy people

0.1968 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings

0.3937-0.5905 Vibrations considered unpleasant when continuously subjected and unacceptable by some walking on bridges.

Source: Caltrans, 1992

ISSUES FOR FUTURE PLANNING
As population and development increase in Eastvale, the noise levels in the community will likely also increase. Methods of addressing the increase in noise can be evaluated before noise levels reach an annoyance level. Noise attenuation will be important for noise sensitive uses located along major roadways or in the vicinity of industrial or heavy commercial activities. The City may also need to address noise during the planning of special events such as street fairs and concerts.
1759
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 10-7

NOISE GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL N-1: Prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of excessive noise exposure on the residents, employees, visitors, and noise-sensitive uses of Eastvale.

GOAL N-2: Locate noise-tolerant land uses within areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are noiseproducing, such as transportation corridors.

GOAL N-3: Ensure that noise sensitive uses do not encroach into areas needed by noise generating uses.

GOAL N-4: Locate noise sources away from existing noise sensitive land uses unless appropriate noise control measures are provided.

POLICIES
Policies are provided below in the following topical areas:
• General Noise Policies (page 10-7)
• Noise Mitigation Strategies (page 10-8)
• Noise Sources (page 10-12)
• Building and Design (page 10-13)
• Building and Design Techniques (page 10-14)

GENERAL NOISE POLICIES
POLICY N-1: Protect noise-sensitive land uses from high levels of noise by restricting noiseproducing land uses from these areas.

POLICY N-2: Continue to work with other agencies such as Caltrans and school districts to ensure that newly proposed facilities do not negatively affect existing noise sensitive land uses. 1760
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
10-8 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY N-3: Consider the following uses to be sensitive to noise and vibration, and discourage these uses in areas where existing or projected future noise levels would be in excess of 65 CNEL and/or vibration would be more than 0.0787 Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second):
• Schools;
• Hospitals;
• Rest Homes;
• Long Term Care Facilities;
• Mental Care Facilities;
• Residential Uses;
• Libraries;
• Passive Recreation Uses; and
• Places of worship
POLICY N-4: Require noise sensitive land uses proposed in areas where existing or projected future noise levels would be in excess of 65 CNEL to have an acoustical specialist prepare a study of the noise problems and recommend structural and site design features that will adequately mitigate the noise problem.

POLICY N-5: Require that exterior noise forecasts use the appropriate Level of Service for the adjacent roadways, or a 20-year projection of traffic volumes (whichever is greater) for future noise forecasts.

NOISE MITIGATION STRATEGIES
POLICY N-6: Mitigate exterior noise to the levels shown in Table N-3 to the extent feasible. 1761
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 10-9
TABLE N-3: NOISE COMPATIBILITY BY LAND USE DESIGNATION1 Land Use Designations Completely
Compatible
Tentatively
Compatible
Normally
Incompatible
Completely
Incompatible
All Residential
(Single- and Multi-Family)
Less than
60 dBA 60-70 dBA 70-75 dBA Greater than 75 dBA
All Non-Residential
(Commercial, Industrial & Institutional)
Less than
70 dBA 70-75 dBA Greater than
75 dBA (2)
Public Parks
(Lands on which public parks are
located or planned)
Less than
65 dBA 65-70 dBA 70-75 dBA Greater than 75 dBA
(1) All noise levels shown in this table are designated CNEL. (2) To be determined as part of the project review process.

POLICY N-7: Table N-4 provides the City’s standards for maximum exterior non-transportation noise levels to which land designated for residential land uses may be exposed for any 30-minute period on any day. Where existing ambient noise levels exceed these standards, the ambient noise level shall be highest allowable noise level as measured in dBA Leq (30 minutes).

Note to the Reader: Public schools are not regulated by the City; therefore, no noise standards for public schools are included in this Chapter.

ACTION N-7.1: Establish acceptable standards for residential noise sources such as, but not limited to, leaf blowers, mobile vendors, mobile stereos and stationary noise sources such as home appliances, air conditioners, and swimming pool equipment.

ACTION N-7.2: Evaluate noise producers for the possibility of pure-tone producing noises.

Mitigate any pure tones that may be emitted from a noise source. 1762
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
10-10 GENERAL PLAN
TABLE N-4: EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS FOR NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE, MEASURED AS DBA LEQ (30 MINUTES)2
Land Use Type Time Period Maximum Noise Level
(dBA)
Single-Family Homes and Duplexes 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60
Multiple Residential 3 or More Units Per Building (Triplex +) 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60
POLICY N-8: The noise levels specified in Policy N-7 shall be lowered by 5 dB for simple tonal noises (such as humming sounds), noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises (such as pile drivers, punch presses, and similar machinery).

Example: the Single Family/Duplex standard from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. for these types of noises is 45 dBA.

POLICY N-9: The City may impose exterior noise standards which are less restrictive than those specified in Table N-4, provided that:
1) The noise impact on the residential or other noise-sensitive use is addressed in an environmental analysis and at least one outdoor area meets the standard; and 2) A finding is made by the approving body specifying why the exception would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and 3) The exception would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding development. 4) The exception would not be injurious to adjacent uses, property and improvements; and, 5) Alternatives have been considered but none are technologically feasible for the proposal; and,

2 Leq (Equivalent Sound Level) is the average noise level during the time period of the sample. 1763
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 10-11
6) Interior noise levels resulting from an external source will be no more than 45dBA CNEL from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; and,
7) Residents of noise sensitive uses are informed of the proposal during the review stage and prior to approval.

POLICY N-10: Table N-5: Maximum Acceptable Interior Noise Levels Created by Exterior Noise Sources provides the City’s standards for acceptable indoor noise levels for various types of land uses. These standards should receive special attention when projects are considered in “Tentatively Compatible” or “Normally Incompatible” areas. • Noise created inside a use listed below shall not count toward the acceptable noise levels to be maintained in accordance with this policy.

TABLE N-5: MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS CREATED BY

EXTERIOR NOISE SOURCES
Land Use Type Acceptable Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Residential Living and Sleeping Areas 45 dBA
Residential Living and Sleeping Areas where the dwelling unit is subject to noise from railroad tracks, aircraft overflights, or similar sources which produce clearly identifiable, discrete noise events (such as the passing of a train as opposed to relatively steady or constant noise sources such as roadways)
40 dBA
Private & Semi Private School Classrooms(1) 55 dBA
All Places of Work Other than School Classrooms
Conform with applicable
state and federal workplace
safety standards
(1) Standards for public schools are set and enforced by the State of California and are not regulated by the City of Eastvale.

POLICY N-11: Developers of new residential or other noise-sensitive uses which are placed in environments subject to existing or projected noise that exceeds the “completely compatible” guidelines in Table N-3: Noise Compatibility by Land Use Designation shall be responsible for ensuring that acceptable exterior and interior noise levels will be achieved.
1764
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
10-12 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY N-12: The City’s preferences for providing noise mitigation are, in order of preference (#1 is most preferred; #5 is the least):
1) Reduce noise at the source.
2) If #1 is not practical, designate land uses which are compatible with projected noise levels.
3) If #1 or #2 are not practical, use distance from the source to reduce noise to acceptable levels. 4) If #1, #2, or #3 are not practical, use buildings, berms, or landscaping or a combination of these to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels. Use construction techniques (sound-reducing windows, insulation, etc.) to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. 5) The last measure which should be considered is the use of a sound wall to reduce noise to acceptable levels.

NOISE SOURCES
POLICY N-13: Protect existing agricultural resources from noise complaints that may result from routine farming practices, through continued support of the Right-to-Farm Ordinance.

POLICY N-14: Ensure compatibility between industrial and commercial development and adjacent land uses. To achieve compatibility, industrial and commercial development projects may be required to include noise mitigation measures to avoid or minimize project impacts on adjacent uses.

POLICY N-15: Encourage noise-tolerant land uses such as commercial or industrial development, to locate in areas already committed to land uses that are noise-producing.

POLICY N-16: Require that parking structures, terminals, and loading docks of commercial or industrial land uses be designed to minimize potential noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses. 1765
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 10-13
POLICY N-17: If noise levels in Table N-4 exceed, or are projected to be exceeded as a result of the proposed commercial or industrial loading dock or delivery area, require delivery hours be limited when adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses.

ACTION N-17.1: Enforce all noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code.

POLICY N-18: Natural buffers, setbacks or other noise attenuation shall be established between freeways and urban arterial roadways and adjoining noise-sensitive areas.

ACTION N-18.1: Employ noise mitigation practices when designing all future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing highway segments.

POLICY N-19: Encourage local and regional public transit providers to ensure that the equipment they operate and purchase is state-of-the-art and does not generate excessive noise impacts on the community.

POLICY N-20: Encourage the development and use of alternative transportation modes, including bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways, to minimize vehicular noise in residential and other noise-sensitive areas.

POLICY N-21: Actively participate in the development of noise abatement plans for freeways.

BUILDING AND DESIGN
POLICY N-22: Ensure that construction activities are regulated to establish hours of operation in order to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts on surrounding areas.

POLICY N-23: Condition subdivision and other land development approval adjacent to developed/occupied noise-sensitive land uses to require the developer to submit a construction-related noise mitigation plan to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan must depict the location of construction equipment and specify how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated during construction of this project, through the use of such methods as:
a) Temporary noise attenuation fences;
b) Preferential location of equipment;
1766
CHAPTER 10:

NOISE
10-14 GENERAL PLAN
c) Length of equipment use and idling time; and,
d) Use of current noise suppression technology and equipment.

POLICY N-24: Require that all construction equipment be kept properly tuned and use noise reduction features (e.g. mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer.

BUILDING AND DESIGN TECHNIQUES
POLICY N-25: Development should use natural barriers such as berms, setbacks and/or dense vegetation to assist in noise reduction.

POLICY N-26: Continue to develop effective strategies and mitigation measures for the abatement of noise reflecting effective site design approaches and state-of-the-art building technologies.

POLICY N-27: Noise reduction measures shall be included in the design of new development through measures which may include:
• Separation of noise-sensitive buildings from noise-generating sources; • Use of natural topography and intervening structures to shield noise-sensitive land uses; and
• Adequate sound proofing of noise sources or receptor structures to maintain desired interior noise levels.

POLICY N-28: Require that commercial and residential mixed-use structures minimize the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial land use to the residential land use through appropriate building technologies.
1767
Appendix B

Roadway Noise Analysis Results
1768
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 18,497 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 1,850 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 68.4 66.0 64.7 58.6 67.1 67.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.2 42.0 34.2 43.4 49.5 49.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 67.6 50.6 42.8 52.0 58.2 58.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.4 66.1 64.7 59.6 67.7 68.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 68.4 66.0 64.7 58.6 67.1 67.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.2 42.0 34.2 43.4 49.5 49.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 67.6 50.6 42.8 52.0 58.2 58.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.4 66.1 64.7 59.6 67.7 68.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  66 210 664 2100
LDN 58 185 584 1846

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1769
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 22,162 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,216 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.1 66.8 65.5 59.4 67.9 68.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.9 42.7 35.0 44.2 50.3 50.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.4 51.4 43.6 52.8 59.0 59.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.2 66.9 65.5 60.4 68.4 69.0
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.1 66.8 65.5 59.4 67.9 68.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.9 42.7 35.0 44.2 50.3 50.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.4 51.4 43.6 52.8 59.0 59.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.2 66.9 65.5 60.4 68.4 69.0
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  80 252 796 2516
LDN 70 221 700 2212

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1770
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 44,000 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 4,400 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.1 69.7 68.5 62.4 70.8 71.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.9 45.7 37.9 47.1 53.3 53.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.4 54.4 46.6 55.8 62.0 62.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 75.2 69.9 68.5 63.4 71.4 72.0
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.1 69.7 68.5 62.4 70.8 71.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.9 45.7 37.9 47.1 53.3 53.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.4 54.4 46.6 55.8 62.0 62.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 75.2 69.9 68.5 63.4 71.4 72.0
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  158 499 1579 4995
LDN 139 439 1389 4392

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1771
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 47,665 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 4,767 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.5 70.1 68.8 62.7 71.2 71.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 65.3 46.1 38.3 47.5 53.6 53.7
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.7 54.7 46.9 56.2 62.3 62.3
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 75.5 70.2 68.8 63.7 71.8 72.3
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.5 70.1 68.8 62.7 71.2 71.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 65.3 46.1 38.3 47.5 53.6 53.7
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.7 54.7 46.9 56.2 62.3 62.3
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 75.5 70.2 68.8 63.7 71.8 72.3
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  171 541 1711 5411
LDN 150 476 1504 4758

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1772
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Harrison Ave to Scholar Way) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 26,192 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,619 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.9 67.5 66.2 60.1 68.6 69.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.7 43.5 35.7 44.9 51.0 51.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.1 52.1 44.3 53.6 59.7 59.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.9 67.6 66.2 61.1 69.2 69.7
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.9 67.5 66.2 60.1 68.6 69.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.7 43.5 35.7 44.9 51.0 51.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.1 52.1 44.3 53.6 59.7 59.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.9 67.6 66.2 61.1 69.2 69.7
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  94 297 940 2973
LDN 83 261 827 2614
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
1773
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 29,857 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,986 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 70.4 68.1 66.8 60.7 69.1 69.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 63.2 44.0 36.3 45.5 51.6 51.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.7 52.7 44.9 54.1 60.3 60.3
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 73.5 68.2 66.8 61.7 69.7 70.3
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 70.4 68.1 66.8 60.7 69.1 69.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 63.2 44.0 36.3 45.5 51.6 51.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.7 52.7 44.9 54.1 60.3 60.3
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 73.5 68.2 66.8 61.7 69.7 70.3
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  107 339 1072 3389
LDN 94 298 942 2980
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1774
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 50,780 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 5,078 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.7 70.4 69.1 63.0 71.5 72.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 65.5 46.3 38.6 47.8 53.9 54.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.0 55.0 47.2 56.4 62.6 62.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 75.8 70.5 69.1 64.0 72.0 72.6
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.7 70.4 69.1 63.0 71.5 72.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 65.5 46.3 38.6 47.8 53.9 54.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.0 55.0 47.2 56.4 62.6 62.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 75.8 70.5 69.1 64.0 72.0 72.6
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  182 576 1823 5764
LDN 160 507 1603 5068
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1775
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 54,445 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 5,445 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 73.0 70.7 69.4 63.3 71.8 72.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 65.9 46.6 38.9 48.1 54.2 54.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.3 55.3 47.5 56.7 62.9 62.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 76.1 70.8 69.4 64.3 72.4 72.9
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 73.0 70.7 69.4 63.3 71.8 72.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 65.9 46.6 38.9 48.1 54.2 54.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.3 55.3 47.5 56.7 62.9 62.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 76.1 70.8 69.4 64.3 72.4 72.9
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  195 618 1954 6180
LDN 172 543 1718 5434
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1776
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Scholar Way to Hamner Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 29,548 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,955 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.1 66.7 65.4 59.4 67.8 68.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.5 43.3 35.5 44.7 50.9 50.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.2 52.2 44.4 53.7 59.8 59.8
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.6 66.9 65.4 60.5 68.5 69.0
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.1 66.7 65.4 59.4 67.8 68.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.5 43.3 35.5 44.7 50.9 50.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.2 52.2 44.4 53.7 59.8 59.8
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.6 66.9 65.4 60.5 68.5 69.0
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  80 254 803 2538
LDN 71 224 708 2239
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
1777
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Scholar Way to Hamner Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 47,874 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 4,787 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.2 68.8 67.5 61.4 69.9 70.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.6 45.4 37.6 46.8 53.0 53.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.3 54.3 46.5 55.8 61.9 61.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.7 69.0 67.5 62.6 70.6 71.1
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.2 68.8 67.5 61.4 69.9 70.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.6 45.4 37.6 46.8 53.0 53.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.3 54.3 46.5 55.8 61.9 61.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.7 69.0 67.5 62.6 70.6 71.1
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  130 411 1300 4112
LDN 115 363 1147 3627
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1778
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Scholar Way to Hamner Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 48,960 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 4,896 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.3 68.9 67.6 61.5 70.0 70.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.7 45.5 37.7 46.9 53.0 53.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.4 54.4 46.6 55.8 62.0 62.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.8 69.1 67.6 62.7 70.7 71.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.3 68.9 67.6 61.5 70.0 70.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.7 45.5 37.7 46.9 53.0 53.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.4 54.4 46.6 55.8 62.0 62.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.8 69.1 67.6 62.7 70.7 71.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  133 421 1330 4206
LDN 117 371 1173 3710
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1779
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Scholar Way to Hamner Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 67,286 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 6,729 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.6 70.3 69.0 62.9 71.4 72.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS 66.1 46.8 39.1 48.3 54.4 54.5
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.8 55.8 48.0 57.2 63.4 63.4
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 76.2 70.4 69.0 64.1 72.1 72.6
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.6 70.3 69.0 62.9 71.4 72.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS 66.1 46.8 39.1 48.3 54.4 54.5
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.8 55.8 48.0 57.2 63.4 63.4
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 76.2 70.4 69.0 64.1 72.1 72.6
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  183 578 1828 5780
LDN 161 510 1612 5098
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1780
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Hamner Ave to I‐15 Ramps) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 44,312 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 4,431 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 70.8 68.5 67.2 61.1 69.5 70.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.2 45.0 37.3 46.5 52.6 52.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.0 54.0 46.2 55.4 61.6 61.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.4 68.6 67.2 62.3 70.3 70.8
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 70.8 68.5 67.2 61.1 69.5 70.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.2 45.0 37.3 46.5 52.6 52.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.0 54.0 46.2 55.4 61.6 61.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.4 68.6 67.2 62.3 70.3 70.8
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  120 381 1204 3806
LDN 106 336 1062 3357

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1781
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Hamner Ave to I‐15 Ramps) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 60,805 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 6,081 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.2 69.8 68.5 62.5 70.9 71.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 65.6 46.4 38.6 47.8 54.0 54.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.4 55.4 47.6 56.8 62.9 63.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 75.7 70.0 68.6 63.6 71.6 72.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.2 69.8 68.5 62.5 70.9 71.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 65.6 46.4 38.6 47.8 54.0 54.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.4 55.4 47.6 56.8 62.9 63.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 75.7 70.0 68.6 63.6 71.6 72.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  165 522 1652 5223
LDN 146 461 1457 4607

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1782
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Hamner Ave to I‐15 Ramps) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 69,110 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 6,911 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.8 70.4 69.1 63.0 71.5 72.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 66.2 47.0 39.2 48.4 54.5 54.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.9 55.9 48.1 57.3 63.5 63.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 76.3 70.6 69.1 64.2 72.2 72.7
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 72.8 70.4 69.1 63.0 71.5 72.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 66.2 47.0 39.2 48.4 54.5 54.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 72.9 55.9 48.1 57.3 63.5 63.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 76.3 70.6 69.1 64.2 72.2 72.7
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  188 594 1877 5937
LDN 166 524 1656 5236

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1783
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (Hamner Ave to I‐15 Ramps) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 85,603 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 8,560 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 73.7 71.3 70.0 64.0 72.4 73.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS 67.1 47.9 40.1 49.3 55.5 55.5
HEAVY TRUCKS 73.8 56.8 49.1 58.3 64.4 64.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 77.2 71.5 70.1 65.1 73.1 73.7
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 73.7 71.3 70.0 64.0 72.4 73.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS 67.1 47.9 40.1 49.3 55.5 55.5
HEAVY TRUCKS 73.8 56.8 49.1 58.3 64.4 64.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 77.2 71.5 70.1 65.1 73.1 73.7
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  233 735 2325 7353
LDN 205 649 2051 6486

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1784
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (I‐15 Ramps to Wineville Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 33,855 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 3,386 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.0 68.6 67.3 61.3 69.7 70.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 63.8 44.6 36.8 46.0 52.2 52.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 70.2 53.2 45.5 54.7 60.8 60.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.1 68.7 67.3 62.2 70.3 70.8
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.0 68.6 67.3 61.3 69.7 70.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 63.8 44.6 36.8 46.0 52.2 52.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 70.2 53.2 45.5 54.7 60.8 60.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.1 68.7 67.3 62.2 70.3 70.8
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  122 384 1215 3843
LDN 107 338 1069 3379
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
1785
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (I‐15 Ramps to Wineville Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 37,520 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 3,752 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.4 69.1 67.8 61.7 70.1 70.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.2 45.0 37.2 46.5 52.6 52.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 70.7 53.7 45.9 55.1 61.3 61.3
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.5 69.2 67.8 62.7 70.7 71.3
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.4 69.1 67.8 61.7 70.1 70.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.2 45.0 37.2 46.5 52.6 52.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 70.7 53.7 45.9 55.1 61.3 61.3
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.5 69.2 67.8 62.7 70.7 71.3
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  135 426 1347 4259
LDN 118 374 1184 3745
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1786
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (I‐15 Ramps to Wineville Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 65,010 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 6,501 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 73.8 71.4 70.1 64.1 72.5 73.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 66.6 47.4 39.6 48.8 55.0 55.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 73.1 56.1 48.3 57.5 63.7 63.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 76.9 71.6 70.2 65.1 73.1 73.7
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 73.8 71.4 70.1 64.1 72.5 73.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 66.6 47.4 39.6 48.8 55.0 55.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 73.1 56.1 48.3 57.5 63.7 63.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 76.9 71.6 70.2 65.1 73.1 73.7
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  233 738 2334 7380
LDN 205 649 2052 6489
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1787
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Limonite Avenue (I‐15 Ramps to Wineville Ave) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 68,675 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 6,868 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 74.1 71.7 70.4 64.3 72.8 73.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 66.9 47.7 39.9 49.1 55.2 55.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 73.3 56.3 48.5 57.7 63.9 63.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 77.1 71.8 70.4 65.3 73.4 73.9
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 74.1 71.7 70.4 64.3 72.8 73.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 66.9 47.7 39.9 49.1 55.2 55.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 73.3 56.3 48.5 57.7 63.9 63.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 77.1 71.8 70.4 65.3 73.4 73.9
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  247 780 2465 7796
LDN 217 685 2168 6855
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1788
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Citrus Street to Schleisman Road) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 20,619 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,062 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 68.8 66.5 65.2 59.1 67.5 68.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.6 42.4 34.6 43.9 50.0 50.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.1 51.1 43.3 52.5 58.7 58.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.9 66.6 65.2 60.1 68.1 68.7
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 68.8 66.5 65.2 59.1 67.5 68.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.6 42.4 34.6 43.9 50.0 50.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.1 51.1 43.3 52.5 58.7 58.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.9 66.6 65.2 60.1 68.1 68.7
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  74 234 740 2341
LDN 65 206 651 2058
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
1789
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Citrus Street to Schleisman Road) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 24,284 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,428 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.5 67.2 65.9 59.8 68.2 68.9
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.3 43.1 35.4 44.6 50.7 50.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.8 51.8 44.0 53.2 59.4 59.4
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.6 67.3 65.9 60.8 68.8 69.4
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.5 67.2 65.9 59.8 68.2 68.9
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.3 43.1 35.4 44.6 50.7 50.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.8 51.8 44.0 53.2 59.4 59.4
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.6 67.3 65.9 60.8 68.8 69.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  87 276 872 2757
LDN 77 242 766 2424
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1790
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Citrus Street to Schleisman Road) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 25,400 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,540 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.7 67.4 66.1 60.0 68.4 69.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.5 43.3 35.6 44.8 50.9 50.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.0 52.0 44.2 53.4 59.6 59.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.8 67.5 66.1 61.0 69.0 69.6
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.7 67.4 66.1 60.0 68.4 69.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.5 43.3 35.6 44.8 50.9 50.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.0 52.0 44.2 53.4 59.6 59.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.8 67.5 66.1 61.0 69.0 69.6
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  91 288 912 2883
LDN 80 254 802 2535
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1791
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Citrus Street to Schleisman Road) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 29,065 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 50 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,907 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 70.3 67.9 66.7 60.6 69.0 69.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 63.1 43.9 36.1 45.3 51.5 51.5
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.2 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 73.4 68.1 66.7 61.6 69.6 70.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 70.3 67.9 66.7 60.6 69.0 69.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 63.1 43.9 36.1 45.3 51.5 51.5
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.2 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 73.4 68.1 66.7 61.6 69.6 70.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  104 330 1043 3299
LDN 92 290 917 2901
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1792
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Schleisman Road to 68th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 11,831 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 1,183 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 65.1 62.7 61.4 55.4 63.8 64.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 58.5 39.3 31.5 40.7 46.9 46.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 65.2 48.3 40.5 49.7 55.8 55.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 68.6 62.9 61.5 56.5 64.5 65.1
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 65.1 62.7 61.4 55.4 63.8 64.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 58.5 39.3 31.5 40.7 46.9 46.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 65.2 48.3 40.5 49.7 55.8 55.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 68.6 62.9 61.5 56.5 64.5 65.1
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  32 102 321 1016
LDN 28 90 283 896

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1793
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Schleisman Road to 68th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 15,496 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 1,550 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 66.3 63.9 62.6 56.5 65.0 65.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 59.7 40.5 32.7 41.9 48.1 48.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 66.4 49.4 41.6 50.9 57.0 57.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 69.8 64.1 62.6 57.7 65.7 66.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 66.3 63.9 62.6 56.5 65.0 65.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 59.7 40.5 32.7 41.9 48.1 48.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 66.4 49.4 41.6 50.9 57.0 57.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 69.8 64.1 62.6 57.7 65.7 66.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  42 133 421 1331
LDN 37 117 371 1174

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1794
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Schleisman Road to 68th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 15,030 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 1,503 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 66.1 63.8 62.5 56.4 64.8 65.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 59.5 40.3 32.6 41.8 47.9 48.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 66.3 49.3 41.5 50.7 56.9 56.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 69.7 63.9 62.5 57.6 65.6 66.1
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 66.1 63.8 62.5 56.4 64.8 65.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 59.5 40.3 32.6 41.8 47.9 48.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 66.3 49.3 41.5 50.7 56.9 56.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 69.7 63.9 62.5 57.6 65.6 66.1
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  41 129 408 1291
LDN 36 114 360 1139

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1795
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Schleisman Road to 68th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 18,695 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 1,870 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 67.1 64.7 63.4 57.4 65.8 66.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 60.5 41.3 33.5 42.7 48.9 48.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 67.2 50.2 42.5 51.7 57.8 57.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 70.6 64.9 63.5 58.5 66.5 67.1
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 67.1 64.7 63.4 57.4 65.8 66.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 60.5 41.3 33.5 42.7 48.9 48.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 67.2 50.2 42.5 51.7 57.8 57.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 70.6 64.9 63.5 58.5 66.5 67.1
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  51 161 508 1606
LDN 45 142 448 1417

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1796
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (68th Street to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 20,186 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,019 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 67.4 65.0 63.8 57.7 66.1 66.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 60.8 41.6 33.8 43.0 49.2 49.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 67.6 50.6 42.8 52.0 58.2 58.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 70.9 65.2 63.8 58.8 66.8 67.4
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 67.4 65.0 63.8 57.7 66.1 66.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 60.8 41.6 33.8 43.0 49.2 49.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 67.6 50.6 42.8 52.0 58.2 58.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 70.9 65.2 63.8 58.8 66.8 67.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  55 173 548 1734
LDN 48 153 484 1529
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
1797
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (68th Street to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 22,019 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,202 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 67.8 65.4 64.1 58.1 66.5 67.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.2 42.0 34.2 43.4 49.6 49.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 67.9 51.0 43.2 52.4 58.5 58.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.3 65.6 64.2 59.2 67.2 67.8
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 67.8 65.4 64.1 58.1 66.5 67.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.2 42.0 34.2 43.4 49.6 49.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 67.9 51.0 43.2 52.4 58.5 58.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.3 65.6 64.2 59.2 67.2 67.8
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  60 189 598 1891
LDN 53 167 528 1668
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1798
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (68th Street to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 22,730 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,273 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 67.9 65.6 64.3 58.2 66.6 67.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.3 42.1 34.4 43.6 49.7 49.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.1 51.1 43.3 52.5 58.7 58.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.5 65.7 64.3 59.4 67.4 67.9
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 67.9 65.6 64.3 58.2 66.6 67.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.3 42.1 34.4 43.6 49.7 49.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.1 51.1 43.3 52.5 58.7 58.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.5 65.7 64.3 59.4 67.4 67.9
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  62 195 617 1953
LDN 54 172 545 1722
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1799
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (68th Street to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 24,563 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 2,456 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 68.3 65.9 64.6 58.5 67.0 67.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.7 42.5 34.7 43.9 50.1 50.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.4 51.4 43.6 52.9 59.0 59.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.8 66.1 64.6 59.7 67.7 68.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 68.3 65.9 64.6 58.5 67.0 67.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 61.7 42.5 34.7 43.9 50.1 50.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.4 51.4 43.6 52.9 59.0 59.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.8 66.1 64.6 59.7 67.7 68.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  67 211 667 2110
LDN 59 186 589 1861
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1800
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Limonite Avenue to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 15,649 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 1,565 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 66.3 63.9 62.6 56.6 65.0 65.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 59.7 40.5 32.7 41.9 48.1 48.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 66.5 49.5 41.7 50.9 57.0 57.1
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 69.8 64.1 62.7 57.7 65.7 66.3
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 66.3 63.9 62.6 56.6 65.0 65.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 59.7 40.5 32.7 41.9 48.1 48.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 66.5 49.5 41.7 50.9 57.0 57.1
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 69.8 64.1 62.7 57.7 65.7 66.3
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  43 134 425 1344
LDN 37 119 375 1186
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
1801
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Limonite Avenue to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 32,142 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 3,214 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.4 67.1 65.8 59.7 68.1 68.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.8 43.6 35.9 45.1 51.2 51.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.2 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 73.0 67.2 65.8 60.9 68.9 69.4
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.4 67.1 65.8 59.7 68.1 68.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.8 43.6 35.9 45.1 51.2 51.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.2 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 73.0 67.2 65.8 60.9 68.9 69.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  87 276 873 2761
LDN 77 244 770 2435
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1802
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Limonite Avenue to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 31,890 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 3,189 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.4 67.0 65.7 59.7 68.1 68.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.8 43.6 35.8 45.0 51.2 51.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.1 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.9 67.2 65.8 60.8 68.8 69.4
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.4 67.0 65.7 59.7 68.1 68.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.8 43.6 35.8 45.0 51.2 51.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.1 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.9 67.2 65.8 60.8 68.8 69.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  87 274 866 2739
LDN 76 242 764 2416
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1803
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (Limonite Avenue to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 48,383 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 4,838 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.2 68.8 67.5 61.5 69.9 70.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.6 45.4 37.6 46.8 53.0 53.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.4 54.4 46.6 55.8 62.0 62.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.7 69.0 67.6 62.6 70.6 71.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.2 68.8 67.5 61.5 69.9 70.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.6 45.4 37.6 46.8 53.0 53.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.4 54.4 46.6 55.8 62.0 62.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.7 69.0 67.6 62.6 70.6 71.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  131 416 1314 4156
LDN 116 367 1159 3666
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1804
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 15,649 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 1,565 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 66.3 63.9 62.6 56.6 65.0 65.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 59.7 40.5 32.7 41.9 48.1 48.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 66.5 49.5 41.7 50.9 57.0 57.1
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 69.8 64.1 62.7 57.7 65.7 66.3
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 66.3 63.9 62.6 56.6 65.0 65.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 59.7 40.5 32.7 41.9 48.1 48.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 66.5 49.5 41.7 50.9 57.0 57.1
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 69.8 64.1 62.7 57.7 65.7 66.3
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  43 134 425 1344
LDN 37 119 375 1186
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.695
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
‐ ‐

0.00 0.014

0.024
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
‐ ‐
1805
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 32,142 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 3,214 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.4 67.1 65.8 59.7 68.1 68.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.8 43.6 35.9 45.1 51.2 51.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.2 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 73.0 67.2 65.8 60.9 68.9 69.4
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.4 67.1 65.8 59.7 68.1 68.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.8 43.6 35.9 45.1 51.2 51.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.2 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 73.0 67.2 65.8 60.9 68.9 69.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  87 276 873 2761
LDN 77 244 770 2435
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1806
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Condition JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 31,890 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 3,189 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.4 67.0 65.7 59.7 68.1 68.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.8 43.6 35.8 45.0 51.2 51.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.1 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.9 67.2 65.8 60.8 68.8 69.4
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.4 67.0 65.7 59.7 68.1 68.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.8 43.6 35.8 45.0 51.2 51.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.6 52.6 44.8 54.0 60.1 60.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 72.9 67.2 65.8 60.8 68.8 69.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  87 274 866 2739
LDN 76 242 764 2416
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1807
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Hamner Avenue (58th Street to Bellgrave Avenue) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 48,383 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  72 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 4,838 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.9200 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 93.34
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.001 0.015 0.0300 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 93.30 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.001 0.025 0.0500 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 93.34
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.2 68.8 67.5 61.5 69.9 70.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.6 45.4 37.6 46.8 53.0 53.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.4 54.4 46.6 55.8 62.0 62.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.7 69.0 67.6 62.6 70.6 71.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 71.2 68.8 67.5 61.5 69.9 70.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 64.6 45.4 37.6 46.8 53.0 53.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 71.4 54.4 46.6 55.8 62.0 62.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 74.7 69.0 67.6 62.6 70.6 71.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  131 416 1314 4156
LDN 116 367 1159 3666
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.695 ‐ ‐

0.014 ‐ ‐

0.024 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1808
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Scholar Way (Limonite Ave to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 4,912 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 35 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  36 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 491 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.136 0.102 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 98.41
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.000 0.009 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 98.37 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.000 0.004 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 98.41
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 58.2 56.0 54.7 48.7 57.1 57.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.6 29.4 21.9 30.6 36.8 36.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 51.9 26.5 23.1 27.8 34.0 34.1
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 59.7 56.0 54.7 48.8 57.2 57.8
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 58.2 56.0 54.7 48.7 57.1 57.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.6 29.4 21.9 30.6 36.8 36.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 51.9 26.5 23.1 27.8 34.0 34.1
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 59.7 56.0 54.7 48.8 57.2 57.8
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  6 19 60 191
LDN 5 17 52 165

0.004 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.736 ‐ ‐

0.009 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1809
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Scholar Way (Limonite Ave to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 6,745 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 35 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  36 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 675 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.136 0.102 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 98.41
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.000 0.009 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 98.37 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.000 0.004 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 98.41
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 59.5 57.4 56.1 50.1 58.5 59.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.0 30.8 23.3 32.0 38.2 38.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 53.3 27.9 24.5 29.2 35.4 35.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 61.0 57.4 56.1 50.2 58.6 59.2
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 59.5 57.4 56.1 50.1 58.5 59.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.0 30.8 23.3 32.0 38.2 38.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 53.3 27.9 24.5 29.2 35.4 35.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 61.0 57.4 56.1 50.2 58.6 59.2
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  8 26 83 262
LDN 7 23 72 227
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.736 ‐ ‐

0.009 ‐ ‐

0.004 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1810
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Scholar Way (Limonite Ave to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 6,860 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 35 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  36 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 686 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.136 0.102 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 98.41
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.000 0.009 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 98.37 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.000 0.004 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 98.41
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 59.6 57.5 56.2 50.2 58.6 59.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.1 30.8 23.3 32.1 38.3 38.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 53.3 28.0 24.6 29.2 35.4 35.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 61.1 57.5 56.2 50.3 58.6 59.3
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 59.6 57.5 56.2 50.2 58.6 59.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.1 30.8 23.3 32.1 38.3 38.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 53.3 28.0 24.6 29.2 35.4 35.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 61.1 57.5 56.2 50.3 58.6 59.3
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  8 27 84 266
LDN 7 23 73 231

0.004 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.736 ‐ ‐

0.009 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1811
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Scholar Way (Limonite Ave to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 8,693 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 35 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  36 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 869 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.136 0.102 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 98.41
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.000 0.009 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 98.37 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.000 0.004 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 98.41
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 60.6 58.5 57.2 51.2 59.6 60.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 53.1 31.9 24.4 33.1 39.3 39.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 54.4 29.0 25.6 30.3 36.5 36.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 62.1 58.5 57.2 51.3 59.7 60.3
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 60.6 58.5 57.2 51.2 59.6 60.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 53.1 31.9 24.4 33.1 39.3 39.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 54.4 29.0 25.6 30.3 36.5 36.6
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 62.1 58.5 57.2 51.3 59.7 60.3
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  11 34 107 338
LDN 9 29 93 293
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.736 ‐ ‐

0.009 ‐ ‐

0.004 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1812
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Scholar Way (Limonite Ave to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 2,240 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 35 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  36 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 224 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.136 0.102 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 98.41
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.000 0.009 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 98.37 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.000 0.004 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 98.41
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 54.7 52.6 51.3 45.3 53.7 54.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 47.2 26.0 18.5 27.2 33.4 33.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 48.5 23.1 19.7 24.4 30.6 30.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 56.2 52.6 51.3 45.4 53.8 54.4
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 54.7 52.6 51.3 45.3 53.7 54.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 47.2 26.0 18.5 27.2 33.4 33.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 48.5 23.1 19.7 24.4 30.6 30.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 56.2 52.6 51.3 45.4 53.8 54.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  3 9 28 87
LDN 2 8 24 75

0.004 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.736 ‐ ‐

0.009 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1813
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Existing Plus Project Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Scholar Way (Limonite Ave to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 4,073 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 35 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  36 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 407 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.136 0.102 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 98.41
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.000 0.009 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 98.37 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.000 0.004 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 98.41
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 57.3 55.2 53.9 47.9 56.3 56.9
MEDIUM TRUCKS 49.8 28.6 21.1 29.8 36.0 36.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 51.1 25.7 22.3 27.0 33.2 33.3
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 58.8 55.2 53.9 48.0 56.4 57.0
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 57.3 55.2 53.9 47.9 56.3 56.9
MEDIUM TRUCKS 49.8 28.6 21.1 29.8 36.0 36.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 51.1 25.7 22.3 27.0 33.2 33.3
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 58.8 55.2 53.9 48.0 56.4 57.0
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  5 16 50 158
LDN 4 14 43 137
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.736 ‐ ‐

0.009 ‐ ‐

0.004 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1814
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Conditions JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Scholar Way (Limonite Ave to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 2,810 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 35 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  36 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 281 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.136 0.102 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 98.41
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.000 0.009 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 98.37 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.000 0.004 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 98.41
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 55.7 53.6 52.3 46.3 54.7 55.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 48.2 27.0 19.5 28.2 34.4 34.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 49.5 24.1 20.7 25.4 31.6 31.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 57.2 53.6 52.3 46.4 54.8 55.4
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 55.7 53.6 52.3 46.3 54.7 55.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 48.2 27.0 19.5 28.2 34.4 34.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 49.5 24.1 20.7 25.4 31.6 31.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 57.2 53.6 52.3 46.4 54.8 55.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  3 11 35 109
LDN 3 9 30 95

0.004 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.736 ‐ ‐

0.009 ‐ ‐
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
1815
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) PROJECT: LEAL Masterplan Amendment Condition: Long Range Plus Project JOB #: 2610‐2021‐03 ROADWAY: Scholar Way (Limonite Ave to 58th Street) DATE: 30‐Nov‐21 LOCATION: 100 Feet from the Centerline of the Roadway ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah ADT = 4,643 RECEIVER DISTANCE =  100
SPEED = 35 DIST C/L TO WALL = 100
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST  36 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION  = 0.0
GRADE   = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= ‐90
PK HR VOL = 464 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES   =  10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS  = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)
VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.136 0.102 0.9742 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 98.41
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.000 0.009 0.0184 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 98.37 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.000 0.004 0.0074 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 98.41
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 57.9 55.8 54.5 48.5 56.9 57.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.4 29.1 21.6 30.4 36.6 36.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 51.7 26.3 22.9 27.5 33.7 33.8
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 59.4 55.8 54.5 48.6 56.9 57.6
VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 57.9 55.8 54.5 48.5 56.9 57.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.4 29.1 21.6 30.4 36.6 36.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 51.7 26.3 22.9 27.5 33.7 33.8
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 59.4 55.8 54.5 48.6 56.9 57.6
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL  6 18 57 180
LDN 5 16 49 156
NOISE INPUT DATA
ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA
SITE CONDITIONS  WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.736 ‐ ‐

0.009 ‐ ‐

0.004 0.00
NOISE OUTPUT DATA
NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
1816
Appendix C

Construction Noise and Vibration
Analysis Results
1817
Report date: 11/24/2021
Case Description: LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project
‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Demolition Residential 80 80 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 50 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50 0
Excavator No 40
Excavator No 40
Dozer No 40
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Mixer Truck 78.8 74.8
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Dozer 81.7 77.7
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Dozer 81.7 77.7
Total 81.7 84.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
1818
Report date: 11/24/2021
Case Description: LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project
‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Site Preparation Residential 80 80 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0
Tractor No 40
Tractor No 40
Tractor No 40
Tractor No 40
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 69.6 65.6
Dozer 69.6 65.6
Dozer 69.6 65.6
Tractor 72 68
Tractor 72 68
Tractor 72 68
Tractor 72 68
Total 72 75.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
1819
Report date: 11/24/2021
Case Description: LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project
‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Grading Residential 80 80 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 200 0
Grader No 40 85 200 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0
Scraper No 40
Tractor No 40
Excavator No 40
Tractor No 40
Scraper No 40
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Excavator 68.7 64.7
Grader 73 69
Dozer 69.6 65.6
Scraper 71.5 67.6
Tractor 72 68
Excavator 68.7 64.7
Tractor 72 68
Scraper 71.5 67.6
Total 73 76.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
1820
Report date: 11/24/2021
Case Description: LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project
‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Building Construction Residential 80 80 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 200 0
Pickup Truck No 40 75 200 0
Generator No 50 80.6 200 0
Tractor No 40
Welder / Torch No 40
Pickup Truck No 40
Pickup Truck No 40
Tractor No 40
Tractor No 40
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 68.5 60.6
Pickup Truck 63 59
Generator 68.6 65.6
Tractor 72 68
Welder / Torch 62 58
Pickup Truck 63 59
Pickup Truck 63 59
Tractor 72 68
Tractor 72 68
Total 72 74.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
1821
Report date: 11/24/2021
Case Description: LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project
‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Paving Residential 80 80 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 200 0
Roller No 20 80 200 0
Roller No 20 80 200 0
Roller No 20
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 65.2 62.2
Roller 68 61
Roller 68 61
Roller 68 61
Total 68 67.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
1822
Report date: 11/24/2021
Case Description: LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project
‐‐‐‐ Receptor #1 ‐‐‐‐
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Architectural Coating Residential 80 80 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 200 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 65.6 61.6
Total 65.6 61.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
1823
VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project JOB #:

At 100 Feet
PPV = 0.019 in/sec
Equipment Type = 2
PPVref = 0.089
D = 100.00
n =  1.10
Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Crack and Seat 2.400
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Large Bulldozer
Reference PPV at 25 ft.

EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS
Equipment Reference PPV
at 25 ft. (in/sec)
Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft.

Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
PPV = PPVref(25/D)n
(in/sec)
LOCATION: ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah
VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA
PROJECT: 2610‐2021‐03
ACTIVITY: Large Bulldozer DATE: 24‐Nov‐21
1 of 2
1824
VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
JOB #:

At 100 Feet
PPV = 0.046 in/sec
Equipment Type = 1
PPVref = 0.210
D = 100.00
n =  1.10
Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Crack and Seat 2.400
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft.

Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS
Equipment Reference PPV
at 25 ft. (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 0.210
OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
PPV = PPVref(25/D)n
(in/sec)
Vibratory Roller
Reference PPV at 25 ft.

LOCATION: ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah
VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA
PROJECT: LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project 2610‐2021‐03 ACTIVITY: Vibratory Roller DATE: 24‐Nov‐21
1 of 2
1825
VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
JOB #:

At 100 Feet
PPV = 0.017 in/sec
Equipment Type = 4
PPVref = 0.076
D = 100.00
n =  1.10
Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Crack and Seat 2.400
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks
Reference PPV at 25 ft.

EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS
Equipment Reference PPV
at 25 ft. (in/sec)
Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft.

Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
PPV = PPVref(25/D)n
(in/sec)
LOCATION: ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah
VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA
PROJECT: 2610‐2021‐03
ACTIVITY: Loaded Truck DATE: 24‐Nov‐21
LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project
1 of 2
1826
VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
LEAL Master Plan Amendment Project JOB #:

At 100 Feet
PPV = 0.019 in/sec
Equipment Type = 3
PPVref = 0.089
D = 100.00
n =  1.10
Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 PROJECT: 2610‐2021‐03
ACTIVITY: Caisson Drilling DATE: 24‐Nov‐21
LOCATION: ENGINEER: D. Shivaiah
VIBRATION INPUT/OUTPUT DATA
OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
PPV = PPVref(25/D)n
(in/sec)
Caisson Drilling
Reference PPV at 25 ft.

Distance from Equipment to receiver in ft.

Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
EQUIPMENT PPV REFERENCE LEVELS
Equipment Reference PPV
at 25 ft. (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Crack and Seat 2.400
1 of 2
1827
Appendix J
1828
RK16971.1.doc
JN:2610-2021-01

LEAL MASTERPLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

TRAFFIC STUDY
City of Eastvale, California
Prepared for:

THE NEW HOME COMPANY
15231 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Prepared by:

RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
4000 Westerly Place, Suite 280
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Robert Kahn, P.E.

Bryan Estrada, AICP
Darshan Shivaiah M.S.

April 8, 2021
1829
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Report and Study Objectives 1-1

1.2 Site Location 1-1

1.3 Project Description 1-1

2.0 Study Area & Analysis Methodology .................................................... 2-1

2.1 Study Area 2-1

2.2 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Methodology 2-2

2.3 Study Roadway Segment Performance Criteria 2-3

3.0 Existing Traffic Volumes & Circulation System ..................................... 3-1

3.1 Existing study Roadway Segment Classifications & Daily Capacities 3-1

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 3-2

4.0 Projected & Future Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 4-1

4.1 Project Traffic Conditions 4-1

4.1.1 Trip Generation of Previously Approved Project 4-1

4.1.2 Trip Generation of Modified Project 4-3

4.1.3 Trip Generation Comparison of Previously Approved Project & Modified Project

4.2 Trip Distribution 4-5

4.3 Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes 4-2

4.4 Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions Traffic Volumes 4-7

4.5 Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions Traffic Volumes 4-8

5.0 Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis................................................. 5-1

5.1 Existing Conditions LOS 5-1

5.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS 5-2

5.3 Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions LOS 5-4

5.4 Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions LOS 5-6

6.0 Previously Approved Project & Modified Project LOS Comparison....... 6-1

7.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation .............................................. 7-1

8.0 Findings & Conclusions......................................................................... 8-1 1830
List of Attachments
Exhibits
Location Map ........................................................................................................... A Site Plan ................................................................................................................... B Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ C Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. D Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes......................................................... E Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions Traffic Volumes....................... F Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions Traffic Volumes ............................ G 1831
List of Attachments (continued)
Tables Page
1-1 Project Land Uses ............................................................................................ 1-2 2-1 Roadway Segment LOS - Volume to Capacity (V/C)................................................. 2-3 2-2 Roadway Segment Daily Volume Capacity based on Classification…… .........………. 2-3 3-1 Study Roadway Segments Existing Daily Volume Capacity & Classification.................. 3-1 3-2 Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes............................................................................ 3-2 4-1A ITE 9th Edition (2012) Trip Generation Rates Utilized in the Previously Approved Traffic Study From Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015) ........................................ 4-1 4-1B Trip Generation of Previously Approved Project & Traffic Study from Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015) ............................................................................... 4-2 4-2A ITE 10th Edition (2017) Trip Generation Rates Utilized for Modified Project ................. 4-3 4-2B Trip Generation of Modified Project....................................................................... 4-4 4-3 Modified Project Net Trip Generation Compared to Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015)........................................................................................................... 4-5 4-4 Project Trip Distribution & Trip Assignment on Study Roadway Segments .................... 4-6 4-5 Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 4-7 4-6 Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions Traffic Volumes........................ 4-8 4-7 Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions Traffic Volumes............................. 4-9 5-1 Existing Conditions Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Summary.......................... 5-1 5-2 Existing Plus Project Conditions Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Summary......... 5-3 5-3 Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Summary........................................................................................................... 5-5 1832
List of Attachments (continued)
Tables Page
5-4 Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................... 5-7 6-1 Previously Approved Project vs. Modified Project Existing Plus Project Conditions Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Comparison .......................................................... 6-2 6-2 Previously Approved Project vs. Modified Project Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Comparison................................. 6-3 Appendices
WRCOG VMT Sheets ….. ........................................................................................... A Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015) .................... B 1833
1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate The Leal Masterplan Amendment Project (hereinafter referred to as “modified project”) from a traffic and circulation standpoint.

The Leal Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Michael Baker International, July 2015, and the Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015) have been previously prepared for the original project. Since then, modifications to the development plan have been proposed. RK has been requested to review the modified project and identify whether any new impacts or increase in severity of impacts may occur as a result of the modified project.

This analysis has been prepared to be consistent with the previous 2015 TIA and the 2015 DEIR prepared for the project. A copy of the Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015) is contained as an attachment to this report.

The modified project is forecast to generate 27,764 fewer daily trips than what was previously estimated in the 2015 TIA and DEIR.1 This is a substantial reduction in traffic, and as a result, the modified project would not result in additional transportation impacts other than those previously identified in the 2015 DEIR.

To help further demonstrate the reduced impact from the modified project, this report provides a detailed assessment of level of service impacts from the modified project to the local transportation system. In an effort to be consistent with the 2015 TIA and DEIR, and to provide a fair comparison of potential changes to previously identified project impacts, most of the same analysis assumptions and traffic forecasting scenarios from the 2015 TIA are used in this report.

1.2 Site Location
The proposed modified project site is bound by 58th Street to the north, Limonite Avenue to the south, Hamner Avenue to the east, and Scholar Way to the west, in the City of 1 See Section 4.0 for more details regarding changes to project trip generation. 1834
1-2
Eastvale. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site location map is shown on Exhibit A. The project site plan is shown in Exhibit B.

1.3 Project Description
The previously approved 2015 TIA evaluated the following land uses for the original project:
• 660 dwelling units of multi-family residential;
• 1,525,000 square feet of retail;
• 460,000 square feet of general office;
• 460,000 square feet of medical office;
• 100,000 square feet of civic center; and
• 450 rooms of hotel.

The modified land use assumptions are summarized below. • 400 dwelling units of single family detached residential; • 2,100 dwelling units of multi-family residential;
• 390,000 square feet of commercial and retail;
• 65,000 square feet of general office;
• 65,000 square feet of medical office;
• 40,000 square feet of civic center use;
• 25,000 square feet of library use;
• 10,000 square feet of police station use; and
• 12,200 square feet of fire station use.

Table 1-1 summarizes the land uses evaluated in the previously approved 2015 TIA and the Modified Project land use assumptions.
1835
1-3
Table 1-1
Project Land Uses
Land Use Units
Previously Approved
2015 Project &
traffic Study
Modified Project
Single Family Detached Residential Dwelling Units 0 400 Multi-family Residential Dwelling Units 660 2,100
Retail Square Feet 1,525,000 390,000
General Office Square Feet 460,000 65,000
Medical Office Square Feet 460,000 65,000
Civic Center Square Feet 100,000 40,000
Library Square Feet 0 25,000
Police Square Feet 0 10,000
Fire Station Square Feet 0 12,200
Hotel Rooms 450 0
1836
2-1

2.0 Study Area & Analysis Methodology
This section of the report presents the analysis study area and the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report in accordance with the City of Eastvale requirements. This section also discusses the agency-established applicable performance criteria and thresholds for the study facilities.

Although VMT is now the appropriate metric for determining transportation impacts, General Plan Policy C-10 of the Eastvale General Plan requires that the City maintain a LOS C on all City maintained roadways, and a LOS D in employment and commercial areas.

Therefore, a discussion relative to project consistency with Policy C-10 has been included.

2.1 Study Area
The study area included in this analysis has been determined based upon the previously prepared and approved traffic study for the proposed modified project.

Consistent with the previously approved 2015 traffic study for the proposed project, this analysis evaluates the daily capacity and level of service (LOS) at the following eighteen (18) study roadway segments:

1. Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to Harrison Avenue;

2. Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way;

3. Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue;

4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps;

5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue;

6. Hamner Avenue: Citrus Street to Schleisman Road;

7. Hamner Avenue: Schleisman Road to 68th Street;

8. Hamner Avenue: 68th Street to Limonite Avenue;
1837
2-2

9. Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to 58th Street;

10.Hamner Avenue: 58th Street to Bellegrave Avenue;

11.Scholar Way: Limonite Avenue to 68th Street;

12.I-15 Freeway: South of Limonite Avenue;

13.I-15 Freeway: Limonite Avenue to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road;

14.I-15 Freeway: North of SR-60 Freeway;

15.Scholar Way: Bellegrave Avenue to Limonite Avenue;

16.SR-60 Freeway: West of I-15 Freeway;

17.SR-60 Freeway: East of I-15 Freeway; and

18.Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road: I-15 Ramps to Hamner Avenue.

Consistent with the previously approved 2015 traffic study for the proposed project, this analysis evaluates traffic conditions for the following study scenarios:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing Plus Project Conditions;
• Cumulative (Long-Range) No Project Conditions; and
• Cumulative (Long-Range) Plus Project Conditions.

2.2 Volume to Capacity (V/C)) Methodology
The volume to capacity (V/C) ratio methodology is commonly utilized as the appropriate methodology for analyzing level of service (LOS) of roadway segments. This methodology is consistent with the methodology utilized in the previously prepared and approved 2015 traffic study for the proposed project.
1838
2-3
To calculate the level of service, the daily volume of traffic using the roadway segment is compared with the daily capacity of the roadway segment; this is referred to as the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. The V/C ratio represents the portion of the total daily capacity of the roadway being utilized by the daily volume of traffic.

Table 2-1 below shows the LOS criteria based on the V/C ratio of the roadway segment.

Table 2-1
Roadway Segment LOS - Volume to Capacity (V/C)
Level of Service (LOS) Critical V/C Ratio
A 0.00 - 0.60
B 0.61 - 0.70
C 0.71 - 0.80
D 0.81 - 0.90
E 0.91 - 1.00
F >1.00
The daily capacity of the roadway segment is determined based on the roadway classification and the number of travel lanes as shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2
Roadway Segment Daily Volume Capacity based on Classification Roadway Classification Number of Lanes
(Both Directions of Travel)
Daily Capacity for LOS E
(V/C = 1.00)
Freeway 10 200,600
Freeway 8 160,500
Freeway 6 117,500
Urban Arterial 6 53,900
Urban Arterial 4 35,900
Secondary Collector 2 13,000
Source: City of Eastvale General Plan
1839
2-4

2.3 Study Roadway Segment Performance Criteria
The acceptable LOS (target LOS) for roadway segments in the City of Eastvale is LOS C or better. A roadway segment operating at LOS D, E or F is considered deficient. 1840
3-1

3.0 Existing Traffic Volumes & Circulation System
This section provides a discussion of existing study area conditions and traffic volumes.

3.1 Existing Study Roadway Segment Classifications & Daily Capacity Table 3-1 identifies the existing roadway segment classifications and daily capacity for the study area.

Table 3-1
Study Roadway Segments
Existing Daily Volume Capacity & Classification
# Study Roadway Segment Limits Classification No. of
Lanes
Daily Capacity for
LOS E (V/C = 1.00)
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way Urban Arterial 4 35,900 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial 5 44,875 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 53,900 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd Urban Arterial 4 35,900 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St Urban Arterial 6 53,900 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St Urban Arterial 5 44,875 10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St Secondary Collector 2 13,000 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave Freeway 6 117,500 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd Freeway 6 117,500 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 Freeway 8 160,500 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave Secondary Collector 4 13,000 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway Freeway 10 200,600 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway Freeway 8 160,500 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900

1841
3-2

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes at the study intersections are based upon the existing traffic volumes utilized in the previously prepared and approved Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015).

Existing (2021) traffic volumes for the study area are derived by applying an annual growth rate of one percent (1%) per year to the 2015 traffic volumes over a six (6) year period.

Existing (2021) traffic volumes within the study area are shown on Exhibit C and summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2
Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
# Study Roadway Segment Limits
Existing Daily
Traffic
Volume
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 18,497
2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way 26,192
3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave 29,548
4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps 44,312
5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave 33,855
6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd 20,619
7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St 11,831
8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave 20,186
9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St 15,649
10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave 15,649
11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St 4,912
12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave 80,622
13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 83,345 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 115,671
15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave 2,240
16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway 69,076
17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway 81,438
18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave 13,094

1842
4-1

4.0 Projected & Future Traffic Volumes
This section of the report provides a discussion on methodologies utilized to derive future traffic volumes for the study area.

4.1 Project Traffic Conditions
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. The trip generation for the project is based upon the specific land uses that have been planned for this development.

Trip generation is typically estimated based on the trip generation rates from the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. This publication provides a comprehensive evaluation of trip generation rates for a variety of land uses.

4.1.1 Trip Generation of Previously Approved Project
Table 4-1A shows the ITE (9th Edition, 2012) trip generation rates utilized for the trip generation analysis of the previously approved project and its land uses.

Table 4-1A
ITE 9th Edition (2012) Trip Generation Rates
Utilized in the Previously Approved Traffic Study
from Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015) # Land Use ITE
Code Units
AM PM
Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
1 Apartment 220 DU 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 6.65
2 Hotel 310 Rooms 0.31 0.22 0.53 0.31 0.29 0.60 8.17
3 General Office 710 TSF Ln(T)=0.8 x LN(X) + 1.57 0.25 1.24 1.49 Ln(T)=0.76 x LN(X) + 3.68 4 Medical / Dental Office 720 TSF 1.89 0.50 2.39 1.00 2.57 3.57 36.13 5 Government Office Complex 733 TSF 1.97 0.24 2.21 0.88 1.97 2.85 27.92 6 Shopping Center 820 TSF Ln(T)=0.61 x LN(X) + 2.24 Ln(T)=0.67 x LN(X) + 3.31 Ln(T)=0.65 x LN(X) + 5.83 Source: 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition)
DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
1843
4-2
Utilizing the trip generation rates from Table 4-1A, Table 4-1B summarizes the daily and peak hour trip generation for the previously approved project.

Table 4-1B
Trip Generation of Previously Approved Project & Traffic Study from Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015) # Land Use ITE
Code Units Quantity
AM PM
Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
1 Apartment 220 DU 660 67 269 336 266 143 409 4,389
2 Hotel 310 Rooms 450 141 98 239 138 132 270 3,677
3 General Office 710 TSF 460.000 571 78 649 117 569 686 4,187 4 Medical / Dental Office 720 TSF 460.000 869 231 1,100 460 1,182 1,642 16,620 5 Government Office Complex 733 TSF 100.000 197 24 221 88 197 285 2,792 6 Shopping Center 820 TSF 1,525.000 510 312 822 1,785 1,933 3,718 39,908 Internal Capture (10%) -236 -101 -337 -285 -416 -701 -7,157 Total Trip Generation 2,120 911 3,030 2,569 3,740 6,309 64,416 Source: 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition); Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015).

DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
As shown in Table 4-1B, assuming a 10 percent internal capture consistent with the previously approved traffic study, based on the ITE trip generation rates, the previously approved project was forecast to generate approximately 64,416 daily trips which include approximately 3,030 AM peak hour trips and approximately 6,309 PM peak hour trips.
1844
4-3

4.1.2 Trip Generation of Modified Project
Table 4-2 shows the ITE (10th Edition, 2017) trip generation rates utilized for the trip generation analysis of the modified project and its land uses.

Table 4-2A
ITE 10th Edition (2017) Trip Generation Rates
Utilized for Modified Project
# Land Use ITE
Code Units
AM PM
Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
1 Single Family Homes 210 DU 0.19 0.56 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 2 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 3 Fire & Rescue Station 575 TSF 0.14 0.34 0.48 0.14 0.34 0.48 4.80 4 Library 590 TSF 0.71 0.29 1.00 3.92 4.24 8.16 72.05
5 General Office 710 TSF 1.00 0.16 1.16 Ln(T)=0.95 x LN(X) + 0.36 Ln(T)=0.97 x LN(X) + 2.5 6 Medical / Dental Office 720 TSF 2.17 0.61 2.78 0.97 2.49 3.46 34.80 7 Government Office Building 730 TSF 2.51 0.84 3.34 0.43 1.28 1.71 22.59 8 Government Office Complex 733 TSF 1.90 0.23 2.13 0.87 1.95 2.82 33.98 9 Shopping Center 820 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 Ln(T)=0.74 x LN(X) + 2.89 Ln(T)=0.68 x LN(X) + 5.57 Source: 2017 ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition)
DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Utilizing the trip generation rates from Table 4-2A, Table 4-2B summarizes the daily and peak hour trip generation for the modified project. 1845
4-4
Table 4-2B
Trip Generation of Modified Project
# Land Use ITE
Code
Units Quantity
AM PM
Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
1 Single Family Homes 210 DU 400 74 222 296 249 147 396 3,776 2 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 DU 2,100 222 744 966 741 435 1,176 15,372 3 Fire & Rescue Station 575 TSF 12.200 2 4 6 2 4 6 60
4 Library 590 TSF 25.000 18 7 25 98 106 204 1,801
5 General Office 710 TSF 65.000 65 11 76 12 64 76 699
6 Medical / Dental Office 720 TSF 65.000 141 40 181 63 162 225 2,262 7 Government Office Building 730 TSF 10.000 25 8 33 4 13 17 226 8 Government Office Complex 733 TSF 40.000 76 9 85 35 78 113 1,359 9 Shopping Center 820 TSF 390.000 227 139 366 714 774 1,488 15,169 Internal Capture (10%) -85 -118 -203 -192 -178 -370 -4,072 Total Trip Generation 765 1,066 1,831 1,726 1,605 3,331 36,652 Source: 2017 ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition).

DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
As shown in Table 4-2B, assuming a 10 percent internal capture consistent with the previously approved traffic study, based on the ITE trip generation rates, the modified project is forecast to generate approximately 36,652 daily trips which include approximately 1,831 AM peak hour trips and approximately 3,331 PM peak hour trips.

1846
4-5

4.1.3 Trip Generation Comparison of Previously Approved Project & Modified Project
Table 4-3 shows the trip generation comparison between the previously approved project and the modified project.

Table 4-3
Modified Project Net Trip Generation
Compared to Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015) Land Use
AM PM
Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Modified Project 765 1,066 1,831 1,726 1,605 3,331 36,652 Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015) 2,120 911 3,030 2,569 3,740 6,309 64,416 Net Difference -1,355 155 -1,200 -842 -2,136 -2,978 -27,764 As shown in Table 4-3, when compared to the previously approved project, the modified project is forecast to generate approximately 27,764 net fewer daily trips which include approximately 1,200 net fewer AM peak hour trips and approximately 2,978 net fewer PM peak hour trips compared to the original project.

Based upon the preliminary trip generation analysis, the modified project is expected to generate fewer trips than were analyzed in the 2015 TIA and DEIR. Hence, additional traffic impacts are not expected.

4.2 Trip Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site.

Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of retail, employment, and recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and land uses and highways within the study area.

The project trip distribution is assumed to be the same as what was evaluated in the previously approved traffic study and the Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015).
1847
4-6
Table 4-4 shows the project trip distribution and traffic assignment on the study roadway segments. Project traffic volumes are also shown in Exhibit D.

Table 4-4
Project Trip Distribution & Trip Assignment on Study Roadway Segments # Study Roadway Segment Limits
Distribution
(Percent of Project
Total Trips)
Project Total
Daily Trip
Generation
Project Daily
Trip
Assignment
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 10% 36,652 3,665 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way 10% 36,652 3,665 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave 50% 36,652 18,326 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps 45% 36,652 16,493 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave 10% 36,652 3,665 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd 10% 36,652 3,665 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St 10% 36,652 3,665
8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave 5% 36,652 1,833
9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St 45% 36,652 16,493
10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave 45% 36,652 16,493 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St 5% 36,652 1,833
12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave 20% 36,652 7,330
13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 15% 36,652 5,498 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 15% 36,652 5,498 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave 5% 36,652 1,833 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway 15% 36,652 5,498 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway 15% 36,652 5,498 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave 10% 36,652 3,665

4.3 Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes
Existing Plus Project Conditions traffic volumes consist of the summation of the existing traffic volumes and the project traffic volumes.
1848
4-7
Existing Plus Project Conditions traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit E and summarized in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5
Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes
# Study Roadway Segment Limits Existing Daily
Traffic Volume
Project Daily
Traffic Volume
Existing Plus
Project
Conditions
Daily Traffic
Volume
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 18,497 3,665 22,162 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way 26,192 3,665 29,857 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave 29,548 18,326 47,874 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps 44,312 16,493 60,805 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave 33,855 3,665 37,520 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd 20,619 3,665 24,284 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St 11,831 3,665 15,496 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave 20,186 1,833 22,019 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St 15,649 16,493 32,142 10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave 15,649 16,493 32,142 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St 4,912 1,833 6,745 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave 80,622 7,330 87,952 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 83,345 5,498 88,843 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 115,671 5,498 121,169 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave 2,240 1,833 4,073 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway 69,076 5,498 74,574 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway 81,438 5,498 86,936 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave 13,094 3,665 16,759

4.4 Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions Traffic Volumes Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions traffic volumes have been obtained from the previously approved traffic study as contained in the Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015).
1849
4-8
Long-Range Without Project Conditions traffic volumes as shown in Exhibit F and summarized in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6
Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions
Traffic Volumes
# Study Roadway Segment Limits
Cumulative
Without
Project Daily
Traffic
Volume
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 44,000
2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way 50,780
3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave 48,960
4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps 69,110
5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave 65,010
6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd 25,400
7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St 15,030
8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave 22,730
9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St 31,890
10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave 31,890
11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St 6,860
12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave 81,750
13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 86,170 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 127,570
15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave 2,810
16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway 78,910
17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway 83,360
18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave 23,980 Source: Leal Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2015). 1850
4-9

4.5 Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions Traffic Volumes Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions traffic volumes are derived by adding the project-generated traffic to the Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions traffic volumes.

Long-Range Without Project traffic volumes as shown in Exhibit G and summarized in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7
Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions
Traffic Volumes
# Study Roadway Segment Limits
Cumulative
Without
Project Daily
Traffic Volume
Project Daily
Traffic Volume
Cumulative
With Project
Daily Traffic
Volume
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 44,000 3,665 47,665 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way 50,780 3,665 54,445 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave 48,960 18,326 67,286 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps 69,110 16,493 85,603 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave 65,010 3,665 68,675 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd 25,400 3,665 29,065 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St 15,030 3,665 18,695 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave 22,730 1,833 24,563 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St 31,890 16,493 48,383 10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave 31,890 16,493 48,383 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St 6,860 1,833 8,693 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave 81,750 7,330 89,080 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 86,170 5,498 91,668 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 127,570 5,498 133,068 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave 2,810 1,833 4,643 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway 78,910 5,498 84,408 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway 83,360 5,498 88,858 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave 23,980 3,665 27,645 1851
5-1

5.0 Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis
This section of the report provides a discussion on the study roadway segment LOS analysis and findings.

5.1 Existing Conditions LOS
Existing Conditions LOS calculations for the study roadway segment are shown in Table 5-1 and are based upon the existing (2021) traffic volumes shown on Exhibit C and Table 3-2, and the existing roadway geometry and classifications shown in Table 3-1.

Table 5-1
Existing Conditions
Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Summary
#
Study Roadway
Segment Limits Classification No. of Lanes
Daily
Capacity for
LOS E
(V/C = 1.00)
Traffic
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 18,497 0.52 A 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way Urban Arterial 4 35,900 26,192 0.73 C 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial 5 44,875 29,548 0.66 B 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 53,900 44,312 0.82 D 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 33,855 0.94 E 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd Urban Arterial 4 35,900 20,619 0.57 A 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St Urban Arterial 6 53,900 11,831 0.22 A 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 20,186 0.37 A 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St Urban Arterial 5 44,875 15,649 0.35 A 10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellgrave Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 15,649 0.29 A 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St Secondary Collector 2 13,000 4,912 0.38 A 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave Freeway 6 117,500 80,622 0.69 B 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd Freeway 6 117,500 83,345 0.71 C 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 Freeway 8 160,500 115,671 0.72 C 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave Secondary Collector 4 13,000 2,240 0.17 A 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway Freeway 10 200,600 69,076 0.34 A 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway Freeway 8 160,500 81,438 0.51 A 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 13,094 0.36 A Deficient operation shown in bold.
1852
5-2
As shown in Table 5-1, all study roadway segment are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) for Existing Conditions with the exception of the following roadway segments which are currently operating at a deficient LOS (LOS D, E, or F):

4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps; and

5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue.

5.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS
Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS calculations for the study roadway segment are shown in Table 5-2 and are based upon the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes shown on Exhibit E and Table 4-5, and the existing roadway geometry and classifications shown in Table 3-1. 1853
5-3
Table 5-2
Existing Plus Project Conditions - Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Summary #
Study Roadway
Segment Limits Classification No. of Lanes
Daily Capacity
for LOS E
(V/C = 1.00)
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
Conditions
Traffic
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS Traffic Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 18,497 0.52 A 22,162 0.62 B 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way Urban Arterial 4 35,900 26,192 0.73 C 29,857 0.83 D 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial 5 44,875 29,548 0.66 B 47,874 1.07 F 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 53,900 44,312 0.82 D 60,805 1.13 F 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 33,855 0.94 E 37,520 1.05 F 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd Urban Arterial 4 35,900 20,619 0.57 A 24,284 0.68 B 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St Urban Arterial 6 53,900 11,831 0.22 A 15,496 0.29 A 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 20,186 0.37 A 22,019 0.41 A 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St Urban Arterial 5 44,875 15,649 0.35 A 32,142 0.72 C 10 Hamner Ave 58
th St to Bellegrave Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 15,649 0.29 A 32,142 0.60 A 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St Secondary Collector 2 13,000 4,912 0.38 A 6,745 0.52 A 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave Freeway 6 117,500 80,622 0.69 B 87,952 0.75 C 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd Freeway 6 117,500 83,345 0.71 C 88,843 0.76 C 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 Freeway 8 160,500 115,671 0.72 C 121,169 0.75 C 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave Secondary Collector 4 13,000 2,240 0.17 A 4,073 0.31 A 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway Freeway 10 200,600 69,076 0.34 A 74,574 0.37 A 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway Freeway 8 160,500 81,438 0.51 A 86,936 0.54 A 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 13,094 0.36 A 16,759 0.47 A Deficient operation shown in bold.
1854
5-4
As shown in Table 5-2, all study roadway segment are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) for Existing Plus Project Conditions with the exception of the following roadway segments which are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS (LOS D, E, or F):

2. Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way;

3. Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue;

4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps; and

5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue.

5.3 Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions LOS Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions LOS calculations for the study roadway segment are shown in Table 5-3 and are based upon the Cumulative (LongRange) Without Project traffic volumes shown on Exhibit F and Table 4-6, and the geometry and classifications as proposed by the project for Cumulative (Long-Range) conditions.
1855
5-5
Table 5-3
Cumulative (Long-range) Without Project Conditions
Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Summary
#
Study Roadway
Segment Limits Classification No. of Lanes
Daily
Capacity for
LOS E
(V/C = 1.00)
Traffic
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 44,000 0.82 D 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way Urban Arterial 6 53,900 50,780 0.94 E 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial * 5 + 1 45,366 48,960 1.08 F 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 53,900 69,110 1.28 F 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 65,010 1.21 F 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd Urban Arterial 6 53,900 25,400 0.47 A 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St Urban Arterial 6 53,900 15,030 0.28 A 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 22,730 0.42 A 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St Urban Arterial * 5 +1 45,366 31,890 0.70 B 10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 31,890 0.59 A 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St Secondary Collector 2 13,000 6,860 0.53 A 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave Freeway 6 117,500 81,750 0.70 B 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd Freeway 6 117,500 86,170 0.73 C 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 Freeway 8 160,500 127,570 0.79 C 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave Secondary Collector 4 13,000 2,810 0.22 A 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway Freeway 10 200,600 78,910 0.39 A 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway Freeway 8 160,500 83,360 0.52 A 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 23,980 0.67 B Deficient operation shown in bold.
* = Consists of five lanes plus one frontage lane. This analysis assumes the segment has a daily capacity equivalent to five full lanes plus a sixth (frontage) lane with 5 percent of the capacity of a single lane. 1856
5-6
As shown in Table 5-3, all study roadway segment are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) for Cumulative (Long-Range) Without Project Conditions with the exception of the following roadway segments which are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS (LOS D, E, or F):

1. Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to Harrison Avenue;

2. Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way;

3. Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue;

4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps; and

5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue.

5.4 Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions LOS Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS
Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions LOS calculations for the study roadway segment are shown in Table 5-4 and are based upon the Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project traffic volumes shown on Exhibit G and Table 4-7, and the geometry and classifications as proposed by the project for Cumulative (Long-Range) conditions. 1857
5-7
Table 5-4
Cumulative (Long-range) With Project Conditions – Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Summary #
Study Roadway
Segment Limits Classification No. of Lanes
Daily Capacity
for LOS E
(V/C = 1.00)
Cumulative (Long-Range)
Without Project Conditions
Cumulative (Long-Range)
With Project Conditions
Traffic
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS Traffic Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS
1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 44,000 0.82 D 47,665 0.88 D 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way Urban Arterial 6 53,900 50,780 0.94 E 54,445 1.01 F 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial * 5 + 1 45,366 48,960 1.08 F 67,286 1.48 F 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 53,900 69,110 1.28 F 85,603 1.59 F 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 65,010 1.21 F 68,675 1.27 F 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd Urban Arterial 6 53,900 25,400 0.47 A 29,065 0.54 A 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St Urban Arterial 6 53,900 15,030 0.28 A 18,695 0.35 A 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 22,730 0.42 A 24,563 0.46 A 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St Urban Arterial * 5 + 1 45,366 31,890 0.70 B 48,383 1.07 F 10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave Urban Arterial 6 53,900 31,890 0.59 A 48,383 0.90 D 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St Secondary Collector 2 13,000 6,860 0.53 A 8,693 0.67 B 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave Freeway 6 117,500 81,750 0.70 B 89,080 0.76 C 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd Freeway 6 117,500 86,170 0.73 C 91,668 0.78 C 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 Freeway 8 160,500 127,570 0.79 C 133,068 0.83 D 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave Secondary Collector 4 13,000 2,810 0.22 A 4,643 0.36 A 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway Freeway 10 200,600 78,910 0.39 A 84,408 0.42 A 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway Freeway 8 160,500 83,360 0.52 A 88,858 0.55 A 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave Urban Arterial 4 35,900 23,980 0.67 B 27,645 0.77 C Deficient operation shown in bold.
* = Consists of five lanes plus one frontage lane. This analysis assumes the segment has a daily capacity equivalent to five full lanes plus a sixth (frontage) lane with 5 percent of the capacity of a single lane.
1858
5-8
As shown in Table 5-4, all study roadway segment are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) for Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions with the exception of the following roadway segments which are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS (LOS D, E, or F):

As shown in Table 5-2, all study roadway segment are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) for Existing Plus Project Conditions with the exception of the following roadway segments which are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS (LOS D, E, or F):

1. Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to Harrison Avenue;

2. Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way;

3. Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue;

4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps;

5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue;

9. Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to 58th Street;

10.Hamner Avenue: 58th Street to Bellegrave Avenue; and

14.I-15 Freeway: North of SR-60 Freeway.
1859
6-1

6.0 Previously Approved Project & Modified Project LOS
Comparison
A comparison of the level of service operations and deficiencies has been prepared between the previously approved project as document in the Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015 and the Modified project as currently proposed.

Table 6-1 shows the LOS and deficiency comparison for Existing Plus Project Conditions.

Table 6-2 shows the LOS and deficiency comparison for Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions.

As shown in Table 6-1 and 6-2, the Modified project results in the same or less LOS deficiencies and impacts when compared to the previously approved project for the analysis scenarios evaluated as part of this report.
1860
6-2
Table 6-1
Previously Approved Project vs. Modified Project
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Comparison
#
Study Roadway
Segment Limits
Previously
Approved Project * Modified Project Difference
Traffic
Volume V/C Ratio LOS Traffic Volume V/C Ratio LOS Traffic Volume V/C Ratio 1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 23,725 0.66 B 22,162 0.62 B -1,563 -0.04 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way 30,974 0.86 D 29,857 0.83 D -1,117 -0.03 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave 59,336 1.65 F 47,874 1.07 F -11,462 -0.58 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps 70,094 1.30 F 60,805 1.13 F -9,289 -0.17 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave 38,193 1.06 F 37,520 1.05 F -673 -0.01 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd 25,724 0.72 C 24,284 0.68 B -1,440 -0.04 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St 17,445 0.32 A 15,496 0.29 A -1,949 -0.03 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave 22,166 0.41 A 22,019 0.41 A -147 0.00 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St 43,092 1.20 F 32,142 0.72 C -10,950 -0.48 10 Hamner Ave 58th St to Bellegrave Ave 43,092 1.20 F 32,142 0.60 A -10,950 -0.60 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St 7,777 0.60 A 6,745 0.52 A -1,032 -0.08 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave 88,550 0.75 C 87,952 0.75 C -598 0.00 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 87,965 0.75 C 88,843 0.76 C 878 0.01 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 118,417 0.74 C 121,169 0.75 C 2,752 0.01 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave 5,260 0.40 A 4,073 0.31 A -1,187 -0.09 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway 74,523 0.37 A 74,574 0.37 A 51 0.00 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway 86,168 0.54 A 86,936 0.54 A 768 0.00 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave 18,635 0.52 A 16,759 0.47 A -1,876 -0.05 * Source: Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015) 1861
6-3
Table 6-2
Previously Approved Project vs. Modified Project
Cumulative (Long-Range) With Project Conditions
Study Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Comparison
#
Study Roadway
Segment Limits
Previously
Approved Project * Modified Project Difference
Traffic
Volume V/C Ratio LOS Traffic Volume V/C Ratio LOS Traffic Volume V/C Ratio 1 Limonite Ave Archibald Ave to Harrison Ave 50,300 0.93 E 47,665 0.88 D -2,635 -0.05 2 Limonite Ave Harrison Ave to Scholar Way 57,080 1.06 F 54,445 1.01 F -2,635 -0.05 3 Limonite Ave Scholar Way to Hamner Ave 80,460 1.49 F 67,286 1.48 F -13,174 -0.01 4 Limonite Ave Hamner Ave to I-15 Ramps 97,460 1.81 F 85,603 1.59 F -11,857 -0.22 5 Limonite Ave I-15 Ramps to Wineville Ave 71,310 1.32 F 68,675 1.27 F -2,635 -0.05 6 Hamner Ave Citrus St to Schleisman Rd 31,700 0.59 A 29,065 0.54 A -2,635 -0.05 7 Hamner Ave Schleisman Rd to 68th St 21,330 0.40 A 18,695 0.35 A -2,635 -0.05 8 Hamner Ave 68th St to Limonite Ave 25,880 0.48 A 24,563 0.46 A -1,317 -0.02 9 Hamner Ave Limonite Ave to 58th St 60,240 1.12 F 48,383 1.07 F -11,857 -0.05 10 Hamner Ave 58
th St to Bellegrave Ave 60,240 1.12 F 48,383 0.90 D -11,857 -0.22 11 Scholar Way Limonite Ave to 68th St 10,010 0.77 C 8,693 0.67 B -1,317 -0.10 12 I-15 Freeway South of Limonite Ave 94,350 0.80 C 89,080 0.76 C -5,270 -0.04 13 I-15 Freeway Limonite Ave to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 90,790 0.77 C 91,668 0.78 C 878 0.01 14 I-15 Freeway North of State Route 60 137,020 0.85 D 133,068 0.83 D -3,952 -0.02 15 Scholar Way Bellgrave Ave to Limonite Ave 5,960 0.46 A 4,643 0.36 A -1,317 -0.10 16 State Route 60 West of I-15 Freeway 88,360 0.44 A 84,408 0.42 A -3,952 -0.02 17 State Route 60 East of I-15 Freeway 92,810 0.58 A 88,858 0.55 A -3,952 -0.03 18 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd I-15 Ramps to Hamner Ave 30,280 0.84 D 27,645 0.77 C -2,635 -0.07 * Source: Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015) 1862
7-1

7.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation
In response to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 which now identify Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project's transportation impact under CEQA (§ 15064.3).

Effective July 1, 2020, the previous CEQA metric of LOS, typically measured in terms of automobile delay, roadway capacity and congestion, generally will no longer constitute a significant environmental impact.

On June 24, 2020, the City of Eastvale adopted Resolution No. 20-44, which establishes VMT impact thresholds for assessing consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Land use projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Utilizing the latest Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM) and the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) Web Screening Tool, it has been determined that the project site is located within a low-VMT generating zone based on residential home-based VMT and home-based work VMT for both base model year (2018) and future model year (2045).

Utilizing the base model data for VMT screening is appropriate. RIVCOM assumes there will be 2,501 households and 2,107 employees in the project’s traffic analysis zone (TAZ) under year 2045 conditions. The project would consist of similar land uses and demographics as estimated in the base model and is expected to exhibit similar VMT patterns.

As a result, the proposed Modified project is exempt from further VMT assessment and may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

The WRCOG tool output for the proposed project is provided Attachment A. 1863
8-1

8.0 Findings & Conclusions
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate The Leal Masterplan Amendment Project (hereinafter referred to as “modified project”) from a traffic and circulation standpoint.

The Leal Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Michael Baker International, July 2015, and the Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015) have been previously prepared for the original project. Since then, modifications to the development plan have been proposed. RK has been requested to review the modified project and identify whether any new impacts or increase in severity of impacts may occur as a result of the modified project.

This analysis has been prepared to be consistent with the previous 2015 TIA and the 2015 DEIR prepared for the project. A copy of the Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015) is contained as an attachment to this report.

The proposed modified project site is bound by 58th Street to the north, Limonite Avenue to the south, Hamner Avenue to the east, and Scholar Way to the west, in the City of Eastvale. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site location map is shown on Exhibit A. The project site plan is shown in Exhibit B.

The previously approved 2015 TIA evaluated the following land uses for the original project:
 660 dwelling units of multi-family residential;
 1,525,000 square feet of retail;
 460,000 square feet of general office;
 460,000 square feet of medical office;
 100,000 square feet of civic center; and
 450 rooms of hotel.

The modified land use assumptions are summarized below.  400 dwelling units of single family detached residential; 1864
8-2
 2,100 dwelling units of multi-family residential;
 390,000 square feet of commercial and retail;
 65,000 square feet of general office;
 65,000 square feet of medical office;
 40,000 square feet of civic center use;
 25,000 square feet of library use;
 10,000 square feet of police station use; and
 12,200 square feet of fire station use.

The Table below summarizes the land uses evaluated in the previously approved 2015 TIA and the Modified Project land use assumptions.

Project Land Uses
Land Use Units
Previously Approved
2015 Project &
traffic Study
Modified Project
Single Family Detached Residential Dwelling Units 0 400 Multi-family Residential Dwelling Units 660 2,100
Retail Square Feet 1,525,000 390,000
General Office Square Feet 460,000 65,000
Medical Office Square Feet 460,000 65,000
Civic Center Square Feet 100,000 40,000
Library Square Feet 0 25,000
Police Square Feet 0 10,000
Fire Station Square Feet 0 12,200
Hotel Rooms 450 0
1865
8-3
Study Area & Analysis Scenarios:

Consistent with the previously approved 2015 traffic study for the proposed project, this analysis evaluates the daily capacity and level of service (LOS) at the following eighteen (18) study roadway segments:

1. Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to Harrison Avenue;

2. Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way;

3. Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue;

4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps;

5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue;

6. Hamner Avenue: Citrus Street to Schleisman Road;

7. Hamner Avenue: Schleisman Road to 68th Street;

8. Hamner Avenue: 68th Street to Limonite Avenue;

9. Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to 58th Street;

10.Hamner Avenue: 58th Street to Bellegrave Avenue;

11.Scholar Way: Limonite Avenue to 68th Street;

12.I-15 Freeway: South of Limonite Avenue;

13.I-15 Freeway: Limonite Avenue to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road;

14.I-15 Freeway: North of SR-60 Freeway;

15.Scholar Way: Bellegrave Avenue to Limonite Avenue;

16.SR-60 Freeway: West of I-15 Freeway;
1866
8-4

17.SR-60 Freeway: East of I-15 Freeway; and

18.Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road: I-15 Ramps to Hamner Avenue.

Consistent with the previously approved 2015 traffic study for the proposed project, this analysis evaluates traffic conditions for the following study scenarios:
 Existing Conditions;
 Existing Plus Project Conditions;
 Cumulative (Long-Range) No Project Conditions; and
 Cumulative (Long-Range) Plus Project Conditions.

Project Trip Generation:

The previously approved project was forecast to generate approximately 64,416 daily trips which include approximately 3,030 AM peak hour trips and approximately 6,309 PM peak hour trips.

Based on the ITE trip generation rates, the modified project is forecast to generate approximately 36,652 daily trips which include approximately 1,831 AM peak hour trips and approximately 3,331 PM peak hour trips
When compared to the previously approved project, the modified project is forecast to generate approximately 27,764 net fewer daily trips which include approximately 1,200 net fewer AM peak hour trips and approximately 2,978 net fewer PM peak hour trips compared to the original project.

Based upon the preliminary trip generation analysis, the modified project is expected to generate fewer trips than were analyzed in the 2015 TIA and DEIR. Hence, additional traffic impacts are not expected.
1867
8-5
LOS Analysis Findings:

Based on the LOS analysis conducted, the Modified project results in the same or less LOS deficiencies and impacts when compared to the previously approved project for the analysis scenarios evaluated as part of this report.

VMT Analysis Findings:

Utilizing the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) Screening Tool, the modified project site is located within a low-VMT generating zone based on residential home-based VMT and home-based work VMT.

As a result, the proposed Modified project is exempt from further VMT assessment and may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

The WRCOG tool output for the proposed project is provided Attachment A. 1868
___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits
1869
engineering
group, inc.

N
Location Map
Exhibit A
2610-2021-01
Hamner Ave
Limonite Ave
Archibald Ave
Harrison Ave
Wineville Ave
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Bellgrave Ave
58th St Scholar Way
68th St
Legend:
= Project Site
Citrus St
Schleisman Rd
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Eastvale, CA 1870
engineering
group, inc.

N
Site Plan
Exhibit B
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Eastvale, CA 2610-2021-01 1871
engineering
group, inc.

N
Existing Traffic Volumes
Exhibit C
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Eastvale, CA 2610-2021-01
Hamner Ave
Limonite Ave
Archibald Ave
Harrison Ave
Wineville Ave
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Bellgrave Ave
58th St Scholar Way
68th St
Legend:
= Project Site
Citrus St
Schleisman Rd
18,497 26,192 29,548 44,312 33,855 20,619 11,813 20,816 15,649 4,912 80,622 83,345 115,671 2,240 69,076
81,438
13,094
1872
engineering
group, inc.

N
Project Traffic Volumes
Exhibit D
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Eastvale, CA 2610-2021-01
Hamner Ave
Limonite Ave
Archibald Ave
Harrison Ave
Wineville Ave
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Bellgrave Ave
58th St Scholar Way
68th St
Legend:
= Project Site
Citrus St
Schleisman Rd
3,665 3,665 18,326 16,493 3,665 3,665 3,665 1,833 16,493 1,833 7,330 5,498 5,498 1,833 5,498
5,498
3,665
1873
engineering
group, inc.

N
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Exhibit E
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Eastvale, CA 2610-2021-01
Hamner Ave
Limonite Ave
Archibald Ave
Harrison Ave
Wineville Ave
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Bellgrave Ave
58th St Scholar Way
68th St
Legend:
= Project Site
Citrus St
Schleisman Rd
22,162 29,857 47,874 60,805 37,520 24,284 15,496 22,019 32,142 6,745 87,952 88,843 121,169 4,073 74,574
86,936
16,759
1874
engineering
group, inc.

N
Horizon Year Without Project Traffic Volumes
Exhibit F
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Eastvale, CA 2610-2021-01
Hamner Ave
Limonite Ave
Archibald Ave
Harrison Ave
Wineville Ave
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Bellgrave Ave
58th St Scholar Way
68th St
Legend:
= Project Site
Citrus St
Schleisman Rd
44,000 50,780 48,960 69,110 65,010 25,400 15,030 22,730 31,890 6,860 81,750 86,170 127,570 2,810 78,910
83,360
23,980
1875
engineering
group, inc.

N
Horizon Year With Project Traffic Volumes
Exhibit G
LEAL MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT TECHNICAL STUDIES, City of Eastvale, CA 2610-2021-01
Hamner Ave
Limonite Ave
Archibald Ave
Harrison Ave
Wineville Ave
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Bellgrave Ave
58th St Scholar Way
68th St
Legend:
= Project Site
Citrus St
Schleisman Rd
47,665 54,445 67,286 85,603 68,675 29,065 18,695 24,563 48,383 8,693 89,080 91,668 133,068 4,643 84,408
88,858
27,645
1876
___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments
1877
Attachment A

WRCOG VMT Sheets
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
Attachment B

Leal Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Fehr & Peers, May 2015) 1883
Leal Specific Plan
Prepared for:

Michael Baker International
And
The City of Eastvale
May 12, 2015
OC14-0341
1884
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
Table of Contents

1.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................... 1 Transportation Impact Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 1 Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.0 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................12 Traffic Operations............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Trip Generation and Internalization .......................................................................................................................... 13 Travel Demand Forecasting .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Approved/Pending Projects ................................................................................................................................. 15

3.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...........................................................................................................................16 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ................................................................................... 16 City of Eastvale General Plan ............................................................................................................................... 16 Riverside County Congestion Management Program ............................................................................... 17

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .....................................................................................................................18 Existing Transportation System .......................................................................................................................... 18 Roadway Network.................................................................................................................................................... 18 Transit System............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Rail System .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Bikeway System ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Traffic Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Existing Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 23

5.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS .................................................................................................24

6.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................................27

7.0 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................30 1885
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
Appendices
Appendix A: Data Count Sheets
1886
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
List of Figures
Figure 4-1: Project Location………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………19 Figure 5-1: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes………………………………………………………………………………………...26 Figure 6-1: Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes…………………………………………………………………………………….30 Figure 7-1: Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes……………………………………………………………………………..……31 1887
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Roadway Level of Service………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………3 Table 2-1: Roadway Segment Daily Volume Thresholds……………………………………………………………………………..12 Table 2-2: Approved/Pending Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 Table 4-1: Roadway Level of Service (LOS) - Existing Conditions………………………………………………………………..22 Table 5-1: Roadway LOS- Existing vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions………………………………………………………24 Table 6-1: Roadway LOS- Cumulative No Project Conditions…………………………………………………………………….28 Table 7-1: Roadway LOS- Cumulative No Project vs. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions…………………………32 1888
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
1 1.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The purpose of this report is to analyze the projected impact of traffic generated by the proposed Leal Specific Plan on the area surrounding the project site. This report will begin with a summary of impacts in the area due to the proposed project. Mitigation measures for these impacts will then be discussed. This information is presented first to provide decision makers with an up-front summary of the impacts and mitigation measures for the project.

The following chapters summarize the remaining components of this assessment, including the methodology used for the analysis in this project and a detailed description of the environmental setting.

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, a project results in a significant impact from a transportation perspective if the project:

Conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit
o In the City of Eastvale, the performance standards that are identified in the City’s General Plan and in this specific plan include:

Maintaining Level of Service (LOS) C on local roadways.

This specific plan does identify the need to modify the “acceptable” LOS threshold in the study area, particularly on Limonite Avenue, as it will operate at LOS F into the future
For Caltrans facilities, LOS C was identified as the minimum acceptable operating level per their guidelines, which state that the threshold between LOS C and LOS D should apply
Conflicts with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

Substantially increases hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Results in inadequate emergency access
1889
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
2 Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities CEQA also requires the project to be evaluated for its impacts to the existing setting and the cumulative impacts of the project. As such, this transportation assessment evaluates the following scenarios from a transportation perspective:

1. Existing Conditions

2. Existing plus Project Conditions

3. Cumulative No Project Conditions

4. Cumulative plus Project Conditions
IMPACTS The proposed project and the analysis results were compared to the significance criteria described above to identify project impacts. The results are summarized below. a) Does the proposed project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy? Determination: Significant impacts with mitigation measures The proposed project is consistent with adopted plans and policies related to non-motorized travel in the area. In fact, the project includes facilities to support bicycles and pedestrians on site. Additionally, the land use plan allows for a mix of uses that will increase project trip internalization and potential land use densities on the project site will support transit use in the study area.

To evaluate motorized facilities, the significance criteria from applicable jurisdictions summarized above were applied to the analysis results to identify significant impacts. The results are summarized in Table 1-

1. All locations where significant project impacts occur are subject to mitigation, if feasible, which is described later in this chapter.

Existing Plus Project impacts are projected to be:

Limonite Avenue: Between Harrison Avenue & Scholar Way - The addition of project traffic degrades traffic operations from LOS C to LOS D
Limonite Avenue: Between Scholar Way & Hamner Avenue- The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS F
Limonite Avenue: Between Hamner Avenue & I-15 SB Ramp - The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS F
1890
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
3 Table 1-1
Roadway Level of Service
Roadway Segment
Lanes
(Existing/
Cumulative)
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
Conditions Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Volume V/C1 LOS Volume V/C1 LOS Volume V/C1 LOS Volume V/C1 LOS

1. Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to
Harrison Avenue
4 / 6 17,425 0.49 C 23,725 0.66 C 44,000 0.82 D 50,300 0.93 E 2. Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way
4 / 6 24,674 0.69 C 30,974 0.86 D 50,780 0.94 E 57080 1.06 F 3. Limonite Avenue:

Scholar Way to Hamner
Avenue
4 / 6 27,836 0.78 C 59,336 1.65 F 48,960 0.91 E 80,460 1.49 F 4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps
6 41,744 0.77 C 70,094 1.30 F 69,110 1.28 F 97,460 1.81 F 5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville
Avenue
4 / 6 31,893 0.89 D 38,193 1.06 F 65,010 1.21 F 71,310 1.32 F 6. Hamner Avenue: Citrus Street to Schleisman Road
4 / 6 19,424 0.54 C 25,724 0.72 C 25,400 0.47 C 31,700 0.59 C

7. Hamner Avenue: Schleisman Road to 68th
Street
6 11,145 0.21 C 17,445 0.32 C 15,030 0.28 C 21,330 0.40 C

8. Hamner Avenue: 68th
Street to Limonite Avenue
6 19,016 0.35 C 22,166 0.41 C 22,730 0.42 C 25,880 0.48 C

9. Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to
Bellgrave Avenue
4 / 6 14,742 0.41 C 43,092 1.20 F 31,890 0.59 C 60,240 1.12 F 10. Scholar Way:

Limonite Avenue to 68th 2 4,627 0.36 C 7,777 0.60 C 6,860 0.53 C 10,010 0.77 C 1891
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
4 Table 1-1
Roadway Level of Service
Roadway Segment
Lanes
(Existing/
Cumulative)
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
Conditions Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Volume V/C1 LOS Volume V/C1 LOS Volume V/C1 LOS Volume V/C1 LOS

11. I-15: South of
Limonite Avenue 6 75,950 0.65 C 88,550 0.75 C 81,750 0.70 C 94,350 0.80 D 12. I-15: Limonite Avenue to Cantu-Galleano Ranch
Road
6 78,515 0.67 C 87,965 0.75 C 81,340 0.69 C 90,790 0.77 C

13. I-15: North of SR-60 8 108,967 0.68 C 118,417 0.74 C 127,570 0.79 C 137,020 0.85 D 14. Cleveland Avenue: Bellgrave Avenue to Limonite Avenue 4 2,110 0.16 C 5,260 0.40 C 2,810 0.22 C 5,960 0.46 C

15. SR-60: West of I-15 10 65,073 0.32 C 74,523 0.37 C 78,910 0.39 C 88,360 0.44 C

16. SR-60: East of I-15 8 76,718 0.48 C 86,168 0.54 C 83,360 0.52 C 92,810 0.58 C

17. Cantu-Galleano Ranch
Rd: I-15 Ramps to Hamner
Avenue 4 12,335 0.34 C 18,635 0.52 C 23,980 0.67 C 30,280 0.84 D Notes: Shading indicates unacceptable operations.

1. Volume to capacity ratio (V/C) measures the actual volume of vehicles observed or counted on any street segment in relation to the throughput capacity of the facility. Any measure higher than about 0.80 indicates some level of congestion. The number can exceed 1.00, indicating an overloaded situation with stop and go traffic.

2. The proposed I-15 Toll Lanes are assumed but are not incorporated in this volume-to-capacity assessment (e.g. the assessment only evaluates the general purpose lanes).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015
1892
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
5 Limonite Avenue: Between NB I-15 Ramp & Wineville Avenue - The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS D to LOS F
Hamner Avenue: Between Limonite Avenue & Bellgrave Avenue- The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS F
Cumulative impacts are projected to be:

Limonite Anenue: Between Archibald Avenue and Harrison Avenue – The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS D to LOS E
Limonite Avenue: Between Harrison Avenue & Scholar Way – The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS E to LOS F
Limonite Avenue: Between Scholar Way & Hamner Avenue – The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS E to LOS F
Limonite Avenue: Between Hamner Avenue & I-15 SB Ramp – The project adds traffic to a segment already operating at LOS F
Limonite Avenue: Between I-15 Northbound Ramps & Wineville Avenue – The project adds traffic to a segment already operating at LOS F
Hamner Avenue: Between Limonite Avenue & Bellgrave Avenue- The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS F
I-15 South of Limonite – The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS D Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road: Between I-15 Ramps & Hamner Avenue – The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS D.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program (CMP), including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Determination: Less than significant
The Riverside County CMP does not require any specific analysis methodology or analysis requirements be addressed in a transportation impact analysis for a development project. Therefore, Part B of the significance thresholds does not apply to analysis of the project. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Determination: Less than significant
1893
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
6 The project does not include any characteristics that would change air traffic in the study area nor is the site within an airport land use influence area. Therefore, the impacts of the project are considered lessthan-significant. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Determination: Less than significant with mitigation
Given that specific tract maps have not been completed for the project, it is unknown whether project driveways and internal circulation would have specific design features that would potentially increase hazards in the study area. Given the potential that increased hazards could occur due to a design feature, this impact is considered potentially significant.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Determination: Less than significant with mitigation
The project includes a series of connectivity that will provide for servicing emergency personnel.

However, since tentative tract maps have not been completed yet, not every development building could be assessed, nor could internal neighborhood roadways be reviewed to assess emergency accessibility.

Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Determination: Less than significant
The mixed use nature of the Specific Plan supports use of alternative modes of travel. As such, this impact is considered less-than-significant. MITIGATION MEASURES For potentially significant impacts described above, the project is responsible for implementing feasible mitigation measures as described below.

Mitigation 1 – Improvements to Roadway Segments
Improvements to the roadway segments identified below would provide acceptable operations.

Additionally, the project will be required to contribute its fair share funding for many regional impacts 1894
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
7 through the County’s Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, which is the regional funding source for many facilities in Riverside County, and any local transportation fees.

Additionally, future development within the project shall be required to prepare a focused traffic study that will assess the following to ensure consistency with the assessment prepared for this project:

Parking assessment
Site access and on-site circulation assessment
Interaction of driveways with adjacent intersections (if appropriate) Impact assessment of local intersections
Impacts to pedestrian, transit, and bicycle facilities
Trip generation monitoring study to ensure that, as land develops in the Leal specific plan area, the total development generates traffic at or below those assumed in this EIR The locational improvements described below were developed to mitigate potentially significant impacts of the project at the study locations. Fehr & Peers also identified the amount of development that can occur from the project prior to triggering the identified impact. This is anticipated to assist the City in identifying levels of development that can occur prior to the impact occurring.

Existing plus Project Mitigation Measures
Limonite Avenue: Between Harrison Avenue & Scholar Way
The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS D under Existing plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened to six lanes. Since the regional TUMF program will widen this segment to six lanes, the project shall be responsible to pay its fair share of this improvement through the TUMF program. With this mitigation and implementation of the planned TUMF improvements, the impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

Limonite Avenue: Between Scholar Way & Hamner Avenue
The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS F under Existing plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened to eight lanes. It should be noted that the project shall be responsible for a fair share payment toward the TUMF program, which is responsible for widening this facility to six lanes. However, widening beyond six lanes is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

Given that the project identifies the need to widen this segment beyond six lanes, the City shall be responsible implementing the proposed general plan policy amendment to change the level of service threshold for acceptability from LOS C to LOS F on Limonite Avenue. With this policy change, although there will be congestion on this segment with the project, it would operate acceptably and the impact would be less-than-significant.
1895
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
8 Limonite Avenue: Between Hamner Avenue & I-15 Ramps
The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS F under Existing plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened beyond eight lanes which would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

Given that the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes, the City shall be responsible implementing the proposed general plan policy amendment to change the level of service threshold for acceptability from LOS C to LOS F on Limonite Avenue. With this policy change, although there will be congestion on this segment with the project, it would operate acceptably and the impact would be lessthan-significant.

Limonite Avenue: Between I-15 Ramps & Wineville Avenue
The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS D to LOS F under Existing plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened to six lanes. The project shall be responsible to implement this improvement. It should be noted that this segment is a TUMFdesignated facility; however, the TUMF program will only widen the roadway to its current cross-section.

Additionally, this segment is outside the City of Eastvale and, as such, neither the City nor any developer can guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure. As such, this impact is considered significantand-unavoidable.

Hamner Avenue: Between Limonite Avenue & Bellgrave Avenue The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS F under Existing plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened to six lanes. The project shall be responsible to implement this improvement. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

Cumulative plus Project Impacts
Limonite Avenue: Between Archibald Avenue & Harrison Avenue The addition of project traffic degrades cumulative operations from LOS D to LOS E under Cumulative plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes. With this improvement, the roadway segment would operate at an acceptable level of service.

However, this widening would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan roadway designation for this facility and the ultimate planned improvements through the regional TUMF program.

Given that the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes, the City shall be responsible implementing the proposed general plan policy amendment to change the level of service threshold for acceptability from LOS C to LOS F on Limonite Avenue. With this policy change, although there will be congestion on this segment with the project, it would operate acceptably and the impact would be lessthan-significant. 1896
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
9 Limonite Avenue: Between Harrison Avenue & Scholar Way The addition of project traffic degrades cumulative operations from LOS E to LOS F under Cumulative plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes.

With this improvement, the roadway segment would operate at an acceptable level of service. However, this widening would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan roadway designation for this facility and the ultimate planned improvements through the regional TUMF program.

Given that the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes, the City shall be responsible implementing the proposed general plan policy amendment to change the level of service threshold for acceptability from LOS C to LOS F on Limonite Avenue. With this policy change, although there will be congestion on this segment with the project, it would operate acceptably and the impact would be lessthan-significant.

Limonite Avenue: Between Scholar Way & Hamner Avenue
The addition of project traffic degrades cumulative operations from LOS E to LOS F under Cumulative plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes.

With this improvement, the roadway segment would operate at an acceptable level of service. However, this widening would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan roadway designation for this facility and the ultimate planned improvements through the regional TUMF program.

Given that the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes, the City shall be responsible implementing the proposed general plan policy amendment to change the level of service threshold for acceptability from LOS C to LOS F on Limonite Avenue. With this policy change, although there will be congestion on this segment with the project, it would operate acceptably and the impact would be lessthan-significant.

Limonite Avenue: Between Hamner Avenue & I-15
The project adds traffic to a segment already operating at LOS F under Cumulative plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes. However, this widening would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan roadway designation for this facility and the ultimate planned improvements through the regional TUMF program.

Given that the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes, the City shall be responsible implementing the proposed general plan policy amendment to change the level of service threshold for acceptability from LOS C to LOS F on Limonite Avenue. With this policy change, although there will be congestion on this segment with the project, it would operate acceptably and the impact would be lessthan-significant.

Limonite Avenue: Between I-15 Ramps & Wineville Avenue
The project adds traffic to a roadway segment already projected to operate at LOS F. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes and the project would be responsible to contribute a fair share payment through the TUMF program as it is a TUMF designated facility. It should be noted that the TUMF program will only widen the roadway to its current cross-section. Additionally, 1897
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
10 this segment is outside the City of Eastvale and, as such, neither the City nor any developer can guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure. As such, this impact is considered significant-andunavoidable.

Hamner Avenue: Between Limonite Avenue & Bellgrave Avenue The addition of project traffic degrades operations from LOS C to LOS F under Cumulative plus Project Conditions. To mitigate this impact, the roadway would need to be widened beyond the six lanes that are planned for in the City’s General Plan. The project shall be responsible to for a fair share contribution toward this improvement.

Given that the roadway would need to be widened beyond six lanes (which would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan) the City shall be responsible implementing a proposed general plan policy amendment to change the level of service threshold for acceptability from LOS C to LOS F on this roadway segment. With this policy change, although there will be congestion on this segment with the project, it would operate acceptably and the impact would be less-than-significant.

I-15: South of Limonite
The project is expected to degrade operations on this roadway segment from LOS C to LOS D. To mitigate this impact, the project would be responsible for a fair share contribution toward additional freeway capacity beyond that already planned for along the segment. Additionally, this segment is outside the City of Eastvale and, as such, neither the City nor any developer can guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure. As such, this impact is considered significant-andunavoidable.

I-15: North of SR-60
The project is expected to degrade operations on this roadway segment from LOS C to LOS D. To mitigate this impact, the project would be responsible for a fair share contribution toward additional freeway capacity beyond that already planned for along the segment. Additionally, this segment is outside the City of Eastvale and, as such, neither the City nor any developer can guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure. As such, this impact is considered significant-andunavoidable.

Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road: Between the I-15 Ramps & Hamner Avenue The project is expected to degrade operations on this roadway segment from LOS C to LOS D. To mitigate this impact, the project would be responsible for a fair share contribution toward widening this segment from four lanes to six lanes through the City’s development impact fee program. With this improvement, the impacts would be mitigated and the impact would be less-than-significant. 1898
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
11 Transportation Impact 2 - Potential Increase in Hazards Due to a Design Feature The following policy/mitigation measure shall be added to the Leal specific plan to address the impact identified above:

All future improvements in the Leal area shall be consistent with design standards set forth by the City or Leal Specific Plan. All designs, including site access points, shall be reviewed to determine that designs are consistent with appropriate design standards. Implementation of this policy/mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and no further mitigation is required.

Transportation Impact 3 - Potential Inadequate Emergency Access The following policy/mitigation measure shall be added to the leal specific plan to address the impact identified above:

All proposed development in the Leal area shall be reviewed by appropriate emergency services personnel to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. Implementation of this policy/mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and no further mitigation is required.
1899
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
12 2.0 METHODOLOGY
This section of the report describes the methodologies used to complete this programmatic assessment.

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
The analysis methodology used to analyze roadway segments is described below. The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow from the perspective of motorists based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, freedom to maneuver, traffic volume, and the capacity of the roadway. Six levels are defined from LOS A, as the least congested operating conditions, to LOS F, or the most congested operating conditions.

LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F.

Roadway segments were analyzed by comparing the average daily traffic (ADT) volume to daily volume thresholds. Table 2-1, Roadway Segment Daily Volume Thresholds, displays the daily volume thresholds for various facility types. These thresholds are used as guidelines to identify the need for new or upgraded facilities.

TABLE 2-1
ROADWAY SEGMENT DAILY VOLUME THRESHOLDS1
Facility Type Max Two-Way Traffic Volume

LOS C LOS D LOS E
Secondary Collector 10,400 11,700 13,000
Urban Arterial (4 Lanes) 28,700 32,300 35,900
Urban Arterial (6 Lanes) 43,100 48,500 53,900
Freeway (6 Lanes) 9,4000 105,800 117,500
Freeway (8 Lanes ) 128,400 144,500 160,500
Freeway (10 Lanes) 160,500 180,500 200,600
Notes:

1. All volume thresholds are approximate and assume ideal roadway characteristics. Actual thresholds for each LOS listed above may vary depending on a variety of factors including (but not limited to) roadway curvature and grade, intersection or interchange spacing, driveway spacing, percentage of trucks and other heavy vehicles, lane widths, signal timing, on-street parking, volume of cross traffic and pedestrians, etc.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. & City of Eastvale General Plan 1900
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
13 TRIP GENERATION AND INTERNALIZATION
This study utilized the 9th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation rates to determine daily trips generated by the proposed land use. Internalization rates were determined based on Mixed Use Development trip generation methodology (MXD). This methodology evaluates numerous components of a project and identifies the projects’ potential to internalize traffic. The MXD model’s methodology was developed based on 239 mixed-use sites across the United States, including sites in San Diego and Sacramento. Because of this the MXD model provides the most statistically valid and reliable way to estimate trip internalization for mixed-use development.

Because the specific plan allows for a range of development potential, a “worst case” assumption was made for the specific plan land uses. Our assumptions are summarized below:
660 multi-family homes (apartments)
1,525,000 sq. ft. of general retail (shopping center)
460,000 sq. ft. of general office
460,000 sq. ft. of medical office
450 hotel rooms
100,000 sq. ft. civic center
Utilizing the ITE trip generation and MXD trip internalization estimates, the project is expected to result in the following trip generation:
69,900 Gross Daily Trips
10% Trip Internalization (e.g. trips that stay within the specific plan area based on the land use information provided above (plus the project’s proximity to transit, assumed intersection density, and other factors that affect trip internalization)
63,000 Net Daily Trips after accounting for trip internalization The project trips were distributed to the surrounding roadway system using existing travel patterns in the area and the locations of complementary land uses in the area. The trip distribution information is summarized below:

Limonite Avenue between Archibald Avenue & Scholar Way will see 10% of the total project trips.

Limonite Avenue between Scholar Way & Hamner Avenue will see 50% of the total project trips.

Limonite Avenue between Hamner Avenue & Southbound I-15 Ramps will see 45% of the total project trips.
1901
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
14 Limonite Avenue between the Northbound I-15 Ramps & Wineville Avenue will see 10% of the total project trips.

Hamner Avenue between Citrus Avenue and 68th Street will see 10% of the total project trips.

Hamner Avenue between 68th Street & Limonite Avenue, as well as Scholar Way between 68th Street & Limonite Avenue will see 5% of the total project trips.

Hamner Avenue between Limonite Avenue & Bellgrave Avenue will see 45% of the total project trips.

Hamner Avenue north of SR-60 will see 5% of total project trips.

Cleveland Avenue between 58th Street & Limonite Avenue will see 5% of the total project trips.

I-15 south of Limonite Avenue will see 20% of the total project trips.

I-15 between Limonite Avenue & Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road will see 15% of the total project trips.

I-15 north of SR-60 will see 15% of the total project trips.

Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road will see 10% of the total project trips.

SR-60 west of I-15 will see 15% of the total project trips.

SR-60 east of I-15 will see 15% of the total project trips.

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING
The Riverside Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) was used for developing cumulative forecasts in the study area. This model incorporates land use information and roadway network characteristics (roadway alignments, roadway capacities, speeds) to forecast existing and future volumes on area roadways in Riverside County. This model also accounts for projected growth and land use changes within the county allowing for a more accurate forecast of future conditions.

Before the model could be used for this study, the land use and socio-economic components of the model were modified. These modifications are refinements to the model, and are intended to enable the model to more accurately reflect the proposed land use in the Leal Specific Plan study area.

One modification that was made was an update to the socio-economic data within the model to incorporate approved and pending projects in the study area. The approved and pending projects were converted from square feet of development to numbers of employees using conversion factors from the County of Riverside General Plan and were incorporated into the travel demand model. The model was also modified to delete any assumed land use in the Leal specific plan area as that land use was manually added to the “no project” forecasts.
1902
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
15 APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS
The resulting RIVTAM model incorporates several large scale developments in the City of Eastvale. Major land use projects included in the forecasts are listed in Table 2-2 below.

TABLE 2-2

APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS
Project Name Location Description Year Source
Estancia by Lennar
Homes
Citrus Avenue. between Sumner Avenue
& Scholar Way 197 Single Family Homes 2013 City of Eastvale The Trails at Eastvale
Corner of Archibald Avenue . & 65th
Street 224 Single Family Homes 2013 City of Eastvale
Copper Sky Schleisman Road & Scholar Way 224 Condominium Units 2007 City of Eastvale
Cleveland Square Scholar Way & Limonite Avenue 350 Condominium Units 2009 City of Eastvale
Eastvale Business Park North of 65th Street, East of Cucamonga Creek & West of Archibald Avenue
694,770 SF Industrial, 33,600 SF
Office, 10,600 SF Retail
2014 City of
Eastvale
Eastvale San Antonio
Medical Plaza Eastvale Gateway South 69,562 SF Medical Buildings 2013 City of Eastvale Arco Gas Station
SE Corner of Hamner Avenue & Riverside
Dr.
5,670 SF Gas Station 2014 City of
Eastvale
Marketplace at The
Enclave
SW Corner of Archibald Avenue &
Schleisman Rd Additional Retail Space 2014 City of
Eastvale
Eastvale Gateway I & II
NE Corner of Hamner Avenue & Limonite
Avenue
6,000 SF Retail 2014 City of
Eastvale
Eastvale Gateway
South
SE Corner of Hamner Avenue & Limonite
Avenue
11,000 SF Retail 2014 City of
Eastvale
Source: City of Eastvale- Development Projects in The City of Eastvale 1903
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
16 3.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Existing transportation policies, laws, and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized below. This information provides a context for the input discussion related to the project’s consistency with applicable regulatory conditions.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Caltrans policies are applicable to I-15, and SR-60 are summarized in the Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (State of California Department of Transportation, December 2002).

These guidelines identify when a traffic impact study is required, what should be included in the study, analysis scenarios, and guidance on acceptable analysis methodologies.

Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target service level of LOS C on State highway facilities. However, this may not always be feasible and it is recommended that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. For the purposes of this study, LOS C is considered the minimum acceptable operating level for Caltrans’ controlled facilities (SR-60 roadway segments, I-15 roadway segments).

CITY OF EASTVALE GENERAL PLAN
The City of Eastvale provides the following policies regarding traffic and circulation issues such as LOS Standards, roadway funding, growth impacts, road standards, transit, and access:

Policy C-3: The cumulative and indirect traffic impacts of development may be mitigated through the payment of impact mitigation fees.

Policy C-10: Seek to maintain the following target levels of service: "C" along all City-maintained roads. A peak hour level of service of "D" may be allowed in commercial and employment areas, and at intersections of any combination of major highways, urban arterials, secondary highways, or freeway ramp intersections.

Policy C-11: Alternative levels of service may be allowed on intersections in planned development or similar identified mixed-use areas that demonstrate links to transit, trails, and alternative transportation and comfortable walking distance to goods and services. 1904
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
17 Policy C-13: Construct and improve traffic signals at appropriate intersections. Traffic signals should be spaced and operated as part of coordinated systems to optimize traffic operation.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Riverside County Congestion Management Program provides the following policies regarding LOS and Transportation Demand Management for SR-60, I-15, and Limonite Avenue:

Minimum LOS threshold is LOS “E”. Therefore when a CMP street or highway falls to “F” a deficiency plan is required.

It should be noted that the CMP does not require any specific assessment for development projects. As such, no specific analysis is required to show consistency with the CMP. 1905
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
18 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The proposed Leal Specific Plan project is located in the City of Eastvale in the northeast portion of Riverside County. The site is located east of Cleveland Avenue, west of Hamner Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue. The site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15) which provides the major north-south regional access to the area.

Primary access to the project site is provided by Limonite Avenue, Hamner Avenue, and Cleveland Avenue.

The area surrounding the site is primarily residential. There is retail existing to the east and south of the project site. Automobiles are the primary mode of travel. Limited bus transit service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The existing transportation facilities are described in detail below.

ROADWAY NETWORK
Regional access to the project site is provided by I-15 and State Route 60 (SR-60) in the area. Access to the project site from I-15 is provided by the interchange with Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road, and by the interchange at Limonite Avenue. SR-60 provides access to the project site through the I-15 interchange and Hamner Avenue. Local access to the project site is provided by Cleveland Avenue/Scholar Way to the west of the project site, Limonite Avenue to the south, and Hamner Avenue to the east. See Figure 4-1, Project Location for the existing roadway network within the project area. A brief description of the key roadway facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project is provided below.

Interstate 15 (I-15) is the main north-south facility through Riverside County. It extends the entire length of Riverside County, from its southern border with San Diego County to its northern border with San Bernardino County. I-15 is a six-lane divided freeway from the San Diego County line to the San Bernardino County line. Near the project site, it is a six-lane freeway with interchanges at 6th Street, Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road, and SR-60.

State Route 60 (SR-60) is a major east-west ten-lane divided freeway, which intersects I-15 in the City of Eastvale. Interchanges near the project site include Archibald Avenue, Haven Avenue to the east, and the I-15 interchange, and Mission Boulevard to the west. 1906
·|}þ241
Figure 2
58th St CITY OF

EASTVALE
T:\_GIS\Riverside_County\MXDs\Eastvale\Leal_SP\Figure 1 Project Vicinity.mxd (1/30/2015) 0 0.5 1 Miles Source: City of Eastvale (2014); Riverside County (2014); ESRI. Legend Project Boundary
Eastvale City Limits
1907
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
20 Hamner Avenue is a major thoroughfare running north-south through the City of Eastavle.

Hamner operates as a four-lane roadway throughout most of the City with two-lanes in some areas, and as many as six lanes in some parts of the city. Hamner provides direct access to the project site from the west, and has two lanes of northbound traffic, and one lane of southbound traffic.

Cleveland Avenue/Scholar Way is a four-lane roadway running from Citrus Street to Bellgrave Avenue. The roadway is designated as Cleveland Avenue north of Limonite, and Scholar Way south of Limonite in the city. It provides direct access to the project site from the east.

Limonite Avenue is a major thoroughfare in the City of Eastvale running in the east-west direction.

Limonite allows for two-lanes of traffic in each direction, and up to three-lanes in each direction in parts of the city. Limonite provides direct access to the project site from the south.

TRANSIT SYSTEM
Public transportation within Riverside County is provided by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), which offers both fixed route and Dial-A-Ride service to the City of Eastvale. RTA currently operates two fixed routes to the City, Route 3 and Route 29. Route 3 operates seven days a week with weekday headways of thirty minutes, and weekend headways of one hour. Route 29 operates seven days a week with one hour headways. Route 3 provides access to the project site with stops at Hamner and Swan Lake Estates, and at Limonite and Hamner. Route 29 provides access to the project site with a stop at Limonite and Hamner.

RAIL SYSTEM
Riverside County is served by the Metrolink Riverside Line, which transports commuters from Riverside County to Union Station in Downton Los Angeles. The City of Eastvale has no stations providing service to this line but nearby Jurupa Valley provides riders access to the line.

BIKEWAY SYSTEM
The City of Eastvale does not currently provide an extensive bikeway system. The City identifies three classes of bikeways as:

Class I: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
Class II: Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway Class III: Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic Class IV: This is a new classification that has just been created. Class IV bike facilities are called protected bike lanes or cycle tracks – these facilities are a hybrid between a Class I bicycle facility 1908
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
21 and a Class II bicycle facility. They can be either on-street or off-street and are protected by some type of barrier from the adjacent travel lanes.

There are currently no bikeways serving the project site, but the City has an on-going Bicycle Master Plan.

TRAFFIC STUDY AREA
The following study locations were included in our assessment.

Roadway Segments (daily operations)

1. Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to Harrison Avenue

2. Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way

3. Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue

4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps

5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue

6. Hamner Avenue: Citrus Street to Schleisman Road

7. Hamner Avenue: Schleisman Road to 68th Street

8. Hamner Avenue: 68th Street to Limonite Avenue

9. Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to Bellgrave Avenue

10. Scholar Way: Limonite Avenue to 68th Street

11. Interstate 15: South of Limonite Avenue

12. Interstate 15: Limonite Avenue to Cantu-Galleano

13. Interstate 15: North of State Route 60

14. Cleveland Avenue: Bellgrave Avenueto Limonite Avenue

15. State Route 60: West of Interstate 15

16. State Route 60: East of Interstate 15

17. Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd: Interstate 15 Ramps to Hamner Avenue

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Fehr & Peers obtained existing daily traffic counts from the Caltrans District 8 Caltrans Performance Measurement System database for the freeway system and traffic counts conducted by Fehr & Peers on April 14th through April 16th 2015 for local roadways. The average of these three days was used to determine existing volumes. These volumes can be found in Table 4-1. 1909
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
22 TABLE 4-1
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) – EXISTING CONDITIONS

ROADWAY SEGMENT

EXISTING CONDITIONS
LANES VOLUME1 V/C2 LOS
LIMONITE AVENUE: ARCHIBALD AVENUE TO HARRISON AVENUE 4 17,425 0.49 C LIMONITE AVENUE: HARRISON AVENUE TO SCHOLAR WAY 4 24,674 0.69 C LIMONITE AVENUE: SCHOLAR WAY TO HAMNER AVENUE 4 27,836 0.78 C LIMONITE AVENUE: HAMNER AVENUE TO I-15 RAMPS 6 41,744 0.77 C LIMONITE AVENUE: I-15 RAMPS TO WINEVILLE AVENUE 4 31,893 0.89 D HAMNER AVENUE: CITRUS STREET TO SCHLEISMAN ROAD 4 19,424 0.54 C HAMNER AVENUE: SCHLEISMAN ROAD TO 68TH STREET 6 11,145 0.21 C HAMNER AVENUE: 68TH STREET TO LIMONITE AVENUE 6 19,016 0.35 C HAMNER AVENUE: LIMONITE AVENUE TO BELLGRAVEAVENUE 4 14,742 0.41 C SCHOLAR WAY: LIMONITE AVENUE TO 68TH STREET 2 4,627 0.36 C I-15: SOUTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE 6 75,950 0.65 C
I-15: LIMONITE AVENUE TO CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD 6 78,515 0.67 C I-15: NORTH OF SR-60 8 108,967 0.68 C
CLEVELAND AVENUE: BELLGRAVE AVENUETO LIMONITE AVENUE 4 2,110 0.16 C SR 60: WEST OF I-15 10 65,073 0.32 C
SR-60: EAST OF I-15 8 76,718 0.48 C
CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD: I-15 RAMPS TO HAMNER
AVENUE 4
12,335 0.34 C
NOTES: 1.EXISITING 2015 TRAFFIC COUNTS

2. VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (V/C) MEASURES THE ACTUAL VOLUME OF VEHICLES OBSERVED OR COUNTED ON ANY STREET SEGMENT IN RELATION TO THE THROUGHPUT CAPACITY OF THE FACILITY. ANY MEASURE HIGHER THAN ABOUT 0.80 INDICATES CONGESTION. THE NUMBER CAN EXCEED 1.00, INDICATING AN OVERLOADED SITUATION WITH STOP AND GO TRAFFIC. SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2015 1910
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
23 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Fehr & Peers conducted a detailed analysis of the study roadway segments. Areas identified as operating unacceptably are based on the level of service (LOS) policies published in the jurisdictions planning documents. For purposes of this study, the “acceptable” operating level is identified as LOS C, consistent with those thresholds identified in the Riverside County General Plan (which the City of Jurupa Valley operates under), the City of Eastvale General Plan, and the Caltrans Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment.

Table 4-1, Roadway Level of Service-Existing Conditions, presents the existing conditions analysis for roadway segments. Currently only one segment, Limonite Avenue from the I-15 Northbound Ramp to Wineville Avenue is operating below the acceptable LOS C. 1911
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
24 5.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Fehr & Peers added the “with project” forecasts developed for the project to the existing traffic counts to develop Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes. These volumes are summarized on Figure 5-1 and are presented in Table 5-1.

As shown in Table 5-1, the project is expected to result in a significant impact to the following locations:

Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way
Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue
Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps
Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue
Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to Bellgrave Avenue
Measures to mitigate project impacts are summarized in Chapter 1.

TABLE 5-1
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING VS. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
LANES

EXISTING NO PROJECT EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
VOLUME1 V/C2LOS VOLUME1 V/C2LOS
Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to
Harrison Avenue 4
17,425 0.49 C 23,725 0.66 C
Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar
Way 4
24,674 0.69 C 30,974 0.86 D
Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner
Avenue 4 27,836 0.78 C 59,336 1.65 F
Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15
Ramps 6
41,744 0.77 C 70,094 1.30 F
Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville
Avenue 4
31,893 0.89 D 38,193 1.06 F
Hamner Avenue: Citrus Street to Schleisman
Road 4
19,424 0.54 C 25,724 0.72 C
Hamner Avenue: Schleisman Road to 68th
Street 6
11,145 0.21 C 17,445 0.32 C
Hamner Avenue: 68th Street to Limonite
Avenue 6
19,016 0.35 C 22,166 0.41 C
1912
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
25 TABLE 5-1
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING VS. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to
Bellgrave Avenue 4
14,742 0.41 C 43,092 1.20 F
Scholar Way: Limonite Avenue to 68th Street
2 4,627 0.36 C 7,777 0.60 C
I-15: South of Limonite Avenue
6 75,950 0.65 C 88,550 0.75 C
I-15: Limonite Avenue to Cantu-Galleano
Ranch Road 6
78,515 0.67 C 87,965 0.75 C
I-15: North of SR-60
8 108,967 0.68 C 118,417 0.74 C
Cleveland Avenue: Bellgrave Avenue to
Limonite Avenue 4
2,110 0.16 C 5,260 0.40 C
SR-60: West of I-15
10 65,073 0.32 C 74,523 0.37 C
SR-60: East of I-15
8 76,718 0.48 C 86,168 0.54 C
Cantu Galleano Ranch Road: I-15 Ramps to
Hamner Avenue 4
12,335 0.34 C 18,635 0.52 C
Notes:

1.Exisiting 2015 Traffic Counts

2. Volume to capacity ratio (V/C) measures the actual volume of vehicles observed or counted on any street segment in relation to the throughput capacity of the facility. Any measure higher than about 0.80 indicates congestion. The number can exceed 1.00, indicating an overloaded situation with stop and go traffic.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015
1913
Figure
Existing (2015) Plus Project Conditions
Daily Volumes
Citrus St Schleisman Rd
68th St
Limonite Ave
6th St
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Jurupa St
15 60
23,725
30,974 59,336
70,094
38,193
25,724
17,445
22,166
43,092
7777
88,550
87,965
118,417
5,260
74,523
86,168
18,635
1914
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
27 6.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
As noted previously, cumulative traffic volumes were developed using the RIVTAM travel demand forecasting model after updating the land use information to incorporate approved and pending projects in the study area that were not included in the travel demand model assumptions.

In addition to the modeling modifications, it is assumed that the following roadways improvements would occur by year 2035 and these improvements are included in the forecasting and analysis assumptions:

Limonite will be widened to six lanes
Two express lanes each direction will be implemented on I-15 (please note that the reported traffic volumes on I-15 and the assumed capacity in the technical analysis is for the general purpose lanes only)
Hamner Avenue will be widened to six lanes
Table 6-1 summarizes the results of the Cumulative No Project assessment. The Cumulative No Project traffic volumes are summarized on Figure 6-1.

As shown in Table 6-1, the following roadway segments are expected to operate unacceptably under the Cumulative No Project Condition:

Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to Harrison Avenue
Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way
Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue
Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps
Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue
1915
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
28 TABLE 6-1
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
LANES

CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT
VOLUME V/C1LOS
LIMONITE AVENUE: ARCHIBALD AVENUE TO HARRISON AVENUE 6 44,000 0.82 D LIMONITE AVENUE: HARRISON AVENUE TO SCHOLAR WAY 6 50,780 0.94 E LIMONITE AVENUE: SCHOLAR WAY TO HAMNER AVENUE 6 48,960 0.91 E LIMONITE AVENUE: HAMNER AVENUE TO I-15 RAMPS 6 69,110 1.28 F LIMONITE AVENUE: I-15 RAMPS TO WINEVILLE AVENUE 6 65,010 1.21 F HAMNER AVENUE: CITRUS STREET TO SCHLEISMAN ROAD 6 25,400 0.47 C HAMNER AVENUE: SCHLEISMAN ROAD TO 68TH STREET 6 15,030 0.28 C HAMNER AVENUE: 68TH STREET TO LIMONITE AVENUE 6 22,730 0.42 C HAMNER AVENUE: LIMONITE AVENUE TO BELLGRAVE AVENUE 6 31,890 0.59 C SCHOLAR WAY: LIMONITE AVENUE TO 68TH STREET 2 6,860 0.53 C I-15: SOUTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE 6 81,750 0.70 C
I-15: LIMONITE AVENUE TO CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD 6 81,340 0.69 C I-15: NORTH OF SR-60 8 127,570 0.79 C
CLEVELAND AVENUE: BELLGRAVE AVENUE TO LIMONITE AVENUE 4 2,810 0.22 C SR-60: WEST OF I-15 10 78,910 0.39 C
SR-60: EAST OF I-15 8 83,360 0.52 C
CANTU GALLEANO RANCH ROAD: I-15 RAMPS TO HAMNER AVENUE 4 23,980 0.67 C SHADING INDICATES UNACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS. 1. VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (V/C) MEASURES THE ACTUAL VOLUME OF VEHICLES OBSERVED OR COUNTED ON ANY STREET SEGMENT IN RELATION TO THE THROUGHPUT CAPACITY OF THE FACILITY. ANY MEASURE HIGHER THAN ABOUT 0.80 INDICATES CONGESTION. THE NUMBER CAN EXCEED 1.00, INDICATING AN OVERLOADED SITUATION WITH STOP AND GO TRAFFIC. SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2015
1916
Figure
Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions
Daily Volumes
Citrus St Schleisman Rd
68th St
Limonite Ave
6th St
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Jurupa St
15 60
44,000
50,780 48,9 0
69,110
65,010
25,410
15,030
22,7 0
31 0
6,8 0
81,7 0
81,3 0
127,5 0
2810
78,9 0
83,360
23,980
1917
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
30 7.0 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Project trips were added to the Cumulative No Project traffic volumes to develop Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes. These volumes are summarized in Table 7-1 and are shown on Figure 7-1.

As shown in Table 7-1, the following locations are projected to operate at an unacceptable level under the Cumulative Plus Project Condition:

Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to Harrison Avenue
Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar Way
Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue
Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps
Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue
Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to Bellgrave Avenue
I-15: South of Limonite Avenue
I-15: North of SR-60
Cantu Galleano Ranch Road: I-15 Ramps to Hamner Avenue
Measures to mitigate cumulative impacts are summarized in Chapter 1. 1918
Leal Specific Plan
May 2015
31 TABLE 7-1
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT VS. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway
Segment Lanes Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus
Project
Volume V/C1LOS Volume V/C1LOS

1. Limonite Avenue: Archibald Avenue to Harrison
Avenue 6 44,000 0.82 D 50,300 0.93 E

2. Limonite Avenue: Harrison Avenue to Scholar
Way 6
50,780 0.94 E 57080 1.06 F

3. Limonite Avenue: Scholar Way to Hamner Avenue 6 48,960 0.91 E 80,460 1.49 F

4. Limonite Avenue: Hamner Avenue to I-15 Ramps 6 69,110 1.28 F 97,460 1.81 F

5. Limonite Avenue: I-15 Ramps to Wineville Avenue 6 65,010 1.21 F 71,310 1.32 F

6. Hamner Avenue: Citrus Street to Schleisman Road 6 25,400 0.47 C 31,700 0.59 C

7. Hamner Avenue: Schleisman Road to 68th Street 6 15,030 0.28 C 21,330 0.40 C

8. Hamner Avenue: 68th Street to Limonite Avenue 6 22,730 0.42 C 25,880 0.48 C

9. Hamner Avenue: Limonite Avenue to Bellgrave
Avenue 6 31,890 0.59 C 60,240 1.12 F

10. Scholar Way: Limonite Avenue to 68th Street 2 6,860 0.53 C 10,010 0.77 C

11. I-15: South of Limonite Avenue 6 81,750 0.70 C 94,350 0.80 D

12. I-15: Limonite Avenue to Cantu-Galleano Ranch
Road 6 81,340 0.69 C 90,790 0.77 C

13. I-15: North of SR-60 8 127,570 0.79 C 137,020 0.85 D

14. Cleveland Avenue: Bellgrave Avenue to Limonite
Avenue 4 2,810 0.22 C 5,960 0.46 C

15. SR-60: West of I-15 10 78,910 0.39 C 88,360 0.44 C

16. SR-60: East of I-15 8 83,360 0.52 C 92,810 0.58 C

17. Cantu Galleano Ranch Road: I-15 Ramps to
Hamner Avenue 4
23,980 0.67 C 30,280 0.84 D
Shading indicates unacceptable operations.

1. Volume to capacity ratio (V/C) measures the actual volume of vehicles observed or counted on any street segment in relation to the throughput capacity of the facility. Any measure higher than about 0.80 indicates congestion. The number can exceed 1.00, indicating an overloaded situation with stop and go traffic.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015
1919
Figure
Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions
Daily Volumes
Citrus St Schleisman Rd
68th St
Limonite Ave
6th St
Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd
Jurupa St
15 60
50,300
57,080 80,4 0
97,460
71,310
31,7 0
21,330
25,8 0
60,2 0
10,0 0
94,3 0
90, 0
137,0 0
5,960
88,3 0
92,810
30,280
1920
APPENDIX A: DATA COUNT SHEETS
1921
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_017

NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,921 6,407
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 16 18 34 79 77 156
00:15 17 12 29 82 73 155
00:30 11 14 25 106 98 204
00:45 7 51 9 53 16 104 74 341 81 329 155 670
01:00 10 12 22 68 86 154
01:15 8 9 17 77 86 163
01:30 6 8 14 90 100 190
01:45 8 32 8 37 16 69 84 319 95 367 179 686
02:00 9 8 17 84 82 166
02:15 7 5 12 84 100 184
02:30 7 16 23 128 119 247
02:45 12 35 24 53 36 88 82 378 102 403 184 781
03:00 8 13 21 113 83 196
03:15 9 21 30 103 107 210
03:30 10 22 32 135 139 274
03:45 15 42 51 107 66 149 113 464 165 494 278 958
04:00 18 11 29 111 156 267
04:15 25 19 44 110 124 234
04:30 33 29 62 101 154 255
04:45 29 105 69 128 98 233 117 439 146 580 263 1019
05:00 33 50 83 116 145 261
05:15 22 65 87 104 151 255
05:30 55 64 119 100 147 247
05:45 38 148 100 279 138 427 83 403 123 566 206 969
06:00 47 66 113 74 105 179
06:15 91 52 143 71 82 153
06:30 128 70 198 92 86 178
06:45 144 410 88 276 232 686 38 275 77 350 115 625
07:00 133 77 210 45 73 118
07:15 155 70 225 45 85 130
07:30 170 75 245 42 66 108
07:45 158 616 92 314 250 930 42 174 70 294 112 468
08:00 110 94 204 26 70 96
08:15 117 75 192 30 67 97
08:30 124 70 194 34 62 96
08:45 93 444 75 314 168 758 28 118 64 263 92 381
09:00 89 60 149 34 50 84
09:15 80 59 139 35 55 90
09:30 80 60 140 32 57 89
09:45 46 295 66 245 112 540 22 123 62 224 84 347
10:00 66 47 113 29 50 79
10:15 57 49 106 23 51 74
10:30 59 54 113 32 46 78
10:45 72 254 61 211 133 465 19 103 34 181 53 284
11:00 53 44 97 27 24 51
11:15 67 65 132 12 27 39
11:30 70 57 127 21 23 44
11:45 89 279 74 240 163 519 13 73 25 99 38 172
TOTALS 2711 2257 4968 3210 4150 7360
SPLIT % 54.6% 45.4% 40.3% 43.6% 56.4% 59.7%

NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,921 6,407
AM Peak Hour 07:00 07:30 07:00 15:30 15:45 15:30 AM Pk Volume 616 336 930 469 599 1053 Pk Hr Factor 0.906 0.894 0.930 0.869 0.908 0.947 7 9 Volume 0 0 1060 628 1688 0 0 842 1146 1988
7 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:30 07:00 16:15 16:30 16:30
7 9 Pk Volume 0 0 616 336 930 0 0 444 596 1034 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.906 0.894 0.930 0.000 0.000 0.949 0.968 0.983 Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume 4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor

DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,328
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd Bet. I 15 Ramps & Hamner Ave
Thursday
4/23/2015
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,328
1922
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_017

NB SB EB WB
0 0 6,031 6,481
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 15 12 27 65 59 124
00:15 13 17 30 85 68 153
00:30 17 11 28 121 78 199
00:45 16 61 10 50 26 111 61 332 91 296 152 628
01:00 12 10 22 70 78 148
01:15 14 7 21 78 84 162
01:30 11 11 22 93 113 206
01:45 14 51 8 36 22 87 90 331 87 362 177 693
02:00 5 6 11 86 93 179
02:15 9 9 18 90 103 193
02:30 15 13 28 117 86 203
02:45 11 40 19 47 30 87 98 391 119 401 217 792
03:00 7 16 23 99 81 180
03:15 8 18 26 101 103 204
03:30 10 23 33 155 104 259
03:45 18 43 46 103 64 146 105 460 110 398 215 858
04:00 17 20 37 92 138 230
04:15 33 13 46 126 145 271
04:30 43 35 78 134 157 291
04:45 37 130 62 130 99 260 90 442 124 564 214 1006
05:00 32 56 88 95 129 224
05:15 29 62 91 97 124 221
05:30 47 66 113 116 116 232
05:45 45 153 92 276 137 429 91 399 137 506 228 905
06:00 45 75 120 92 115 207
06:15 68 74 142 92 95 187
06:30 129 87 216 64 77 141
06:45 133 375 85 321 218 696 58 306 76 363 134 669
07:00 129 75 204 59 95 154
07:15 154 133 287 48 86 134
07:30 171 153 324 54 71 125
07:45 170 624 137 498 307 1122 26 187 59 311 85 498
08:00 110 102 212 36 62 98
08:15 131 99 230 39 79 118
08:30 130 84 214 29 56 85
08:45 97 468 84 369 181 837 33 137 72 269 105 406
09:00 79 54 133 30 53 83
09:15 69 44 113 23 68 91
09:30 66 58 124 25 56 81
09:45 57 271 78 234 135 505 28 106 68 245 96 351
10:00 71 56 127 20 45 65
10:15 64 65 129 19 30 49
10:30 66 49 115 29 40 69
10:45 62 263 55 225 117 488 30 98 37 152 67 250
11:00 48 52 100 20 32 52
11:15 74 61 135 28 22 50
11:30 75 50 125 34 24 58
11:45 69 266 66 229 135 495 15 97 18 96 33 193
TOTALS 2745 2518 5263 3286 3963 7249
SPLIT % 52.2% 47.8% 42.1% 45.3% 54.7% 57.9%

NB SB EB WB
0 0 6,031 6,481
AM Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:15 15:30 16:00 15:45 AM Pk Volume 624 525 1130 478 564 1007 Pk Hr Factor 0.912 0.858 0.872 0.771 0.898 0.865 7 9 Volume 0 0 1092 867 1959 0 0 841 1070 1911
7 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:15 16:15 16:00 16:00
7 9 Pk Volume 0 0 624 525 1130 0 0 445 564 1006 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.912 0.858 0.872 0.000 0.000 0.830 0.898 0.864 Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume 4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor

DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,512
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd Bet. I 15 Ramps & Hamner Ave
Wednesday
4/22/2015
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,512
1923
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_017

NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,955 6,208
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 9 15 24 68 63 131
00:15 15 18 33 74 79 153
00:30 12 17 29 95 77 172
00:45 4 40 14 64 18 104 80 317 86 305 166 622
01:00 5 4 9 74 97 171
01:15 11 6 17 72 88 160
01:30 11 13 24 97 82 179
01:45 8 35 8 31 16 66 69 312 96 363 165 675
02:00 8 6 14 99 93 192
02:15 8 4 12 75 102 177
02:30 7 9 16 129 98 227
02:45 13 36 28 47 41 83 112 415 83 376 195 791
03:00 16 16 32 98 72 170
03:15 10 11 21 114 100 214
03:30 14 24 38 127 104 231
03:45 22 62 40 91 62 153 112 451 117 393 229 844
04:00 21 18 39 117 121 238
04:15 28 22 50 112 144 256
04:30 36 23 59 106 134 240
04:45 29 114 60 123 89 237 95 430 155 554 250 984
05:00 26 50 76 95 136 231
05:15 33 64 97 116 134 250
05:30 46 81 127 122 161 283
05:45 46 151 98 293 144 444 83 416 129 560 212 976
06:00 52 65 117 82 105 187
06:15 83 61 144 82 125 207
06:30 115 73 188 97 82 179
06:45 136 386 83 282 219 668 56 317 99 411 155 728
07:00 138 70 208 59 65 124
07:15 148 60 208 38 72 110
07:30 163 70 233 54 52 106
07:45 149 598 93 293 242 891 46 197 61 250 107 447
08:00 114 96 210 40 65 105
08:15 104 83 187 30 53 83
08:30 98 85 183 38 54 92
08:45 91 407 73 337 164 744 38 146 70 242 108 388
09:00 86 80 166 27 58 85
09:15 67 52 119 30 67 97
09:30 67 56 123 32 56 88
09:45 57 277 71 259 128 536 33 122 64 245 97 367
10:00 64 63 127 26 51 77
10:15 69 40 109 16 38 54
10:30 56 51 107 30 38 68
10:45 61 250 46 200 107 450 28 100 25 152 53 252
11:00 58 69 127 16 22 38
11:15 74 53 127 26 19 45
11:30 67 66 133 34 20 54
11:45 80 279 63 251 143 530 21 97 25 86 46 183
TOTALS 2635 2271 4906 3320 3937 7257
SPLIT % 53.7% 46.3% 40.3% 45.7% 54.3% 59.7%

NB SB EB WB
0 0 5,955 6,208
AM Peak Hour 07:00 07:45 07:15 15:15 16:45 16:45 AM Pk Volume 598 357 893 470 586 1014 Pk Hr Factor 0.917 0.930 0.923 0.925 0.910 0.896 7 9 Volume 0 0 1005 630 1635 0 0 846 1114 1960
7 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:45 07:15 16:00 16:45 16:45
7 9 Pk Volume 0 0 598 357 893 0 0 430 586 1014 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.917 0.930 0.923 0.000 0.000 0.919 0.910 0.896 VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
4/21/2015
14:45
15:00

DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd Bet. I 15 Ramps & Hamner Ave
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
12,163
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15

DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
12,163

DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume
20:45
1924
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_014

NB SB EB WB
1,016 1,086 0 0
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 2 2 8 10 18
00:15 1 1 2 8 10 18
00:30 1 0 1 11 5 16
00:45 1 3 0 3 1 6 5 32 9 34 14 66
01:00 0 1 1 8 7 15
01:15 0 0 0 6 8 14
01:30 1 0 1 10 7 17
01:45 1 2 0 1 1 3 8 32 9 31 17 63
02:00 0 1 1 6 14 20
02:15 0 1 1 7 16 23
02:30 0 1 1 10 36 46
02:45 0 0 3 0 3 19 42 42 108 61 150
03:00 0 0 0 46 25 71
03:15 1 0 1 39 21 60
03:30 0 0 0 41 25 66
03:45 0 1 0 0 1 13 139 27 98 40 237
04:00 0 1 1 20 19 39
04:15 0 3 3 22 15 37
04:30 3 3 6 21 21 42
04:45 2 5 1 8 3 13 17 80 16 71 33 151
05:00 3 7 10 20 27 47
05:15 0 2 2 22 22 44
05:30 0 4 4 19 31 50
05:45 4 7 6 19 10 26 15 76 24 104 39 180
06:00 5 8 13 25 25 50
06:15 6 6 12 15 22 37
06:30 17 17 34 20 14 34
06:45 22 50 27 58 49 108 10 70 14 75 24 145
07:00 19 23 42 16 14 30
07:15 35 43 78 18 18 36
07:30 33 26 59 16 12 28
07:45 32 119 26 118 58 237 18 68 11 55 29 123
08:00 25 58 83 16 11 27
08:15 31 26 57 9 6 15
08:30 29 12 41 5 9 14
08:45 11 96 13 109 24 205 14 44 5 31 19 75
09:00 9 8 17 11 9 20
09:15 9 16 25 12 4 16
09:30 5 7 12 8 4 12
09:45 7 30 10 41 17 71 1 32 7 24 8 56
10:00 15 15 30 5 8 13
10:15 8 7 15 5 2 7
10:30 3 5 8 6 5 11
10:45 10 36 8 35 18 71 1 17 4 19 5 36
11:00 9 3 12 1 0 1
11:15 6 6 12 2 3 5
11:30 10 10 20 1 2 3
11:45 6 31 15 34 21 65 0 4 2 7 2 11
TOTALS 380 429 809 636 657 1293
SPLIT % 47.0% 53.0% 38.5% 49.2% 50.8% 61.5%

NB SB EB WB
1,016 1,086 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:15 07:15 07:15 14:45 14:30 14:45 AM Pk Volume 125 153 278 145 124 258 Pk Hr Factor 0.893 0.659 0.837 0.788 0.738 0.908 7 9 Volume 215 227 0 0 442 156 175 0 0 331
7 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:15 07:15 16:00 17:00 17:00
7 9 Pk Volume 125 153 0 0 278 80 104 0 0 180 Pk Hr Factor 0.893 0.659 0.000 0.000 0.837 0.909 0.839 0.000 0.000 0.900 Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume 4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor

DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
2,102
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cleveland Ave Bet. Bellgrave St & Limonite Ave
Thursday
4/23/2015
DAILY TOTALS Total
2,102
1925
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_014

NB SB EB WB
1,056 1,123 0 0
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 1 1 8 10 18
00:15 2 2 4 10 6 16
00:30 0 1 1 10 6 16
00:45 2 4 1 5 3 9 11 39 8 30 19 69
01:00 1 0 1 7 11 18
01:15 1 2 3 9 19 28
01:30 1 0 1 17 26 43
01:45 0 3 1 3 1 6 12 45 33 89 45 134
02:00 0 0 0 30 20 50
02:15 0 1 1 25 21 46
02:30 0 0 0 16 14 30
02:45 1 1 0 1 1 2 14 85 22 77 36 162
03:00 1 0 1 33 17 50
03:15 0 2 2 24 23 47
03:30 0 1 1 27 17 44
03:45 1 2 0 3 1 5 19 103 14 71 33 174
04:00 0 0 0 13 17 30
04:15 1 3 4 18 21 39
04:30 2 1 3 12 25 37
04:45 2 5 4 8 6 13 18 61 24 87 42 148
05:00 2 3 5 17 21 38
05:15 1 3 4 19 27 46
05:30 3 7 10 18 27 45
05:45 4 10 4 17 8 27 27 81 27 102 54 183
06:00 4 16 20 25 19 44
06:15 12 11 23 10 20 30
06:30 13 16 29 19 19 38
06:45 19 48 13 56 32 104 20 74 19 77 39 151
07:00 14 19 33 32 29 61
07:15 19 18 37 17 13 30
07:30 20 24 44 12 13 25
07:45 27 80 44 105 71 185 14 75 12 67 26 142
08:00 26 72 98 19 10 29
08:15 34 30 64 11 14 25
08:30 34 22 56 9 10 19
08:45 17 111 18 142 35 253 9 48 6 40 15 88
09:00 13 11 24 10 8 18
09:15 8 9 17 15 9 24
09:30 9 6 15 16 10 26
09:45 5 35 7 33 12 68 6 47 2 29 8 76
10:00 7 6 13 5 8 13
10:15 6 5 11 3 2 5
10:30 11 5 16 7 5 12
10:45 6 30 9 25 15 55 3 18 2 17 5 35
11:00 11 12 23 2 3 5
11:15 14 6 20 3 1 4
11:30 9 9 18 0 3 3
11:45 9 43 5 32 14 75 3 8 0 7 3 15
TOTALS 372 430 802 684 693 1377
SPLIT % 46.4% 53.6% 36.8% 49.7% 50.3% 63.2%

NB SB EB WB
1,056 1,123 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:45 15:00 17:00 17:15 AM Pk Volume 121 170 289 103 102 189 Pk Hr Factor 0.890 0.590 0.737 0.780 0.944 0.875 7 9 Volume 191 247 0 0 438 142 189 0 0 331
7 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:45 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 9 Pk Volume 121 170 0 0 289 81 102 0 0 183 Pk Hr Factor 0.890 0.590 0.000 0.000 0.737 0.750 0.944 0.000 0.000 0.847 Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume 4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor

DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
2,179
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cleveland Ave Bet. Bellgrave St & Limonite Ave
Wednesday
4/22/2015
DAILY TOTALS Total
2,179
1926
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_014

NB SB EB WB
969 1,078 0 0
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 2 1 3 14 17 31
00:15 0 2 2 16 9 25
00:30 4 0 4 11 6 17
00:45 2 8 2 5 4 13 7 48 4 36 11 84
01:00 1 1 2 7 9 16
01:15 1 0 1 11 6 17
01:30 2 1 3 7 8 15
01:45 0 4 0 2 0 6 7 32 12 35 19 67
02:00 0 0 0 6 16 22
02:15 0 0 0 10 16 26
02:30 1 0 1 15 34 49
02:45 1 2 0 1 2 28 59 39 105 67 164
03:00 0 1 1 49 36 85
03:15 0 0 0 36 20 56
03:30 0 0 0 38 27 65
03:45 1 1 1 2 2 3 13 136 29 112 42 248
04:00 2 0 2 26 19 45
04:15 1 4 5 12 15 27
04:30 3 1 4 23 27 50
04:45 2 8 3 8 5 16 11 72 31 92 42 164
05:00 4 1 5 11 20 31
05:15 1 4 5 13 19 32
05:30 3 9 12 13 22 35
05:45 3 11 4 18 7 29 14 51 15 76 29 127
06:00 1 12 13 18 22 40
06:15 10 13 23 21 15 36
06:30 19 12 31 13 11 24
06:45 16 46 14 51 30 97 11 63 13 61 24 124
07:00 30 26 56 14 17 31
07:15 26 36 62 11 13 24
07:30 31 26 57 12 11 23
07:45 36 123 26 114 62 237 9 46 10 51 19 97
08:00 18 71 89 10 12 22
08:15 35 28 63 5 4 9
08:30 24 17 41 7 9 16
08:45 13 90 9 125 22 215 8 30 8 33 16 63
09:00 9 10 19 8 6 14
09:15 6 10 16 13 12 25
09:30 10 12 22 3 0 3
09:45 7 32 7 39 14 71 6 30 5 23 11 53
10:00 8 7 15 3 2 5
10:15 3 11 14 1 6 7
10:30 9 5 14 3 1 4
10:45 9 29 10 33 19 62 0 7 3 12 3 19
11:00 9 11 20 2 3 5
11:15 10 4 14 1 3 4
11:30 7 10 17 2 0 2
11:45 9 35 13 38 22 73 1 6 1 7 2 13
TOTALS 389 435 824 580 643 1223
SPLIT % 47.2% 52.8% 40.3% 47.4% 52.6% 59.7%

NB SB EB WB
969 1,078 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:30 14:45 14:30 14:45 AM Pk Volume 123 159 271 151 129 273 Pk Hr Factor 0.854 0.560 0.761 0.770 0.827 0.803 7 9 Volume 213 239 0 0 452 123 168 0 0 291
7 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:30 16:00 16:30 16:00
7 9 Pk Volume 123 159 0 0 271 72 97 0 0 164 Pk Hr Factor 0.854 0.560 0.000 0.000 0.761 0.692 0.782 0.000 0.000 0.820 VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
4/21/2015
14:45
15:00

DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Cleveland Ave Bet. Bellgrave St & Limonite Ave
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
2,047
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15

DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
2,047

DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume
20:45
1927
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_010

NB SB EB WB
2,051 2,713 0 0
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 5 5 10 13 43 56
00:15 3 5 8 24 32 56
00:30 2 1 3 22 22 44
00:45 2 12 2 13 4 25 18 77 34 131 52 208
01:00 1 0 1 25 33 58
01:15 3 4 7 24 33 57
01:30 1 2 3 21 23 44
01:45 2 7 0 6 2 13 28 98 32 121 60 219
02:00 1 1 2 20 19 39
02:15 3 1 4 30 27 57
02:30 1 2 3 44 59 103
02:45 0 5 2 6 2 11 69 163 61 166 130 329
03:00 0 6 6 57 68 125
03:15 0 1 1 47 81 128
03:30 1 1 2 45 61 106
03:45 1 2 2 10 3 12 36 185 45 255 81 440
04:00 2 1 3 40 55 95
04:15 1 1 2 39 34 73
04:30 2 7 9 34 41 75
04:45 2 7 6 15 8 22 40 153 36 166 76 319
05:00 4 6 10 41 60 101
05:15 6 7 13 44 41 85
05:30 3 8 11 57 33 90
05:45 3 16 10 31 13 47 49 191 41 175 90 366
06:00 10 14 24 49 56 105
06:15 10 15 25 59 64 123
06:30 23 45 68 46 61 107
06:45 20 63 35 109 55 172 51 205 40 221 91 426
07:00 40 36 76 46 53 99
07:15 61 65 126 36 47 83
07:30 40 87 127 36 38 74
07:45 26 167 77 265 103 432 33 151 28 166 61 317
08:00 27 91 118 23 38 61
08:15 45 86 131 24 32 56
08:30 20 67 87 21 29 50
08:45 14 106 26 270 40 376 17 85 34 133 51 218
09:00 19 36 55 35 27 62
09:15 17 23 40 14 29 43
09:30 19 24 43 23 28 51
09:45 18 73 31 114 49 187 17 89 11 95 28 184
10:00 12 24 36 12 10 22
10:15 18 22 40 10 9 19
10:30 13 23 36 13 8 21
10:45 20 63 25 94 45 157 6 41 2 29 8 70
11:00 16 27 43 3 4 7
11:15 18 26 44 4 3 7
11:30 20 29 49 9 0 9
11:45 17 71 30 112 47 183 5 21 3 10 8 31
TOTALS 592 1045 1637 1459 1668 3127
SPLIT % 36.2% 63.8% 34.4% 46.7% 53.3% 65.6%

NB SB EB WB
2,051 2,713 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:00 07:30 07:30 14:45 14:45 14:45 AM Pk Volume 167 341 479 218 271 489 Pk Hr Factor 0.684 0.937 0.914 0.790 0.836 0.940 7 9 Volume 273 535 0 0 808 344 341 0 0 685
7 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:30 07:30 17:00 16:30 17:00
7 9 Pk Volume 167 341 0 0 479 191 178 0 0 366 Pk Hr Factor 0.684 0.937 0.000 0.000 0.914 0.838 0.742 0.000 0.000 0.906 Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume 4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor

DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
4,764
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Scholar Wy Bet. 68th St & Limonite Ave
Thursday
4/23/2015
DAILY TOTALS Total
4,764
1928
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_010

NB SB EB WB
1,960 2,709 0 0
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 3 5 8 15 15 30
00:15 4 2 6 10 24 34
00:30 2 4 6 16 25 41
00:45 1 10 1 12 2 22 16 57 21 85 37 142
01:00 1 2 3 22 29 51
01:15 0 1 1 30 28 58
01:30 2 3 5 33 76 109
01:45 2 5 1 7 3 12 43 128 62 195 105 323
02:00 2 1 3 41 44 85
02:15 1 1 2 45 65 110
02:30 0 3 3 31 48 79
02:45 0 3 2 7 2 10 51 168 30 187 81 355
03:00 0 5 5 37 65 102
03:15 1 2 3 36 50 86
03:30 2 1 3 39 44 83
03:45 3 6 2 10 5 16 36 148 40 199 76 347
04:00 0 2 2 19 36 55
04:15 0 3 3 32 38 70
04:30 3 9 12 30 40 70
04:45 2 5 7 21 9 26 38 119 41 155 79 274
05:00 1 7 8 39 38 77
05:15 4 8 12 31 49 80
05:30 2 6 8 62 48 110
05:45 1 8 10 31 11 39 54 186 34 169 88 355
06:00 10 15 25 59 46 105
06:15 8 20 28 37 47 84
06:30 15 35 50 37 44 81
06:45 11 44 28 98 39 142 44 177 50 187 94 364
07:00 23 28 51 47 73 120
07:15 31 39 70 33 38 71
07:30 21 58 79 37 37 74
07:45 35 110 70 195 105 305 32 149 45 193 77 342
08:00 40 87 127 35 48 83
08:15 55 84 139 34 32 66
08:30 42 68 110 34 30 64
08:45 44 181 64 303 108 484 15 118 18 128 33 246
09:00 17 48 65 21 36 57
09:15 29 23 52 20 33 53
09:30 16 26 42 12 16 28
09:45 11 73 23 120 34 193 10 63 22 107 32 170
10:00 13 23 36 10 23 33
10:15 12 36 48 14 11 25
10:30 12 27 39 8 8 16
10:45 16 53 32 118 48 171 7 39 11 53 18 92
11:00 23 41 64 9 6 15
11:15 25 29 54 7 3 10
11:30 25 22 47 5 1 6
11:45 15 88 23 115 38 203 1 22 4 14 5 36
TOTALS 586 1037 1623 1374 1672 3046
SPLIT % 36.1% 63.9% 34.8% 45.1% 54.9% 65.2%

NB SB EB WB
1,960 2,709 0 0
AM Peak Hour 08:00 07:45 08:00 17:30 13:30 13:30 AM Pk Volume 181 309 484 212 247 409 Pk Hr Factor 0.823 0.888 0.871 0.855 0.813 0.930 7 9 Volume 291 498 0 0 789 305 324 0 0 629
7 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:45 08:00 17:00 16:45 17:00
7 9 Pk Volume 181 309 0 0 484 186 176 0 0 355 Pk Hr Factor 0.823 0.888 0.000 0.000 0.871 0.750 0.898 0.000 0.000 0.807 Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume 4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor

DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
4,669
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Scholar Wy Bet. 68th St & Limonite Ave
Wednesday
4/22/2015
DAILY TOTALS Total
4,669
1929
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_010

NB SB EB WB
1,888 2,558 0 0
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 2 2 4 22 43 65
00:15 4 1 5 19 29 48
00:30 2 2 4 16 22 38
00:45 4 12 2 7 6 19 21 78 25 119 46 197
01:00 2 1 3 22 17 39
01:15 0 0 0 17 23 40
01:30 2 1 3 17 13 30
01:45 3 7 2 4 5 11 14 70 20 73 34 143
02:00 1 0 1 17 22 39
02:15 1 1 2 27 31 58
02:30 0 2 2 31 60 91
02:45 0 2 3 6 3 8 69 144 73 186 142 330
03:00 0 3 3 67 61 128
03:15 0 2 2 43 81 124
03:30 1 0 1 48 63 111
03:45 2 3 3 8 5 11 46 204 49 254 95 458
04:00 0 0 0 35 56 91
04:15 0 3 3 43 40 83
04:30 1 12 13 36 44 80
04:45 4 5 7 22 11 27 43 157 39 179 82 336
05:00 1 6 7 40 28 68
05:15 3 6 9 40 43 83
05:30 5 11 16 49 50 99
05:45 5 14 7 30 12 44 49 178 49 170 98 348
06:00 5 13 18 37 40 77
06:15 8 19 27 37 48 85
06:30 21 34 55 32 57 89
06:45 19 53 36 102 55 155 35 141 36 181 71 322
07:00 45 45 90 33 51 84
07:15 63 52 115 25 50 75
07:30 34 88 122 37 41 78
07:45 31 173 68 253 99 426 38 133 31 173 69 306
08:00 28 83 111 29 29 58
08:15 39 89 128 13 25 38
08:30 23 59 82 18 17 35
08:45 19 109 41 272 60 381 21 81 24 95 45 176
09:00 12 31 43 32 22 54
09:15 12 28 40 22 19 41
09:30 16 25 41 11 22 33
09:45 15 55 22 106 37 161 17 82 15 78 32 160
10:00 14 21 35 9 8 17
10:15 15 32 47 6 6 12
10:30 9 21 30 3 11 14
10:45 14 52 24 98 38 150 6 24 5 30 11 54
11:00 17 24 41 3 5 8
11:15 26 23 49 7 4 11
11:30 19 30 49 3 5 8
11:45 31 93 21 98 52 191 5 18 0 14 5 32
TOTALS 578 1006 1584 1310 1552 2862
SPLIT % 36.5% 63.5% 35.6% 45.8% 54.2% 64.4%

NB SB EB WB
1,888 2,558 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:00 07:30 07:30 14:45 14:45 14:45 AM Pk Volume 173 328 460 227 278 505 Pk Hr Factor 0.687 0.921 0.898 0.822 0.858 0.889 7 9 Volume 282 525 0 0 807 335 349 0 0 684
7 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:30 07:30 17:00 16:00 17:00
7 9 Pk Volume 173 328 0 0 460 178 179 0 0 348 Pk Hr Factor 0.687 0.921 0.000 0.000 0.898 0.908 0.799 0.000 0.000 0.879 VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
4/21/2015
14:45
15:00

DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Scholar Wy Bet. 68th St & Limonite Ave
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
4,446
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15

DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
4,446

DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume
20:45
1930
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_009

NB SB EB WB
7,510 7,480 0 0
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 7 17 24 86 121 207
00:15 3 9 12 105 113 218
00:30 6 13 19 108 103 211
00:45 6 22 9 48 15 70 97 396 99 436 196 832
01:00 8 6 14 138 106 244
01:15 3 7 10 95 75 170
01:30 3 9 12 116 84 200
01:45 11 25 5 27 16 52 127 476 97 362 224 838
02:00 2 10 12 96 105 201
02:15 3 1 4 105 137 242
02:30 4 8 12 117 126 243
02:45 9 18 4 23 13 41 123 441 182 550 305 991
03:00 14 9 23 157 139 296
03:15 5 6 11 125 143 268
03:30 8 9 17 128 167 295
03:45 17 44 9 33 26 77 147 557 216 665 363 1222
04:00 13 7 20 106 198 304
04:15 21 10 31 137 183 320
04:30 32 12 44 141 231 372
04:45 38 104 14 43 52 147 115 499 220 832 335 1331
05:00 25 12 37 96 200 296
05:15 42 26 68 151 211 362
05:30 44 26 70 115 209 324
05:45 56 167 17 81 73 248 119 481 184 804 303 1285
06:00 55 27 82 113 161 274
06:15 79 38 117 94 153 247
06:30 111 43 154 132 132 264
06:45 127 372 70 178 197 550 88 427 117 563 205 990
07:00 154 71 225 108 125 233
07:15 171 66 237 112 130 242
07:30 184 71 255 94 112 206
07:45 167 676 79 287 246 963 94 408 98 465 192 873
08:00 140 89 229 77 97 174
08:15 151 66 217 103 95 198
08:30 136 70 206 86 78 164
08:45 102 529 63 288 165 817 100 366 81 351 181 717
09:00 85 66 151 67 57 124
09:15 96 65 161 67 74 141
09:30 95 76 171 52 49 101
09:45 79 355 80 287 159 642 57 243 44 224 101 467
10:00 49 84 133 35 42 77
10:15 77 75 152 21 38 59
10:30 98 79 177 34 44 78
10:45 90 314 76 314 166 628 30 120 42 166 72 286
11:00 94 90 184 17 28 45
11:15 104 89 193 10 19 29
11:30 104 93 197 19 27 46
11:45 113 415 85 357 198 772 9 55 22 96 31 151
TOTALS 3041 1966 5007 4469 5514 9983
SPLIT % 60.7% 39.3% 33.4% 44.8% 55.2% 66.6%

NB SB EB WB
7,510 7,480 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:00 11:45 07:15 15:00 16:30 16:30 AM Pk Volume 676 422 967 557 862 1365 Pk Hr Factor 0.918 0.872 0.948 0.887 0.933 0.917 7 9 Volume 1205 575 0 0 1780 980 1636 0 0 2616
7 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:15 16:30 16:30 16:30
7 9 Pk Volume 676 305 0 0 967 503 862 0 0 1365 Pk Hr Factor 0.918 0.857 0.000 0.000 0.948 0.833 0.933 0.000 0.000 0.917 Pk Hr Factor 4 6 Volume 4 6 Peak Hour 4 6 Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor

DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
14,990
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Miliken Ave/Hamner Ave Bet. Limonite Ave & Bellgrave St Thursday
4/23/2015
DAILY TOTALS Total
14,990
1931
Day: City: Eastvale
Date: Project #: CA15_6063_009