Ontario City Council
November 4, 2025

5. To the best of your knowledge, have there ever been any incidents of chemical spills/dumping or waste disposal on or close to this property?

6. Are there any wells on the site? If yes, what are they used for? SECTION II – Developed Property

1. What is your involvement with this property and when did that involvement begin?

2. To the best of your knowledge, how long has the current development been on the property? What was there before the current development?

3. Does this facility use, store, manufacture, or dispose of chemicals or petroleum products? What types (be as specific as possible)?

4. If the answer to Question 3 above was “Yes,” may we review MSDS, business plans, hazardous material inventories, manifest files, SPCC plans (whatever is applicable)?

5. Do you have any environmental permits (wastewater discharge, air emissions, hazardous material storage, etc.)? Have there ever been any Notices of Violation in regards to any of these permits?
1618
Owner/Operator Questionnaire

6. Have any environmental investigations ever been conducted on this property? When and why? Are there any reports available that we can review?

7. Has the facility ever been subject to an environmental health and safety regulatory action, complaint, or lawsuit? When and why? What was the outcome?

8. Have there been any know chemical spills or releases on this property?

9. Are there any underground or aboveground storage tanks on this property? How many? Sizes? Ages?

10. Where is wastewater discharged to? To the best of your knowledge, have there ever been any onsite wastewater disposal systems (septic tank, leach field, cesspool, dry well, etc.)?

11. To the best of your knowledge, are there any environmental liens or deed restrictions associated with this property? If yes, please describe.
1619
1 The document is designed to comply with Appendix X3, User Questionnaire, of ASTM E1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, and the U.S. EPA AAI regulations (40 CFR §312).

Environmental Consulting & Contracting
Project No.:

Project Name:

USER QUESTIONNAIRE1
Site Name: ____________________________________________ Site Address: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Interviewee: ____________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________
In reference to Section 6, User Responsibilities, of the ASTM E1527-21 Standard Practice, the Environmental Professional (SCS Engineers) for this Phase I ESA is required to inquire with the user (Client) regarding their knowledge or possession of information that may assist in identifying recognized environmental conditions (RECs) pertaining to the Subject Property.

In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the “Brownfields Amendments”), the user must conduct the following inquiries required by 40 CFR §312.25, §312.28, §312.29, §312.30, and §312.31. These inquiries must also be conducted by U.S. EPA Brownfield Assessment and Characterization grantees. The user should provide the following information to the Environmental Professional overseeing this Phase I ESA. Failure to conduct these inquiries could result in a determination that “all appropriate inquiries” is not complete. (1) Environmental Cleanup Liens (40 CFR §312.25). Did a search of land title records (or judicial records where appropriate) identify any environmental liens filed or recorded against the Subject Property under federal, tribal, state or local law?  Yes  No If Yes, explain and/or provide information:
(2) Activity and Use Limitations (40 CFR §312.26(a)(1)(v) and (vi)). Did a search of land title records (or judicial records, where appropriate) identify any Activity Use Limitations (AULs) such as engineering controls, land use restrictions, or institutional controls that are in place at the Subject Property and/or have been filed or recorded against the Subject Property under federal, tribal, state or local law?  Yes  No
 Yes  No
If Yes, explain and/or provide information:
1620
User Questionnaire

(3) Specialized Knowledge or Experience (40 CFR §312.28). Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the Subject Property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the Subject Property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business?  Yes  No
If Yes, explain and/or provide information:
(4) Purchase Price vs. Fair Market Value (40 CFR §312.29). Does the purchase price being paid for this Subject Property reasonably reflect its fair market value?  Yes  No If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the Subject Property?  Yes  No
If Yes, explain and/or provide information:
(5) Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information (40 CFR §312.30). Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the Subject Property that would help the Environmental Professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example:
(a) Do you know the past use of the Subject Property?
(b) Do you know specific chemicals that are present or once were present at the Subject Property? (c) Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the Subject Property? (d) Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the Subject Property?  Yes  No to all
If Yes, explain and/or provide information:
(6) Obvious Indications of Contamination (40 CFR §312.31). Based on your knowledge and experience related to the Subject Property, are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of releases at the Subject Property?  Yes  No If Yes, explain and/or provide information:
1621
Phase I ESA – 10.02-acres at NE Corner of Amherst and Eucalyptus Avenues www.scsengineers.com Appendix G
Project Personnel Resumes
1622
SCS Resume – Rauzon www.scsengineers.com
1 J. JUSTIN RAUZON, REPA
Education
MEM – Environmental Management, Duke University, 2014
BS – Zoology (Double Emphasis: Human and Marine Biology), Brigham Young University, 2004
Professional Licenses
Registered Environmental Property Assessor (REPA), National Registry of Environmental Professionals (No. 485639)
Specialty Certifications
OSHA 40-Hour Health and Safety Training for Hazardous Waste Workers 8-Hour Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Site Activities OSHA 16-Hour Initial Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Training Thermo Scientific Niton XRF Analyzer Operator’s Training First-Aid and CPR Training
Professional Affiliations
National Ground Water Association, Member (2015 to Present) Industrial Environmental Association, Member (2018 to Present) Professional Experience
Mr. Rauzon has more than 16 years of environmental services experience, all with SCS. Fluent in Spanish, Mr. Rauzon is an SCS Project Manager with a diverse background in biological and environmental sciences, and regularly performs environmental assessments and compliance audits at sites in the U.S. and in Latin America. He has technical and management experience with soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigations at industrial, commercial, landfill, greenfield, and residential properties. He has extensive experience with environmental laws and regulations in both the U.S. and Mexico. His work experience includes all project phases, from development of cost estimates for various site assessment and cleanup programs to implementing remediation programs and interfacing with regulatory agencies. His experience with and understanding of these issues led to his appointment as a National Partner in Environmental Due Diligence in 2021.

Selected projects in which he has participated are described below.

Environmental Management
Due Diligence Assessments of Properties Prior to Real Estate Transfer of Properties in California, Arizona, New Jersey, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. Mr. Rauzon has completed numerous due diligence assessments of properties prior to acquisition, disposition, or loan financing by investment banks, insurance companies, corporations, non-profit entities, real Justin Rauzon, REPA
1623
SCS Resume – Rauzon www.scsengineers.com
2 estate developers, and private parties. Projects have included Phase I assessments that meet federal All Appropriate Investigation (AAI) regulations, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, and client-specific guidelines; inspections for asbestos and lead-based paint; Phase II investigations; preparation of abatement and remediation cost estimates; and regulatory agency coordination. These projects frequently involve review of previous environmental reports and investigation of current and past on-site operations, regulatory agency records searches, evaluation of historical property use information, identification of nearby potentially contaminated sites, and development of appropriate conclusions about environmental risks. Investigations involve preparation of work plans, soil boring and subsequent sampling, groundwater well installation and sampling, soil gas probe installation and sampling, precision mapping, evaluation of contaminants in accordance with regulatory requirements or generally accepted guidelines, preparation of investigation report, and analysis of applicable remedial alternatives. Mr. Rauzon has served as the Project Manager for sites that have received regulatory closure from various regulatory agencies.

Planning, Coordinating, and Supervising Remedial Actions That Included Excavation, Transport, and Disposal of Contaminated Soils and Water. Investigations involve preparation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs), direction of fieldwork, oversight of confirmatory sampling, and interfacing with regulatory agencies.

Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting for Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Simi Valley, CA. Mr. Rauzon is a key team member for the sampling and monitoring of 10 groundwater wells and 5 leachate locations to evaluate potential releases from waste units affecting groundwater at Simi Valley Landfill. He also prepares the annual leachate control system’s effectiveness reports and documents results of resampling of groundwater wells based on initial statistical indications of a release.

The Characterization of Hazardous Waste Materials. These projects include collection of soil and/or liquid samples to profile the waste materials, interpretation of laboratory results, and evaluation of disposal/recycling options to minimize the costs and liabilities to clients associated with the removal of wastes.

Assessment and Certification of Hazardous Waste Tank Systems. These investigations involve working with a Professional Engineer to complete field inspections of hazardous waste tanks, associated ancillary equipment, leak-detection systems, and secondary containment devices, as well as interfacing with regulatory agencies.

Project Management
Project Manager for Environmental Due Diligence Assessment and Health and Safety Program Review of Six Geothermal Power Plants Located in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.

SCS services included time-sensitive field inspection, environmental document and permit review, and preparation of environmental risk evaluation reports. Mr. Rauzon reviewed and assessed plant health and safety plans and procedures; facility response plans; incident reports; and arrangements for plant selection, appointment, and management of support contractors. SCS provided support consulting services in the successful client plant acquisition and integration support.

Project Manager for Due Diligence Investigations at Dry Mill and Biofuel Distillery Plant, Madera, CA. SCS services included Phase I environmental assessment and Phase II soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigation to support client’s acquisition of an ethanol production plant at which a lumber mill was historically located. SCS provided additional consulting services related to remediation cost analysis and management of ongoing environmental issues. 1624
SCS Resume – Rauzon www.scsengineers.com
3 Project Manager for Due Diligence Investigation of a Portfolio With More Than 300 Industrial Sites Throughout Mexico. SCS services included conducting Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments within the strict timeline of the $1.2 billion industrial real estate transaction.

Subsequent to the closing of the deal, SCS provided ongoing consulting services to facilitate integration and management of various facilities with ongoing environmental issues.

Project Manager for Hazardous Materials Consulting Services in Support of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project in Orange and Riverside Counties, CA. SCS services included sampling and inventory of potentially hazardous materials associated with more than 25 bridges along the SR-91 and I-15 freeways; environmental assessments on properties within the proposed freeway expansion area; and soil testing for herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides on several land parcels.

Project Manager for Investigation and Remediation of Industrial Facility Located in Fontana, CA.

SCS conducted a series of environmental assessments, investigations, and remedial activities that provided sufficient information to identify environmental issues and business risks, and facilitate the client’s successful purchase of property. A number of recognized environmental conditions, including releases of coal tar, solvents, heavy metals, and total petroleum hydrocarbons, were identified.

Project activities conducted during the acquisition and redevelopment of the property included shallow and deep soil and soil vapor investigations; installation of groundwater monitoring wells and subsequent groundwater sampling; subsequent remedial excavation under San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) oversight to obtain closure; and excavation and off-site disposition of contaminated soil.

Health and Safety
Mr. Rauzon has participated in a certified health and safety program in compliance with OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.120. He is knowledgeable in incident response operations, team functions, personnel safety, and field equipment. He is able to recognize and evaluate potential chemical and physical hazards and associated risks in field operations; discuss and use personal protective equipment (PPE), such as respiratory protection and protective clothing; use and interpret directreading instruments; and examine and establish Standard Operating Safety Guidelines to ensure safe and effective response operations.

Publications
Rauzon, J. J., “Mexico: Environmental Due Diligence and the Mexican Waste Law,” EHS Journal, November 13, 2010.
1625
SCS Resume – Peterson www.scsengineers.com
1 MADDIE PETERSON
Education
BA – Environmental Science and Policy, California State University, Long Beach, 2022 AA – Liberal Arts and Sciences/Communications, College of the Canyons, 2017 Specialty Certifications
40-Hour HAZWOPER Trained
SCAQMD Dust Control Officer Trained (Rule 403)
Professional Experience
Ms. Peterson is an Associate Professional who has participated in Phase I and II site investigations, sampling and monitoring at landfills, methane assessments, geophysical surveys and monitoring well installations, and pesticide and heavy metal evaluations. She has a background in environmental law and policy and sustainability. As an undergraduate, she performed heavy metal analysis and research regarding lead and zinc concentrations in soil samples for the Environmental Science and Policy Capstone Project in Long Beach (2022), and has volunteered for habitat restoration and other environmental improvement projects in Southern California.

Her SCS project work includes:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). Ms. Peterson has contributed to Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), completed in accordance with various lender, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), or government guidelines. Activities consisted of evaluating current and past on-site operations, generating historical property use information, identifying potentially contaminated sites in the surrounding areas, reviewing previous reports and/or files maintained by regulatory agencies, and developing conclusions regarding the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) and recommendations for further investigation.

Site Investigations. Ms. Peterson has conducted soil gas surveys and soil sampling with precision mapping of sites, installation of soil borings, lithologic logging, collection of soil samples, and evaluation of subsurface contaminants in soil and groundwater in accordance with regulatory agency requirements or generally accepted guidelines.

Quarterly and Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Reports. Ms. Peterson has assisted in preparation of numerous routine monitoring reports for various sites with oversight of various regulatory agencies. Facilities have included landfills across California and manufacturing sites.

Construction Quality Assurance (CQA). Ms. Peterson has assisted in CQA and oversight of the construction of gas collection and control system (GCCS) vertical well installation at Simi Valley, Antelope Valley, and El Sobrante Landfills.

Investigation and Remediation for Industrial Facility Redevelopment, Downey, CA. SCS conducted a series of environmental assessments, investigations, and remedial activities that provided sufficient information to identify the environmental issues, and business risks to facilitate the client’s successful purchase of property for redevelopment to a commercial warehouse and office. A number of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified. Ms. Peterson provided oversight for numerous activities conducted concurrently with the redevelopment of the property, including the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, both on and off site; oversight of well development; soil vapor extraction (SVE) network monitoring; and permitting and removal of clarifiers. 1626

DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR
TRACT NO. 20730
ESPERANZA – PA II

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE & AMHERST AVENUE

ONTARIO, CA
MARCH 2025
PREPARED BY:

WALDEN & ASSOCIATES
2552 WHITE ROAD, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92614
JN: 2175-996-001
2552 WHITE ROAD, SUITE B • IRVINE, CA 92614
949/660-0110 FAX: 660-0418

CIVIL ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - LAND SURVEYORS
1627

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
DISCUSSION 1

PURPOSE

DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED

METHODOLOGY

SUMMARY
VICINITY MAP 2

HYDROLOGIC CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL PER SAN BERNARDINO

COUNTY HYDROLOGY MANUAL
3 ISOHYETAL MAP 4
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY –

EXISTING CONDITIONS
5 PROPOSED CONDITIONS
CATCH BASIN SIZING (100-YEAR) CALCULATIONS 6
HYDROGRAPH 7
ORIFICE CALCULATION 8

HYDROLOGY MAP POCKET

EXISTING CONDITION

DEVELOPED CONDITION
1628
SECTION 1

DISCUSSION
1629
PURPOSE:

This report was prepared to supplement the preliminary grading plan for Esperanza – PA II, Tentative Tract No. 20730 in the City of Ontario, County of San Beranrdino.

The project is bounded by Clifton Avenue to the north, Eucalyptus Avenue to the east, Amherst Avenue to the south and Chatham Street to the west, in the City of Ontario. This report includes the existing and proposed Q100 for the10.0-acre project site. The study abides by the most current City of Ontario requirements and the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual procedures.

DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED:

The existing site is undeveloped and relatively flat and surface flows in a southwesterly direction towards the intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue and Amherst Avenue where an onsite detention basin is located. The basin has a 36-inch inlet that joins a public storm drain in Amherst Avenue. The proposed site will drain in a similar direction with its own storm drain system throughout the development and will join the Amherst storm drain as stated above.

Acreage 100-Year
Existing
A 10.02 ac 20.34 cfs
Proposed
A 8.42 ac 27.60 cfs
B 1.60 ac 6.92 cfs
Total 10.02 ac 34.52 cfs
Difference - <-14.18> cfs
Mitigation is required when the proposed exceeds the existing as shown in the table above; however, the city has confirmed that there is a more restrictive Q that must be used in place of the existing Q that was established by this study. The Q to be used was established by Tract 17931, at line ‘D’, using a Q100 of15.64 cfs.as the maximum flow allowed from the site into the public storm drain.

The tract’s private onsite storm drain system will function with the necessary flow restriction as established by the City. This will be accomplished by over-sizing the private onsite storm drain system to provide on-site storage and installing a stainlesssteel plate with a 16”x24” opening (orifice) over the downstream side of the junction structure, before entering the public system. This will restrict the outflow from the site to no more than 15.64 cfs at any time. The volume to be stored is approximately 5,100 cubic feet (cf) (See Table A) as determined by the hydrograph in this study All proposed inlets and storm drain piping have been designed for a Q100 storm event, and emergency overflow drain patterns have been considered if drainage clogging should occur.
1630
METHODOLOGY:

This Hydrology Study was performed using the rational Hydrology Method Program by CivilCADD / Civil Design Engineering software based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual dated August 1986. The soil has been identified from the maps accompanying the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual as being of Hydrologic Soil Group B. The calculations were done for a 100-year storm frequency for the storm drain system.

SUMMARY:

The plans for which this report supports has been prepared to meet the standards of rainstorm protection as adopted by the City of Ontario. Positive overflow is available throughout the development for protection of habitable areas against the 100-year storm when drainage obstructions occur, and there will be no adverse impact to the existing conditions.
1631

TABLE A VOLUME STORAGE CALCULATIONS FOR THE PRIVATE

ONSITE STORM DRAIN PIPE
TRACT 20730 2175 – 996 -001

ON SITE PIPE SUMMARY (MAIN LINE ONLY)

PIPE SIZE

ESTIMATED
(IN)
LENGTH

OF PIPE
(FT)

INTERNAL
AREASTARTING
(SQ FT)
PIPE
VOLUMESTARTING
(CU FT)

PIPE SIZE
FOR

STORAGE
(IN)

PIPE INTERNAL

AREA - (SQ FT)

STORAGE
PIPE
VOLUME
(CU FT)
PIPE

INTERNAL

AREA -GAINED
(SQ FT)
PIPE
VOLUME
GAINED
(CU FT)
LINE '
A' 18 710 1.8 1,280 36 7.1 5,045 5.3 3,765
LINE '
A' 24 380 3.1 1,180 36 7.1 2,700
4 1,520
LINE 'B' 8 185 0.4 75 - - - - 0
LINE 'C' 12 155 0.8 125 - - - - 0LINE 'C' 18 570 1.8 1,030 24 3.1 1,770 1.3 740 TOTAL 2,000 3,690 9,515 6,025
STORAGE REQUIRED = 5,100
STORAGE PROVIDED = 6,025
1632
SECTION 2

VICINITY MAP
1633
2552 WHITE ROAD, SUITE B IRVINE, CA 92614-6236
(949) 660-0110 FAX: 660-0418

CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERS
Sheet
Date
Engr.

W.O. No.

Chk'd. of

ONTARIO, CA
EUCALYPTUS AVE. AND S. AMHERST AVE.

VICINITY MAP
SITE
1634
SECTION 3

HYDROLOGIC CLASSIFICATION

OF SOIL PER SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

HYDROLOGY MANUAL
1635
1636
SECTION 4

ISOHYETAL MAP
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
SECTION 5.1

HYDROLOGY STUDY
100-YEAR - EXISTING
1644
San Bernardino County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986)
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2012 Version 7.2 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 07/11/24
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6293
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0
Computed rainfall intensity:

Storm year = 100.00 1 hour rainfall = 1.200 (In.)
Slope used for rainfall intensity curve b = 0.6000
Soil antecedent moisture condition (AMC) = 3
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****A-1
______________________________________________________________________ UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 78.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 92.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.140(In/Hr) Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 420.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 711.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 705.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 6.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01429 s(%)= 1.43
TC = k(0.525)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 13.756 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.904(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.857 Subarea runoff = 3.259(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.310(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
Initial area Fm value = 0.140(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** IRREGULAR CHANNEL FLOW TRAVEL TIME ****A-2
______________________________________________________________________ Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 0.000(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.901(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.372(Ft/s) ******* Irregular Channel Data ***********
----------------------------------------------------------------- Information entered for subchannel number 1 :

Point number 'X' coordinate 'Y' coordinate
1 0.00 5.00
2 3.80 4.00
1645
3 6.30 3.00
4 10.20 2.00
5 15.40 1.00
6 22.60 0.00
7 27.70 1.00
8 35.50 2.00
9 41.40 3.00
10 50.50 4.00
11 68.20 4.00
Manning's 'N' friction factor = 0.030
----------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-Channel flow = 11.843(CFS)
' ' flow top width = 11.083(Ft.)
' ' velocity= 2.372(Ft/s)
' ' area = 4.994(Sq.Ft)
' ' Froude number = 0.623
Upstream point elevation = 705.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 700.000(Ft.)
Flow length = 740.000(Ft.)
Travel time = 5.20 min.

Time of concentration = 18.96 min.

Depth of flow = 0.901(Ft.)
Average velocity = 2.372(Ft/s)
Total irregular channel flow = 11.843(CFS)
Irregular channel normal depth above invert elev. = 0.901(Ft.) Average velocity of channel(s) = 2.372(Ft/s)
Adding area flow to channel
UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 78.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 92.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.140(In/Hr) Rainfall intensity = 2.396(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.847
Subarea runoff = 17.083(CFS) for 8.710(Ac.)
Total runoff = 20.341(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 10.02(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 10.02(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.140(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 1.105(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.708(Ft/s) End of computations, Total Study Area = 10.02 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Note: These figures do not consider reduced effective area effects caused by confluences in the rational equation.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000
Area averaged SCS curve number = 78.0
1646
SECTION 5.2

HYDROLOGY STUDY
100-YEAR - PROPOSED
1647
San Bernardino County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986)
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2012 Version 7.2 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 07/18/24
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESPERANZA - PA II

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE & AMHERST AVENUE
PROPOSED Q100

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6293
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0
Computed rainfall intensity:

Storm year = 100.00 1 hour rainfall = 1.200 (In.)
Slope used for rainfall intensity curve b = 0.6000
Soil antecedent moisture condition (AMC) = 3
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****A-1
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 100.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 710.510(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 709.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 1.510(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01510 s(%)= 1.51
TC = k(0.324)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 4.729 min.

Rainfall intensity = 5.511(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.886 Subarea runoff = 0.586(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.120(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
Initial area Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 706.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 705.240(Ft.)
Pipe length = 117.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
1648
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 0.586(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 0.586(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 3.99(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 8.94(In.)
Critical Depth = 4.16(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.10(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.63 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 5.36 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-2
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 5.36 min.

Rainfall intensity = 5.113(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.885
Subarea runoff = 0.590(CFS) for 0.140(Ac.)
Total runoff = 1.176(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 0.26(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 0.26(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 705.240(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 704.690(Ft.)
Pipe length = 110.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.176(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.176(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.86(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 7.67(In.)
Critical Depth = 5.98(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.26(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.56 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 5.92 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 4.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-3
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
1649
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 5.92 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.816(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.884
Subarea runoff = 0.781(CFS) for 0.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 1.957(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 0.46(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 0.46(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 704.690(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 704.610(Ft.)
Pipe length = 15.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.957(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.957(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.36(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.69(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.15(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.88(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 5.99 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 5.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-4
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 5.99 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.784(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.883
Subarea runoff = 1.889(CFS) for 0.450(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.846(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 0.91(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 0.91(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 5.000 to Point/Station 6.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 704.610(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 703.830(Ft.)
Pipe length = 156.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 3.846(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 3.846(CFS)
1650
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.94(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.19(In.)
Critical Depth = 9.52(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.46(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.58 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 6.57 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 6.000 to Point/Station 6.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-5
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.57 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.525(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.882
Subarea runoff = 1.664(CFS) for 0.470(Ac.)
Total runoff = 5.510(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 1.38(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 1.38(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 6.000 to Point/Station 7.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 703.830(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 703.710(Ft.)
Pipe length = 15.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 5.510(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 5.510(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 10.92(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 13.35(In.)
Critical Depth = 11.41(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.76(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.04 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 6.61 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 7.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-6
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.61 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.507(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm 1651
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.882
Subarea runoff = 2.364(CFS) for 0.600(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.874(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 1.98(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 1.98(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 8.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 703.710(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 703.270(Ft.)
Pipe length = 90.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 7.874(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 7.874(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 14.58(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.13(In.)
Critical Depth = 13.04(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.13(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.29 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 6.90 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 8.000 to Point/Station 8.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-7
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 6.90 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.391(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.882
Subarea runoff = 0.763(CFS) for 0.250(Ac.)
Total runoff = 8.637(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 2.23(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 2.23(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 8.000 to Point/Station 9.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 703.270(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.910(Ft.)
Pipe length = 72.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 8.637(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 8.637(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 13.09(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.35(In.)
Critical Depth = 13.11(In.)
1652
Pipe flow velocity = 5.48(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.22 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.12 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 9.000 to Point/Station 9.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-8
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.12 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.310(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.882
Subarea runoff = 2.268(CFS) for 0.640(Ac.)
Total runoff = 10.905(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 2.87(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 2.87(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 9.000 to Point/Station 9.500 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 702.910(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.660(Ft.)
Pipe length = 50.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 10.905(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 10.905(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 15.56(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 18.40(In.)
Critical Depth = 14.77(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.71(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.15 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.27 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 9.500 to Point/Station 9.500 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-9
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.27 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.258(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.881
Subarea runoff = 1.742(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
1653
Total runoff = 12.647(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 3.37(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 3.37(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 9.500 to Point/Station 14.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 702.660(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.560(Ft.)
Pipe length = 20.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 12.647(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 12.647(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 15.21(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 23.12(In.)
Critical Depth = 15.36(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.02(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.32 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 3.370(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 12.647(CFS)
Time of concentration = 7.32 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.238(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0880(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.2000
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** A-10
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 180.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 708.390(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 707.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 0.890(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00494 s(%)= 0.49
TC = k(0.324)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.479 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.186(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.881 Subarea runoff = 0.590(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.160(Ac.)
1654
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
Initial area Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 705.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 704.200(Ft.)
Pipe length = 158.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 0.590(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 0.590(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 4.30(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 8.99(In.)
Critical Depth = 4.18(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 2.83(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.93 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.41 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-11
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 8.41 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.901(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.880
Subarea runoff = 1.092(CFS) for 0.330(Ac.)
Total runoff = 1.682(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 0.49(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 3.86(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 704.200(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.810(Ft.)
Pipe length = 130.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.682(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.682(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.73(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 7.82(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.15(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.75(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.46 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.87 min.
1655
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-12
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 8.87 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.780(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.879
Subarea runoff = 0.378(CFS) for 0.130(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.060(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 0.62(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 3.99(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 702.810(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.560(Ft.)
Pipe length = 50.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.060(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.060(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.79(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.45(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.36(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.82(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.22 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.08 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 0.620(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 2.060(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.08 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.725(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0880(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.2000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate Area TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (Ac.) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 12.65 3.370 7.32 0.088 4.238
2 2.06 0.620 9.08 0.088 3.725
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 12.647) +
1656

1.141 * 0.806 * 2.060) + = 14.542
Qmax(2) =

0.876 * 1.000 * 12.647) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 2.060) + = 13.143
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

13.647 3.060
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

14.542 13.143
Area of streams before confluence:

3.370 0.620
Effective area values after confluence:

3.870 3.990
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 14.542(CFS)
Time of concentration = 7.325 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 3.870(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.200
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.088(In/Hr)
Study area total = 3.99(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 702.560(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 80.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 14.542(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 14.542(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 14.93(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 23.27(In.)
Critical Depth = 16.48(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.08(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.19 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.51 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-13
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.51 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.174(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.881
Subarea runoff = 0.573(CFS) for 0.240(Ac.)
Total runoff = 15.115(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 4.11(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 4.23(Ac.)
1657
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 26.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 702.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 701.870(Ft.)
Pipe length = 26.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 15.115(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 15.115(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 17.34(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 21.49(In.)
Critical Depth = 16.82(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.22(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.07 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.58 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 26.000 to Point/Station 26.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 4.110(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 15.115(CFS)
Time of concentration = 7.58 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.151(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0880(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.2000
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 16.000 to Point/Station 17.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** A-14
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 235.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 710.700(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 707.930(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.770(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01179 s(%)= 1.18
TC = k(0.324)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 6.993 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.358(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.882 Subarea runoff = 2.306(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.600(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
Initial area Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
1658
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 18.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 705.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 704.940(Ft.)
Pipe length = 50.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.306(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.306(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.45(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.97(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.79(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.36(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.16 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.15 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 18.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-15
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.15 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.301(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.882
Subarea runoff = 1.258(CFS) for 0.340(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.564(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 0.94(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 5.17(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 19.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 704.940(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 704.410(Ft.)
Pipe length = 106.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 3.564(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 3.564(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.42(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.50(In.)
Critical Depth = 9.15(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.39(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.40 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.55 min.
1659
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 19.000 to Point/Station 19.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-16
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.55 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.162(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.881
Subarea runoff = 0.652(CFS) for 0.210(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.216(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 1.15(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 5.38(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 19.000 to Point/Station 20.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 704.410(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 704.150(Ft.)
Pipe length = 47.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 4.216(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 4.216(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 10.24(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 13.96(In.)
Critical Depth = 9.97(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.72(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.17 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.72 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 20.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-17
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.72 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.108(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.881
Subarea runoff = 1.572(CFS) for 0.450(Ac.)
Total runoff = 5.788(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 1.60(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 5.83(Ac.)
1660
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 21.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 704.150(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 703.670(Ft.)
Pipe length = 88.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 5.788(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 5.788(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 10.98(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 17.56(In.)
Critical Depth = 11.15(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.13(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.29 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.00 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 21.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-18
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 8.00 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.019(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.880
Subarea runoff = 0.969(CFS) for 0.310(Ac.)
Total runoff = 6.757(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 1.91(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 6.14(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 703.670(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 703.290(Ft.)
Pipe length = 70.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 6.757(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 6.757(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 12.25(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 16.79(In.)
Critical Depth = 12.08(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.28(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.22 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.22 min.
1661
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-19
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 8.22 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.954(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.880
Subarea runoff = 0.827(CFS) for 0.270(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.585(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 2.18(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 6.41(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 23.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 703.290(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.930(Ft.)
Pipe length = 66.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 7.585(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 7.585(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 13.38(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 15.72(In.)
Critical Depth = 12.81(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.38(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.20 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.43 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 23.000 to Point/Station 23.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-20
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 8.43 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.896(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.880
Subarea runoff = 0.949(CFS) for 0.310(Ac.)
Total runoff = 8.534(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 2.49(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 6.72(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
1662
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 23.000 to Point/Station 24.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 702.930(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.190(Ft.)
Pipe length = 135.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 8.534(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 8.534(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 12.60(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.58(In.)
Critical Depth = 13.01(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.67(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.40 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.83 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 24.000 to Point/Station 24.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-21
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 8.83 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.790(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.879
Subarea runoff = 0.462(CFS) for 0.210(Ac.)
Total runoff = 8.995(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 2.70(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 6.93(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 24.000 to Point/Station 25.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 702.190(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 702.090(Ft.)
Pipe length = 18.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 8.995(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 8.995(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 12.98(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.40(In.)
Critical Depth = 13.37(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.76(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.05 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.88 min.
1663
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 25.000 to Point/Station 25.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-22
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 8.88 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.776(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.879
Subarea runoff = 1.461(CFS) for 0.450(Ac.)
Total runoff = 10.457(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 3.15(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 2) = 7.38(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 25.000 to Point/Station 26.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 702.090(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 701.870(Ft.)
Pipe length = 40.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 10.457(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 10.457(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 14.48(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 19.43(In.)
Critical Depth = 14.45(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.91(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.11 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.99 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 26.000 to Point/Station 26.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 3.150(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 10.457(CFS)
Time of concentration = 8.99 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.748(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0880(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.2000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate Area TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (Ac.) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 15.12 4.110 7.58 0.088 4.151
2 10.46 3.150 8.99 0.088 3.748
Qmax(1) =
1664

1.000 * 1.000 * 15.115) +

1.110 * 0.843 * 10.457) + = 24.906
Qmax(2) =

0.901 * 1.000 * 15.115) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 10.457) + = 24.072
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

16.115 11.457
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

24.906 24.072
Area of streams before confluence:

4.110 3.150
Effective area values after confluence:

6.767 7.260
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 24.906(CFS)
Time of concentration = 7.583 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 6.767(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.200
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.088(In/Hr)
Study area total = 7.26(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 26.000 to Point/Station 27.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 701.870(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 701.720(Ft.)
Pipe length = 80.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 24.906(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 36.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 24.906(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 24.28(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 33.74(In.)
Critical Depth = 19.32(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.91(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.27 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.85 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 27.000 to Point/Station 27.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-23
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 7.85 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.065(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.881
Subarea runoff = 0.278(CFS) for 0.270(Ac.)
Total runoff = 25.184(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 7.04(Ac.)
1665
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 7.65(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 27.000 to Point/Station 28.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 701.720(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 701.380(Ft.)
Pipe length = 68.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 25.184(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 30.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 25.184(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 20.32(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 28.05(In.)
Critical Depth = 20.51(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.11(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.16 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.01 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 28.000 to Point/Station 28.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** A-24
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Time of concentration = 8.01 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.016(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.880
Subarea runoff = 2.414(CFS) for 0.770(Ac.)
Total runoff = 27.597(CFS)
Effective area this stream = 7.81(Ac.)
Total Study Area (Main Stream No. 1) = 8.42(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 28.000 to Point/Station 29.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 701.380(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 701.080(Ft.)
Pipe length = 56.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.012
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 27.597(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 30.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 27.597(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 21.23(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 27.29(In.)
Critical Depth = 21.49(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.44(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.13 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.14 min.

End of computations, Total Study Area = 8.42 (Ac.)
The following figures may
1666
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Note: These figures do not consider reduced effective area effects caused by confluences in the rational equation.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.200
Area averaged SCS curve number = 56.0
1667
San Bernardino County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986)
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2012 Version 7.2 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 07/18/24
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESPERANZA - PA II

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE & AMHERST AVENUE, ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED Q 100
2175-906-001
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6293
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0
Computed rainfall intensity:

Storm year = 100.00 1 hour rainfall = 1.200 (In.)
Slope used for rainfall intensity curve b = 0.6000
Soil antecedent moisture condition (AMC) = 3
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 21.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****B-1
______________________________________________________________________ RESIDENTIAL(11+ dwl/acre)
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 75.80
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.2000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.088(In/Hr) Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 140.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 708.080(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 706.540(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 1.540(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01100 s(%)= 1.10
TC = k(0.324)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 5.764 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.894(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.884 Subarea runoff = 6.920(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.600(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.200
Initial area Fm value = 0.088(In/Hr)
End of computations, Total Study Area = 1.60 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Note: These figures do not consider reduced effective area effects caused by confluences in the rational equation.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.200
Area averaged SCS curve number = 56.0
1668
SECTION 6

CATCH BASIN SIZING
(100-YEAR)
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1272
Analysis prepared by:

WALDEN & ASSOCIATES
2552 WHITE ROAD, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92614
TEL: # 949.660.0110 FAX: # 949.660.0418
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:55 07/18/2024
============================================================================ Problem Descriptions:

FOR AREA A-14

**************************************************************************** >>>>SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION<<<< FOR AREA A-14 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.

BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 2.30
BASIN OPENING(FEET) = 0.33
DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) = 0.32
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 4.12 USE 4’ ============================================================================ Problem Descriptions:

FOR AREA A-24

**************************************************************************** >>>>SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION<<<< FOR AREA A-24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.

BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 2.41
BASIN OPENING(FEET) = 0.50
DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) = 0.45
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 2.59 USE 3’ 1675
SECTION 7

HYDROGRAPH
1676
1677
SECTION 8

ORIFICE CALCULATION
1678
Project Description
Solve For Opening Height
Input Data
Discharge 15.64 ft³/s
Headwater Elevation 697.00 ft
Centroid Elevation 695.50 ft
Tailwater Elevation 692.64 ft
Discharge Coefficient 0.60
Opening Width 2.00 ft
Opening Height 1.33 ft
Cross Section Image
Cross Section for Rectangular Orifice
3/18/2025 9:55:15 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 1679
Project Description
Solve For Opening Height
Input Data
Discharge 15.64 ft³/s
Headwater Elevation 697.00 ft
Centroid Elevation 695.50 ft
Tailwater Elevation 692.64 ft
Discharge Coefficient 0.60
Opening Width 2.00 ft
Results
Opening Height 1.33 ft
Headwater Height Above Centroid 1.50 ft
Tailwater Height Above Centroid -2.86 ft
Flow Area 2.65 ft²
Velocity 5.89 ft/s
Worksheet for Rectangular Orifice
3/18/2025 9:56:04 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 1680
SECTION 10

APPENDIX
1681
1682
1 2
3 5 4
6 7
89 14
15 26
27 28
10 11
12 13
16 17
18 20
19 21
22 23
24 25
29 9.5

AMHERST AVENUE

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

CLIFTON AVENUE

CHATHAM STREET

SHELBURNE STREET
LEGEND:

SHEET
CHECKED:DRAWN:DATE:

JOB NUMBER
OF 2552 WHITE ROAD, SUITE B, IRVINE, CA 92614 (949) 660-0110 FAX: 660-0418

LAND SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

CIVIL ENGINEERS ALDEN &

SSOCIATES

HYDROLOGY MAP - PROPOSED
FOR
2175-996-001
04/2025
SK
MP
1 ESPERANZA - PA II

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE & AMHERST AVENUE

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1 1683
1684
1 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(PWQMP)
For compliance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2010-0036 (NPDES Permit No. CAS618036)
Submittal Date:

Project Name:

Ontario Project #:

Applicant Name:

Applicant Address:

Project Address:

Project Size (acres):

Project Description:

Engineering Department
1685
2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP)

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

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

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

Check the appropriate project category below, for this project:

Check
below Project Categories

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

2. New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions (i.e., detached single family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions or townhomes, condominiums, apartments, etc.), mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development projects on public and private land, which fall under the planning and building authority of the permitting agency. 1686
3 Check
below Project Categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MS4 Permit requires each priority development project to infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or bio-treat the runoff from a 2-yr, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). If site conditions do not permit infiltration, harvest and use, evapotranspiration, and/or bio-treatment of the entire Design Capture Volume, at the project site, Site Design/LID techniques are required to be implemented to the Maximum Extent Practicable, at the project site, and the remainder of the DCV shall be infiltrated, harvested, bio-treated or treated by alternative measures. Project applicants shall submit a Preliminary WQMP that documents the LID/Site Design BMPs, proposed for the project. Please indicate, in the table below, which Site Design/LID BMPs will be utilized on this project to accomplish this requirement:
1687
4 Site Design/LID Practice Planned Not
Planned
Provide at least the minimum effective area required for LID BMPs, to comply with the WQMP (see Table 3-1 below).

Grade parking lot areas/drive aisles/roof drains to sheet flow runoff into landscaped swales, via curb cuts or zero-face curbs or otherwise disconnect direct drainage from MS4.

Design landscaped areas as swales and grade to accept
runoff from building roofs, parking lots and project roadways.

Install surface retention basins or infiltration trenches to receive impervious area runoff.

Install pervious pavement in parking stalls, alleys, driveways, gutters, walkways, trails or patios.

Install underground stormwater retention chambers where downstream landscaped areas are limited.

Install approved Stormwater Drywells in detention areas.

Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lot stalls to the minimum widths necessary.

Install on-site Biotreatment basins/trenches with underdrains, where soil type is poorly draining.

Install “Engineered Soil” to increase uptake/soil storage capacity and/or evapotranspiration.

Install Rainwater Harvesting/Use Equipment.

Regional LID BMP facilities are installed, off-site, with the capacity and conveyances to accept post-development storm water runoff from this project and reserved capacity allocation credits have been assigned to the project, in a Certificate or other legally binding document, attached herein
Table 3-1 Minimum Effective Area1 Required for LID BMPs (surface + subsurface facilities) for Project WQMP to Demonstrate Infeasibility2 (% of site) Project Type New
Development
ReDevelopment
SF/MF Residential < 7 du/ac 10% 5%
SF/MF Residential < 7 - 18 du/ac 7% 3.5%
SF/MF Residential > 18 du/ac 5% 2.5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR< 1.0 10% 5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR 1.0-2.0 7% 3.5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR> 2.0 5% 2.5%
Podium (parking under > 75% of project) 3% 1.5%
Zoning allowing development to property lines 2% 1%
Transit Oriented Development3 5% 2.5%
Parking 5% 2.5%
1688
5 1 “Effective area” is defined as land area which 1) is suitable for a retention/infiltration BMP (based on infeasibility criteria) and 2) is located down-gradient from building roof or paved areas, so that it may receive gravity flow runoff.
2 Criteria only required if the project WQMP seeks to demonstrate that the full DCV cannot be feasibly managed on-site.
3 Transit oriented development is defined as a project with development center within one half mile of a mass transit center.

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

Source Control BMPs Planned Not
Planned
Minimize non-stormwater site runoff through efficient
irrigation system design and controllers.

Minimize trash and debris in storm runoff through a regular parking lot, storage yard and roadway sweeping program.

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

Provide solid roofs over all trash enclosures.

Site Owner(s)/Property Manager/HOA or POA will be
familiar with the project WQMP and stormwater BMPs.

Owner or HOA or POA to provide Education/Training of site occupants and employees on stormwater BMPs.

Install stormwater placards/stenciled messages with a “No Dumping” message on all on-site/off-site storm drain inlets.

Provide contained equipment/vehicle wash rack areas that discharge to sanitary sewer.

C. Treatment Control BMPs – The following BMPs are designed to control stormwater pollutants where it is not feasible to install on-site or off-site Site Design/LID BMPs, with the requisite capacity to treat the Design Capture Volume for identified Pollutants of Concern or where pretreatment of stormwater runoff is required, ahead of infiltration BMPs. Please indicate which of the listed BMPs are planned to be implemented for the project:

Treatment Control BMP Planned Not
Planned
Gravity Separator devices for pretreatment of sediment, trash/litter or Oil & Grease
Proprietary Biofiltration vaults/devices
Media Cartridge Filtration Vaults
Proprietary Filter Inserts for on-site storm drain inlets or retention basin/trench overflow drains
1689
6 4. Volume-based calculation (approximate) for sizing on-site or off-site Stormwater Retention/Infiltration, Harvest & Re-Use or Biotreatment facilities 1) After calculating the “Watershed Imperviousness Ratio”, i, which is equal to the percent of impervious area in each Drainage Management Area, divided by 100, calculate the composite runoff coefficient CBMP for the Drainage Area above using the following equation:
3 2
CBMP = 0.858i – 0.78i + 0.774i + 0.04
where: CBMP = composite runoff coefficient; and,
i = watershed imperviousness ratio.
3) Determine the area-averaged “6-hour Mean Storm Rainfall”, P6, for the Drainage Area.

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

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

V0 = (P0 · A) / 12
where: V0 = Target Capture Volume, in acre-feet
P0 = Maximized Detention Volume, in inches; and,
A = BMP Drainage Area, in acres
1690
7 Project Volume-based calculation (approximate) for planned on-site or off-site Stormwater Retention/Infiltration, Harvest & Re-Use or Biotreatment facilities:

Variable Factor/Formula DA1,
DMA A
DA1
DMA B
DA2
DMA A
DA2
DMA B
Impervious
surface/total
surface, ratio
(i)
CBMP= runoff
coefficient
3 2

0.858i –0.78i +0.774i+

0.04 P6 **P6 = 2-yr,1-hr
depth*1.4807 =
Detention Volume
(acre inches)
P0 = a * CBMP * P6 =
Drawdown rate of
basin/trench (a)

1.963 for 48-hr
drawdown =
Project Total Area
(acre)
(A)
Design Capture
Volume in cu. ft.

V0 = [(P0 * A)/12]
*43560 =
Retention Volume Retention capacity of
provided in cubic basins, trenches,
feet. underground storage or
biotreatment basin
**For P6 value, use site coordinates and NOAA website to determine project’s average 2-yr, 1-hr rainfall depth, at: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html .

5. Flow-Based calculation (approximate) for sizing on-site or off-site Biotreatment facilities and proprietary treatment technology BMPs:
1) After calculating the “Watershed Imperviousness Ratio”, i, which is equal to the percent of impervious area in each Drainage Management Area divided by 100, calculate the composite runoff coefficient CBMP for the Drainage Area above using the following equation:
3 2
CBMP = 0.858i – 0.78i + 0.774i + 0.04
where: CBMP = composite runoff coefficient; and,
i = watershed imperviousness ratio.
1691
8 2) Determine BMP design rainfall intensity, IBMP, using the project site geo-coordinates and the NOAA website to determine project’s average 2-yr, 1-hr rainfall intensity, at:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html .Multiply this value by 0.2787 (regression coefficient for Ontario) and a minimum safety factor of 2. 4) Calculate the target BMP flowrate, Q, using the following formula (for each DMA <50 acres*):

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

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

Variable Factor/Formula DA1
DMA A
DA1
DMA B
DA2
DMA A
DA2
DMA B
Impervious surface/
total surface, ratio
(i)
CBMP= composite
runoff coefficient
3 2

0.858i +0.78i +0.774i
+0.04
IBMP IBMP = 2-yr,1-hr storm
intensity*0.2787*safety
factor
Drainage area (ac) A = DMA sq ft/43,560
Target BMP flowrate Q = CBPM* IBMP * A

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

Project applicants may access the on-line HCOC Map at:
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/WAP/. The map will indicate any hydrology concerns with downstream waterways that are hydraulically connected to the project and will indicate if there are any approved regional projects downstream that could be utilized for off-site mitigation of HCOCs. Please indicate here if the project will or will not be able to retain/infilter, harvest and use or biotreat and detain the DCV, on-site, as calculated in Section 4 and if there are HCOCs identified downstream of the project:
1692
9 Retain or Harvest/Use the DCV on site? Yes No
Biotreat the DCV but not infilter the runoff? Yes No
HCOCs identified downstream of site? Yes No
If the entire DCV will not be retained on site, the DCV is biotreated but not infiltered or additional detention capacity is needed to address identified HCOCs, downstream of the site, please list here, what additional mitigation measures will be utilized (on-site or off-site) to address HCOCs (see Section 4.2.1-4.2.3 of the SB County WQMP Technical Guidance):

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

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

8. BMP Maintenance and Funding Mechanism & Description:

9. Acknowledgment:

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

10.Exemption Signature:

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

Signature of Owner or Developer Date
Yes No
1693

AMHERST AVENUE

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

CLIFTON AVENUE

CHATHAM STREET
PROPOSED BUILDING 15
PROPOSED BUILDING 4
PROPOSED BUILDING 25PROPOSED BUILDING 24
BUILDING 26
PROPOSED BUILDING 23
PROPOSED BUILDING 22
PROPOSED BUILDING 21
PROPOSED BUILDING 20
PROPOSED BUILDING 19
PROPOSED BUILDING 18
PROPOSED BUILDING 17
PROPOSED BUILDING 28
PROPOSED BUILDING 1
PROPOSED BUILDING 2
PROPOSED BUILDING 16
PROPOSED BUILDING 14
PROPOSED BUILDING 13
PROPOSED BUILDING 12
PROPOSED BUILDING 11
PROPOSED BUILDING 10
PROPOSED BUILDING 9
PROPOSED BUILDING 8
PROPOSED BUILDING 7
PROPOSED BUILDING 6
PROPOSED BUILDING 5
PROPOSED BUILDING 3 PROPOSED BUILDING 27 PROPOSED

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ONTARIO, CA

ESPERANZA TOWNHOMES
EUCALYPTUS AVE. & AMHERST AVE.

Catch Basin Stenciling
Drainage Pattern
LEGEND
Denotes Drainage Area Boundary
Trash EnclosurePrivate Landscape DesignPublic Landscape Design 1694

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Rudy Zeledon, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mike Eskander, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Steve Wilson
DATE: November 16, 2006
SUBJECT: File No. PMTT06-056 (TT 18380) -Esperanza Specific Plan area “A” Map X The “A” Maps for these tracts are approved. Prior to DAB approval of the “B” Maps for these tracts, the following items must be included in the Tentative Tract Maps and resubmitted to Engineering:

1. The Tract Map “B” Map submittals for these tracts must conceptually address the use of the regional wetlands in the ultimate condition as well as interim conditions to comply with the water quality requirements for all new development in the Regional Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). All stormwater runoff pollutants not adequately addressed by on-site Source Control and Site design BMPs or off-site treatment controls must be addressed by on-site Treatment BMPs.

2. Interim on-site treatment control BMPs to address water quality, until such time that the regional wetlands are constructed and operational, are required to be to be shown on the Tract Map/Drainage Plan for this tract or on other tracts within this same project that would be slated for interim treatment BMPs and would receive drainage from this tract. Tentative Tract Map approval will not be granted until this is addressed.

Note: Each landowner/developer in the Esperanza project will be conditioned in the Engineering DAB Report, to prepare and submit one Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), along with separate Grading Plans, for all of the tracts being developed by that owner. The model WQMP form is available at: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/html/sb_wqmp.html The WQMP shall identify and detail all appropriate site design, source control and treatment control BMPs to be implemented or installed in this development project in order to reduce storm water pollutants and site runoff. You may also request a revised copy of the WQMP document, and the Standard Erosion & Sediment Control Notes for the Grading Plans from me by emailing a request to:
[email protected] . Please direct all questions to Mr. Steve Wilson at (909)395-2389. 1695

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
Development Plan Review
Project: Esperanza Specific Plan PA-11 Date: March 7, 2024 Location: NEC of Clifton Ave and Eucalyptus Ave By: Diego Tapia The following comments on the subject project are provided for the benefit of City Engineering and Planning staff and the Applicant. These are not the conditions of approval which will be submitted under separate cover.

Preliminary Comments:

1. A Traffic Impact Analysis must be submitted that supports the Applicant/Developer’s proposed land use change and evaluates potential project traffic impacts. Additional comments may be provided once the Traffic Impact Analysis review is complete.

2. The previous site plan had the tract entrance being proposed on Amherst Avenue, currently it’s now being proposed on Clifton Avenue. Please restore the tract entrance onto Amherst Avenue and align the centerline of the tract entry with Shelburne Street. Chokers shall also be installed on the east side of the intersection on Amherst Avenue at tract entrance per City of Ontario Standard Drawing No. 1110. Our intent is that by having the tract entrance on Amherst Avenue with chokers, speeding along the straightaway segment of Amherst Avenue will be reduced.

3. The Applicant/Developer shall align the proposed tract entry onto Chatham Street with Ventura Avenue (existing tract entrance).

4. Install choker, ramp and crosswalk on Chatham Street east of Ventura Avenue and appropriate parking restrictions for sight distance.

5. Remove on-street parking stall markings from site plans.

6. The Applicant/Developer shall install ADA ramps for pedestrian crossings at the following locations per City of Ontario Standard Drawing No. 1213. a. Southwest corner of Chatham Street and Clifton Avenue b. Southeast corner of Chatham Street and Amherst Avenue

7. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct street improvements along property frontages of Eucalyptus Avenue, Amherst Avenue, Chatham Street, and Clifton Avenue in accordance with conditions issued by City’s Land Development Division. 1696
These, and all other street improvements required herein, shall include, but not be limited to, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, LED streetlights, signing and striping, and parkway landscaping.

8. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct intersection choker on the southeast corner of Amherst Avenue and Chatham Street per City of Ontario Standard Drawing No. 1110.

9. Existing parking restrictions along Eucalyptus Avenue shall remain in place.

10. All landscaping, block walls, and other obstructions shall be compatible with the stopping sight distance requirements per City of Ontario Standard Drawing No. 1309. dt;
1697
1698

Esperanza Specific Plan
Amendment

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF ONTARIO
PREPARED BY:

Bill Maddux, INCE
[email protected]
(619) 778-1971
APRIL 24, 2025
15662-06 Noise Study.docx
1699
1700
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... III LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Noise Descriptors .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Sound Propagation ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Noise Control ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation ............................................................................................................. 9

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise .............................................................................................. 9

2.7 Community Response to Noise ................................................................................................... 10

2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 13

3.1 State of California Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 13

3.2 City of Ontario General Plan ....................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Operational Noise Standards ...................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Construction Noise Standards..................................................................................................... 15

3.5 Vibration Standards .................................................................................................................... 16

3.6 Airport Land Use Compatibility ................................................................................................... 16 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 19

4.1 Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) ........................................................................................... 19

4.2 Vibration (Threshold B) ............................................................................................................... 20

4.3 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed (Threshold C) ............................................................... 20

4.4 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 21 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 23

5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 23

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 23

5.3 Noise Measurement Results ....................................................................................................... 25 6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................................................................................................... 27

6.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 27

6.2 On-Site Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs ........................................................................... 27

6.3 Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs ........................................................................................ 27 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 29 8 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 31

8.1 Exterior Noise Analysis ................................................................................................................ 31

8.2 Interior Noise Analysis ................................................................................................................ 32 1701
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
ii
9 RECEIVER LOCATIONS................................................................................................................ 37 10 OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 39

10.1 Operational Noise Sources .......................................................................................................... 39

10.2 Reference Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 41

10.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 42

10.4 Project Operational Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 42

10.5 Project Operational Noise Level Compliance .............................................................................. 43

10.6 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 44 11 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 46

11.1 Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 47

11.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 47

11.3 Construction Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 49

11.4 Construction Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ 50

11.5 Construction Vibration Analysis .................................................................................................. 51 12 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 53 13 CERTIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 55

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF ONTARIO COUNTY CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
APPENDIX 8.1: ON-SITE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 10.1: HVAC MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX 10.2: CADNAA OPERATION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 11.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................... 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: LAND USE PLAN ............................................................................................................... 5 EXHIBIT 1-C: PROJECT SITE PLAN .......................................................................................................... 6 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS ..................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION .............................................................................. 10 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION ........................................................... 12 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL EXPOSURE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES ............................ 14 EXHIBIT 3-B: ONT AIRPORT NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS .......................................................................... 17 EXHIBIT 3-C: CHINO AIRPORT NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ...................................................................... 18 EXHIBIT 5-A: AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ................................................................ 24 EXHIBIT 9-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS .................................................................................................... 38 EXHIBIT 10-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................................................... 40 EXHIBIT 11-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................................................ 48

1702
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
iii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ................................................................... 1 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS .................................................................................... 15 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY .................................................................................. 21 TABLE 5-1: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................... 25 TABLE 6-1: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS .................................................................................... 27 TABLE 6-2: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS ............................................................................................ 28 TABLE 6-3: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) .................................... 28 TABLE 8-1: EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................................... 31 TABLE 8-2: FIRST-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) .................................................................... 33 TABLE 8-3: SECOND-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) ............................................................... 34 TABLE 8-4: THIRD-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) ................................................................... 35 TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................................... 42 TABLE 10-2: PROJECT DAYTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ............................................................. 43 TABLE 10-3: PROJECT NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ......................................................... 43 TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 44 TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ............................................. 45 TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ....................................................... 45 TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ..................................................................... 49 TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY .................................................... 50 TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE .................................................................... 50 TABLE 11-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ....................................... 51 TABLE 11-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS.................................................................. 52

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP Esperanza Specific Plan
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Hz Hertz
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PPV Peak particle velocity
Project Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels
1703
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
iv
This page was intentionally left blank.
1704
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (“Project”).

The Project is located within the Esperanza Specific Plan. The original Specific Plan that was approved contemplated a 736-student elementary school within Planning Area 11. It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of 161 multifamily residential dwelling units (with a density of approximately 16.1 dwelling units per net acre). This noise study has been prepared to satisfy the applicable City of Ontario noise standards and significance criteria based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) The results of this Noise Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report, consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Off-Site Traffic Noise 7 Less Than Significant -
On-Site Traffic Noise 8 --1 --1
Operational Noise 10 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
11 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant - 1
Impacts to the Project from the environment are not considered a noise impact under CEQA. 1705
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
2 This page was intentionally left blank.
1706
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures for noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential Project-related long-term stationary-source operational noise and short-term construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The Subarea 29 Specific Plan area is located on the northeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Amherst Avenue in the City of Ontario. The location of the Project is shown in Exhibit 1-A. The Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located approximately 4 miles north of the Project site, and Chino Airport is located approximately 3 miles east of the Project site.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located within the Esperanza Specific Plan (ESP). The approved original Specific Plan contemplated a 736-student elementary school within Planning Area 11. As part of the Project, the land use designation will be updated from “School” to “MDR Medium Density Residential” consistent with the adjacent land use to the northeast, as shown in Exhibit 1-B.

It is our understanding that the Project consists of an amendment to the ESP to replace the elementary school with 161 multifamily residential dwelling units (with a density of approximately 16.1 dwelling units per net acre). The Project also includes a 6-foot-high wall along Eucalyptus Avenue. The Project site plan is illustrated in Exhibit 1-C. 1707
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
1708
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: LAND USE PLAN
1709
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
6 EXHIBIT 1-C: PROJECT SITE PLAN
1710
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as “unwanted sound.” Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad-frequency noise sources by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects, which are described in more detail below.

EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.

2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) 1711
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
8 Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages rather than instantaneous noise levels. The most used metric is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in Aweighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise-sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when noise can become more intrusive. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Ontario relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation-related noise sources.

2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.

2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (2)

2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground.

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a 1712
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
9 reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (4)

2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors, such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence, can also have significant effects. (2)

2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line of sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide, and dense enough to completely obstruct the line of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (5)

2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements.

2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver.

Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must block the lineof-sight path of sound from the noise source.

2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair 1713
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
10 the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop, and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noisesensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (6)

2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Approximately sixteen percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints may occur. Twenty to thirty percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. (7 pp. 8-6) Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment.

Surveys have shown that community response to noise varies from no reaction to vigorous action for newly introduced noises averaging from 10 dB below existing to 25 dB above existing. (8) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (7), the percentage of high annoyance ranges from approximately 0 percent at 45 dB or less, 10 percent are highly annoyed at around 60 dB, and increases rapidly to approximately 70 percent being highly annoyed at approximately 85 dB or greater. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels, as shown in Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
1714
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
11 2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (8) , vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise.

Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude, often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS.

Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and the sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities.

The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration.
1715
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
12 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 1716
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
13 3 REGULATORY SETTING
The federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element, which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (9) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

3.2 CITY OF ONTARIO GENERAL PLAN
The City of Ontario General Plan (Policy Plan) identifies several policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community. Policy Plan Section S4, Noise Hazards, establishes a goal of maintaining an environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. (10) To satisfy this goal, the Policy Plan identifies six policies related to: noise mitigation; coordination with transportation authorities; noise mitigation; truck traffic; roadway design; airport noise compatibility, and rail noise mitigation. Noise criteria identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in Table 5.13-3 are the guidelines used in the 2010 General Plan to evaluate land use compatibility within various noise environments. Table 5.13-3 is reproduced here in Exhibit 3-A Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. The Project residential land uses are considered clearly acceptable within exterior noise level environments approaching 60 dBA CNEL and normally acceptable within noise level environments up to 65 dBA CNEL. For noise level environments greater than 70 dBA CNEL, the Project land uses would be considered clearly unacceptable and no new construction should be permitted.
1717
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
14 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL EXPOSURE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Source: The Ontario Plan 2050 Environmental Impact Report (Table 5.13-3). 1718
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
15 3.3 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Project, stationary-source (operational) noise levels are evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, which is included in Appendix 3.1. The City of Ontario requires that noise from new stationary sources in the City comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits the acceptable noise at the property line of the impacted property to reduce nuisances to sensitive land uses. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would result in noise levels that are acceptable to the City and would result in less than significant noise impacts from stationary sources (11).

Section 5-29.04(a) identifies the allowable daytime and nighttime ambient exterior noise standards for each land use type. For residential land uses (Noise Zone I), ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and may not exceed 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). (12) The lower noise level standard shall apply on the boundary between two (2) different noise zones. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard. The maximum acceptable Project-related operational noise levels received at off-site land uses in the City of Ontario are identified in Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
Noise Zone Land Use
Exterior Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Daytime
(7 am-10 pm)
Nighttime
(10 pm-7 am)
I Single-Family Residential 65 45
II Multi-Family Residential 65 50
III Commercial 65 60
IV Residential Mixed-Use 70 70
V Manufacturing and Industrial 70 70 1
Source: Section 5-29.04 of the City of Ontario Municipal Code (Appendix 3.1). 2 Leq represents a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given period.

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

Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (12) While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locations for CEQA analysis purposes. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on the Federal Transit 1719
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
16 Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for the analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.

According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise-sensitive residential land use. (8 p. 179)

3.5 VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment, such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (8) To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of a project, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Ontario does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (13 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage limit, is used in this noise study to assess potential temporary constructionrelated impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise-sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

3.6 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
The Project site is located approximately 4 miles south of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). This places the Project site within the ONT Airport Influence Area according to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). The ONT ALUCP was amended in July 2018 to promote compatibility between the airport and the land uses that surround it (14). Since the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the Project is subject to the Noise Criteria established in Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. As shown in Exhibit 3-B, the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone consistent with Policy Map 2-3. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, residential land uses and schools located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use.

For normally compatible land use, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise equivalent level (CNEL). 1720
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
17 EXHIBIT 3-B: ONT AIRPORT NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS
1721
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
18 The Project site is located approximately 2.5 miles east of the Chino Airport (CNO). This places the Project site outside the Chino Airport Influence Area according to Figure 1-4 Airport Referral Areas of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Chino Airport. As shown in Exhibit 3-C, the Project site is outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise level contour, and impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 3-C: CHINO AIRPORT NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS
1722
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
19 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (15) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.1 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (16) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is to compare it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the socalled ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged.

The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (17) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq).

As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (16) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria are exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the without project noise levels are below 60 dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 64 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase 1723
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
20 appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels are 65 dBA and higher, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increases in baseline ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project (baseline) noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise-sensitive uses. These levels of increase and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway Administration (4 p. 9), and Caltrans (18 p. 2_48).

4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.5, the vibration impacts originating from the construction of the Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary constructionrelated impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise-sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

4.3 CEQAGUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED (THRESHOLD C)
CEQA Noise Threshold C applies when there are nearby public and private airports and/or airstrips and focuses on land use compatibility of the Project to nearby airports and airstrips.

The closest airport that would require additional noise analysis under CEQA Guideline threshold C is the Ontario International Airport, which is located approximately 4 miles north of the Project site. As previously indicated in Section 3.6, the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone.

Similarly, as indicated in Section 3.6, the Project site is not located within the CNO Airport Influence Area and is outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone. Therefore, airport noise impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is provided under Guideline C.
1724
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
21 4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the Project. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix that includes the allowable criteria used to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site
Traffic All
If ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL2 ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is 60 - 64 dBA CNEL2 ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is >= 65 dBA CNEL2 ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase On-Site Traffic All See Exhibit 3-A
Operational
NoiseSensitive
Exterior Noise Level Standards1
65 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq2 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq2 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq2 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction
Permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays3 Noise Level Threshold4 80 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold5 0.3 PPV (in/sec) 1 City of Ontario Municipal Code, 5-29.04(a) exterior noise standards for residential land uses (Noise Zone I). 2 FICON, 1992. 3 City of Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-29.09(a). 4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 5 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

1725
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
22 This page was intentionally left blank.
1726
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
23 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, six 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Wednesday, October 4, 2023.

Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.

5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Actual measurement locations may be affected by location access, equipment security, and proximity to noise sources or solid objects that would affect the measurement and thus may be located at locations that have similar acoustic conditions as the desired locations. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent any part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines, which indicate that sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (19)
1727
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
24 EXHIBIT 5-A: AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
1728
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
25 Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence because each measurement represents a group of locations that share acoustical equivalence. (19) In other words, the area represented by the measurement location shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source as the receiver location. Receivers represent a location of noise-sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts.

Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. Appendix 5.2 provides a summary of the existing hourly ambient noise levels.

TABLE 5-1: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located East of the site at future residential 67.9 55.3 L2 Located Northwest of the site at future
residential 45.1 36.9
L3 Located North of the site 47.4 34.9
L4 Located West of the site near the residence
at 4500 S. Amherst Ave. 53.2 53.3
L5 Located South of the site near the residence
at 4576 S Afton Privado 60.3 53.4
L6 Located South of the site near the residence
at 4554 S Afton Privado 66.0 45.2
1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2.
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each 1729
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
26 hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.

1730
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
27 6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future traffic noise environment.

6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The estimated roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic were calculated using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (20) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California, the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (21) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major, or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period.

6.2 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
Table 6-1 presents the on-site roadway parameters, including the ADT volumes used for this study. The on-site roadway parameters are based on the City of Ontario General Plan Mobility Element roadway classifications. The maximum two-way traffic volumes are based on the roadway design capacity and reflect future long-range traffic conditions needed to assess the on-site traffic noise environment and to identify potential noise abatement measures (if any) that address the worst-case future noise conditions.

TABLE 6-1: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
Location Classification1 Lanes
Average Daily
Traffic
Volume2
Speed
Limit
(mph)2
Site
Conditions2
Eucalyptus Ave Arterial 4 21,700 40 Soft
Amherst Ave Local 2 9,500 25 Soft
Clifton Ave Local 2 9,500 25 Soft
Chatham St Local 2 9,500 25 Soft 1
Road classifications based upon the Esperanza Specific Plan, Exhibit 10 Master Circulation Plan. 2 Volumes based upon the roadway capacity defined City of Ontario General Plan (TOP2050) Draft EIR, Appendix K.

6.3 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes used for this study are presented in Table 6-1. The Existing Plus Project ADT was derived based on the differences in Opening Year ADT volumes 1731
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
28 added to the Existing ADT volumes. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 provide the time of day (daytime, evening, and nighttime) vehicle splits used for calculating CNEL values.

TABLE 6-2: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Time Period
Vehicle Type
Autos Medium
Trucks Heavy Trucks
Daytime (7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 77.50% 84.80% 86.50%
Evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) 12.90% 4.90% 2.70%
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) 9.60% 10.30% 10.80%
Total: 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Source: Typical Southern California vehicle mix.

TABLE 6-3: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) Roadway
Total % Traffic Flow
Total
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
All Roadways 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00%
Source: Typical Southern California vehicle mix.
1732
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
29 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
The Project would result in a small increase in regional and local traffic volumes. Because sources are calculated on a logarithmic scale, a doubling of the energy is required to generate a noise level increase of 3 dBA. In the case of traffic, a doubling of the traffic volume, without changing the vehicle speeds or mix ratio, results in a noise increase of 3 dBA.

Based on the Project trip generation analysis, the Project is anticipated to generate a net -5 new trips daily (22). Therefore, the Project’s traffic volumes would not result in an increase on Eucalyptus Avenue or other area roadways greater than predicted in the original Esperanza Specific Plan or The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050). Off-site traffic noise impacts would continue to be less than significant under CEQA.

1733
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
30 This page was intentionally left blank.
1734
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
31 8 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
An on-site exterior noise impact analysis has been completed to determine the noise exposure levels resulting from adjacent transportation noise sources in the Project study area and identify potential noise attenuation measures that would achieve acceptable Project exterior and interior noise levels. The primary source of transportation noise affecting the Project site is anticipated to be from Eucalyptus Avenue, Clifton Avenue, Chatham Street, and Amherst Avenue. The Project would also be exposed to nominal traffic noise from the Project’s internal roads. However, due to the low traffic volume/speed, traffic noise from these internal roads will not substantially contribute to ambient noise conditions.

8.1 EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
The expected exterior noise levels for the on-site Project land uses were estimated using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model and the parameters outlined in Tables 6-1 to 6-3. Table 8-1 presents a summary of future on-site exterior traffic noise levels at Project building facades, including the Project 6-foot-high wall along Eucalyptus Avenue. The on-site traffic noise analysis calculations are provided in Appendix 8.1.

TABLE 8-1: EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Building Roadway
Unmitigated
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)2
Land Use
Compatibility3
BLDG 20 Eucalyptus Ave 59.3 Clearly Acceptable
BLDG 7-14 Eucalyptus Ave 59.4 Clearly Acceptable
BLDG 6 Eucalyptus Ave 59.4 Clearly Acceptable
BLDG 5-6 Clifton Ave 62.7 Normally Acceptable
BLDG 4 Clifton Ave 61.0 Normally Acceptable
BLDG 4 Chatham St 64.4 Normally Acceptable
BLDG 1-3 Chatham St 63.9 Normally Acceptable
BLDG 27-28 Chatham St 62.3 Normally Acceptable
BLDG 27 Amherst Ave 62.9 Normally Acceptable
BLDG 26-22 Amherst Ave 62.9 Normally Acceptable
BLDG 20-21 Amherst Ave 62.9 Normally Acceptable 1 Project buildings shown on Exhibit 1-B. 2 Exterior on-site traffic noise level calculations are included in Appendix 8.1. 3 Based on the General Plan land use compatibility guidelines as shown in Exhibit 3-A.

The on-site exterior traffic noise analysis indicates that all buildings will experience exterior noise levels ranging from 59.3 to 64.4 CNEL. Based on the City of Ontario Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure shown in Exhibit 3-A, the Project land uses are considered clearly acceptable to normally acceptable with unmitigated exterior noise levels of less than 65 dBA CNEL. For normally acceptable exterior noise levels, acoustical reports will be 1735
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
32 required for major new residential construction. Conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems of air conditioning will normally suffice.

In addition, the Project will satisfy the City of Ontario 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land uses. This noise analysis shows that the Project will satisfy the City of Ontario 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential use without additional noise abatement measures.

8.1.4 EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Table 8-1 shows that on-site traffic noise levels do not exceed the City of Ontario 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for noise-sensitive residential land uses.

8.2 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the interior noise level standards, future exterior noise levels were calculated at the first-, second-, and third-floor building façade/balcony locations.

8.2.1 NOISE REDUCTION METHODOLOGY
The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building facade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." (4) (23)

8.2.2 INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL ASSESSMENT
To provide the necessary interior noise level reduction, Tables 8-2 through 8-4 indicate that Project land uses adjacent to Eucalyptus Avenue, Clifton Avenue, Chatham Street, and Amherst Avenue will require a windows-closed condition and mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). Table 8-2 shows that the future noise levels at the first-floor building façade are expected to range from 59.3 to 64.4 dBA CNEL, and with standard construction, interior noise levels will range from 33.9 to 39.4 dBA CNEL. Table 8-3 shows that the future noise levels at the second-floor building façade are expected to range from 60.8 to 65.5 dBA CNEL, and with standard construction, interior noise levels will range from 38.5 to 40.5 dBA CNEL. Table 8-4 shows that the future noise levels at the third-floor building façade are expected to range from

60.4 to 65.3 dBA CNEL, and with standard construction, interior noise levels will range from

35.4 to 40.3 dBA CNEL.

8.2.3 INTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Tables 8-2 through 8-4 show that on-site interior traffic noise levels will not exceed the City of Ontario 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard for residential development and additional noise abatement measures are unnecessary.
1736
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
33 TABLE 8-2: FIRST-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL)
Building Roadway
Noise
Level
at Façade2
Required
Interior
Noise
Reduction3
Estimated
Interior
Noise
Reduction4
Upgraded
Windows5
Interior
Noise
Level6
Threshold7 Threshold Exceeded?
BLDG 20 Keller Rd. 59.3 14.3 25.0 No 34.3 45 No
BLDG 7-14 Keller Rd. 59.4 14.4 25.0 No 34.4 45 No
BLDG 6 Keller Rd. 59.4 14.4 25.0 No 34.4 45 No
BLDG 5-6 Keller Rd. 62.7 17.7 25.0 No 37.7 45 No
BLDG 4 Keller Rd. 61.0 16.0 25.0 No 36.0 45 No BLDG 4 Keller Rd. 64.4 19.4 25.0 No 39.4 45 No BLDG 1-3 Keller Rd. 63.9 18.9 25.0 No 38.9 45 No
BLDG 27-28 Keller Rd. 62.3 17.3 25.0 No 37.3 45 No
BLDG 27 Keller Rd. 62.9 17.9 25.0 No 37.9 45 No
BLDG 26-22 Keller Rd. 62.9 17.9 25.0 No 37.9 45 No BLDG 20-21 Keller Rd. 62.9 17.9 25.0 No 37.9 45 No 1 Project site plan shown on Exhibit 1-B. 2 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows-closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). See Appendix 8.1. 3 Noise reduction to satisfy the interior noise level threshold. 4 A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction and approximately 2 dBA less than the STC rating for upgraded windows. 5 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 6 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 7 Interior noise level threshold: 45 dBA CNEL for residential use (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code). 1737
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
34 TABLE 8-3: SECOND-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) Building Roadway
Noise
Level
at Façade2
Required
Interior
Noise
Reduction3
Estimated
Interior
Noise
Reduction4
Upgraded
Windows5
Interior
Noise
Level6
Threshold7 Threshold Exceeded?
BLDG 20 Keller Rd. 65.3 20.3 25.0 No 40.3 45 No
BLDG 7-14 Keller Rd. 65.5 20.5 25.0 No 40.5 45 No
BLDG 6 Keller Rd. 65.4 20.4 25.0 No 40.4 45 No
BLDG 5-6 Keller Rd. 62.4 17.4 25.0 No 37.4 45 No
BLDG 4 Keller Rd. 60.8 15.8 25.0 No 35.8 45 No BLDG 4 Keller Rd. 63.9 18.9 25.0 No 38.9 45 No BLDG 1-3 Keller Rd. 63.5 18.5 25.0 No 38.5 45 No
BLDG 27-28 Keller Rd. 62.0 17.0 25.0 No 37.0 45 No
BLDG 27 Keller Rd. 62.5 17.5 25.0 No 37.5 45 No
BLDG 26-22 Keller Rd. 62.5 17.5 25.0 No 37.5 45 No BLDG 20-21 Keller Rd. 62.5 17.5 25.0 No 37.5 45 No 1 Project site plan shown on Exhibit 1-B. 2 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows-closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). See Appendix 8.1. 3 Noise reduction to satisfy the interior noise level threshold. 4 A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction and approximately 2 dBA less than the STC rating for upgraded windows. 5 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 6 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 7 Interior noise level threshold: 45 dBA CNEL for residential use (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code). 1738
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
35 TABLE 8-4: THIRD-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL)
Building Roadway
Noise
Level
at Façade2
Required
Interior
Noise
Reduction3
Estimated
Interior
Noise
Reduction4
Upgraded
Windows5
Interior
Noise
Level6
Threshold7 Threshold Exceeded?
BLDG 20 Keller Rd. NA NA 25.0 NA NA 45 NA
BLDG 7-14 Keller Rd. 65.3 20.3 25.0 No 40.3 45 No
BLDG 6 Keller Rd. 65.3 20.3 25.0 No 40.3 45 No
BLDG 5-6 Keller Rd. 61.7 16.7 25.0 No 36.7 45 No
BLDG 4 Keller Rd. 60.4 15.4 25.0 No 35.4 45 No BLDG 4 Keller Rd. 62.9 17.9 25.0 No 37.9 45 No BLDG 1-3 Keller Rd. 62.6 17.6 25.0 No 37.6 45 No
BLDG 27-28 Keller Rd. NA NA 25.0 NA NA 45 NA
BLDG 27 Keller Rd. NA NA 25.0 NA NA 45 NA
BLDG 26-22 Keller Rd. NA NA 25.0 NA NA 45 NA BLDG 20-21 Keller Rd. NA NA 25.0 NA NA 45 NA 1 Project site plan shown on Exhibit 1-B. 2 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows-closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). See Appendix 8.1. 3 Noise reduction to satisfy the interior noise level threshold. 4 A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction and approximately 2 dBA less than the STC rating for upgraded windows. 5 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 6 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 7 Interior noise level threshold: 45 dBA CNEL for residential use (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code). 1739
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
36 This page was intentionally left blank.
1740
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
37 9 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown in Exhibit 9-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas.

Moderately noise-sensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, outpatient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses typically unaffected by noise include industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, six receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.

R1: Location R1 represents the future residential area east of Clifton Avenue, approximately 83 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R1 is placed at the nearest potential location for future housing facing the Project site.

R2: Location R2 represents the future residential area northeast of the intersection of Clifton Avenue and Chatham Street, approximately 92 feet northeast of the Project site. Receptor R2 is placed at the nearest potential location for future housing facing the Project site.

R3: Location R3 represents the future park north of Chatham Street, approximately 75 feet north of the Project site. Receptor R3 is placed at the nearest potential location within the park use facing the Project site.

R4: Location R4 represents an existing residence at 4508 S. Amherst Avenue, approximately 130 feet west of the Project site. Receptor R4 is placed at the private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site.

R5: Location R5 represents the existing residence at 4095 E. Amigos Privado, approximately 202 feet south of the Project site. Receptor R5 is placed at the private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site.

R6: Location R6 represents the existing residence at 4556 S. Afton Privado, approximately 142 feet southeast of the Project site. Receptor R6 is placed at the private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site.

1741
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
38 EXHIBIT 9-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
1742
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
39 10 OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS
The Project is considered a noise-sensitive receiving land use and is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise levels beyond those typically associated with residential land uses in the Project study area. Additionally, Section 21085 of the California Public Resources Code states in part, “…for residential projects, the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment.” (29) A review of the legislative record indicates the author’s intent for Section 21085 was to “remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA.

Consequently, activities solely associated with occupants and quests, such as the swimming pool/spa activities, dog park activities, and outdoor activities in common spaces, are not considered part of this operational noise analysis for CEQA.” Based on the intent of the author of Section 21085, the operational noise sources are limited to the mechanical and non-verbal noise sources that occur onsite, including air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot movements.

Therefore, this section analyzes the potential operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations, identified in Section 9, resulting from the operation of air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot movements. Exhibit 10-A identifies the noise source locations used to assess the equivalent Leq operational noise levels.

10.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
The proposed development is considered a noise-sensitive receiving land use and is not expected to include any operational noise source activities that would impact existing residential land uses. Operational noise sources associated with residential development are generally limited to Project construction and maintenance. However, to assess the potential operational noise source activities from the Project, this section analyzes the noise impacts resulting from the operation associated with the proposed air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot movements.

AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
To assess the noise levels generated by the air conditioning units, reference noise levels were taken from equipment specifications for a 3- to 5-ton residential packaged air conditioning unit (Carrier 24ABC6); see Appendix 10.1. The air conditioning units were modeled as operating 45 minutes per hour during the daytime and 30 minutes at night, representing the typical maximum operating time for properly sized AC systems. The air conditioning units are anticipated to be located 3 feet above ground level. At a uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the units would generate a reference noise level of 44.4 dBA Leq. 1743
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
40 EXHIBIT 10-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
1744
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
41 TRASH ENCLOSURE ACTIVITY
To describe the noise levels associated with trash enclosure activity, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at an existing trash enclosure containing two dumpster bins at the Old Town West Parking structure in the City of Orange. The trash enclosure noise levels describe metal gates opening and closing, metal scraping against concrete floor sounds, dumpster movement on metal wheels, and trash dropping into the metal dumpster. The reference noise levels describe trash enclosure noise activities when trash is dropped into an empty metal dumpster, as would occur at the Project site. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 72.7 dBA Lmax and 57.4 dBA Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The reference noise level describes the expected noise source activities associated with the Project trash enclosures. Typical trash enclosure activities are estimated to occur for 10 minutes per hour.

PARKING LOT ACTIVITIES
Parking activities are based on the area of the parking spaces. The Project includes approximately 56 new uncovered surface parking spaces on-site. The surface parking spaces are assumed to have up to 2 movements per hour for 112 events per hour. Based on studies conducted in Europe and Australia, the average parking procedure, which included movement associated with either entering or exiting the parking area, parking the vehicles, and opening and closing doors, resulted in a sound power level of approximately 63 dBA Lw/square meter per event (24) (25).

10.2 REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To estimate the operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the Project. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles (e.g., walls, buildings, etc.), air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustic energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value not affected by the environment. The reference project operational noise levels are based on the Project related noise sources shown in Exhibit 10-A.

The reference Project's operational sound power levels are summarized in Table 10-1. 1745
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
42 TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./Hour4 Sound
Power
Level
(dBA)6
Day Night @ 50
Feet
Air Conditioning Units1 3' 45 30 44.4 76.0
Trash Enclosure Activity2 8' 10 10 57.4 89.0
Parking Lot Movements3 5' 60 60 31.4 63.0
1 Carrier 25HBC5 air conditioning unit, see Appendix 10.1. 2 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
3 Parking Area Noise, 2007.
4 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site.
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

10.3 CADNAANOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.

Using the ISO 9613 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of the noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles (e.g., walls, buildings, terrain, etc.), air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustic energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value not affected by the environment.

The operational noise level calculations in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces. Appendix 10.2 includes the detailed noise model inputs used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section.

10.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the Project operations that include air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot movements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the unmitigated operational source noise levels expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of 1746
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
43 the sensitive receiver locations. Table 10-2 shows the Project’s operational daytime noise levels. The hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 38.3 to 46.4 dBA Leq. Appendix 10.2 includes the detailed noise model inputs used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section.

TABLE 10-2: PROJECT DAYTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Air Conditioning Units 45.7 37.4 39.8 43.3 38.8 37.9
Trash Enclosure Activity 37.9 30.5 30.3 34.1 29.6 27.9
Parking Lot Movements 27.5 18.6 20.5 24.9 20.8 19.2
Total (All Noise Sources) 46.4 38.3 40.3 43.8 39.4 38.4 1 See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.2.

Table 10-3 shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 35.8 to 44.1 dBA Leq. Appendix 10.2 includes the detailed noise model inputs.

TABLE 10-3: PROJECT NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Air Conditioning Units 43.0 34.7 37.0 40.5 36.0 35.1
Trash Enclosure Activity 36.9 29.6 29.3 33.1 28.6 26.9
Parking Lot Movements 27.5 18.6 20.5 24.9 20.8 19.2
Total (All Noise Sources) 44.1 36.0 37.8 41.3 36.8 35.8 1 See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.2.

10.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 10-4 shows the operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City of Ontario 65 dBA Leq daytime and 45 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all the nearest receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations.
1747
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
44 TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 46.4 44.1 65 45 No No
R2 38.3 36.0 65 45 No No
R3 40.3 37.8 65 45 No No
R4 43.8 41.3 65 45 No No
R5 39.4 36.8 65 45 No No
R6 38.4 35.8 65 45 No No 1
See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Project operational noise levels as shown in Tables 10-2 and 10-3. 3 City of Ontario Municipal Code, Section 5-29.04 (Appendix 3.1) 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

10.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project-source noise is added to the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions are presented in Tables 10-2 and 10-3, respectively.

As indicated in Table 10-5, the Project will generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from less than 0.1 to 0.8 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. According to Table 10-6, the Project will generate nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from approximately 0.1 to 4.7 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. In effect, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced based on existing ambient noise conditions. Based on the result shown in Tables 10-5 and 10-6, the Projectrelated operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase criteria at the nearest sensitive receiver locations, and noise level increases will be less than significant. 1748
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
45 TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Existing
Noise
Sensitive
Land
Use?
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?7
R1 46.4 L1 67.9 67.9 0.0 Yes 1.5 No
R2 38.3 L2 45.1 45.9 0.8 Yes 5.0 No
R3 40.3 L3 47.4 48.2 0.8 Yes 5.0 No
R4 43.8 L4 53.2 53.7 0.5 Yes 5.0 No
R5 39.4 L5 60.3 60.3 0.0 Yes 3.0 No
R6 38.4 L6 66.0 66.0 0.0 Yes 1.5 No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown in Table 4-1.

TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Noise
Sensitive
Land
Use?
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?7
R1 44.1 L1 55.3 55.6 0.3 Yes 5.0 No
R2 36.0 L2 36.9 39.5 2.6 Yes 5.0 No
R3 37.8 L3 34.9 39.6 4.7 Yes 5.0 No
R4 41.3 L4 53.3 53.6 0.3 Yes 5.0 No
R5 36.8 L5 53.4 53.5 0.1 Yes 5.0 No
R6 35.8 L6 45.2 45.7 0.5 Yes 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown in Table 4-1.
1749
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
46 This page was intentionally left blank.
1750
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
47 11 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 11-A shows the construction activity boundaries in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 9.

To prevent high levels of construction noise from impacting noise-sensitive land uses, section 5-29.09 of the Ontario Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (12)
While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locations for CEQA analysis purposes. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for the analysis of daytime construction impacts. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noisesensitive residential land use. (8 p. 179).

11.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recognizes that construction projects are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing noise impacts during construction. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others. The Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating

11.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (26) The RCNM equipment database provides a comprehensive list of the noise-generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage 1751
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
48 factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.

EXHIBIT 11-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
1752
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
49 TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction
Equipmnet1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Composite Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Reference
Power Level
(dBA Lw)
Site
Preparation
Tractor 80.0
Front End Loader 75.0 82.9 114.5
Dozer 78.0
Grading
Tractor 80.0
Grader 81.0 84.2 115.9
Compactor (ground) 76.0
Building
Construction
Crane 73.0
Generator 78.0 82.1 113.7
Gradall 79.0
Paving
Paver 74.0
Dump Truck 72.0 77.8 109.5
Roller 73.0
Architectural
Coating
Man Lift 68.0
Compressor (air) 74.0 76.2 107.8
Generator (<25kVA) 70.0 1
FHWA Road Construction Noise Model.

11.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Consistent with FTA guidance for general construction noise assessment, Table 11-1 presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate at the same time. As shown in Table 11-2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 59.5 to 67.6 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.

Appendix 11.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs. 1753
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
50 TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest
Levels2
R1 64.0 65.3 63.2 58.9 57.2 67.6
R2 62.5 63.8 61.7 57.4 55.7 66.1
R3 63.0 64.3 62.2 57.9 56.2 66.6
R4 59.7 61.0 58.9 54.6 52.9 63.3
R5 55.9 57.2 55.1 50.8 49.1 59.5
R6 60.7 62.0 59.9 55.6 53.9 64.3 1 Noise receiver locations are shown in Exhibit 9-A. 2 Construction noise level calculations are based on distance from the construction activity, measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix

11.1. 11.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at the nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts.

The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities, as shown in Table 11-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 67.6 80 No
R2 66.1 80 No
R3 66.6 80 No
R4 63.3 80 No
R5 59.5 80 No
R6 64.3 80 No 1 Noise receiver locations are shown in Exhibit 9-A. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations, as shown in Table 11-2. 3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown in Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? 1754
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
51 11.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 11-4. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts, the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
TABLE 11-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 11-5 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 75 to 202 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from less than 0.01 to 0.02 in/sec PPV. Based on the maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.30 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all the receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.

Moreover, the impacts at the site of the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. 1755
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
52 TABLE 11-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Receiver1
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 82' 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.3 No
R2 92' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.3 No
R3 75' 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.3 No
R4 130' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.3 No
R5 202' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3 No
R6 142' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.3 No 1 Receiver locations are shown in Exhibit 9-A. 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 10-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
1756
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
53 12 REFERENCES

1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018.

2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.

3. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. 2001.

6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).

EPA 550/9/82/106.

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

9. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidlines. October 2019.

10. City of Ontario. The Ontario Plan Safety Section, S4, Noise Hazards. March 2014.

11. —. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR. April 2009.

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

13. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020.

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

15. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Checklist Form Appendix G. 2021.

16. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.

17. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

18. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009.

19. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

20. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.

21. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03. 1757
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
54 22. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Esperanza Specific Plan Trip Generation Assessment. 2024.

23. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. May 2011.

24. Bayerisches Landesamt fur Umwelt. Parking Area Noise, 6. Revised Edition. 2007. ISBN 3-936385-26- 2, ISSN 0723-0028.

25. Prediction of parking area noise in Australian conditions. Johnson, Laurence Nicol and Paul. Paper Number 39, s.l. : Gold Coast, Australia, 2-4 November 2011, Vol. Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2011.

26. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006.

1758
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
55 13 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (619) 788-1971.

William Maddux, INCE
Senior Associate
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
(619) 788-1971
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Urban and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, Pomona • June 2000

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineers, Member
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
AEP – Association of Environmental Planners
AWMA – Air and Waste Management Association

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Approved Acoustical Consultant • County of San Diego
FHWA Traffic Noise Model of Training • November 2004
CadnaA Basic and Advanced Training Certificate • October 2008. 1759
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
56 This page was intentionally left blank.
1760
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF ONTARIO MUNICIPAL CODE
57 1761
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
This page was intentionally left blank.
58 1762
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!
'()*+,-./01234,  5
&##&!&&!6  5#&
&  $5&
!&7& 
8
&
&!!  9&
&
&!!  8
&  :
!&!!

;&&  "<
6&
&&&

&  =&


&
>
6&

&  ?


;&6
& @
!6&



;




&


&A @>& @
&!#6&

&
$B#!
&! 


>
 C>
&
 
#>
& 
&
6 "8&#&
&!!&

& =
6
&%>  C;
&
 4DEFGH./FIJFKDELMNMOPQRQSSPRTPRUVMRTWQLPEXF 9 
;6#
&!&!!!


 YZ[
\&&!
&#>
&&6
&

6
!&%

&


#

=
6 &!
&




!#

%>


&
&!>
#

&&&A Y;Z[
\&
&&
&&#

>
&&6
&&


&

6
! &


&!
&

&!
&&

&


&!
##
&!!
&

 
;


#
&>&&#
6%#&!
6#

!&
#

=
6A&!
YZ[
&
6&


;&

#

>&&!
;
&
&#
&
&!&!&
! !!

#
>!
&
&&!
;6&!
#


!!




 >&&!
;
&
&#
&
&!&!&
!&

&#&!#


# 
&&!
&


;


#
&>&&#
6%#&!
6&!

 &!


#

!&
#

=
6 Y]?!"""##

  "Z 4DEFGH./FI.FKDSPRPOPQRVF 59
1763
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!
'
!&



#%!&!
!#&!#% ()*'+&
&,*
&

&&&,
!%

,&&,&&
&!
#
&!#

!&

!##&,&,
&!


 
&&!


%

&%



!##&,&
+! (+)*'+(&)-&*
&

&-&
.+!&




#


. ,!!








&

/
. ()*'%

!
&!,*
&


&!
,&!+(!0')
!%

 
&!,

&

'%

!#
&
%1()
%&&!

#
%&
.( ) 2
'%

!#
!
-

,.%&!,.

#

&.&&
# 
&!&&&


&#



&&!&


!#
&

&
3 !&
#
!& (!)*4+(!0')*
&
&
#
&



!#
&!



%&
.( )


 




+
&( )#


#
#


&!
!


#&
#
%&
.( ) ()*5

,&

&!&,(6
)*
&

7&
&
&5


&/&(75/) "
8
&!!#
&



&
,&

##


&!,&!&
 
!.

&,,,&!%




&
#

&.




 ,.&&,

&.,&,!
&

!2

&
!#


#



##
&()&

 (#)*7
,&*
&&#

!

&

.

&&()&!&!#

&
&
.%

&+

&
&!!!.8

+3
&+&.+

,
()*7&

,&*
&


&


&

!,&!+,

+&
&
,& 
&2

,&

,&#
&!!&!
&


!!

&#

&.
# 
&&!
&&#
&&
&
%

,&+&
&, (
)*
&
&&*
&


1,
&#
&
.



 ()*9*
&&.
&%&
!
&!
&!



&!++

&
#%


&!
&&
&&


!
&

%&&.& (3)*9,(
&!,)*
&

%

!
&!
,+
&!+.
#
&! ,

,&
&!!#

&.#
#

&

&
#


&!

:
#

 

&,(
&!,)
+'%

!
&!
, (1)*9(
&!),
*
&&&

&
&
!&
&&#&




&!#

&.%

&&
%1#


&
&!!
&
&#&&!
&!, :


#






&!,





7&
&
&5


& /&(75/) &! "
8
&!!


&
,&

##2.
&!, 
&&

&
&!


!!&&!&.-&

&



%,!

,&
!
 (;<!"""##

  ") =>?@ABCD@EF@G>HIJKLM>NKOIH>POK>H@ 2


&#
!+!
+&!


#%&&-& 
9Q&7 '&#.!&

R 9Q&77 '

#.!&

&!+
 1R 9Q&777'
.R 9Q&7S2
!&

&#!

R 9Q&S'&
#

&&!


&!


 60
1764
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!$

'



#


(&!&
&(
)&&!&
&
*

!
&&#
& 
*
&%



(&+,&-------../!!








 %

&

*)& 012!"""##

  "3 456789:;7<=7>?@5ABCADCBE5E@FDGFAGE7 03' #%&
&
&!!
&

%#(&!
!
(
 
%

&!&
!&)& 
HIIJKLMINOPQNRSJRTJSUNVNWNIXYZ HIIJKN[O\]SWLIN^QTJSUNVNWNI_VN\` XaZ TJSUN bJ^N cdeNJfVL^[gUNhL`i`QJYje`i` Yje`i`QJhL`i` - k&l(m!&  !no
!no --


l(m!&

* p
q !no !no --- r

( !no !no -. m!&


&#
!s !no !no .
&
#

&&!-&!

2

 s  !no !no 
03-#

*&
&/!



&
&!!

*&
&/
*

 
&!! 03

&
#&!&

##
!
(

&

1 0*3-

&%#
#&(&
&(
&%

&

&
!#

r
(

&
 %


&#&(&&
(%&!!
!

%&
!*(

& %

&


&/%
&
!
&(
&&&(


(
!

#

#%& 03'
&
&!!#

*)&#&(##
&&

03!t&! 03o
&
&
&
0&&
&3&/




/
#

&
&!!

%&
(0 3!no#&(!#
0
!
&o%

!%&3 03-&

/&


*&
&/!

&
&!!


%*&/
&!


(
*&!
#



*&
&/ 0!3'
+,&-.
&!!
(




&#!&

(#&%

&&

&!! 0 3#
#
(
#

&&
#



(
 03-#


&

&&*
&!(*
%&
%03!##&
&)&

%& /
&!!*


&)&
( 012!"""##

  "3 456789:;7<87uD@5ABCADCBE5E@FDGFAGE7 03' #%&&
&
&!!
&

%#(&!
!
(

 %

&!&
!&)& 
61 1765
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!

'(()*+,(-./0-12)13)24-5-6-(78'(()*-9:;<26+(-/03)24-5-6-(=5-;>78 ?@ABCD@ECFGHC@IJKELMBCNKOPOQ@RSHOPO RSHOPOQ@NKOPO TU&VWX!& 
!YZ
!YZ TT


VWX!&

[ \
]
!YZ
!YZ T^ X!&


&#
!_
!YZ
!YZ 
78T#

[&
&`!



&
&!!

[&
&`
[

 
&!! 78

&
#&!&

##
!
W

&

a 7[8T

&%#
#&W&
&W
&%

&

&
!#

b
W

&
 %


&#&W&&
W%&!!
!

%&
![W

& %

&


&`%
&
!
&W
&&&W


W
!

#

#%& 78c
&
&!!#

[d&#&W##
&&

78!e 78Z
&
&
&
7&&
&8&`




`
#

&
&!!

%&
W7 8!YZ#&W!#
7
!
&Z%

!%&8 78T&

`&


[&
&`!

&
&!!


%[&`
&!


W
[&!
#



[&
&` 7!8c
fg&T^
&!!
W




&#!&

W#&%

&&

&!! 7 8#
#
W
#

&&
#



W
 78T#


&

&&[
&!W[
%&
%78!##&
&d&

%& `
&!![


&d&
W 7ah!"""##

  "8 i-j>klmn>op>:q-rs02)/4> c
#%&
`

[
!#

`&#



 78Z&W
`
W&!

!&
[
W&`

W%



&&
#

%&[W&W 
[&

W
##W&

`&

[&



& 





[&

W


d!
#

`&#



c
&
! %





&
&&!
&
`



&!&!

!%![W

b
W&W
!

%

&

b
Wtu
!
&[
&!c
&
!%





& &

!

&
[!&
%
&&!&

&&
`&
`!!

`&
&!

!

&

&`

d
&&



[[W

 

[&

W#W

&&&&b
Wb
&e 7[8h&

!

&
[!&
%
&&!&

&&
`&
`!!! `&
&!

!

&


&
![W


u
!
&
`


 
&#!`&
e 78Z&W
&!`



&

!
!
&&
!%

&W 
&W`
%]%&&[`!!


&!&#&W[&&W[
!& 
`


&


&%

&#
W#`7
8&

&&W

#
[&
`
!e 7!8f

!%

&


&!&!
&!&#&W 
WU


`

&
![
[u



`&#a e 78f

!%

&


&!&!
&!&#
[

# %W!
&

d!
`We 62
1766
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!
'#()
&!*



&

!%





&*!!


 '(+
&!&

,-
%&" &! .
'(/


&&!

&


0!#



&*#


!
& !#
&


#
!

!*%

&!
&. '$(/


&&!

&

!%





&





! 
&*!!


&!&!&%



!-1

&&#!-1

2#&3
&
#)


. '(4

!%



&
&&#
1/


*

&
!-
-5



*&#6 ". '
()&1
*
1



&


&

#
-&
!-1

#!%. '()&1&

!%

&!

!%


1
!&

1 /

&
-
-5



*&#+
26 . '5()&1&
&
&#&

,%

&

2
1/

&
-
-5



 *&#+
26
"
. ',()&1&

!%

-,&!

&


&
&!-1&&&1 1%

&

2
1/

&
-
-5



*&#+
22

7
 . '(4

!

*!-1
!*&
&
!
!


!
 #!
&#



&!


&
&

&
&!!&!
&#*7

& 
&1--!
&

##
*!#

2
1*!
!*&
&
 '6+!"""##

  "( 89:;<=>?;@A;BCDEFGEEHIJDKLHGMGCHI9; '(N 
&%#
#&1&
1%&%

&

2
1
,
%
-!&1 
!*
*&

*&!

-&
&


!

-




#&1 



!#
&&1&
&1&-&#&&
*
&

#
 
2!O&#&
+##
#



!




&
1%&&!!
#,&

&7

1#
!!

-&*
*&

*&1&
!-


&
-
!
1&


&

&%

&&&1&
&

&


&
&

&&1
!
&#&1
&

&!,&
&!#1& !* '-(7
#

&!!&!&!
&


1-&!!&!
&&%


*
&#

 *&#


&
-&

!&
!!-

&

!


#%& '(7
*#

&. '(7
*&!&
&
1#

-,
&!'-&
(&#&1. '$(7

1#

&
!&
&. '
(7
&

&!0&&#

%

&%



&&
. '(7
!&
1#&
-

&#

%

&%



&&
. ' (7

#!1&!&



&
. '(7
!

&#

&. '"(P




&&
&

&
&


&
. '( 



&!
!-1&&
*

1.&! ' (P





%#

&!

*&#7
#

2!&!%




&&



!&-1-
!#


*
1%!
 63
1767
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&! 
'()!"""##

  "* +,-./012.34.5,6789:8,9;<=6>?;,?6?-,?:>@,9,AB76;>:?@. '*C&% &!&&
&&#
D

&D


&

& &&&


!

!&


!

E&#&&
F
D%
%G!&

 F&
D
H!I&#&
)##
E
%&



#" &!   'E*J&
&&







#
&%

&
&
&DE%! E
%&



#" &!  &%G!D&!E
%&



# &!  &K

!DK
&!D '*J

#
&%!E%

&D
!ED!&

 &#&&%&D!!F%D

&!


D
&DE%!E
%&



#" &!  &%G!D&!E
%&



# &! &K

!D K
&!D '!*C&!%&!&
D&
&&F&


E&

D
 
%&D&&%G&
&!

!
&&


&D
 

&

&&F
&#

F&#


& '*I
&J
F&#


&
&
D


#%& '*I&D
D&
&&

!ED

E
!&##L '*J
&
&&F&
#&D
E%G#
DED
EDED&D &&
&

&


E%G&

ED&D&&#&

%G

&



!
&#&E
##&D
E&DLF!!
%F


&
 &
D


H
D
D&

&

& '*J
H
D
&!
&

!!
&




&
&&F&
 !
D&D
&
&
EF '*J
&
&&F&
#&




&&
#EDE&!

!!
& &E
&

 '*J
H
DH
&
F!M
#
&&

F&&&F&&
 !
&



#D

N&
&&!
&

#

!D


%
!

%E
E
! 

&




&L&! '$*O&D&
&&


%



&
#!&(
 '()!"""##

  "* +,-./012.32.P:?@;9B-;>:?6-;>Q>;<?:>@,9,AB76;>:?@. '*C&% &!&&


&!&!&!&!
&&D


! E
!&
F
D

&D


&

&&&&


!

!&


!

E&#&&
F
D%
%G!&

F&
D
H!I&#&
)##&&D%G!D
E
%&



# &!  &K

!DK
&!D E
%&



# &!   'E*C&!%&& 

&&D%&&


E&

D

% &D&&%G&
&!

!
&&!&


&D


&

&& F
&#

F&#


& '*I
& '*J
F&#


&
&
D
&D&


&%G#!EDF
 
D%
&

N!ED

H
D
&

!&L '*J
&
&&F&
#&D
E%G#
DED
EDED&D &&
&

&


E%G&

ED&D&&#&

64 1768
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!
%'

&



!
&#&(
##&)
(&)*+!!
%+


&
 &
)


,
)
)&

&

& -./
,
)
&!
&

!!
&




&
&&+&
 !
)&)
&
&
(+ -./
&
&&+&
#&




&&
#()(&!

!!
& &(
&

 -./
,
),
&
+!0
#
&&

+&&&+&&
 !
&



#)

1&


&!
&

#

!)


%
!

%(
(
! 

&




&*&! -$.2&)&


&


%



&
#!&33
  -34!"""##

  ". 56789:;<8=>8?@A6BCDEFG7HI6J7K6L76C@GMJN8 / +&#




&
(&

!

(
&)%'
!##&


()
&!

 !
&#&)


(&)
(+



)&&#&
)&) -34!"""##

  ". 56789:;<8==857AMMFNOPHK7HB676J@6BNO7ADB7A6NOFGEBHBG6NOQDN6DQNOA6HF@A7HB6GJN@G@D@GMJNR5C67GHF CBMSGNGMJN8 T 
&%#
#&)&

&)&







!&+
&)
!) &





&


&


()

%


&

!

&
&!!#!&3
(!#

&!UV&T -34!"""##

  ". 56789:;<8=;85MDJPHQCFGWKGJI6XDGCQ6J@8 Y !'
&!#
(!!)
!+
!
#)
&!
( 
(0



+&#3$Z


&!#)&

&

&
(&

!
&
! 
&!+&
!&(

&

!
!
)
!
!)

$
)
')(!
)&

1!)
+&%

!&!&!
! #&

!&
)%

&(
!&&!&
!&!
!
&+)



&+ 
&)


&!
&
!&

!

(
!&%


!&+
&!
!&) ()
&
#

+
&%

&
! -34!"""##

  ". 56789:;<8=[8\QCFGWG6PNMDJP8 -./
,
),
&&


#%&
&#


#
&&!
&

 
(


#
#
)&!%##

1&)]
&1&





#
&!#)& 

&
)(&

!

&

&()

&


&

##!#
&!()

,
),
&#&!


&!





(#
)&!


+

#


1&#

 
&
)
+)&!#!#
(&
&#
!&!
&&)&&(

& #


&!&&#


##)&

&
&)T&&+&

+ 

1
&

!
&(%

!()&#

&


&)

!&
&
#&)
 !
((!




#)&

&
 -(.T

&%#
#&)&



&&&#%&#&
+&&
&
 &



!'
&!#)&!+&#!+(
&
&
!
&&)+
%

&

,
)#


#+&&


&!
&
'!!


 &)&(#&&
&&)

)!%''
(
) %





!#


,
#

!&U
%


&!&&)

+&#





+&#


&
)



#
&!#)&

&

& 
(+

)%
&
!&&&
&%



!&!
(+
+&
%


 65
1769
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!"
&
!&
!#!'(!%
&


(
)
'

&!!')

&&

&!!* +&&!

&&
&#

(&
%'
!'



)&&

 #

!&&
&

&
!&

),

(

!&- *+ 
#



&
#


& *+,

.
#

!&

/!
(&!


&!


& *!+0&
&#


!')


&
'#!%




.
#


&* + !)&!&

&&

&!!
%&
)* +!)


!
&%




&!#)& 

&
&
&!!
'
!0
&#(&
(!')

1
0&!&
#

2&
! 3

.&


&
#




&
#


&#

%&




& 



#&!&!

(&
%&
&


&
&#&!
&,

&
 &
&

#%&&#
& *+,
&!!&!

&&
'#'



%&&!


#


&!#)& 

&
4 *+,
&&
'#
&!

5
'
!4 *$+0&!
&#


&!#)&

&
%


'
!4 *
+6



&!#)&

&
%'
!#&&
4 *+,
!
&!

&&!%

&%

&!




)(
&%



 

&
!
'
!4 * +,
&&#&*+&%
%'&
!
&

&!

#&)
(
 #%



&


&!%
%
(


)
!


(
#&)
&!#)& 

&
!
&


#


(
#

!

&





&!

%
&
 &%



(&#



4 *+0

&
')

&





%&&!'
)%



(&#

 

&!

&!
&#


4&! *"+05

#

#
%

&%




(

'&!

!%


 !&&&!


&#


&&!&

&#
&!#)&

&
 *+,

.
#
!&)



&(5&)
#


##&!&)#

 #%& *+,

&&
&
)#&
&
&)!&&#
&4 *+,

#
&!#)&

&

&(&

(
)!%'
!&
& '
!&







/!






#
)#

)
&#

 '
&
(
)(&


&
'
&!


&!!
'
!')

2&# 7
!&1.!

'!
#

&8
.,

&!"4 *$+,

#
&!#)&

&

&(&

(
)!&
&'
!& 






5!


&
5&#
&


&!&

!(&

(
)
&!

'
&!!
#

&8
.,
4 *
+,
&!
&#&)
(
(&





&

&&


#

 

&
%
!&


&
&&'&
#&%


###
)4 *+,
&!
&#!
&(&








#



&
%
!&


 !
&


###
)4 * +,

&
'

!')

&
(




&
%
!(


(&#

 
&&)

(&##!

&!%4 *+,
&

&%&
&'
)%



(&#



&)&!
& !
&&)

!4 *"+,

!!)'&

!(&



&
&!!
&%

&
%

&!!* +)! !
#

&
&!!
&&!



!(&
%
!&!&
)/&!
)& 66
1770
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!


'
()&
&
(
!)%

&

*$+&




&
&!!,&
 -
&
')
#


(
&*"+. *+/
&

&

!,
,
&%

&


&!'&!&

0
!&
#


-
#
&%
!(&
'


&
&
#


& *#+1&!
&&%





#



&
%
!&


&
&&(&
#&%

 !
&


###
'


-
#
&!(


&
&'(
!
 *+/
,


&&!!#,

&!!
&
##&

!#
. *+/

&
#

!
#

&
&!
&


&
##

&. *$+2,(
'#
##&
#


&#



&
%



&#&
'&
#&%




##

&. *
+

'

'
&!&!#
%

#



&






!&&

##

&. *+

'
(
'&

&


&
'
3!
&!
&%

#



&


&



3!('&#

&!&'
!

!,#,
!
& *+1
&!& *+1#


&,!


-
#


&&,!'#


&


 &
&!


/


&


&#


#


&!#'& 

&



! *+2&'
&#!
(

,!!,!%

&#,*+!'#

#&

# *$+1#


&!,!


-
#


&!,!'#

%




 &
%

%

&

&
&

&#!, *+2&'&,!('!&#


-
#

!&'#&


-
'
&2
&!
(#!%



-
'-)%

&
&* +&!!' #


&





(0
#

1#

&
#
#&%

&


&* +!'#& !,!!
&!&

)##
!
'
&
&#

#&!2 
(&%
&&!
&
&

#%&&#
&*+&*+#

&#&

*(+ (#

&
&!&'&!&&
#

#


&!*+

&

#
 &!&
&!

&!!2#
,&



-
'-)
!
' #%!






-
'
&#
&!& *+/
-
'
&

&
#






#
&(#

-
'
&
&##2&'
&##
(&!

&'&3!!
 !&
!('

-
'
&/

&
(
#&


&
&* +&!!'#


 
#


&&



!&&
!
('

&
4
#


&
(,&&%
&&!!

#,*+&!!'


!
#


&(' 56%

##,


!!!!


!!
!&



&

 %

&#!##&
#



&/
&






&!#

&
 &#

!&&!





&!%



&%(
! *+/
-
'
&
&##
%

&
&* +&!!'#%&

&
&#


&)%

&#&!&&!!&%


(!,!


-
'&!

&
('#
4
%


&!&&',&&

-!

!&#

-
'
&
&##
 (

#&!&

,!&#

-
'2&'
'!
#!%



!&#

-
'
&
&##'),%#

!&
&!

,&#-!-,
!
77 
&!  
"&!!#



*
+1&!!
&
&'

,&#

-!


#
&!#'&

&
&!
&!

) &

-
'
(
(0



#%&

& *+/
&'
&!

!
&!

&
. 67
1771
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&! 
'()
&!
&
*

!%

&&

&!!' (+!#





&!,
+ -. '$(/
0
#
&!
*&
!



%&
*
!*#!
&&#&

&!!' (#
#


&!#+&

&

&!

1&!




0
&

&&*+
!

2&!

*&&
&
&%

&

&#%!
!*
+. '
(/

&!#+&

&

&!

1
&
*
!*
%&



#" &! "  '34!"""##

  "( 56789:;<8=>8?@A@BC6DE7F6G8 /

#&+
0
&

&!
&

0
0&

0& 
*
!/
!
&


&#




#&+&
&*

&&&

&+ 
&
!&%

*

0
&
!&
+%


&
!
!



 
##

!0%

!

0
&


0&

0& 
*
!

0

+%



&

&#

,#&H
,!
'34!"""##

  "( 56789:;<8=98I@EG6F6C6FJ6KGLB6J6MA8 '(/ 
&
!#
&
&0&!&

*
&+
# 0
+!
!1*&+&+
!#

&
0
+&!!&
#!*+

%&#
! *+&



&

%&


&
#

##
!
+

!#!&

& 0
&!!/

&+*


&
&

0
+!
&

!1*&+


&
*



!&
*
!&&&

&
0
+



&
&
 &
*!*0&

&
+&#&

&
&+
!
#

+! 
!1*&+/

&
!#
&
&0&&&!&

 *



&



&
/

&

&



*#0'(#
*0 #&
0
&&

#!1*&+


&

&



*#0'(#
*0

#&
!#0 '*(/

&
!#
&&
&0
*!%

&

##
!!&

&
/

&

*!
&


#
'
(#
#

%&#%

&

##%&!%&&&


&
/

&

*!%

%&!%& &&
&
'(N&+!*
&
!

&



0&#




*
!&!* '!ON(
!%


&!0

&

N%

!
&!
0 '34!"""##

  "( 56789:;<8=P8QBEJKRK7E6CE@FKAE@M8 N&+&!&

&0
&!!#!&33
&! 
*!!
* #0!&#0
&#

0&#



 '34!"""##

  "( 56789:;<8=S8Q6MKFAT8 '(N&+&% &&
+1&%&+0
&+0&#




*

+#& &#
&&!
&&0
&
*
&
**+#&#!&4
,3 U
!+0
& 

&



##&&!
*
&
*

 '*(N&+&%
&&
+1&%&+0
&+0&#



+*
*2

 #&'(#!&

!&

0

&
!
##&
#

&4
,3
/
&&# 
&!&

0

&
+%



!
#!&4
,,

/
 68
1772
 







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!







!"#
"
"$ #" !%&!
'()&!!
&!*


&&
&&#&*!+&

&
+

&*& +
&#&*+&#



%


&&
&&


&!+ !&

%,
&!!#!&




,!!&!!!
,
, &
&&!*,
,-

,
&
,*
&&!&-
&
&
!,*

#
&
-
!
& '!()&*+
&#



!!
,
,&
&&!*,,
!&!&%

%.
&#&#&



!!
,
,&
&&!*,,*

&#

 /
*/
&!!
,&&!&
&



*&%



&
& &
&!&!&*



,&,
&#


*%& '01!"""##

  "( 234567895:;5<=>?@43A3=BC=DCDAE=EFB@CBE?=5 '(G 
,

&,
*#
/!H&#&
1##
&#

+&#

 

&!
#

#
&
&

!,*



I

!


&
!,

&
,
!
&+

&
&
+
&
&%&&&
&!

&&!+!&+!&


/
* 

#
& ',(J+
&#0 
/!H&#&
1##
,
&!
&
&!&
* #-
*#
%'(!&
+&&



!%

&
*' (!*!

&&!
 #

#%& '(.



!&
!&
#!&
&
,
!
!%

&
%

&!!' (*!#

&
K&! '(L

&


&

!&


!&#
,
&
*&!



 &&*&#

!&
 '$(M
&#
%'(!&


!
++
&#0 ,

&


!
+


&
+
!&*

+&#



 '01!"""##

  "( 234567895:95NEBOPC=CQ3@RCES3@5 .
/
*
&

T!
&

*%+


+&#



#!#
&*



+
&#



#


*%+%
!,&


,&

&!

&#,&!
!&

&
+



+
*



!#&!

&


+
*# %




*%+


.

!*&
!
&




&
! &&*!&!&
&&
&*&

%

&


*'$ (!*#&

& '01!"""##

  "( 2345678958U5V?EF3CWCB3A3=BX@?Q@CA5 '(G& 
&%
!
!
&
*%!&
&!!&!+
& &
&&&
!##


/
*/
&*
,
&,
&



&T




#

&
&!##
!
*&!


&
T! 

&
 ',(Y,
&


#

&!


+!
&!
&&!

&
# 
+&
&%

&
&!!&!I!
&!
&&!

&
 *&
!,


&
,
!


&

&
,
&&
&


&# 
&&!


*#

&
 '01!"""##

  "( 69
1773
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
This page was intentionally left blank.
70 1774
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS

71 1775
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
This page was intentionally left blank.
72 1776
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan
15662_L1_C 1.North
33, 59' 35.790000"117, 33' 43.600000"
15662_L1_C 2.South
33, 59' 35.780000"117, 33' 43.600000"
15662_L1_C 3.East
33, 59' 35.780000"117, 33' 43.490000"
15662_L1_C 4.West
33, 59' 35.780000"117, 33' 43.520000"
73 1777
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan
15662_L2_E 1.North
33, 59' 36.710000"117, 33' 45.250000"
15662_L2_E 2.South
33, 59' 36.490000"117, 33' 44.370000"
15662_L2_E 3.East
33, 59' 36.490000"117, 33' 44.310000"
15662_L2_E 4.West
33, 59' 36.430000"117, 33' 44.290000"
74 1778
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan
15662_L3_J 1.North
33, 59' 35.420000"117, 33' 47.360000"
15662_L3_J 2.South
33, 59' 35.420000"117, 33' 47.330000"
15662_L3_J 3.East
33, 59' 35.450000"117, 33' 47.310000"
15662_L3_J 4.West
33, 59' 35.420000"117, 33' 47.360000"
75 1779
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan
15662_L4_L 1.North
33, 59' 31.850000"117, 33' 50.490000"
15662_L4_L 2.South
33, 59' 31.610000"117, 33' 50.690000"
15662_L4_L 3.East
33, 59' 31.590000"117, 33' 50.630000"
15662_L4_L 4.West
33, 59' 31.640000"117, 33' 50.660000"
76 1780
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan
15662_L5_O 1.North
33, 59' 26.240000"117, 33' 45.190000"
15662_L5_O 2.South
33, 59' 26.200000"117, 33' 45.190000"
15662_L5_O 3.East
33, 59' 26.160000"117, 33' 45.220000"
15662_L5_O 4.West
33, 59' 26.160000"117, 33' 45.250000"
77 1781
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan
15662_L6_S 1.North
33, 59' 29.250000"117, 33' 42.970000"
15662_L6_S 2.South
33, 59' 29.130000"117, 33' 43.020000"
15662_L6_S 3.East
33, 59' 29.130000"117, 33' 42.990000"
15662_L6_S 4.West
33, 59' 29.110000"117, 33' 43.020000"
78 1782
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

79 1783
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
This page was intentionally left blank.
80 1784
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15662
Project: Ontario Esperanza PA-11 Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 49.6 53.5 47.4 53.1 52.8 52.1 51.6 50.0 49.1 48.0 47.8 47.5 49.6 10.0 59.61 48.7 52.5 46.7 52.3 51.9 51.1 50.4 49.1 48.3 47.3 47.1 46.8 48.7 10.0 58.72 48.9 53.0 46.6 52.8 52.5 51.6 50.8 49.3 48.4 47.2 46.9 46.7 48.9 10.0 58.93 49.4 52.8 47.5 52.6 52.3 51.6 51.2 49.9 49.1 48.0 47.8 47.5 49.4 10.0 59.44 53.1 57.3 51.4 57.0 56.5 55.4 54.7 53.3 52.7 51.8 51.7 51.5 53.1 10.0 63.15 55.5 62.5 53.0 61.9 61.2 59.4 58.0 55.4 54.4 53.5 53.3 53.1 55.5 10.0 65.56 61.7 70.1 55.6 69.9 69.5 67.9 66.3 61.6 58.6 56.3 56.0 55.7 61.7 10.0 71.77 61.3 69.3 57.3 69.0 68.5 66.9 65.5 60.9 59.1 57.7 57.6 57.4 61.3 0.0 61.38 69.7 77.8 60.2 77.5 76.8 75.4 74.5 70.7 66.2 62.0 61.4 60.6 69.7 0.0 69.79 62.9 71.7 57.3 71.3 70.7 68.8 67.5 62.4 60.1 58.0 57.7 57.4 62.9 0.0 62.9 10 70.8 79.7 57.8 79.0 78.3 76.7 75.6 71.4 67.6 61.1 59.6 58.2 70.8 0.0 70.8 11 71.0 80.3 57.6 79.5 78.7 76.6 75.4 71.7 68.1 61.5 60.2 58.3 71.0 0.0 71.012 72.3 81.8 57.0 81.2 80.5 78.7 77.3 72.7 68.6 61.5 59.8 57.6 72.3 0.0 72.313 71.6 80.2 57.3 79.6 78.9 77.4 76.4 72.4 68.6 62.0 60.3 58.0 71.6 0.0 71.614 70.7 79.4 56.4 78.7 78.1 76.6 75.5 71.6 67.7 60.7 59.1 57.2 70.7 0.0 70.715 66.8 74.9 54.0 74.3 73.6 72.2 71.4 67.9 64.3 57.9 56.4 54.6 66.8 0.0 66.816 64.1 73.1 51.5 72.3 71.6 70.1 68.8 64.9 60.8 54.5 53.3 52.0 64.1 0.0 64.117 63.7 72.5 51.8 72.0 71.2 69.3 68.2 64.6 60.9 54.6 53.6 52.2 63.7 0.0 63.718 58.9 67.8 50.3 67.2 66.5 64.5 63.1 59.3 56.2 52.1 51.3 50.6 58.9 0.0 58.919 54.3 60.8 51.0 60.3 59.7 58.4 57.5 54.6 52.9 51.5 51.3 51.1 54.3 5.0 59.320 50.7 54.0 49.2 53.6 53.2 52.5 52.2 51.1 50.4 49.6 49.4 49.3 50.7 5.0 55.721 53.3 56.7 51.8 56.5 56.2 55.3 54.8 53.6 53.0 52.2 52.0 51.9 53.3 5.0 58.322 55.5 61.0 53.2 60.7 60.3 59.2 58.1 55.4 54.5 53.7 53.5 53.3 55.5 10.0 65.523 54.4 57.0 52.7 56.7 56.5 56.0 55.8 54.9 54.2 53.3 53.1 52.8 54.4 10.0 64.4 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 50.7 54.0 49.2 53.6 53.2 52.5 52.2 51.1 50.4 49.6 49.4 49.3 Max 72.3 81.8 60.2 81.2 80.5 78.7 77.3 72.7 68.6 62.0 61.4 60.6

67.9 71.5 70.8 69.3 68.2 64.7 61.6 57.1 56.2 55.1
Min 48.7 52.5 46.6 52.3 51.9 51.1 50.4 49.1 48.3 47.2 46.9 46.7 Max 61.7 70.1 55.6 69.9 69.5 67.9 66.3 61.6 58.6 56.3 56.0 55.7

55.3 57.4 57.1 56.0 55.2 53.2 52.1 51.0 50.8 50.6
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

67.1 67.9 55.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, October 4, 2023 L1 - Located East of the site at future residential

49.6 48.7

48.9 49.4

53.1 55.5

61.7 61.3

69.7 62.9

70.8 71.0

72.3 71.6

70.7 66.8

64.1 63.7

58.9 54.3

50.7 53.3

55.5 54.4

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_15600-16000\_15600\15662\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\15662_L1_C.xlsx 81 1785
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15662
Project: Ontario Esperanza PA-11 Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 29.7 32.7 28.0 32.4 32.1 31.5 31.1 30.1 29.4 28.4 28.2 28.0 29.7 10.0 39.71 30.7 33.8 28.9 33.6 33.3 32.6 32.2 31.1 30.5 29.4 29.2 29.0 30.7 10.0 40.72 30.1 33.4 28.0 33.2 33.0 32.2 31.7 30.6 29.7 28.6 28.4 28.1 30.1 10.0 40.13 30.1 32.9 28.6 32.7 32.5 32.0 31.6 30.4 29.9 29.0 28.9 28.7 30.1 10.0 40.14 34.9 38.1 33.3 37.8 37.4 36.8 36.2 35.1 34.6 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.9 10.0 44.95 38.9 49.8 34.5 48.9 47.7 45.1 42.5 36.7 35.7 34.9 34.8 34.6 38.9 10.0 48.96 43.5 52.6 36.6 52.3 51.9 50.0 48.1 43.4 40.3 37.1 36.9 36.7 43.5 10.0 53.57 44.7 55.1 38.4 54.5 53.7 51.5 49.5 43.7 40.2 38.8 38.7 38.5 44.7 0.0 44.78 54.4 60.7 43.0 60.3 60.0 59.1 58.5 56.0 52.6 45.8 44.5 43.3 54.4 0.0 54.49 42.7 53.5 34.7 53.1 52.5 50.6 48.4 39.6 36.7 35.1 35.0 34.8 42.7 0.0 42.7 10 46.2 54.8 38.4 54.2 53.8 52.2 50.3 46.1 43.8 40.6 39.6 38.6 46.2 0.0 46.2 11 43.5 52.8 32.1 52.2 51.5 49.6 48.3 44.1 40.2 34.5 33.6 32.5 43.5 0.0 43.512 43.9 52.5 33.1 51.7 50.8 49.4 48.4 44.8 41.4 36.1 34.9 33.5 43.9 0.0 43.913 42.7 51.5 32.3 50.7 49.9 48.0 46.9 43.5 40.3 34.9 33.8 32.7 42.7 0.0 42.714 42.1 50.2 32.7 49.3 48.6 47.2 46.2 42.9 40.1 35.6 34.6 33.2 42.1 0.0 42.115 41.1 49.3 31.5 48.7 48.0 46.4 45.2 41.8 38.9 34.0 33.1 32.0 41.1 0.0 41.116 37.5 46.3 29.0 45.8 45.2 43.4 42.1 37.8 34.4 30.6 30.0 29.3 37.5 0.0 37.517 37.6 46.6 29.5 46.1 45.5 43.3 41.9 37.9 34.7 31.1 30.5 29.7 37.6 0.0 37.618 38.6 46.5 32.0 45.9 45.4 44.1 43.0 39.3 36.0 33.0 32.6 32.1 38.6 0.0 38.619 37.2 40.3 35.9 40.1 39.8 38.8 38.3 37.4 37.0 36.3 36.2 36.0 37.2 5.0 42.220 34.8 36.3 33.8 36.2 36.0 35.7 35.6 35.0 34.8 34.1 34.0 33.8 34.8 5.0 39.821 35.4 38.5 34.1 38.2 37.9 37.1 36.5 35.5 35.1 34.4 34.3 34.1 35.4 5.0 40.422 35.7 39.4 34.1 39.1 38.9 38.3 37.8 35.8 35.2 34.5 34.4 34.2 35.7 10.0 45.723 35.2 37.2 33.8 37.0 36.8 36.5 36.2 35.5 35.0 34.3 34.1 33.8 35.2 10.0 45.2 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 34.8 36.3 29.0 36.2 36.0 35.7 35.6 35.0 34.4 30.6 30.0 29.3 Max 54.4 60.7 43.0 60.3 60.0 59.1 58.5 56.0 52.6 45.8 44.5 43.3

45.1 48.5 47.9 46.4 45.3 41.7 39.1 35.7 35.0 34.3
Min 29.7 32.7 28.0 32.4 32.1 31.5 31.1 30.1 29.4 28.4 28.2 28.0 Max 43.5 52.6 36.6 52.3 51.9 50.0 48.1 43.4 40.3 37.1 36.9 36.7

36.9 38.6 38.2 37.2 36.4 34.3 33.4 32.2 32.1 31.8
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

46.0 45.1 36.9
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, October 4, 2023 L2 - Located Northwest of the site at future residential

38.9 43.5

44.7 54.4

42.7 46.2

43.5 43.9

42.7 42.1

41.1 37.5

37.6 38.6

37.2 35.4

35.7 35.2

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_15600-16000\_15600\15662\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\15662_L2_E.xlsx 82 1786
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15662
Project: Ontario Esperanza PA-11 Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 29.5 32.6 27.8 32.4 32.0 31.5 31.2 29.9 29.2 28.3 28.1 27.8 29.5 10.0 39.51 29.6 33.4 27.8 33.2 32.9 32.2 31.5 29.8 29.2 28.2 28.1 27.8 29.6 10.0 39.62 29.9 32.7 28.1 32.5 32.2 31.7 31.4 30.4 29.6 28.6 28.4 28.2 29.9 10.0 39.93 30.3 33.3 28.8 33.0 32.7 32.1 31.5 30.6 30.1 29.3 29.1 28.9 30.3 10.0 40.34 34.1 38.1 32.3 37.7 37.4 36.6 35.9 34.3 33.5 32.8 32.6 32.4 34.1 10.0 44.15 36.4 41.4 34.4 41.0 40.5 39.5 38.5 36.6 35.7 34.8 34.7 34.5 36.4 10.0 46.46 40.0 47.3 36.2 47.1 46.9 45.4 44.0 39.6 37.8 36.7 36.5 36.3 40.0 10.0 50.07 42.0 50.0 38.1 49.8 49.6 48.4 46.7 40.6 39.2 38.4 38.3 38.2 42.0 0.0 42.08 50.4 57.0 40.1 56.7 56.3 55.4 54.6 51.6 48.3 43.0 41.7 40.3 50.4 0.0 50.49 38.2 47.5 33.9 47.2 46.8 44.8 42.3 36.9 35.2 34.3 34.2 34.0 38.2 0.0 38.2 10 50.5 57.2 42.4 56.7 56.2 55.0 54.2 51.6 49.2 45.0 44.1 42.8 50.5 0.0 50.5 11 49.7 56.8 40.4 56.4 55.9 54.7 53.9 50.9 47.9 43.0 41.9 40.9 49.7 0.0 49.712 51.8 58.6 43.0 58.1 57.3 56.2 55.4 52.8 50.4 46.0 45.1 43.6 51.8 0.0 51.813 50.6 56.8 42.0 56.3 55.8 54.8 54.1 51.8 49.4 45.0 43.9 42.4 50.6 0.0 50.614 49.9 56.1 41.6 55.6 55.3 54.3 53.5 51.1 48.7 44.5 43.4 42.1 49.9 0.0 49.915 47.0 54.0 37.8 53.4 52.8 51.7 50.8 48.1 45.7 40.8 39.6 38.2 47.0 0.0 47.016 44.2 50.9 35.6 50.4 49.9 48.7 48.0 45.4 42.9 38.3 37.3 36.0 44.2 0.0 44.217 43.4 49.0 35.9 48.6 48.3 47.4 46.8 44.6 42.3 38.3 37.3 36.3 43.4 0.0 43.418 42.1 53.8 32.4 52.6 51.6 47.1 45.0 42.3 38.5 33.9 33.4 32.7 42.1 0.0 42.119 34.7 39.2 31.8 38.8 38.5 37.8 37.2 35.5 34.0 32.4 32.2 31.9 34.7 5.0 39.720 31.5 35.0 30.2 34.8 34.5 33.6 33.0 31.8 31.1 30.5 30.4 30.2 31.5 5.0 36.521 35.3 39.0 33.9 38.8 38.5 37.6 36.9 35.4 34.9 34.3 34.2 34.0 35.3 5.0 40.322 36.5 42.3 34.2 41.9 41.5 40.3 39.4 36.2 35.4 34.6 34.5 34.3 36.5 10.0 46.523 34.7 37.1 33.2 36.8 36.6 36.2 35.9 35.1 34.5 33.7 33.5 33.3 34.7 10.0 44.7 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 31.5 35.0 30.2 34.8 34.5 33.6 33.0 31.8 31.1 30.5 30.4 30.2 Max 51.8 58.6 43.0 58.1 57.3 56.2 55.4 52.8 50.4 46.0 45.1 43.6

47.4 50.3 49.8 48.5 47.5 44.7 42.5 39.2 38.5 37.6
Min 29.5 32.6 27.8 32.4 32.0 31.5 31.2 29.8 29.2 28.2 28.1 27.8 Max 40.0 47.3 36.2 47.1 46.9 45.4 44.0 39.6 37.8 36.7 36.5 36.3

34.9 37.3 37.0 36.2 35.5 33.6 32.8 31.9 31.7 31.5
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

46.7 47.4 34.9
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, October 4, 2023 L3 - Located North of the site at future park site

36.4 40.0

42.0 50.4

38.2 50.5

49.7 51.8

50.6 49.9

47.0 44.2

43.4 42.1

35.3 36.5

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_15600-16000\_15600\15662\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\15662_L3_J.xlsx 83 1787
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15662
Project: Ontario Esperanza PA-11 Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 48.1 52.1 46.1 51.8 51.4 50.4 50.0 48.5 47.7 46.6 46.4 46.2 48.1 10.0 58.11 47.4 50.5 45.7 50.3 50.0 49.4 49.1 47.8 47.1 46.2 45.9 45.7 47.4 10.0 57.42 48.1 51.4 46.1 51.1 50.9 50.3 49.8 48.6 47.6 46.5 46.4 46.1 48.1 10.0 58.13 48.7 51.4 47.2 51.2 50.9 50.4 50.0 49.1 48.5 47.6 47.4 47.3 48.7 10.0 58.74 52.7 57.3 50.8 56.8 56.5 55.6 54.7 53.0 52.0 51.2 51.1 50.9 52.7 10.0 62.75 54.2 57.6 52.6 57.3 56.9 56.2 55.6 54.5 53.8 53.0 52.8 52.6 54.2 10.0 64.26 57.6 63.7 54.8 63.4 63.1 62.2 61.3 57.3 56.1 55.3 55.1 54.9 57.6 10.0 67.67 57.8 61.1 56.3 60.9 60.6 59.9 59.3 58.0 57.4 56.7 56.5 56.4 57.8 0.0 57.88 56.1 58.3 54.5 58.1 57.8 57.4 57.2 56.5 55.9 55.0 54.8 54.6 56.1 0.0 56.19 54.2 57.1 52.7 56.8 56.5 56.0 55.5 54.6 53.9 53.1 53.0 52.8 54.2 0.0 54.2 10 53.0 58.5 50.5 57.9 57.4 56.1 55.4 53.3 52.1 51.0 50.8 50.6 53.0 0.0 53.0 11 51.5 56.1 48.8 55.7 55.3 54.4 53.8 52.2 50.9 49.4 49.1 48.9 51.5 0.0 51.512 53.8 60.9 48.8 60.4 59.7 58.6 57.7 54.7 51.6 49.5 49.2 48.9 53.8 0.0 53.813 51.6 57.6 48.4 57.1 56.6 55.5 54.8 52.0 50.4 49.0 48.8 48.5 51.6 0.0 51.614 51.0 56.5 48.2 56.1 55.7 54.4 53.6 51.3 50.2 48.9 48.6 48.3 51.0 0.0 51.015 51.2 57.2 47.5 56.7 56.0 54.9 54.4 52.2 49.8 48.1 47.8 47.5 51.2 0.0 51.216 50.0 56.1 46.9 55.4 54.9 53.5 52.5 50.6 49.0 47.5 47.2 47.0 50.0 0.0 50.017 50.6 57.4 47.0 56.8 56.2 55.1 54.0 51.1 48.8 47.6 47.4 47.1 50.6 0.0 50.618 52.2 59.9 48.3 59.5 59.2 57.7 56.6 51.6 50.1 48.8 48.6 48.4 52.2 0.0 52.219 51.5 57.3 49.0 56.7 56.2 54.9 54.3 51.8 50.5 49.4 49.3 49.1 51.5 5.0 56.520 49.6 54.4 47.4 53.8 53.3 52.4 51.9 50.2 48.7 47.8 47.7 47.5 49.6 5.0 54.621 54.0 57.9 52.2 57.5 57.1 56.3 55.8 54.3 53.6 52.7 52.5 52.3 54.0 5.0 59.022 55.4 60.3 53.2 60.0 59.6 58.5 57.7 55.5 54.7 53.7 53.6 53.3 55.4 10.0 65.423 54.5 57.6 52.7 57.3 57.0 56.4 56.0 54.9 54.1 53.2 53.0 52.8 54.5 10.0 64.5 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 49.6 54.4 46.9 53.8 53.3 52.4 51.9 50.2 48.7 47.5 47.2 47.0 Max 57.8 61.1 56.3 60.9 60.6 59.9 59.3 58.0 57.4 56.7 56.5 56.4

53.2 57.3 56.8 55.8 55.1 53.0 51.5 50.3 50.1 49.9
Min 47.4 50.5 45.7 50.3 50.0 49.4 49.1 47.8 47.1 46.2 45.9 45.7 Max 57.6 63.7 54.8 63.4 63.1 62.2 61.3 57.3 56.1 55.3 55.1 54.9

53.3 55.5 55.1 54.4 53.8 52.1 51.3 50.4 50.2 50.0
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

59.9 53.2 53.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, October 4, 2023 L4 - Located West of the site near the residence at 4500 S.

Amherst Ave.

48.1 47.4

48.1 48.7

52.7 54.2

57.6 57.8

56.1 54.2

53.0 51.5

53.8 51.6

51.0 51.2

50.0 50.6

52.2 51.5

49.6 54.0

55.4 54.5

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_15600-16000\_15600\15662\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\15662_L4_L.xlsx 84 1788
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15662
Project: Ontario Esperanza PA-11 Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 53.8 57.1 51.9 56.9 56.7 55.8 55.3 54.4 53.4 52.5 52.3 52.1 53.8 10.0 63.81 46.2 50.5 44.2 50.3 50.1 49.4 48.5 46.4 45.6 44.6 44.5 44.3 46.2 10.0 56.22 47.6 51.1 45.7 50.9 50.6 49.9 49.3 48.0 47.1 46.1 45.9 45.8 47.6 10.0 57.63 48.7 55.1 45.8 54.8 54.4 53.5 52.4 48.6 47.0 46.2 46.1 45.9 48.7 10.0 58.74 52.4 59.4 49.7 59.0 58.6 56.8 55.3 52.1 51.0 50.1 49.9 49.7 52.4 10.0 62.45 54.2 60.1 51.9 59.8 59.5 58.0 56.7 54.1 53.2 52.3 52.1 51.9 54.2 10.0 64.26 58.4 66.9 53.6 66.6 66.3 64.3 62.6 57.9 55.5 54.1 53.9 53.7 58.4 10.0 68.47 61.6 70.7 55.0 70.4 69.8 67.9 66.1 61.7 58.5 55.4 55.2 55.0 61.6 0.0 61.68 61.0 72.7 53.7 72.1 71.2 67.9 65.3 58.8 55.8 54.2 54.0 53.8 61.0 0.0 61.09 58.3 68.0 52.4 67.6 67.1 65.4 63.7 56.5 54.1 52.8 52.6 52.4 58.3 0.0 58.3 10 61.7 70.2 54.1 69.5 68.8 67.2 66.2 62.1 59.2 55.8 55.2 54.4 61.7 0.0 61.7 11 62.2 70.2 54.7 69.5 68.8 67.0 66.0 62.8 60.3 56.7 55.9 55.0 62.2 0.0 62.212 62.6 70.4 54.2 69.9 69.4 67.8 66.6 63.3 60.7 56.3 55.4 54.5 62.6 0.0 62.613 63.0 71.2 54.4 70.5 70.0 68.4 67.3 63.6 60.9 56.5 55.7 54.6 63.0 0.0 63.014 63.5 71.6 54.7 71.1 70.6 68.9 67.8 64.3 61.3 56.9 56.0 54.9 63.5 0.0 63.515 60.6 68.8 52.2 68.4 67.7 65.8 64.7 61.3 58.5 54.4 53.6 52.6 60.6 0.0 60.616 57.2 65.5 49.9 65.1 64.6 62.6 61.2 57.5 54.9 51.4 50.7 50.0 57.2 0.0 57.217 56.8 64.5 50.0 64.0 63.6 61.9 60.6 57.4 54.9 51.5 50.9 50.2 56.8 0.0 56.818 55.1 63.0 49.6 62.6 62.1 60.4 59.2 55.3 52.8 50.5 50.2 49.7 55.1 0.0 55.119 53.1 61.2 48.9 60.9 60.4 58.5 57.2 52.7 50.7 49.3 49.1 49.0 53.1 5.0 58.120 57.6 68.8 52.3 68.1 67.1 64.6 61.4 55.2 54.1 52.8 52.7 52.5 57.6 5.0 62.621 53.1 60.3 50.6 59.8 59.3 57.2 55.9 52.9 51.9 51.0 50.9 50.7 53.1 5.0 58.122 54.1 62.5 50.9 62.2 61.6 59.0 57.1 53.5 52.2 51.3 51.2 51.0 54.1 10.0 64.123 52.3 56.4 50.4 56.2 55.8 55.0 54.4 52.6 51.7 50.8 50.7 50.5 52.3 10.0 62.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 53.1 60.3 48.9 59.8 59.3 57.2 55.9 52.7 50.7 49.3 49.1 49.0 Max 63.5 72.7 55.0 72.1 71.2 68.9 67.8 64.3 61.3 56.9 56.0 55.0

60.3 67.3 66.7 64.8 63.3 59.0 56.6 53.7 53.2 52.6
Min 46.2 50.5 44.2 50.3 50.1 49.4 48.5 46.4 45.6 44.6 44.5 44.3 Max 58.4 66.9 53.6 66.6 66.3 64.3 62.6 57.9 55.5 54.1 53.9 53.7

53.4 57.4 57.1 55.8 54.6 52.0 50.7 49.8 49.6 49.4
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

62.0 60.3 53.4
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, October 4, 2023 L5 - Located South of the site near the residence at 4576 S Afton Privado

53.8 46.2

47.6 48.7

52.4 54.2

58.4 61.6

61.0 58.3

61.7 62.2

62.6 63.0

63.5 60.6

57.2 56.8

55.1 53.1

57.6 53.1

54.1 52.3

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_15600-16000\_15600\15662\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\15662_L5_O.xlsx 85 1789
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15662
Project: Ontario Esperanza PA-11 Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 48.6 56.5 45.2 56.2 55.6 53.0 51.3 48.4 47.2 45.8 45.6 45.3 48.6 10.0 58.61 49.6 53.5 47.7 53.3 53.0 52.3 51.6 49.9 49.2 48.3 48.0 47.7 49.6 10.0 59.62 48.7 53.5 46.1 53.3 53.0 52.0 51.2 49.1 47.8 46.6 46.4 46.1 48.7 10.0 58.73 50.2 57.0 46.9 56.8 56.5 55.5 54.2 49.8 48.2 47.3 47.1 46.9 50.2 10.0 60.24 53.9 61.8 50.8 61.6 61.1 58.9 56.9 53.3 52.2 51.3 51.1 50.9 53.9 10.0 63.95 55.0 61.5 52.4 61.3 60.9 59.2 57.7 54.9 53.8 52.9 52.7 52.5 55.0 10.0 65.06 59.6 68.9 53.9 68.7 68.3 66.2 64.1 58.5 55.9 54.4 54.1 53.9 59.6 10.0 69.67 61.3 71.8 55.2 71.4 70.7 67.9 65.7 60.0 57.1 55.7 55.5 55.3 61.3 0.0 61.38 62.0 73.6 54.1 73.3 72.4 69.1 66.2 59.7 56.3 54.5 54.4 54.2 62.0 0.0 62.09 61.7 72.6 53.3 72.4 71.9 69.3 66.9 59.3 55.2 53.8 53.6 53.4 61.7 0.0 61.7 10 68.3 77.4 54.8 76.9 76.3 75.1 73.5 68.5 64.0 57.5 56.4 55.1 68.3 0.0 68.3 11 69.0 78.7 53.8 78.1 77.5 75.9 74.5 69.3 63.7 56.5 55.3 54.1 69.0 0.0 69.012 69.8 78.7 54.4 78.2 77.6 76.2 75.1 70.7 66.0 57.2 56.1 54.8 69.8 0.0 69.813 69.9 78.1 55.4 77.7 77.3 76.0 75.0 70.9 66.0 59.1 57.8 55.8 69.9 0.0 69.914 71.2 79.7 56.7 79.3 78.9 77.3 76.1 72.2 67.7 60.9 59.5 57.4 71.2 0.0 71.215 65.3 73.9 52.4 73.5 72.9 71.3 70.1 66.1 62.4 55.0 53.9 52.8 65.3 0.0 65.316 60.8 70.4 49.6 69.9 69.1 67.0 65.5 61.0 57.4 51.9 51.0 50.0 60.8 0.0 60.817 61.7 70.7 49.8 70.1 69.4 67.8 66.5 62.1 58.6 52.2 51.2 50.1 61.7 0.0 61.718 59.9 70.3 50.2 69.4 68.6 65.9 64.3 59.6 56.5 52.0 51.2 50.4 59.9 0.0 59.919 54.7 64.5 48.3 64.1 63.5 60.9 59.2 53.9 50.9 48.9 48.6 48.4 54.7 5.0 59.720 57.6 70.3 48.0 69.9 69.0 65.0 61.4 53.7 50.4 48.5 48.3 48.1 57.6 5.0 62.621 55.0 64.5 50.7 64.1 63.4 60.7 58.7 54.2 52.3 51.2 51.0 50.8 55.0 5.0 60.022 55.2 64.4 51.0 63.9 63.1 60.5 58.6 54.6 52.6 51.5 51.3 51.1 55.2 10.0 65.223 53.1 58.2 50.6 57.9 57.6 56.6 55.7 53.3 52.3 51.2 50.9 50.7 53.1 10.0 63.1 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 54.7 64.5 48.0 64.1 63.4 60.7 58.7 53.7 50.4 48.5 48.3 48.1 Max 71.2 79.7 56.7 79.3 78.9 77.3 76.1 72.2 67.7 60.9 59.5 57.4

66.0 72.6 71.9 69.7 67.9 62.8 59.0 54.3 53.6 52.7
Min 48.6 53.5 45.2 53.3 53.0 52.0 51.2 48.4 47.2 45.8 45.6 45.3 Max 59.6 68.9 53.9 68.7 68.3 66.2 64.1 58.5 55.9 54.4 54.1 53.9

54.2 59.2 58.8 57.1 55.7 52.4 51.0 49.9 49.7 49.5
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

65.5 66.0 54.2
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, October 4, 2023 L6 - Located South of the site near the residence at 4554 S Afton Privado

48.6 49.6

48.7 50.2

53.9 55.0

59.6 61.3

62.0 61.7

68.3 69.0

69.8 69.9

71.2 65.3

60.8 61.7

59.9 54.7

57.6 55.0

55.2 53.1

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_15600-16000\_15600\15662\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\15662_L6_S.xlsx 86 1790
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 8.1:

ON-SITE MODEL INPUTS
87 1791
Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Noise Impact Analysis 15662-06 Noise Study.docx
This page was intentionally left blank.
88 1792
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 20 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Eucalyptus Ave
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
21,700
10%

83.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,170 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 105.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 40 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.93 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-3.39
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 22.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-15.31 -3.38 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-19.27 -3.38 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.41
-0.55
-0.99
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

82.765

82.658

82.668
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.7 62.8 61.0 55.0 63.6 64.2

56.4 57.3

54.9 48.6 47.0 55.5 55.7

55.9 46.9 48.1 56.5 56.6
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 64.2 61.4 56.3 64.9 65.4
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.7 62.8 61.0 55.0 63.6 64.2

56.4 57.3

54.9 48.6 47.0 55.5 55.7

55.9 46.9 48.1 56.5 56.6
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 64.2 61.4 56.3 64.9 65.4

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
89 1793
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 7-14 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Eucalyptus Ave
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
21,700
10%

83.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,170 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 103.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 40 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.93 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-3.22
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-15.31 -3.21 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-19.27 -3.21 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.46
-0.60
-1.04
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

80.709

80.600

80.610
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.9 63.0 61.2 55.1 63.8 64.4

56.6 57.5

55.1 48.7 47.2 55.6 55.9

56.1 47.0 48.3 56.6 56.7
Vehicle Noise: 66.1 64.3 61.6 56.5 65.1 65.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.9 63.0 61.2 55.1 63.8 64.4

56.6 57.5

55.1 48.7 47.2 55.6 55.9

56.1 47.0 48.3 56.6 56.7
Vehicle Noise: 66.1 64.3 61.6 56.5 65.1 65.6

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
90 1794
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 6 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Eucalyptus Ave
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
21,700
10%

84.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,170 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 104.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 40 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.93 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-3.31
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-15.31 -3.30 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-19.27 -3.30 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.46
-0.60
-1.04
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

81.737

81.629

81.640
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.8 62.9 61.1 55.1 63.7 64.3

56.5 57.4

55.0 48.6 47.1 55.5 55.8

56.0 46.9 48.2 56.5 56.7
Vehicle Noise: 66.0 64.2 61.5 56.4 65.0 65.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.8 62.9 61.1 55.1 63.7 64.3

56.5 57.4

55.0 48.6 47.1 55.5 55.8

56.0 46.9 48.2 56.5 56.7
Vehicle Noise: 66.0 64.2 61.5 56.4 65.0 65.5

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
91 1795
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 5-6 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Clifton Ave
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
9,500
10%

31.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 41.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 25 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

2.25 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.86 2.30 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.82 2.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.81
-1.16
-2.25
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

34.843

34.588

34.613
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.9 59.0 57.2 51.1 59.8 60.4

55.3 57.5

53.8 47.5 45.9 54.4 54.6

56.1 47.1 48.3 56.7 56.8
Vehicle Noise: 63.3 61.6 58.0 53.7 62.3 62.7
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.9 59.0 57.2 51.1 59.8 60.4

55.3 57.5

53.8 47.5 45.9 54.4 54.6

56.1 47.1 48.3 56.7 56.8
Vehicle Noise: 63.3 61.6 58.0 53.7 62.3 62.7

71.09 77.24

59.44 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
92 1796
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 4 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Clifton Ave
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
9,500
10%

32.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 51.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 25 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

0.60 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 19.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.86 0.63 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.82 0.63 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.36
-0.65
-1.71
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

44.878

44.680

44.699
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.2 57.3 55.6 49.5 58.1 58.7

53.7 55.9

52.1 45.8 44.2 52.7 52.9

54.4 45.4 46.6 55.0 55.1
Vehicle Noise: 61.6 59.9 56.4 52.1 60.6 61.0
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.2 57.3 55.6 49.5 58.1 58.7

53.7 55.9

52.1 45.8 44.2 52.7 52.9

54.4 45.4 46.6 55.0 55.1
Vehicle Noise: 61.6 59.9 56.4 52.1 60.6 61.0

71.09 77.24

59.44 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
93 1797
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 4 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Chatham St
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
9,500
10%

25.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 33.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 25 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

3.96 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 8.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.86 4.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.82 4.03 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.95
-1.41
-2.82
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

26.796

26.463

26.496
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.6 60.7 58.9 52.9 61.5 62.1

57.1 59.3

55.6 49.2 47.7 56.1 56.3

57.8 48.8 50.1 58.4 58.5
Vehicle Noise: 65.0 63.3 59.7 55.5 64.0 64.4
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.6 60.7 58.9 52.9 61.5 62.1

57.1 59.3

55.6 49.2 47.7 56.1 56.3

57.8 48.8 50.1 58.4 58.5
Vehicle Noise: 65.0 63.3 59.7 55.5 64.0 64.4

71.09 77.24

59.44 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
94 1798
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 1-3 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Chatham St
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
9,500
10%

25.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 35.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 25 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

3.49 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.86 3.56 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.82 3.55 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.74
-1.17
-2.59
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

28.810

28.501

28.531
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.1 60.2 58.4 52.4 61.0 61.6

56.6 58.8

55.1 48.7 47.2 55.6 55.9

57.4 48.3 49.6 57.9 58.1
Vehicle Noise: 64.5 62.8 59.2 55.0 63.5 63.9
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.1 60.2 58.4 52.4 61.0 61.6

56.6 58.8

55.1 48.7 47.2 55.6 55.9

57.4 48.3 49.6 57.9 58.1
Vehicle Noise: 64.5 62.8 59.2 55.0 63.5 63.9

71.09 77.24

59.44 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
95 1799
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 27-28 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Chatham St
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
9,500
10%

25.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 43.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 25 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.88 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 18.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.86 1.93 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.82 1.92 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.34
-0.71
-2.13
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

36.851

36.610

36.634
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.5 58.6 56.8 50.8 59.4 60.0

55.0 57.1

53.4 47.1 45.5 54.0 54.2

55.7 46.7 47.9 56.3 56.4
Vehicle Noise: 62.9 61.2 57.6 53.4 61.9 62.3
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.5 58.6 56.8 50.8 59.4 60.0

55.0 57.1

53.4 47.1 45.5 54.0 54.2

55.7 46.7 47.9 56.3 56.4
Vehicle Noise: 62.9 61.2 57.6 53.4 61.9 62.3

71.09 77.24

59.44 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
96 1800
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 27 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Amherst Ave
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
9,500
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 25 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

2.44 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.86 2.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.82 2.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.80
-1.16
-2.30
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

33.838

33.575

33.601
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.1 59.2 57.4 51.3 60.0 60.6

55.5 57.7

54.0 47.6 46.1 54.6 54.8

56.3 47.3 48.5 56.9 57.0
Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.8 58.2 53.9 62.5 62.9
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.1 59.2 57.4 51.3 60.0 60.6

55.5 57.7

54.0 47.6 46.1 54.6 54.8

56.3 47.3 48.5 56.9 57.0
Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.8 58.2 53.9 62.5 62.9

71.09 77.24

59.44 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
97 1801
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 26-22 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Amherst Ave
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
9,500
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 25 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

2.44 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.86 2.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.82 2.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.80
-1.16
-2.30
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

33.838

33.575

33.601
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.1 59.2 57.4 51.3 60.0 60.6

55.5 57.7

54.0 47.6 46.1 54.6 54.8

56.3 47.3 48.5 56.9 57.0
Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.8 58.2 53.9 62.5 62.9
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.1 59.2 57.4 51.3 60.0 60.6

55.5 57.7

54.0 47.6 46.1 54.6 54.8

56.3 47.3 48.5 56.9 57.0
Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.8 58.2 53.9 62.5 62.9

71.09 77.24

59.44 Road Grade: 0.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
98 1802
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 20-21 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Amherst Ave
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
9,500
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 25 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

2.44 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.86 2.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.82 2.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.80
-1.16
-2.30
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

33.838

33.575

33.601
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.1 59.2 57.4 51.3 60.0 60.6

55.5 57.7

54.0 47.6 46.1 54.6 54.8

56.3 47.3 48.5 56.9 57.0
Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.8 58.2 53.9 62.5 62.9
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.1 59.2 57.4 51.3 60.0 60.6

55.5 57.7

54.0 47.6 46.1 54.6 54.8

56.3 47.3 48.5 56.9 57.0
Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.8 58.2 53.9 62.5 62.9

71.09 77.24

59.44 Road Grade: 0.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
99 1803
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 20 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Eucalyptus Ave
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
21,700
10%

83.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,170 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 105.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 40 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.93 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-3.33
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 22.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-6.480 -9.480
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-15.31 -3.32 -1.20 -5.900 -8.900
-19.27 -3.31 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.16 0.09

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

82.064

81.878

81.797
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.8 62.9 61.1 55.0 63.7 64.3

56.5 57.4

55.0 48.6 47.1 55.5 55.8

56.0 46.9 48.2 56.5 56.7
Vehicle Noise: 66.0 64.2 61.5 56.4 65.0 65.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

58.3 56.4 54.6 48.6 57.2 57.8

50.6 52.5

49.1 42.7 41.2 49.6 49.9

51.1 42.0 43.3 51.6 51.8
Vehicle Noise: 59.8 58.1 55.1 50.3 58.8 59.3

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
100
1804
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 7-14 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Eucalyptus Ave
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
21,700
10%

83.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,170 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 103.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 40 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.93 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-3.17
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-6.480 -9.480
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-15.31 -3.16 -1.20 -5.900 -8.900
-19.27 -3.15 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.16 0.09

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00

2.30 8.01

80.067

79.881

79.800
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.9 63.0 61.2 55.2 63.8 64.4

56.6 57.5

55.1 48.8 47.2 55.7 55.9

56.1 47.1 48.3 56.7 56.8
Vehicle Noise: 66.2 64.4 61.6 56.5 65.1 65.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

58.4 56.5 54.8 48.7 57.3 57.9

50.7 52.6

49.2 42.9 41.3 49.8 50.0

51.2 42.2 43.4 51.8 51.9
Vehicle Noise: 60.0 58.2 55.3 50.4 59.0 59.4

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
101
1805
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v10/31/19

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Esperanza Specific Plan
Job Number: 15662
Lot No: BLDG 6 Analyst: B. Maddux
Road Name: Eucalyptus Ave
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
21,700
10%

84.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,170 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 104.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 0.0
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 40 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.93 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-3.26
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-6.400 -9.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks: