Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Orange City Council
April 11, 2023

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
April 11, 2023
Body
Orange City Council
Pages
66
Original file
584.3 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on cityoforange.legistar.com. That file is the official record.

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2717
Project Number: 12423.003 Test Hole Number: LP-1
Project Name: SLR City Drive Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 20
Tested By: KMD Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 15 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
30 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
*P1 started 11/24/2020; **P2 started 11/29/2020
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
12:15 15.00 60.0
10:45 16.15 46.2
10:46 15.00 60.0
8:37 15.42 55.0
8:38 15.00 60.0
9:08 15.02 59.8
9:08 14.94 60.7
9:38 14.96 60.5
9:38 14.96 60.5
10:08 15.00 60.0
10:08 15.00 60.0
10:38 15.03 59.6
10:38 14.94 60.7
11:08 14.96 60.5
11:08 14.96 60.5
11:38 14.98 60.2
11:38 14.98 60.2
12:08 15.00 60.0
12:08 15.00 60.0
12:38 15.02 59.8
12:38 14.99 60.1
13:08 15.01 59.9
13:08 14.99 60.1
13:38 15.01 59.9
13:38 15.01 59.9
14:08 15.03 59.6
14:08 15.00 60.0
14:38 15.02 59.8
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.01 in./hr.
6 30 0.2 125.00
7 30 0.2 125.00
12 30 0.2 125.00
11 30 0.2 125.00
Infiltration Rate (I) = Flow Volume/Flow Area/Δt
5 30 0.2

0.01 0.01
8 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
9 30 0.2 125.00
3 30 0.5 62.50 0.01
4 30 0.4 83.33 0.01
P2** 1311 5.0 260.12 0.00
1 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
2 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
11/24/2020
11/30/2020

0.00 Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Percolation Data
P1* 5670 13.8 410.87
10 30 0.2 125.00 0.01

0.01 12:15 on 11/24/2020
8:38 on 11/30/2020

0.01 125.00 0.01

0.01 2718
1 1
1 1

0.25 0.25

0.25 0.25

1.0 1
1 1
1 0.25

0.25 0.25

0.25 1.0 1.00 (2 min.) 0.01 0.00 LP-1
See Boring Percolation Test Sheet LP-1 and Boring Log LP-1 Test performed at depth of 20 feet in native alluvial soil composed of silty clay. 2719
@0': 4-Inches asphalt concrete over 5-inches base
Artificial Fill, Undocumented (afu)
Silty SAND, olive brown, very moist, fine to medium sand, some coarse sand, some fine to medium gravel, some clay, trace coarse gravel
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': SAND, light tan, moist, medium dense, mostly fine sand, some medium sand, micaceous
@10': SAND, tan, moist, medium dense, mostly medium sand, some coarse sand
Total Depth: 11 feet
Converted to temprary percolation test well
Test zone screened from 6-11 feet
Boring backfilled upon completion
116'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
11-25-20

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 1 of 1 ends

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1a
Logged By
Date Drilled
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Plate 1, Geotechnical Map
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2720
Project Number: 12423.003 Test Hole Number: LP-1a
Project Name: SLR City Drive Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 11
Tested By: KMD Radius of boring, r (in): 4
Diameter of casing (in): 2
Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5
Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 5.78
Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (minutes)
Depth to
Water
(feet bgs)
Water Height,
H (inches)
Cumulative
Water Volume
Delivered
(gallons)
Total Volume of Water Delivered (gallons) 897.1
Total Volume of Water Delivered (cubic inches) 207230.1 Average Water Height (inches) 65.3
Average Percolation Surface Area (cubic Inches) 1692.7
Duration of Test (minutes) 70
Duration of Test (hours) 1.17
Measured Infiltration Rate (inches per hour) = 104.9
High Flowrate Percolation Test Calculation
8 11:42 10 5.40 67.2 897.1
7 11:32 10 5.46 66.5 770.5
6 11:22 10 5.49 66.1 643.3
5 11:12 10 5.54 65.5 517.0
4 11:02 10 5.60 64.8 389.6
3 10:52 10 5.66 64.1 261.5
2 10:42 10 5.73 63.2 133.1
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
11/25/2020
11/25/2020
Field Percolation Data
1 10:32 - - - 0.0
Measured Infiltration Rate = (Total Volume)/(Test Duration)/(Surface Area) 2721
1 1
2 1

0.25 0.25

0.50 0.25

1.25 0.25

0.25 0.25

0.25 1.00
1 1
1 1

2.0 105 52.5 LP-1a
See Boring Percolation Test Sheet LP-1a and Boring Log LP-1a Test performed at depth of 11 feet in native alluvial soil composed of sand. 2722
SM
LB1 SM
@0': 4" asphalt over 3" base
Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@7": Silty SAND, yellowish brown, predominantly fine SAND, moist
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, reddish brown, predominantly fine SAND, trace CLAY, moist
T.D. 8 feet
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Borehole converted into percolation well with 5 feet 0.02" slotted pipe and 5' solid pipe
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 1 of 1 ends

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Area of Proposed On-Grade Parking Structure
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location
Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
115
110
105
100
95 90
85 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
2723
Project Number: 12423.006 Test Hole Number: LP-2
Project Name: SLR The City Dr Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 8
Tested By: LFO Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 8 25 mins Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
7:51 4.79 38.5
8:16 6.59 16.9
8:27 4.52 41.8
8:52 6.62 16.6
8:53 4.73 39.2
9:03 5.72 27.4
9:05 4.86 37.7
9:15 5.78 26.6
9:29 4.86 37.7
9:39 5.91 25.1
9:41 4.57 41.2
9:51 5.75 27.0
9:53 4.39 43.3
10:03 5.60 28.8
10:05 4.59 40.9
10:15 5.71 27.5
10:16 4.66 40.1
10:26 5.75 27.0
10:28 4.51 41.9
10:38 5.65 28.2
Measured Infiltration Rate, I (Average of Last 3 Readings) = 1.73 in./hr.

P1 25 21.6 1.36
P2 25 25.2 1.52

13.1 1.73
12/27/21 7:51 AM
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Field Percolation Data - Falling Head Test
8 10 13.7 1.73
7 10
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
12/27/2021
12/28/2021
12/27/21 7:51 AM
2 10 11.0 1.51
1 10 11.9 1.58

1.77 4 10 14.2 1.84
3 10 12.6

14.5 1.79
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 6 10 13.4 1.74
5 10
2724

0.25 0.25

0.25 0.25

1.0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0.25

0.25 0.25

0.25 1.0 1.00 (2 min.) 1.73 0.86
See Boring Percolation Test Sheet LP-2 and Boring Log LP-2 Test performed at depth of 11 feet in native alluvial soil composed of silty sand.

LP-2
2725
SM
LB1 SM
@0': 5" asphalt over 3" base
Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@7": Silty SAND, dark brown, predominantly fine SAND,
micaceous, moist
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, dark brown, predominantly fine SAND, trace coarse SAND, moist
T.D. 8 feet
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Borehole converted into percolation well with 5 feet 0.02" slotted pipe and 5' solid pipe
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

Page 1 of 1 ends

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Area of Proposed On-Grade Parking Structure
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location
Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
115
110
105
100
95 90
85 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
2726
Project Number: 12423.006 Test Hole Number: LP-3
Project Name: SLR The City Dr Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 8
Tested By: LFO Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 8 25 mins Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
8:17 4.96 36.5
8:42 6.72 15.4
8:43 4.84 37.9
9:08 6.50 18.0
9:09 4.78 38.6
9:21 5.89 25.3
9:24 4.44 42.7
9:34 5.66 28.1
9:36 4.83 38.0
9:46 5.67 28.0
9:47 4.98 36.2
9:57 5.77 26.8
9:58 4.97 36.4
10:08 5.75 27.0
10:08 5.04 35.5
10:18 5.74 27.1
10:20 4.90 37.2
10:30 5.73 27.2
Measured Infiltration Rate, I (Average of Last 3 Readings) = 1.24 in./hr.

Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
12/27/2021
12/28/2021
12/27/21 8:17 AM
12/27/21 8:17 AM
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Field Percolation Data - Falling Head Test
P1 25 21.1 1.42
P2 25 19.9 1.25
1 12 13.3 1.49
2 10 14.6 1.78
3 10 10.1 1.35
4 10 9.5 1.33
5 10 9.4 1.30
6 10 8.4 1.18
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 7 11 10.0 1.30
2727
LP-3
1 1
1 1

0.25 0.25

0.25 0.25

1.0 0.25

0.25 0.25

0.25 1.0
1 1
1 1

1.00 (2 min.) 1.24 0.62
See Boring Percolation Test Sheet LP-3 and Boring Log LP-3 Test performed at depth of 8 feet in native alluvial soil composed of silty sand.
2728
G-2: Preliminary Hydrology Analysis
2729

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2730
840 THE CITY
840 CITY DRIVE, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY

ANALYSIS

PREPARED FOR

STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL
4180 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE 125
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92606
949.474.1960
www.fuscoe.com

PROJECT MANAGER
SHELBY SHIRLOCK, P.E.

DATE PREPARED: JANUARY, 2021
PROJECT NUMBER: [1517-004-01]
2731

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
840 THE CITY
840 CITY DRIVE, ORANGE, CA 92868
JANUARY, 2021
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS 840 THE CITY
840 CITY DRIVE, ORANGE, CA 92868
JANUARY, 2021
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS 840 THE CITY
840 CITY DRIVE, ORANGE, CA 92868
JANUARY, 2021
2732
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
FOR

STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL

ORANGE APARTMENTS
840 City Drive, Orange, CA
County of Orange
Prepared By:
______________________________________________________________________________ Shelby Shirlock, PE RCE C75912
Fuscoe Engineering, Irvine
16795 Von Karman #100
Irvine, CA 92606
For

STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL
4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 125
La Jolla, CA 92037
2733
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2

1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING ................................................................................................. 2

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................................ 2

1.3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 2

1.4 PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP ...................................................................................... 3

2.0 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC & HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................. 4

2.1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 4

2.2 EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES........................................ 4

3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT & HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS .................................................... 6

3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 6

3.2 PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERN AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .................................... 6

4.0 DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 7

5.0 RESULT SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 8

6.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 11 2734
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
The proposed Orange Apartments project is located at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange. The project site currently consists of a strip retail center and adjacent parking lots within a multi-building office complex owned by Granite Properties. The site is bounded by Garden Grove Boulevard to the south and The City Drive South to the east. The SR-22 freeway is to the north of the site and the SR-22/SR-57/I-5 interchange is located northeasterly of the site. The property is located in a developed area of the city and is surrounded by residential and commercial development. The drainage study area is approximately 13.8 acres. See Section 1.4 for Location Map.

The project site is located at FEMA flood zone ‘X’ per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0144J, map revised December 3, 2009. Flood Zone ‘X’ represents areas of reduced flood risk due to levee (Santa Ana River) (See Appendix 1).

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the existing drainage conditions & post development impacts in order to provide adequate drainage facilities for the proposed development located in the City of Orange, California.

This drainage study will analyze and compare the 2-year, 25-year & 100-year storm events for the existing and proposed conditions. Outcomes of the analysis will facilitate the conceptual layout of a drainage system to adequately convey storm runoff through the site without adversely impacting surrounding areas.

This analysis will also demonstrate that the storm water and flood protection goals as outlined in the Orange County Design Manual have been met. See Section 4.0 for Design Criteria.

1.3 METHODOLOGY
This study was prepared in conformance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual.

A.E.S. Computer Software (Version 21) was utilized to compile the hydrologic data and to determine the peak discharges and times of concentrations For reference – See Appendices 3-4
2735
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 3

1.4 PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP
The Project Site is identified in the location map shown below. 2736
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 4

2.0 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC & HYDROLOGIC

CONDITIONS

2.1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
The existing site’s drainage areas consist of a mixed-use strip retail center to the southeast, existing parking structure to the west, existing hotel to the northeast, several existing office buildings in the middle of the site, and asphalt paved surface parking, most of which are impervious.

2.2 EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES The existing site is generally flat, as the surface slopes are about 2%.

On the existing hydrology map, Area A (3.0 Ac) drains northwesterly towards a drain inlet catch basin north of the site. This inlet is being served an existing 24-inch storm drain that flows westerly.

Area B (2.5 Ac) consists of the northerly hotel area and paved parking, drains northerly towards a drain inlet north of the site. Runoff from this area joins the runoff from Area A and is conveyed by an existing 30-inch storm drain that flows westerly. The storm continues onsite that ultimately connects to an existing 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove Blvd.

Area F (2.2 Ac) consists of portions of a commercial building and paved parking, drains southerly towards a parkway culvert outlet south of the site. Runoff from this area is discharged towards the curb & gutter along Garden Grove Blvd and is captured by an existing catch basin. This catch basin is being served by an existing 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove.

Area G (2.8 Ac) consists of the southerly hotel area and paved parking, drains southerly towards an existing onsite catch basin. This catch basin is being served by an existing onsite 18-inch storm that flows southerly.

Area H (1.9 Ac) consists of portions of a commercial building and paved parking, drains northerly towards an existing onsite catch basin. Runoff from this area joins the runoff from area G and will be conveyed by an existing onsite 21-inch storm drain that flows southerly.

This storm drain connects to the existing 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove.

Area I (0.8 Ac) consists of portions of a strip retail building and paved parking, drains southerly towards an existing parkway culvert west of the site. Runoff from this area is discharged towards the curb & gutter along City Drive South. Then the runoff flows southerly 2737
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 5
towards Garden Grove and is collected by an existing catch basin. This catch basin is being served by the existing 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove.

Area J (0.4 Ac) consists of portions of a strip retail building and paved drive aisle, drains southerly towards an existing driveway. Runoff from this area is discharged towards the curb & gutter along Garden Grove Blvd and is captured by an existing catch basin. This catch basin is being served by an existing 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove.

The flows in the 54-inch storm drain is conveyed easterly and discharged to Santa Ana River.

Refer to Appendices 2 and 3 for Existing Hydrology Map and Calculations. 2738
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 6

3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT & HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project consists of a 6-level Type III residential building with 2-subterranean levels of parking. The proposed development is anticipated to include 255 residential units, along with 13,524 square feet of mixed-use retail construction. In addition, two adjacent proposed parking structures will also be developed. The proposed project runoff will not exceed the existing conditions and will have project BMP’s to mitigate the stormwater runoff.

3.2 PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERN AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES The proposed development will maintain the historic drainage patterns which drain from the northwest to the southeast. Generally, the onsite stormwater runoff will be captured by localized catch basins and drain inlets and flows will be diverted into high and low flows. The low flows will be routed first to the appropriate BMP’s to be treated. The high flows will be routed to main storm outfall via existing underground storm drains or surface discharge towards the driveways and culverts.

The proposed parking structure additions at areas A & B and F essentially does not deviate from the existing hydrologic patterns. The parking structures intent is to put several layers of stories on top of the existing ground floor pavements while maintaining most of its existing drainage patterns. The highest story/roof runoff will be captured into the structure plumbing system and will be routed to a downstream diversion structure. The low flows will be routed to underground infiltration chambers and discharge the low flow runoff via the site’s soil. The high flows will be routed to the existing storm outfalls. For Areas A & B, the high storm outfall is the existing onsite 30-inch storm drain that flows westerly. For Area F, the high storm outfall is the existing parkway culvert that discharges to the curb & gutters along Garden Grove Boulevard.

The proposed mixed-use building with 1.5 stories of subterranean parking structure affects the existing drainage areas H, I & J. Area H which flows northwesterly, will capture the majority of the proposed improvements via the building roof and plumbing system. The runoff will be routed to a proprietary biofiltration unit (Modular Wetlands Systems or MWS unit) sized to treat the disturbed areas. The MWS unit for this area has an internal diversion to treat the low flows and a bypass system for high flows. From this MWS unit, the runoff will be conveyed to the existing onsite 21-inch storm drain west of the building. Areas I & J are the portion of the proposed mixed-use building that flows southwesterly, will capture the majority of the proposed improvements via the building roof and plumbing system. Then the runoff will be routed to a diversion structure, which will capture the low flows and route to an MWS unit sized for the disturbed areas of I & J. The high flows will hydrostatically be discharged to driveway towards Garden Grove Blvd. The runoff will be captured by the existing catch basin to the existing 54-inch along Garden Grove.
2739
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 7
The site will be graded as such to have overland runoff for severe storms and the finish floor is set at least a foot over the 100 year-storm.

Refer to Appendices 2 to 4 for Proposed Hydrology maps and calculations.

4.0 DESIGN CRITERIA
• The proposed storm drain systems will be designed to be consistent with the following goals and guidelines:
• All building shall be protected from flooding during a 100-year frequency storm • Onsite design storm is based on a 25-year frequency in sump conditions for catch basins and the connecting storm drains also use a 25-year frequency. • Velocity should not exceed 20 FPS in a standard wall R.C.P. • Where velocity exceeds 20 FPS, a special wall R.C.P. with a minimum of 1½-inch steel clearance on the inside surface shall be used.
• Maximum velocity in special cover R.C.P. shall be 45 FPS. • Maximum W.S. in CB’s for design conditions shall be 0.5’ below inlet (FL.) elevation.
• Pipe size may not be decreased downstream without the City’s approval. 2740
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 8

5.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summaries of the 2-year, 25-year and 100-year peak flow and times of concentration analysis for existing and proposed conditions are provided on Tables 5.1 to 5.4.

Table 5.1 depicts the existing conditions flows and Table 5.2 depicts the proposed conditions flows at each drainage area outfalls.

Table 5.3 depicts the differences between the proposed and existing conditions flows at each drainage area outfalls. There will be no impact to the existing storm drain from the proposed parking structure improvements at Areas A&B. There will be a very minimal increase to the flows from the proposed parking structure improvements at Area F due to the very subtle area increase. There will be a very minimal decrease to the flows from the mixed-use improvements affecting Area H due to the routing difference. The runoff from the proposed mixed-use within Area I will not be discharged towards City Drive South like the existing conditions, but instead will be discharged along with Area J runoff towards the drive aisle and driveway at Garden Grove Blvd. The proposed flows will be increased at that driveway. Ultimately, the total runoff flows of Areas I & J that is being captured by the existing catch basin at Garden Grove will slightly decrease in the proposed conditions.

On Table 5.4, the overall proposed conditions flow from the affected drainage areas to the existing 54-inch storm drain along Garden Grove Boulevard will not exceed the existing condition for the 2-year, 25-year and 100-year events
It is our opinion that the proposed storm drain system will not have an adverse effect on any of the existing or proposed improvements within the project or adjacent public streets. In addition, all design criteria outlined above will be met and provided in the final hydrology report.
2741
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 9
Hydrology Calculations for Tables below are provided in Appendices 2, 3, & 4.

Table 5.1
Existing Conditions Flow Summary
Existing Conditions Flow Summary
Node Q2 (CFS) Q25 (CFS) Q100 (CFS) Tc (Min)
50 (Areas A&B) 6.39 13.91 17.83 9.20
70 (Area F) 3.43 7.39 9.47 7.57
150 (Areas G&H) 6.30 13.63 17.50 8.70
110 (Area I) 1.49 3.19 4.10 5.13
130 (Area J) 0.70 1.50 1.93 5.31
Total Drainage
Area

18.31 39.62 50.83
Table 5.2
Post Development Flow Summary
Post Development Flow Summary
Node Q2 (CFS) Q25 (CFS) Q100 (CFS) Tc (Min)
50 (Areas A&B) 6.39 13.91 17.83 9.20
70 (Area F) 3.46 7.46 9.56 7.57
150 (Areas G&H) 6.30 13.62 17.49 8.77
130 (Area I & J) 2.08 4.53 5.83 6.85
Total Drainage
Area 18.23 39.52 50.71
2742
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 10
Table 5.3
IMPACTS to Individual Nodes Flow Summary (Proposed – Existing) Onsite Impacts Flow Summary (∆)
Node Q2 (CFS) Q25 (CFS) Q100 (CFS) Tc (min)
50 (Areas A&B) 0 0 0 0
70 (Area F) 0.03 0.07 0.09 0
150 (Areas G&H) 0 -0.01 -0.01 0.07
110 (Area I)1 - - - -
130 (Area J) 1.38 3.03 3.90 1.54
1 – Proposed Area I is diverted and added to Area J outfall.

IMPACTS to Existing 54-Inch Along Garden Grove
Table 5.4
Peak Q Summary
Event Existing
(CFS) Proposed (CFS) ∆
(CFS)
Percentage
Change
2-Year 18.31 18.23 0.08 0.4%
25-Year 39.62 39.52 0.10 0.3%
100-Year 50.83 50.71 0.12 0.2%
2743
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS JANUARY, 2021
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 11

6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Supporting Maps and Plans
FEMA (FIRM) Map, Soil Map, & Improvement Plans
Appendix 2 Hydrology Maps
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Appendix 3 Existing Hydrology Calculations
2 year, 25 year & 100 year storm frequencies
Appendix 4 Proposed Hydrology Calculations
2 year , 25 year & 100 year storm frequencies
Appendix 5 Hydraulic Sizing Charts
2744
APPENDIX 1

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
2745
86*67KH1DWLRQDO0DS
2UWKRLPDJHU\'DWDUHIUHVKHG2FWREHU
1DWLRQDO)ORRG+D]DUG/D\HU),50HWWH
     
)HHW
š
6((),65(3257)25'(7$,/('/(*(1'$1',1'(;0$3)25),503$1(//$<287 63(&,$/)/22'
+$=$5'$5($6
:LWKRXW%DVH)ORRG(OHYDWLRQ
%)(

=RQH$9$

:LWK%)(RU'HSWK =RQH$($2$+9($5
5HJXODWRU\)ORRGZD\
$QQXDO&KDQFH)ORRG+D]DUG$UHDV
RIDQQXDOFKDQFHIORRGZLWKDYHUDJH
GHSWKOHVVWKDQRQHIRRWRUZLWKGUDLQDJH
DUHDVRIOHVVWKDQRQHVTXDUHPLOH =RQH;
)XWXUH&RQGLWLRQV$QQXDO
&KDQFH)ORRG+D]DUG =RQH;
$UHDZLWK5HGXFHG)ORRG5LVNGXHWR
/HYHH6HH1RWHV =RQH;
$UHDZLWK)ORRG5LVNGXHWR/HYHH =RQH'
126&5((1 $UHDRI0LQLPDO)ORRG+D]DUG =RQH;
$UHDRI8QGHWHUPLQHG)ORRG+D]DUG =RQH'
&KDQQHO&XOYHUWRU6WRUP6HZHU
/HYHH'LNHRU)ORRGZDOO
&URVV6HFWLRQVZLWK$QQXDO&KDQFH
 :DWHU6XUIDFH(OHYDWLRQ
&RDVWDO7UDQVHFW
&RDVWDO7UDQVHFW%DVHOLQH
3URILOH%DVHOLQH
+\GURJUDSKLF)HDWXUH
%DVH)ORRG(OHYDWLRQ/LQH
%)(

(IIHFWLYH/205V
/LPLWRI6WXG\
-XULVGLFWLRQ%RXQGDU\
'LJLWDO'DWD$YDLODEOH
1R'LJLWDO'DWD$YDLODEOH
8QPDSSHG
7KLVPDSFRPSOLHVZLWK)(0$
VVWDQGDUGVIRUWKHXVHRI
GLJLWDOIORRGPDSVLILWLVQRWYRLGDVGHVFULEHGEHORZ 7KHEDVHPDSVKRZQFRPSOLHVZLWK)(0$
VEDVHPDS
DFFXUDF\VWDQGDUGV
7KHIORRGKD]DUGLQIRUPDWLRQLVGHULYHGGLUHFWO\IURPWKH DXWKRULWDWLYH1)+/ZHEVHUYLFHVSURYLGHGE\)(0$7KLVPDS ZDVH[SRUWHGRQ
DW
30DQGGRHVQRW
UHIOHFWFKDQJHVRUDPHQGPHQWVVXEVHTXHQWWRWKLVGDWHDQG WLPH7KH1)+/DQGHIIHFWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQPD\FKDQJHRU
EHFRPHVXSHUVHGHGE\QHZGDWDRYHUWLPH
7KLVPDSLPDJHLVYRLGLIWKHRQHRUPRUHRIWKHIROORZLQJPDS HOHPHQWVGRQRWDSSHDU
EDVHPDSLPDJHU\IORRG]RQHODEHOV
OHJHQGVFDOHEDUPDSFUHDWLRQGDWHFRPPXQLW\LGHQWLILHUV ),50SDQHOQXPEHUDQG),50HIIHFWLYHGDWH0DSLPDJHVIRU XQPDSSHGDQGXQPRGHUQL]HGDUHDVFDQQRWEHXVHGIRU
UHJXODWRU\SXUSRVHV
/HJHQG
27+(5$5($62)
)/22'+$=$5'
27+(5$5($6
*(1(5$/
6758&785(6
27+(5
)($785(6
0$33$1(/6

%

7KHSLQGLVSOD\HGRQWKHPDSLVDQDSSUR[LPDWH
SRLQWVHOHFWHGE\WKHXVHUDQGGRHVQRWUHSUHVHQW
DQDXWKRULWDWLYHSURSHUW\ORFDWLRQ


ƒ
:ƒ
1
ƒ

:ƒ
1 2746
2747
840 CITY DRIVE, ORANGE, CA

STREET LIGHTS

ORANGE APARTMENTS
2748
2749
2750
2751

RESIDENT

BICYCLE

STORAGE
PET
GROOMING 95 GAL.
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
95 GAL.
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
FD

HOSE BIB
TUGGER
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
COMP
T
S
T
T
T
POSTAL

SERVICE

RESERVED
SPACE
FIRE

DEPARTMENT

CONNECTION
2,500 GAL.

RETAIL
GREASE
TRAP

S O U T H P A R K I N G S T R U C T U R E ABOVE

NORTH P A R K I N G S T R U C T U R E

ENTRANCE
EXIT

CALL BOX

GATE GATE

LOW CLEARANCE

BELOW RAMP

LOW CLEARANCE
BELOW RAMP 18 EXISTING SPACES REMOVED
31 EXISTING SPACES REMOVED

THE CITY DRIVE

PROP PARKING STRUCTURE

EX OFFICE BUILDING

PROP MIXED USED BUILDING

EX OFFICE

BUILDING

EX OFFICE BUILDING
EX

PARKING

STRUCTURE

EX OFFICE

BUILDING

EX HOTEL

W PARK CENTRAL AVE

EX GENERATOR

BUILDING
(PIP)

GARDEN GROVE BLVD
(FF = 121.8')
(FF = 121.6')
(FF = 121.6')

PROP PARKING STRUCTURE

SEE ENLARGED GRADING
& DRAINAGE
ON SHEET C2.1
COPYRIGHT 2020

STREETLIGHTS CREATIVE STUDIO, LLC
2300 N. FIELD STREET | SUITE 800
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 | TEL. 214-922-1182
[email protected]

DESIGN CONSULTANT

AUTHORIZATION

PROJECT TITLE

DRAWING ISSUES AND REVISIONS
Key Plan
No. Date Description 840 THE CITY ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
01/13/2020ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE

E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315
www.fuscoe.com
f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g
C-2.0

CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND
LEGEND

DRAINAGE PLAN

TYPICAL INFILTRATION CHAMBER
2752

RESIDENT

BICYCLE

STORAGE
PET
GROOMING 95 GAL.
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
95 GAL.
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
FD

HOSE BIB
TUGGER
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
COMP
T
S
T
T
T
POSTAL

SERVICE

RESERVED
SPACE
FIRE

DEPARTMENT

CONNECTION
2,500 GAL.

RETAIL
GREASE
TRAP

ENTRANCE
EXIT

CALL BOX

GATE GATE

THE CITY DRIVE

GARDEN GROVE BLVD

PROP MIXED USE BUILDING
LEVEL 1 FF = 125.0'
LEVEL B1 FF = 115.0'
LEVEL B2 FF = 105.0'

PROP RETAIL
LEVEL 1 FF = 122.0'

PROP FITNESS
LEVEL 1 FF = 119.8'
COPYRIGHT 2020

STREETLIGHTS CREATIVE STUDIO, LLC
2300 N. FIELD STREET | SUITE 800
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 | TEL. 214-922-1182
[email protected]

DESIGN CONSULTANT

AUTHORIZATION

PROJECT TITLE

DRAWING ISSUES AND REVISIONS
Key Plan
No. Date Description 840 THE CITY ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
01/13/2020ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE

E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315
www.fuscoe.com
f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g
C-2.1

CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND
LEGEND

DRAINAGE PLAN

PROPOSED MIXED USE BUILDING

ENLARGED GRADING DETAIL
2753
APPENDIX 2

HYDROLOGY MAPS
2754

THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH

GARDEN GROVE BLVD

EX OFFICE BUILDING
EX
OFFICE

BUILDING
EX
OFFICE

BUILDING
EX

PARKING

STRUCTURE

EX OFFICE

BUILDING

EX HOTEL

W PARK CENTRAL AVE

EX GENERATOR

BUILDING

EX BUILDING

LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS

SITE PARAMETERS
COPYRIGHT 2020

STREETLIGHTS CREATIVE STUDIO, LLC
2300 N. FIELD STREET | SUITE 800
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 | TEL. 214-922-1182
[email protected]

DESIGN CONSULTANT

AUTHORIZATION

PROJECT TITLE

DRAWING ISSUES AND REVISIONS
Key Plan
No. Date Description 840 THE CITY ORANGE, CALIFORNIA

E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315
www.fuscoe.com
f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g
01/05/2021 PROGRESS

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY MAP

EXISTING CONDITIONS
HYD-1
2755

RESIDENT

BICYCLE

STORAGE
PET
GROOMING 95 GAL.
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
95 GAL.
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
FD

HOSE BIB
TUGGER
3 CUBIC
YARD
3 CUBIC
YARD
COMP
T
S
T
T
T
POSTAL

SERVICE

RESERVED
SPACE
FIRE

DEPARTMENT

CONNECTION
2,500 GAL.

RETAIL
GREASE
TRAP

S O U T H P A R K I N G S T R U C T U R E ABOVE

NORTH P A R K I N G S T R U C T U R E

ENTRANCE
EXIT

CALL BOX

GATE GATE

LOW CLEARANCE

BELOW RAMP

LOW CLEARANCE
BELOW RAMP 18 EXISTING SPACES REMOVED
31 EXISTING SPACES REMOVED

THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH

GARDEN GROVE BLVD

W PARK CENTRAL AVE

EX OFFICE BUILDING
EX
OFFICE

BUILDING
EX
OFFICE

BUILDING
EX

PARKING

STRUCTURE

EX OFFICE

BUILDING

EX HOTEL

EX GENERATOR

BUILDING

PROP MIXED USE

BUILDING

PROP PARKING

STRUCTURE

PROP PARKING

STRUCTURE
COPYRIGHT 2020

STREETLIGHTS CREATIVE STUDIO, LLC
2300 N. FIELD STREET | SUITE 800
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 | TEL. 214-922-1182
[email protected]

DESIGN CONSULTANT

AUTHORIZATION

PROJECT TITLE

DRAWING ISSUES AND REVISIONS
Key Plan
No. Date Description 840 THE CITY ORANGE, CALIFORNIA

E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315
www.fuscoe.com
f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g
01/05/2021 PROGRESS

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY MAP

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
HYD-2

LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS

SITE PARAMETERS
2756
APPENDIX 3

EXISTING HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
2757
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:

Fuscoe Engineering
16795 Von Karman
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SLR ORANGE APARTMENTS *
* EXISTING CONDITIONS *
* 2 YEAR STORM *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1517EX.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:11 01/13/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED*
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 765.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.60 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 12.774
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.321
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
2758
APARTMENTS B 2.96 0.30 0.200 36 12.77
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.36
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.36
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 263.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.92
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.36
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.50 Tc(MIN.) = 14.28
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.24
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.36
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 411.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.861
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.630
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.51 0.30 0.100 36 8.86
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.61
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.51 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.61
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< 2759
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.86
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.63
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.61
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 3.36 14.28 1.240 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 3.0 10.00
2 3.61 8.86 1.630 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.5 30.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 6.39 8.86 1.630 0.30( 0.04) 0.14 4.3 30.00
2 6.09 14.28 1.240 0.30( 0.05) 0.15 5.5 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.39 Tc(MIN.) = 8.86
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.35 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 111.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.89
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.39
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.40 Tc(MIN.) = 9.26
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 1098.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 115.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.566
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.785
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
2760
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.17 0.30 0.100 36 7.57
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.43
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.43
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 461.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.785
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.540
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
APARTMENTS B 2.77 0.30 0.200 36 9.78
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.69
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.69
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 109.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 108.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 46.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.38
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.69
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.14 Tc(MIN.) = 9.93
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.93
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.53
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.69
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
2761
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 247.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.452
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.956
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.85 0.30 0.100 36 6.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.21
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.21
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.45
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.96
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.21
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 3.69 9.93 1.527 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 2.8 10.00
2 3.21 6.45 1.956 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.9 90.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 6.30 6.45 1.956 0.30( 0.04) 0.15 3.7 90.00
2 6.18 9.93 1.527 0.30( 0.05) 0.16 4.6 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.30 Tc(MIN.) = 6.45
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.65 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 107.00 2762
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.11
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.30
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.25 Tc(MIN.) = 8.70
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 150.00 = 927.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 135.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 119.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.129
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.231
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 0.75 0.30 0.100 36 5.13
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.49
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.49
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.309
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.187
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 0.36 0.30 0.100 36 5.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.70
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.70
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 TC(MIN.) = 5.31
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.70
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

2763
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:

Fuscoe Engineering
16795 Von Karman
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SLR ORANGE APARTMENTS *
* EXISTING CONDITIONS *
* 25 YEAR STORM *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1517EX.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:50 01/12/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 25.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED*
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 765.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.60 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 12.774
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.837
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
2764
APARTMENTS B 2.96 0.30 0.200 56 12.77
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.40
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.40
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 263.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.55
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.40
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.23 Tc(MIN.) = 14.01
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.01
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.69
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.40
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 411.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.861
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.489
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.51 0.30 0.100 56 8.86
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.81
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.51 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.81
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< 2765
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.86
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.49
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.81
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 7.40 14.01 2.693 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 3.0 10.00
2 7.81 8.86 3.489 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.5 30.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 13.91 8.86 3.489 0.30( 0.04) 0.14 4.4 30.00
2 13.41 14.01 2.693 0.30( 0.05) 0.15 5.5 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 13.91 Tc(MIN.) = 8.86
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 111.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.41
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 13.91
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.34 Tc(MIN.) = 9.20
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 1098.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 115.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.566
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.816
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
2766
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.17 0.30 0.100 56 7.57
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.39
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.39
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 461.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.785
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.299
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
APARTMENTS B 2.77 0.30 0.200 56 9.78
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.07
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.07
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 109.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 108.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 46.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.50
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.07
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.12 Tc(MIN.) = 9.90
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.90
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.28
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.07
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
2767
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 247.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.452
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.176
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.85 0.30 0.100 56 6.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.90
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.45
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.18
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.90
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 8.07 9.90 3.276 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 2.8 10.00
2 6.90 6.45 4.176 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.9 90.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 13.63 6.45 4.176 0.30( 0.04) 0.15 3.7 90.00
2 13.48 9.90 3.276 0.30( 0.05) 0.16 4.6 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 13.63 Tc(MIN.) = 6.45
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.65 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 107.00 2768
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.73
(PIPE FLOW VELOCITY CORRESPONDING TO FULL PIPE CAPACITY FLOW) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 13.63
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.57 Tc(MIN.) = 9.02
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 150.00 = 927.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 135.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 119.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.129
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.755
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 0.75 0.30 0.100 56 5.13
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.19
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.309
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.663
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 0.36 0.30 0.100 56 5.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.50
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 TC(MIN.) = 5.31
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.50
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

2769
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:

Fuscoe Engineering
16795 Von Karman
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SLR ORANGE APARTMENTS *
* EXISTING CONDITIONS *
* 100 YEAR STORM *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1517EX.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:11 01/13/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED*
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 765.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.60 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 12.774
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.615
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
2770
APARTMENTS B 2.96 0.30 0.200 76 12.77
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.47
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.47
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 263.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.70
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.47
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.18 Tc(MIN.) = 13.96
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.96
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.44
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.47
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 411.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.861
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.458
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.51 0.30 0.100 76 8.86
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.51 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.00
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< 2771
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.86
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.46
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.00
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 9.47 13.96 3.436 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 3.0 10.00
2 10.00 8.86 4.458 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.5 30.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 17.83 8.86 4.458 0.30( 0.04) 0.14 4.4 30.00
2 17.16 13.96 3.436 0.30( 0.05) 0.15 5.5 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.83 Tc(MIN.) = 8.86
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.39 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 111.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.00
(PIPE FLOW VELOCITY CORRESPONDING TO FULL PIPE CAPACITY FLOW) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.83
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.39 Tc(MIN.) = 9.25
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 1098.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 115.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.566
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.880
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):
2772
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.17 0.30 0.100 76 7.57
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.47
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.47
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 461.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.785
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.211
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
APARTMENTS B 2.77 0.30 0.200 76 9.78
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.35
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 109.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 108.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 46.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.70
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.35
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 9.90
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.90
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.18
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.35
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2773
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 247.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.452
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.346
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.85 0.30 0.100 76 6.45
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.85
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.85
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.45
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.35
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.85
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 10.35 9.90 4.183 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 2.8 10.00
2 8.85 6.45 5.346 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.9 90.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 17.50 6.45 5.346 0.30( 0.04) 0.15 3.7 90.00
2 17.26 9.90 4.183 0.30( 0.05) 0.16 4.6 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.50 Tc(MIN.) = 6.45
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.66 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ 2774
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 107.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.73
(PIPE FLOW VELOCITY CORRESPONDING TO FULL PIPE CAPACITY FLOW) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.50
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.57 Tc(MIN.) = 9.02
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 150.00 = 927.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 135.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 119.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.129
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.098
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 0.75 0.30 0.100 76 5.13
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.10
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.10
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.309
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.978
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 0.36 0.30 0.100 76 5.31
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.93
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 TC(MIN.) = 5.31
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.93
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

2775
APPENDIX 4

PROPOSED HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
2776
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:

Fuscoe Engineering
16795 Von Karman
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SLR ORANGE APARTMENTS *
* PROPOSED CONDITIONS *
* 2 YEAR STORM *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1517PR.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:12 01/13/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED*
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 765.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.60 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 12.774
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.321
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
2777
APARTMENTS B 2.96 0.30 0.200 36 12.77
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.36
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.36
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 263.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.92
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.36
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.50 Tc(MIN.) = 14.28
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.24
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.36
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 411.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.861
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.630
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.51 0.30 0.100 36 8.86
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.61
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.51 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.61
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< 2778
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.86
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.63
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.61
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 3.36 14.28 1.240 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 3.0 10.00
2 3.61 8.86 1.630 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.5 30.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 6.39 8.86 1.630 0.30( 0.04) 0.14 4.3 30.00
2 6.09 14.28 1.240 0.30( 0.05) 0.15 5.5 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.39 Tc(MIN.) = 8.86
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.35 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 111.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.89
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.39
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.40 Tc(MIN.) = 9.26
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 1098.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 115.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.566
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.785
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
2779
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.19 0.30 0.100 36 7.57
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.19 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.46
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 461.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.785
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.540
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
APARTMENTS B 2.77 0.30 0.200 36 9.78
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.69
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.69
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 109.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 108.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 46.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.38
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.69
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.14 Tc(MIN.) = 9.93
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.93
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.53
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.69
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
2780
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 325.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 125.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.514
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.945
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.85 0.30 0.100 36 6.51
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.19
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.51
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.94
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.19
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 3.69 9.93 1.527 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 2.8 10.00
2 3.19 6.51 1.945 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.9 90.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 6.30 6.51 1.945 0.30( 0.04) 0.15 3.7 90.00
2 6.18 9.93 1.527 0.30( 0.05) 0.16 4.6 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.30 Tc(MIN.) = 6.51
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.67 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 107.00 2781
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.10
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.30
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.25 Tc(MIN.) = 8.77
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 150.00 = 927.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 238.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 125.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 121.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.143
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.011
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.09 0.30 0.100 36 6.14
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.94
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.09 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.94
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 121.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 117.10 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 159.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.08 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.34
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.09
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.91
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.86 Tc(MIN.) = 7.00
* 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.866
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
COMMERCIAL B 0.17 0.30 0.100 36
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28
2782
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.26 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.08
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.34
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.08 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.91 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 397.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 TC(MIN.) = 7.00
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.26 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.08
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

2783
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:

Fuscoe Engineering
16795 Von Karman
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SLR ORANGE APARTMENTS *
* PROPOSED CONDITIONS *
* 25 YEAR STORM *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1517PR.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 12:03 01/13/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 25.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED*
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 765.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.60 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 12.774
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.837
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
2784
APARTMENTS B 2.96 0.30 0.200 56 12.77
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.40
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.40
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 263.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.55
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.40
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.23 Tc(MIN.) = 14.01
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.01
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.69
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.40
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 411.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.861
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.489
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.51 0.30 0.100 56 8.86
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.81
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.51 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.81
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< 2785
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.86
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.49
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.81
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 7.40 14.01 2.693 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 3.0 10.00
2 7.81 8.86 3.489 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.5 30.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 13.91 8.86 3.489 0.30( 0.04) 0.14 4.4 30.00
2 13.41 14.01 2.693 0.30( 0.05) 0.15 5.5 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 13.91 Tc(MIN.) = 8.86
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 111.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.41
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 13.91
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.34 Tc(MIN.) = 9.20
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 1098.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 115.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.566
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.816
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
2786
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.19 0.30 0.100 56 7.57
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.19 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.46
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 461.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.785
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.299
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
APARTMENTS B 2.77 0.30 0.200 56 9.78
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.07
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.07
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 109.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 108.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 46.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.50
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.07
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.12 Tc(MIN.) = 9.90
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.90
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.28
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.07
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
2787
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 325.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 125.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.514
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.153
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.85 0.30 0.100 56 6.51
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.86
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.86
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.51
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.15
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.86
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 8.07 9.90 3.276 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 2.8 10.00
2 6.86 6.51 4.153 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.9 90.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 13.62 6.51 4.153 0.30( 0.04) 0.15 3.7 90.00
2 13.48 9.90 3.276 0.30( 0.05) 0.16 4.6 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 13.62 Tc(MIN.) = 6.51
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.67 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 107.00 2788
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.73
(PIPE FLOW VELOCITY CORRESPONDING TO FULL PIPE CAPACITY FLOW) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 13.62
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.57 Tc(MIN.) = 9.08
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 150.00 = 927.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 238.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 125.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 121.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.143
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.293
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.09 0.30 0.100 56 6.14
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.09 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.18
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 121.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 117.10 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 159.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.49 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.90
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.58
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.28
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.74 Tc(MIN.) = 6.88
* 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.025
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
COMMERCIAL B 0.17 0.30 0.100 56
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
2789
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.61
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.26 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.53
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.90 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.61 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.29 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 397.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 TC(MIN.) = 6.88
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.26 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.53
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

2790
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:

Fuscoe Engineering
16795 Von Karman
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SLR ORANGE APARTMENTS *
* PROPOSED CONDITIONS *
* 100 YEAR STORM *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1517PR.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:13 01/13/2021
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED*
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 765.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.60 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 12.774
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.615
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
2791
APARTMENTS B 2.96 0.30 0.200 76 12.77
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.47
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.47
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 263.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.70
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.47
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.18 Tc(MIN.) = 13.96
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.96
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.44
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.96
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.47
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 411.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 116.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.861
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.458
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.51 0.30 0.100 76 8.86
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.51 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.00
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< 2792
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.86
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.46
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.51
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.00
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 9.47 13.96 3.436 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 3.0 10.00
2 10.00 8.86 4.458 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.5 30.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 17.83 8.86 4.458 0.30( 0.04) 0.14 4.4 30.00
2 17.16 13.96 3.436 0.30( 0.05) 0.15 5.5 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.83 Tc(MIN.) = 8.86
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.39 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.5
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 1028.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 112.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 111.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.00
(PIPE FLOW VELOCITY CORRESPONDING TO FULL PIPE CAPACITY FLOW) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.83
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.39 Tc(MIN.) = 9.25
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 1098.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 115.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.566
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.880
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):
2793
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 2.19 0.30 0.100 76 7.57
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.56
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.19 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.56
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 461.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 121.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.785
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.211
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
APARTMENTS B 2.77 0.30 0.200 76 9.78
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.35
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 109.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 108.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 46.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.70
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.35
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 9.90
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.90
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.18
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.77
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.35
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2794
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 325.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 125.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 117.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.514
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.317
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.85 0.30 0.100 76 6.51
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.80
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.80
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.51
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.32
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.80
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 10.35 9.90 4.183 0.30( 0.06) 0.20 2.8 10.00
2 8.80 6.51 5.317 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.9 90.00

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE
1 17.49 6.51 5.317 0.30( 0.04) 0.15 3.7 90.00
2 17.26 9.90 4.183 0.30( 0.05) 0.16 4.6 10.00
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.49 Tc(MIN.) = 6.51
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.67 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 507.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ 2795
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 107.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.73
(PIPE FLOW VELOCITY CORRESPONDING TO FULL PIPE CAPACITY FLOW) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.49
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.57 Tc(MIN.) = 9.08
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 150.00 = 927.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 238.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 125.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 121.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.143
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.499
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
COMMERCIAL B 1.09 0.30 0.100 76 6.14
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.36
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.09 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.36
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 121.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 117.10 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 159.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.76 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.23
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.77
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.43
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.70 Tc(MIN.) = 6.85
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.167
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III):

DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS

LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
COMMERCIAL B 0.17 0.30 0.100 76
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30
2796
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.26 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.83
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.23 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.81 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.45 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 397.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 TC(MIN.) = 6.85
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.26 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.83
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

2797
APPENDIX 5

HYDRAULICS SIZING CHARTS
2798
Project Description
Friction Method Manning Formula
Solve For Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.33 ft
Diameter 0.33 ft
Channel Slope (ft/ft) Discharge (ft³/s) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Area (ft²) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft)

0.00500 0.13 1.53 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.00600 0.14 1.68 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.00700 0.16 1.81 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.00800 0.17 1.94 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.00900 0.18 2.06 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01000 0.19 2.17 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01100 0.19 2.27 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01200 0.20 2.37 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01300 0.21 2.47 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01400 0.22 2.56 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01500 0.23 2.65 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01600 0.23 2.74 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01700 0.24 2.82 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01800 0.25 2.91 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.01900 0.26 2.99 0.09 1.04 0.00

0.02000 0.26 3.06 0.09 1.04 0.00
Rating Table for Circular Pipe - 4-Inch
2/12/2019 5:37:39 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Cen Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.0 ter 3] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 2799
Project Description
Friction Method Manning Formula
Solve For Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.50 ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Channel Slope (ft/ft) Discharge (ft³/s) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Area (ft²) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft)

0.00500 0.40 2.02 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.00600 0.43 2.21 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.00700 0.47 2.39 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.00800 0.50 2.56 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.00900 0.53 2.71 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01000 0.56 2.86 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01100 0.59 3.00 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01200 0.61 3.13 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01300 0.64 3.26 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01400 0.66 3.38 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01500 0.69 3.50 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01600 0.71 3.61 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01700 0.73 3.73 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01800 0.75 3.83 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.01900 0.77 3.94 0.20 1.57 0.00

0.02000 0.79 4.04 0.20 1.57 0.00
Rating Table for Circular Pipe - 6-Inch
2/12/2019 5:38:16 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Cen Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.0 ter 3] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 2800
Project Description
Friction Method Manning Formula
Solve For Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.67 ft
Diameter 0.67 ft
Channel Slope (ft/ft) Discharge (ft³/s) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Area (ft²) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft)

0.00500 0.89 2.53 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.00600 0.98 2.77 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.00700 1.06 3.00 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.00800 1.13 3.20 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.00900 1.20 3.40 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01000 1.26 3.58 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01100 1.32 3.76 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01200 1.38 3.92 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01300 1.44 4.08 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01400 1.49 4.24 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01500 1.55 4.39 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01600 1.60 4.53 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01700 1.65 4.67 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01800 1.69 4.80 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.01900 1.74 4.94 0.35 2.01 0.10

0.02000 1.78 5.06 0.35 2.01 0.10
Rating Table for Circular Pipe - 8 inch
2/12/2019 5:36:59 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Cen Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.0 ter 3] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 2801
Project Description
Friction Method Manning Formula
Solve For Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.83 ft
Diameter 0.83 ft
Channel Slope (ft/ft) Discharge (ft³/s) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Area (ft²) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft)

0.00500 1.53 2.83 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.00600 1.68 3.10 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.00700 1.81 3.35 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.00800 1.94 3.58 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.00900 2.06 3.80 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01000 2.17 4.01 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01100 2.27 4.20 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01200 2.37 4.39 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01300 2.47 4.57 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01400 2.56 4.74 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01500 2.65 4.91 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01600 2.74 5.07 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01700 2.83 5.22 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01800 2.91 5.37 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.01900 2.99 5.52 0.54 2.61 0.00

0.02000 3.07 5.67 0.54 2.61 0.00
Rating Table for Circular Pipe - 10-Inch
2/12/2019 5:39:06 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Cen Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.0 ter 3] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 2802
Project Description
Friction Method Manning Formula
Solve For Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Normal Depth 1.00 ft
Diameter 1.00 ft
Channel Slope (ft/ft) Discharge (ft³/s) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Area (ft²) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft)

0.00500 2.52 3.21 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.00600 2.76 3.52 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.00700 2.98 3.80 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.00800 3.19 4.06 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.00900 3.38 4.31 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01000 3.56 4.54 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01100 3.74 4.76 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01200 3.90 4.97 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01300 4.06 5.17 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01400 4.22 5.37 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01500 4.37 5.56 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01600 4.51 5.74 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01700 4.65 5.92 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01800 4.78 6.09 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.01900 4.91 6.26 0.79 3.14 0.00

0.02000 5.04 6.42 0.79 3.14 0.00
Rating Table for Circular Pipe - 12-Inch
2/12/2019 5:39:38 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Cen Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.0 ter 3] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 2803
Project Description
Friction Method Manning Formula
Solve For Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Normal Depth 1.25 ft
Diameter 1.25 ft
Channel Slope (ft/ft) Discharge (ft³/s) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Area (ft²) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft)

0.00500 4.57 3.72 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.00600 5.00 4.08 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.00700 5.40 4.40 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.00800 5.78 4.71 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.00900 6.13 4.99 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01000 6.46 5.26 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01100 6.77 5.52 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01200 7.08 5.77 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01300 7.36 6.00 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01400 7.64 6.23 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01500 7.91 6.45 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01600 8.17 6.66 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01700 8.42 6.86 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01800 8.67 7.06 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.01900 8.90 7.26 1.23 3.93 0.00

0.02000 9.14 7.44 1.23 3.93 0.00
Rating Table for Circular Pipe - 15-Inch
2/12/2019 5:40:27 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Cen Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.0 ter 3] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 2804
Project Description
Friction Method Manning Formula
Solve For Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Normal Depth 1.50 ft
Diameter 1.50 ft
Channel Slope (ft/ft) Discharge (ft³/s) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Area (ft²) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft)

0.00500 7.43 4.20 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.00600 8.14 4.60 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.00700 8.79 4.97 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.00800 9.40 5.32 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.00900 9.97 5.64 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01000 10.50 5.94 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01100 11.02 6.23 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01200 11.51 6.51 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01300 11.98 6.78 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01400 12.43 7.03 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01500 12.86 7.28 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01600 13.29 7.52 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01700 13.70 7.75 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01800 14.09 7.97 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.01900 14.48 8.19 1.77 4.71 0.00

0.02000 14.86 8.41 1.77 4.71 0.00
Rating Table for Circular Pipe - 18-Inch
2/12/2019 5:41:26 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Cen Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.0 ter 3] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1 Page 1 of 2805
G-3: Memorandum for Preliminary Reports
2806

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2807
2808
Appendix H:

Noise Calculations
2809

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2810
TABLE Existing -01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 02/01/2021
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Garden Grove Boulevard - west of The City Drive South NOTES: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - Existing ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 21900 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

75.51 12.57 9.34

M-TRUCKS

1.56 0.09 0.19

H-TRUCKS

0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.51

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 105.7 223.0 478.2
______________________________________________________________________

2811
TABLE Existing -02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 02/01/2021
ROADWAY SEGMENT: The City Drive South - north of Garden Grove Boulevard NOTES: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - Existing ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20700 SPEED (MPH): 35 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

75.51 12.57 9.34

M-TRUCKS

1.56 0.09 0.19

H-TRUCKS

0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.47

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 85.1 174.2 370.9
______________________________________________________________________

2812
TABLE Existing Plus Project-01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 02/01/2021
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Garden Grove Boulevard - west of The City Drive South NOTES: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - Existing Plus Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 22000 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

75.51 12.57 9.34

M-TRUCKS

1.56 0.09 0.19

H-TRUCKS

0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.53

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 106.0 223.7 479.7
______________________________________________________________________

2813
TABLE Existing Plus Project-02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 02/01/2021
ROADWAY SEGMENT: The City Drive South - north of Garden Grove Boulevard NOTES: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - Existing Plus Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 21400 SPEED (MPH): 35 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

75.51 12.57 9.34

M-TRUCKS

1.56 0.09 0.19

H-TRUCKS

0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.61

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 86.8 178.0 379.2
______________________________________________________________________

2814
TABLE Year 2024 Cumulative -01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 02/01/2021
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Garden Grove Boulevard - west of The City Drive South NOTES: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - Year 2024 Cumulative ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26200 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

75.51 12.57 9.34

M-TRUCKS

1.56 0.09 0.19

H-TRUCKS

0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 68.29

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

59.0 118.4 251.0 538.7
______________________________________________________________________

2815
TABLE Year 2024 Cumulative -02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 02/01/2021
ROADWAY SEGMENT: The City Drive South - north of Garden Grove Boulevard NOTES: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - Year 2024 Cumulative ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26200 SPEED (MPH): 35 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

75.51 12.57 9.34

M-TRUCKS

1.56 0.09 0.19

H-TRUCKS

0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.49

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 97.9 203.1 433.6
______________________________________________________________________

2816
TABLE Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project-01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 02/01/2021
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Garden Grove Boulevard - west of The City Drive South NOTES: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project
______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26300 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

75.51 12.57 9.34

M-TRUCKS

1.56 0.09 0.19

H-TRUCKS

0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 68.31

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

59.1 118.7 251.6 540.0
______________________________________________________________________

2817
TABLE Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project-02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 02/01/2021
ROADWAY SEGMENT: The City Drive South - north of Garden Grove Boulevard NOTES: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project
______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26900 SPEED (MPH): 35 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

75.51 12.57 9.34

M-TRUCKS

1.56 0.09 0.19

H-TRUCKS

0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.61

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 99.5 206.6 441.3
______________________________________________________________________ 2818
South Parking Garage
Daytime Parking Lot Activity
Receptor: Single-family residential receptors across Garden Grove Boulevard No. Equipment Description Lmax Lmax Leq
1 parking lot activity 70 8 1 150 0.5 10 50.5 37.1 5132.002393 2 parking lot activity 70 10 1 175 0.5 10 49.1 36.4 4363.448848 3 parking lot activity 70 16 1 200 0.5 10 48.0 37.0 5000 4 parking lot activity 70 20 1 225 0.5 10 46.9 36.7 4655.847119 5 parking lot activity 70 20 1 250 0.5 10 46.0 35.5 3577.708764 6 7
8 9
10 Notes: Lmax[4] 50.0 Leq 44
[1] Percentage of time activity occurs each hour
[2] Hard ground terrain between project site and receptor. [3] Shielding due to parking structure and adjacent soundwall [4] Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

South Parking Garage
Nighttime Parking Lot Activity
Receptor: Single-family residential receptors across Garden Grove Boulevard No. Equipment Description Lmax Lmax Leq
1 parking lot activity 70 2 1 150 0.5 10 50.5 31.1 1283.000598 2 parking lot activity 70 2.5 1 175 0.5 10 49.1 30.4 1090.862212 3 parking lot activity 70 4 1 200 0.5 10 48.0 31.0 1250 4 parking lot activity 70 5 1 225 0.5 10 46.9 30.7 1163.96178 5 parking lot activity 70 5 1 250 0.5 10 46.0 29.5 894.427191 6 7
8 9
10 Notes: Lmax[4] 50.0 Leq 38
[1] Percentage of time activity occurs each hour
[2] Hard ground terrain between project site and receptor. [3] Shielding due to parking structure and adjacent soundwall [4] Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Reference (dBA)
50 ft
Quantity
Usage
factor[1]
Distance to
Receptor
Ground
Effect[2]
Shielding
(dBA)[3]
Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Reference (dBA)
50 ft
Quantity
Usage
factor[1]
Distance to
Receptor
Ground
Effect[2]
Shielding
(dBA)[3]
Calculated (dBA)
Energy
2819

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2820
Appendix I:

Workforce Housing Analysis
2821

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2822

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR THE CITY OF

ORANGE, IN RELATION TO A PROPOSED STREET

LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT PROJECT
Prepared for:

Street Lights Residential
October 1, 2020
PREPARED BY:

T H E N A T E L S O N D A L E G R O U P , I N C .

Y O R B A L I N D A , C A • w w w . n a t e l s o n d a l e . c o m O : 7 1 4 . 6 9 2 . 9 5 9 6 • F : 7 1 4 . 6 9 2 . 9 5 9 7 2823
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1 Project Description........................................................................................................................................1 Housing Affordability ....................................................................................................................................3 Workforce Housing .......................................................................................................................................3 Workforce Housing in Relation to the Proposed Project..............................................................................4 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................6 Appendix A. Occupational Database Analysis Process .................................................................................7 Appendix B. Occupational Categories with at least 100 Workers Potentially Applicable to the Proposed Apartment Project ........................................................................................................................................8

2824
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
1 Introduction
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) has prepared this document to help demonstrate the relationship of the proposed Street Lights Residential apartment project in the City of Orange to the workforce holding jobs located in the city. Within this limited purpose, the analysis should not be considered to constitute a market study, although some market-related data are included in the analysis, or used for any purpose other than what is described above.

Project Description
The proposed project consists of 226 units with a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments, ranging in size from 504 to 1,372 square feet, as summarized in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1. PROJECT CONFIGURATION
Unit Size # Units Est. Rent (1)
Studio 61 $2,200
1-Bedroom 78 $2,400
2-Bedroom 87 $3,200
3-Bedroom 0
Total 226

1. Source: Estimated by TNDG from client data.

Source of other project data: Client.

The proposed project is located in the southwest corner of Orange, near the major interchange of Interstate 5 and California Highways 22 and 57, and near the major amenity of the Santa Ana River trail as well as several major employment centers, including:
• The Outlets at Orange discount shopping center
• The UCI Medical Center
• A complex of office buildings including those at Orange City Square • Angel Stadium and other entertainment venues, business parks, and other development associated with the Platinum Triangle.

Figure 1 shows the location of the project along with other information relevant to this report, including the outlines of the five ZIP Codes for which employment data were compiled, as described below, and the distribution of jobs in the city.1 Note that while jobs data were compiled for all the ZIP Codes that generally match the boundaries of the entire city, Figure 1 clearly shows that jobs are concentrated in the western/southwestern part of the community, where the proposed apartment project is also located.
1 Jobs-distribution data from: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, https://onthemap.ces.census.gov 2825
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
2 FIGURE 1. PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION AND SELECTED RELATED DATA Source: TNDG; OTM (see text)
2826
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
3 Housing Affordability
According to recent housing affordability data for California, less than 25% of Orange County households are able to purchase a median-priced home in the County, while the average for the state is 33%.2In TNDG’s experience, spanning numerous economic development strategic planning assignments throughout California, lack of affordable housing is a serious impediment to the retention, expansion, and attraction of businesses in many California cities, threatening not only the expansion and diversification of local economies, but also the retention of existing jobs. Insufficient supplies of affordable housing in areas where jobs are also concentrated adds to the inefficiency of households’ locational decisions, contributing to long commutes and associated problems of lost productivity, increased air pollution, and the like.

Workforce Housing
Workforce housing is defined for this report as housing for individuals whose incomes are above the limits under which households can qualify for units that have been subsidized or otherwise incentivized by various programs targeting housing affordability for low-income households. This approach sets a lower limit of income at 80% of the median income; the higher limit is set, by common practice, at 150% of the area’s median income (AMI). The “area” in this case is the smallest relevant jurisdiction for which median income figures by household size have been defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Orange County. These figures are shown in Table 2 below, in which household sizes up to four persons are included in the table on the assumption this is the most relevant size range for this apartment project. Higher incomes apply to larger households, but those households are not likely to be renters in the proposed project, which has no units larger than two-bedroom.

TABLE 2. ORANGE COUNTY MEDIAN INCOME BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Number of Persons in
Household
Median Income
1 $72,100
2 $82,400
3 $92,700
4 $103,000
Source: California Department of Housing and Community
Development, Division of Housing Policy Development.

Memorandum for: Interested Parties, Zachary Olmstead,
Deputy Director. State Income Limits For 2020. April 30, 2020.

The income ranges for Workforce Housing in Orange County used in this report are based on the figures in Table 1 and the range of 80% to 150% of AMI, and are shown in Table 3. 2California Association of Realtors. California Housing Affordability Update – Q2-2020 - Traditional Affordability Index.
2827
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
4 TABLE 3. WORKFORCE HOUSING INCOME BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Number of Persons
in Household
80% of AMI (1) 150% of AMI (2)
Annual Monthly Annual Monthly
1 71,750 $5,979 $108,150 $9,013
2 82,000 $6,833 $123,600 $10,300
3 92,250 $7,688 $139,050 $11,588
4 102,450 $8,538 $154,500 $12,875
Sources:

1. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2020/2020summary.odn

2. Based on Table 1 Median Income figures.

Workforce Housing in Relation to the Proposed Project
Monthly average rental rates for the proposed project and appropriate qualifying incomes based on those rental rates are shown on Table 4.

TABLE 4. PROJECTED RENTAL RATES AND QUALIFYING INCOMES
Unit Type Monthly
average
rental (1)
Qualifying income (2)
Monthly Annual
Studio $2,200 $7,333 $88,000
1-Bedroom $2,400 $8,000 $96,000
2-Bedroom $3,200 $10,667 $128,000
Notes:

1. Source: Estimated from client data.

2. Assuming rent is 30% of household income.

To estimate the number of workers in Orange whose earning levels both make the proposed units affordable and are below 150% of AMI, TNDG first acquired a proprietary occupation-profile database from Emsi,3 which provides both numbers of jobs in various occupations in Orange and the earnings associated with each of those occupations. Earnings data are given by the following percentiles: 10, 25, 50 (the median value), 75 and 90. The entire database included 359 occupational categories for which employment numbers (for 2019) were provided (out of a total of 443), representing a total of just under 149,000 jobs. Data were compiled by Emsi based on a group of five ZIP Code areas with boundaries generally within the City of Orange: 92865, 92866, 92867, 92868, and 92869. 3 https:/www.economicmodeling.com. Proprietary databases of this type interpret data from official government sources to fill in information gaps that result from suppression to preserve confidentiality, and are therefore useful for small-area analyses of this type. Some level of error is inherent in this process but is not considered critical for purposes of this assignment.
2828
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
5 The database was then analyzed through the following procedures to derive the estimate of workers with earnings appropriate for the proposed apartment project (see Appendix A for additional computational detail):
• For each of the five percentile levels within each occupation that was above the minimum required for the apartment to be affordable (see Table 4), the percent of jobs represented by this percentile (which would include percentiles at higher earnings levels) was multiplied by the total jobs in the occupation (with additional conditions applied to avoid overcounting). The sum of the columns associated with each of the percentile values represented the gross potential appropriate number of workers (for purposes of this analysis each job is assumed to represent one worker).
• A similar process to that described above was applied to a companion set of columns within which percentile values were examined in order to subtract those workers for which earnings represented values in excess of 150% of AMI (see Table 3).

These procedures yielded a total of 14,908 workers fitting the profile of potentially appropriate tenant prospects for the apartments, across 195 occupational categories. A list of the 46 relevant occupational categories that have at least 100 workers applicable to the apartment project, which represents a total of 10,763 workers, is shown in Appendix B. The top five occupational categories from this list, in descending order of the number of prospective renters, and representing a total of 3,446 apartmentrelevant workers, are the following:

1. Registered Nurses

2. Software and Web Developers, Programmers, and Testers

3. General and Operations Managers

4. Real Estate Brokers and Sales Agents

5. Miscellaneous Business Operations Specialists
These findings should be reviewed in light of the following caveats:
• The five earnings percentile categories are discrete values and the analysis procedure applied to them results in some overcounting within some categories and undercounting within others, although the net effect of this is assumed to yield relatively balanced results. • Some workers within the qualifying-income tally will be homeowners instead of renters. • Some renter households (as well as some owner households) will have multiple full-time/parttime workers. According to Census data, there are approximately 1.6 employed workers per household within the City of Orange.4 The implications of this are two-fold:

1. The pool of prospective renters per apartment (or other housing) units is somewhat smaller than a one-to-one relationship;

2. Multiple workers within a single apartment means that the pool of potential renters is likely to be considerably larger at the lower end of the household income spectrum than 4 Source: Census ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2014-2018.
2829
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
6 the estimates based on the analysis described in this report suggest. Conversely, multiple workers at the higher end of the spectrum mean that these households could be opting for more expensive housing. We assume that these countervailing effects cancel each other out to a degree acceptable for these estimates. • The modeling in this report is based on renters spending a maximum of 30% of their income on rent (as noted in Table 4). In reality, many households in California are paying a much higher percentage. Census data show that fully 56% of renters in the City of Orange are housing-costburdened5 (paying 30% of their household income or more for rent). Although the 30% factor used in this report is appropriate as a threshold of “technical” affordability, it yields a considerably more conservative estimate of the renter pool than what actually applies in Orange and many other California cities.

Conclusions
The data compiled and analyzed for this report generate estimates of a sizable pool of workers in Orange potentially available for the proposed project, based on occupations of workers and their associated range of earnings. The applicable occupations represent a wide range of industries that are important for both supplying local services to the community and for supporting diversified businesses that export goods and services and therefore import dollars into the city. 5 Source: Census ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2014-2018.
2830
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
7 Appendix A. Occupational Database Analysis Process
The table excerpt below (first line in the database) shows the formulas applied within the full occupational database referred to in the section, Workforce Housing in Relation to the Proposed Project.
2831
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) Workforce Housing for the City of Orange, in Relation to a Proposed Street Lights Residential Apartment Project
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
8 Appendix B. Occupational Categories with at least 100 Workers Potentially Applicable to the Proposed Apartment Project SOC Description
2019 Jobs,
Total in 5
Orange ZIP
Codes
Median
Annual
Earnings
Estimated
Jobs in Apt.

Price Range
29-1140 Registered Nurses 3,482 $102,188 1,741
15-1250 Software and Web Developers, Programmers, and Testers 1,304 $105,921 522 11-1020 General and Operations Managers 1,768 $109,566 442 41-9020 Real Estate Brokers and Sales Agents 2,628 $53,375 394 13-1190 Miscellaneous Business Operations Specialists 1,390 $71,483 348 41-4010 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing 1,378 $66,791 345 41-3020 Insurance Sales Agents 2,291 $55,318 344
13-2010 Accountants and Auditors 1,348 $68,322 337
23-1010 Lawyers and Judicial Law Clerks 1,066 $122,052 267 13-2050 Financial Analysts and Advisors 1,038 $104,080 259 11-9190 Miscellaneous Managers 1,605 $64,959 241
11-9020 Construction Managers 567 $89,675 227
27-4020 Photographers 1,465 $45,669 220
11-3030 Financial Managers 859 $128,405 215
25-2020 Elementary and Middle School Teachers 841 $87,314 210 11-2020 Marketing and Sales Managers 839 $111,335 210
15-1240 Database and Network Administrators and Architects 406 $92,926 203 29-1120 Therapists 775 $86,231 194
41-1010 First-Line Supervisors of Sales Workers 1,935 $39,225 194 47-1010 First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades & Extraction Workers 755 $77,294 189 25-1090 Postsecondary Teachers 1,189 $85,366 178
13-1160 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists 705 $63,373 176 13-2070 Credit Counselors and Loan Officers 700 $58,264 175 15-1210 Computer and Information Analysts 420 $98,987 168 29-1210 Physicians 671 $227,289 168
13-1110 Management Analysts 1,064 $85,545 160
29-1050 Pharmacists 242 $143,255 157
33-3050 Police Officers 314 $103,532 157
47-2030 Carpenters 1,476 $54,201 148
17-2050 Civil Engineers 367 $106,303 147
11-9140 Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers 970 $53,995 146 25-2030 Secondary School Teachers 579 $86,563 145
11-3020 Computer and Information Systems Managers 351 $155,812 140 11-9030 Education and Childcare Administrators 348 $111,220 139 29-1290 Miscellaneous Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners 277 $95,801 139 21-1020 Social Workers 550 $65,089 138
41-9090 Miscellaneous Sales and Related Workers 1,292 $34,061 129 43-1010 First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers 1,223 $59,804 122 13-1030 Claims Adjusters, Appraisers, Examiners, and Investigators 474 $72,498 119 15-1290 Miscellaneous Computer Occupations 474 $75,639 118 11-3010 Administrative Services and Facilities Managers 295 $103,177 118 29-1020 Dentists 234 $147,567 117
19-3030 Psychologists 290 $94,643 116
41-3090 Miscellaneous Sales Representatives, Services 1,085 $54,235 108 41-3030 Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents 707 $56,485 106 27-3090 Miscellaneous Media and Communication Workers 686 $61,411 103 Totals 44,725 10,736
2832
Appendix J:

Public Services Supporting Information
2833

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2834
J-1: Fire Master Plan
2835

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2836
FW FW
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
SD SD

SS SS SS SS SS
SS SS
W
W
W
W
W
W

SD SD FW FW
SS
SS SS
W
W
GARDEN GROVE BLVD. FW FW FW

FW FW FW FW FW
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD
54"SD 54"SD 54"SD 54"SD
SD

SD SD SD

FW FW FW
FW

FW FW FW FW

FW FW FW FW FW
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD
54"SD 54"SD 54"SD 54"SD
SD

SD SD SD

FW FW FW
FW
FW

THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH
℄
℄
℄
℄

PARKING STRUCTURE

PARKING STRUCTURE UNDERNEATH

APARTMENTS

MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL

DIAL TOLL FREE
811 or

AT LEAST TWO DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-422-4133
DRAWN BY: KG
CHECKED BY: ML

PROJECT
NUMBER 194224003

UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT(USA) OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SHEET No.___________OF__________ SCALE: HORIZ.:________________ VERT.:_________________

SEE PLAN

SEE PLAN

CITY OF ORANGE

OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
NORTH
LEGEND

CONSTRUCTION NOTES

FIRE NOTES
AM
2837

DIAL TOLL FREE
811 or

AT LEAST TWO DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-422-4133
DRAWN BY: KG
CHECKED BY: ML

PROJECT
NUMBER 194224003

UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT(USA) OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SHEET No.___________OF__________ SCALE: HORIZ.:________________ VERT.:_________________

SEE PLAN

SEE PLAN

CITY OF ORANGE

OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER

ORANGE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES

CITY OF ORANGE FIRE TRUCK TURNING RADIUS CITY OF ORANGE FIRE HAMMERHEAD TEMPLATE AM

PROJECT-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
2838
J-2: Public Services Letters
2839

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2840
1 From: Kevin Southerland <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 11:36 AM
To: Stephanie Shepard
Cc: Kevin Southerland
Subject: FW: Request for information regarding fire service impacts Attachments: OFD Response 840 City Drive South.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Stephanie,
I will begin by apologizing for the delays in my ability to respond in a timely manner. It has been an extraordinary fire season. Please see my attached response to your "Service Questions" and feel free to contact me at the number listed below if you have comments or questions. I am currently assigned to a wildfire near Sequoia-Kings National Park but will make time for you if needed.

Sincerely,
Kevin Southerland
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal
Orange Fire Department
714-742-5095
"Be what you say you are, and be really good when you get there." From: Kevin Southerland
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 12:47 PM
To: Andrea Brooks; Stephanie Shepard
Cc: Cecilia So
Subject: Re: Request for information regarding fire service impacts Hello Stephanie,
I am writing to let you know that I was unable to complete the list of questions you have submitted to us regarding the 840 City Drive South project. For the last three weeks I have been assigned to a fire in Northern California which made referencing our data to accurately respond to your questions a challenge. I will return to my office on Monday October 26th and will jump into the data so that I can provide you with a response as rapidly as possible.

Thanks for your patience,
Kevin Southerland
Support Services Deputy Chief
2841
2 714-742-5095
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Andrea Brooks <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:19 AM
To: Stephanie Shepard
Cc: Cecilia So; Kevin Southerland
Subject: RE: Request for information regarding fire service impacts Good afternoon Stephanie,
We are in receipt of your request and Deputy Chief Kevin Southerland will be in touch with you by the end of this week.

Andrea Brooks
Executive Assistant | Office of the Fire Chief
ORANGE  CITY   FIRE DEPARTMENT
176 S. Grand Street • Orange, California • 92866
p: (714) 288‐2531 | f: (714) 744‐6035
Family • Pride • Tradition
From: Stephanie Shepard <sshepard@fcs‐intl.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:15 AM
To: fireinfo <[email protected]>
Cc: Cecilia So <cso@fcs‐intl.com>
Subject: RE: Request for information regarding fire service impacts Dear Chief deMetropolis,
I am following up with the email I sent on October 16th (below) requesting feedback related to the proposed project at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange. Your feedback regarding fire protection services is important in our analysis of the project’s impacts. Could you let me know if you will able to respond to the attached letter by the end of this week? Also, please let me know if you have any questions about our request. I would be happy to assist. Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
Stephanie Shepard
Environmental Services Analyst II
2842
3 From: Stephanie Shepard
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 12:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Cecilia So <cso@fcs‐intl.com>
Subject: Request for information regarding fire service impacts Dear Chief deMetropolis,
I am contacting you regarding an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being prepared for a proposed project at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange. As part of the environmental review being conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions, we are consulting with service providers to determine the project’s impacts on public services.

Your feedback regarding fire protection services would be valuable in our analysis of the project’s impacts.

I have attached a letter containing questions related to the provision of public services as well as information about the project. Please respond to the attached letter or forward this letter to the appropriate person who can provide the information we need to complete our environmental analysis.

Please contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best,
Stephanie Shepard
Environmental Services Analyst II
Office +909 884 2255 x1230
FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)
An ADEC Innovation
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter
Confidentiality Statement
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

E-mail correspondence, along with any attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act; and as such may be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. 2843
Service Questions

1. Which station(s) would provide services to the project site? Fire Station 6 located at 345 City Drive South, approximately ¾ of a mile from the project site.

2. What are the existing staffing levels, by type (department-wide and at the station(s) that would serve the project site)? What is the current number of firefighters, EMT personnel, engines, hook and ladder trucks, etc.?
Orange City Fire Department staffing levels are as follows:
• 1 – 100’ Ladder Truck staffed with one paramedic and two EMTs at Fire Station #1 • 1 – 100’ Ladder Quint staffed with one paramedic and two EMTs at Fire Station #6 • 7 – 1500 GPM Pumpers staffed with one paramedic and two EMTs at Fire Stations #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
• 4 – Rescue Ambulances staffed with two paramedics at Fire Stations #1, 3, 4, 6

3. Please provide the current average response times for emergency calls for service as a whole and for the station(s) located nearest to the project site.

Orange City Fire Department Response Times:
• Average Response Time for all responding units
o 3.23 minutes
• Average Response Time for Station 6 units into the fire district near 840 City Drive South o 3.34 minutes

4. Please provide an estimate of the annual number of service calls the proposed project would be expected to generate. If possible, please provide an estimate by type of call (e.g., EMS, fire, etc.) Average number of emergency calls for service based on comparable properties within a 1.5 mile proximity.
• Average number of responses
o 27.5 calls per year
• Average number of Medical responses
o 14.6 calls per year
• Average number of Fire responses
o 8.6 calls per year
• Average number of Service responses
o 3.6 calls per year

5. What is the ability of the fire department to accommodate the demand of the proposed project as part of the existing facilities?
The Orange City Fire Department resources augmented by our neighboring agency resources will be able to accommodate 100% of the emergency response demands of the proposed property based on the projected call load. Be advised, overall unit response times to the community would be negatively affected if this property were to demand a higher call load. 2844

6. Are there any existing or planned mutual aid agreements with other agencies? Currently the Orange City Fire Department does not have a formal written mutual aid agreement in the project area. The Orange County Fire Chief’s Association has agreed to Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) closest unit dispatching county wide. There is a possibility of adjustments to our response system if this property were to place an excessive demand on neighboring agencies.

7. Please provide information about the industrial development fee schedule. What are the current rates? What is the estimate rate for the proposed project? The “Fire Facility Fees” will be $1238 per dwelling unit. I recommend you contact Yolanda Huapaya with our Community Development Department at (714) 744-7212 for a more inclusive estimate of fees and charges for this project.

8. Do you foresee any potential challenges that the project may present to the department? This includes concerns related to response times, staffing, apparatus, fire stations, etc. Please describe any measures that you would recommend to reduce potential concerns/challenges.

I do not foresee any additional challenges other than what has been described thus far based on our projections which are an estimated comparison of similar properties in the area. Although, high-rise multi-family dwellings are a high risk to occupants and firefighters based on the configuration of the structure and the number of people sleeping during the greatest time period of dwelling fires nationwide.

I do encourage the incorporation of state of the art alarm and notification systems. The addition of 24 hour staff and security will aid in minimizing the occurrence of fires as well as drastically reducing the reporting time.

9. Would the development of the proposed project impair the fire department’s ability to maintain established response time standards with current staff and equipment levels? The current Fire Station 6 staffing levels coupled with the current informal “Automatic Aid” agreements will be sufficient to maintain expected emergency call volume to this project and neighboring areas of the community. Our Fire Station 6 staffing may have to be augmented if the property’s call volume were to become significantly greater than expected or if our neighboring agencies refused to provide initial emergency response into the west end of our city.

10. Would the fire department need to construct new facilities or expand existing ones in order to serve the proposed project and the fire protection needs of the surrounding community? There would not be a need to create another fire station but the possibility of supplementing current staffing and equipment levels within our existing Fire Station 6 does exist.

11. Do you have any other comments about the potential impacts of this project on the fire department? Please provide any recommendations or special concerns that may assist us in avoiding or reducing the occurrence of potential impacts to fire services associated with the project.

Please make note the project site is located on our outer most western edge of our city. Your primary emergency response may come from outside the City of Orange in the event our Fire Station 6 resource is committed to another emergency. 24 hour staff and security would be helpful in assisting responders from outside our city.
2845
From: Guerra, Ymisserah
To: Stephanie Shepard
Cc: Clark, Nancy; Rivera, David; Harvey, Scott; Shortreed, Theresa Subject: RE: Request for info about public school impacts Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 10:24:09 AM
Attachments: image002.png
First Carbon Solutions_Service Questions.pdf
OUSD Service Questions Responses_11_24_2020.pdf
Hello Stephanie,
Please see attached the Orange Unified School District responses to the Service Questions for the 840 The City Drive Apartments Project. Can you provide an updated building schedule and/or timeline for project completion?
Feel free to call me if you have any questions 714-628-5791.

Thanks!
Ymisserah Guerra M.Arch, Assoc. AIA
Planning Analyst, Facilities and Administrative Services

ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
726 W. Collins Avenue, Orange, CA 92867
Office: 714-628-5791 / Cell: 714-497-9603 / Fax: 714-532-2589 From: Guerra, Ymisserah
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 3:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Clark, Nancy <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Request for info about public school impacts Hello Stephanie,
The Facilities and Planning Office was forwarded your inquiry by the Superintendent’s Office. We are currently working on a reply with our Demographer and will follow-up with FirstCarbon Solutions next week regarding a deliverables date after we reviewed the Demographers responses.

If you have any questions please feel free to call me, my contact information is below.

Thanks!
Ymisserah Guerra M.Arch, Assoc. AIA
2846
Planning Analyst, Facilities and Administrative Services

ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
726 W. Collins Avenue, Orange, CA 92867
Office: 714-628-5791 / Cell: 714-497-9603 / Fax: 714-532-2589 From: Clark, Nancy
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:22 AM
To: Stephanie Shepard <[email protected]>
Cc: Rivera, David <[email protected]>; Gunn Marie Hansen Ph. D. ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Theresa Shortreed - Executive Secretary II - Business Services <[email protected]>; Hana Brake - Web Specialist/Communications <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Request for info about public school impacts Dear Stephanie Shepard,
We did receive your e-mail dated October 16th and it has been shared with the proper departments.

Please understand that the questions posed will take some time to research for accurate and thorough information for your answers.

Keep in mind that we are currently reopening our schools across our District that have been mostly virtual up until recently. We are focused, as we should be, on the safety of students and staff during this reopening process.

We hope to have some answers to your questions in the next week or two. It is important to us to as well. Thank you for understanding.

Nancy Clark
Executive Assistant to the Board of Education/Superintendent Orange Unified School District
1401 N. Handy St. Orange, CA 92867
p.714.628.4487 f. 714.628.4044
email. [email protected]
2847
From: Stephanie Shepard <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:08 AM
To: Communications OUSD <[email protected]>
Cc: Cecilia So <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Request for info about public school impacts Dear Dr. Hansen,
I am following up with the email I sent on October 16th (below) requesting feedback related to the proposed project at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange. Your feedback regarding public school services is important in our analysis of the project’s impacts. Could you let me know if you will able to respond to the attached letter by the end of this week? Also, please let me know if you have any questions about our request. I would be happy to assist. Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
Stephanie Shepard
Environmental Services Analyst II
From: Stephanie Shepard
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 12:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Cecilia So <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for info about public school impacts
Dear Dr. Hansen,
I am contacting you regarding an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being prepared for a proposed project at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange. As part of the environmental review being conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions, we are consulting with service providers to determine the project’s impacts on public services. Your feedback regarding public school services would be valuable to our analysis of the project’s impacts.

I have attached a letter containing questions related to the provision of public services as well as information about the project. Please respond to the attached letter or forward this letter to the appropriate person who can provide the information we need to complete our environmental analysis.

Please contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Stephanie Shepard
Environmental Services Analyst II
FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)
An ADEC Innovation
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter
2848
Confidentiality Statement
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 2849
Service Questions – Orange Unified School District Responses

1. The current OUSD enrollment is 26,719. The current OUSD capacity is 33,760. Please see the attached Exhibit A of OUSD area map of enrollment.

2. Based on the residential/commercial development potential of the proposed project, the estimated number of students generated by the proposed project is 43.

3. The current standard student generation factors used by OUSD are listed below. The number of enrolled students per total number of housing units by type: 255 Apartment Building Units - Mixed Used. (Source of Date- Davis Demographics) a. Elementary School: 0.116 x 255= 30
b. Middle School: 0.013 x 255= 4
c. High School: 0.032 x 255= 9

4. The school sites affected by the proposed project and their current capacity/enrollment ratio are listed below. Please see attached Exhibit B of aerial map of school site proximity to proposed project site.
a. Lampson Elementary School: 707 Enrollment / 842 Capacity b. Fairhaven Elementary School: 465 Enrollment / 682 Capacity

5. OUSD does have the ability to accommodate the school sites demand of the proposed project as part of the existing facilities, as both schools affected are below enrollment capacity and combined can accommodate a gain of approximately 350 students.

6. The residential and non-residential development fee schedule currently assessed by OUSD is as follows: the rates for Developer Impact Fees are $3.79 per square foot of habitable space over 499 square feet for residential development; and $0.61 per square foot for commercial development.

7. The potential challenges that the proposed project may present to the OUSD have been identified as: Cost of transportation, hiring teaching and staff resources,space limitations (parking and logistics), and traffic flow.
2850
2851
Closest OUSD School Address:

Lampson Elementary School
13321 Lampson Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92840
New Site Address: The City Drive Apartments
840 The City Drive South

1.83-Acre Project Site Orange, CA 92868
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:
231-261-13
231-261-17
New Site Scope: 6 Story, 255 Unit
Apartment Building Mixed Use,
2 Standalone Parking Structures
2 nd
Closest OUSD School Address:

Lampson Elementary School
13321 Lampson Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Exhibit: B
2852
1 Stephanie Shepard
From: Bonnie Hagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 11:15 AM
To: Stephanie Shepard
Cc: Sofia So; Cecilia So
Subject: FW: Request for info about park service impacts Attachments: Parks Request Letter.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Stephanie,
Below are my responses to your attached letter.

1. The parks most likely used by residents of your proposed project as open recreational space is El Camino Real Park, Hart Park, and the Santiago Creek Bike Trail, as they are closest in proximity to the site. Certainly with nearby freeway access, residents could have the opportunity to utilize the City’s entire park system. The City has one centrally located sports center and gymnasium at Grijalva Park and one dog park at Yorba Park.

We also have reservable community centers at Handy, Olive, Shaffer, and Steve Ambriz Memorial Parks. These parks and centers are all in good condition.

2. I do not foresee any potential challenges to the park system with your proposed project.

3. Park demand can be absorbed within the existing park system.

4. The city’s goal is 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

5. The city’s current Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Impact Fee is $11,542 per dwelling unit. This is the current rate for the proposed project.

The Developer Impact Fees cover use impacts anticipated by the proposed project. There are no special concerns with the project presented.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions. All of our park locations and amenities available can be found on the city’s website at www.cityoforange.org .

Bonnie Hagan
Assistant City Manager/Community Services Director
230 E. Chapman Ave., 92866 * 714-744-7264
2853
2 From: Sofia So <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:46 AM
To: Bonnie Hagan <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Request for info about park service impacts From: Stephanie Shepard <sshepard@fcs‐intl.com>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 12:34 PM
To: csinfo <[email protected]>
Cc: Cecilia So <cso@fcs‐intl.com>
Subject: Request for info about park service impacts
Dear Ms. Hagan,
I am contacting you regarding an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being prepared for a proposed project at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange. As part of the environmental review being conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions, we are consulting with service providers to determine the project’s impacts on public services.

Your feedback regarding park services would be valuable to our analysis of the project’s impacts.

I have attached a letter containing questions related to the provision of public services as well as information about the project. Please respond to the attached letter or forward this letter to the appropriate person who can provide the information we need to complete our environmental analysis.

Please contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Stephanie Shepard
Environmental Services Analyst II
Office +909 884 2255 x1230
FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)
An ADEC Innovation
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter
Confidentiality Statement
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

E-mail correspondence, along with any attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act; and as such may be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. 2854
1 Stephanie Shepard
From: Kristy Morehead <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:21 PM
To: Stephanie Shepard
Cc: Jessica Salazar
Subject: RE: Request for info about solid waste services Attachments: Orange Rate Sheet 7.2020.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Stephanie,
I received your letter for your project within the City of Orange.

Many of the questions you asked are not variables that CR&R monitors. What I can assist with is that we are the exclusive hauler for the City of Orange and can assist with any roll off services that you may need for the project. Our construction & demolition roll off boxes are first hauled to a C&D facility which sorts recyclable material to achieve a minimum of 65% diversion per Cal Green requirements. Once recyclables are removed, the residue is transferred to a landfill within the Orange County Landfill system (OClandfills.com).

Lastly, our roll off rates are located in the attachment. Our rates are typically adjusted on an annual basis and rates are always approved by City Staff and City Council before implementation.

Best,
Kristy Morehead
Sustainability Supervisor
Direct: 714.372.8271
Cell: 562.822.7264
From: Stephanie Shepard [mailto:sshepard@fcs‐intl.com]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 12:25 PM
To: Customer Service <[email protected]>; Customer Service <[email protected]> Cc: Cecilia So <cso@fcs‐intl.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for info about solid waste services Hello,
I am contacting you regarding an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being prepared for a proposed project at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange. As part of the environmental review being conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions, we are consulting with service providers to determine the project’s impacts on public services.

Your feedback regarding solid waste services would be valuable to our analysis of the project’s impacts.

I have attached a letter containing questions related to the provision of public services as well as information about the project. Please respond to the attached letter or forward this letter to the appropriate person who can provide the information we need to complete our environmental analysis.

2855
2 Please contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best,
Stephanie Shepard
Environmental Services Analyst II
FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)
An ADEC Innovation
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter
Confidentiality Statement
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

2856
10NC 97.15
10DR 448.41
10LF 59.79
10CR 88.08
30NC 97.15
30DR 373.61
30LF 59.79
30CR 88.08
40NC 97.15
40DR 393.78
40LF 59.79
40CR 88.08
99RD 28.60
RELO 79.44
FR 79.44
40YD DELIVERY
40YD ADDITIONAL TONNAGE, PER TON - C&D/MIXED WASTE

UNABLE TO SERVICE ROLL OFF BIN (FALSE RUN)
ADDITIONAL DAY FEE, PER DAY (AFTER 7 DAYS)

RELOCATION OF ROLL OFF
30YD HAUL FEE (UP TO 4 TONS)
30YD ADDITIONAL TONNAGE, PER TON - TRASH
10YD ADDITIONAL TONNAGE, PER TON - TRASH
40YD HAUL FEE (UP TO 4 TONS)
40YD ADDITIONAL TONNAGE, PER TON - TRASH
30YD ADDITIONAL TONNAGE, PER TON - C&D/MIXED WASTE
10YD ADDITIONAL TONNAGE, PER TON - C&D/MIXED WASTE
10YD DELIVERY
30YD DELIVERY
10YD HAUL FEE (UP TO 4 TONS)

ROLL OFF SERVICES
ORANGE RATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2020
2857

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2858
Appendix K:

Transportation Supporting Information
2859

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2860
K-1: Transportation Impact Analysis
2861

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2862

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
840 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH APARTMENTS
Orange, California
December 11, 2020
(Revised September 21, 2022)
Prepared for:

STREETLIGHTS RESIDENTIAL
4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 125
La Jolla, CA 92037
LLG Ref. 2-19-4158-1
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:

Daniel A. Kloos, P.E. Keil D. Maberry, P.E.

Associate Principal Principal
and
Angela Besa, P.E.

Transportation Engineer II
2863
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

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

1.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Site Access ............................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Existing Street System ........................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Existing Intersection Conditions ............................................................................................ 6

3.3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) .......... 6

3.3.2 Highway Capacity Manual Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) .............. 6

3.3.2.1 Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections .................................................................... 7

3.3.2.2 All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections ....................................................................... 7

3.4 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments)........................ 7

3.5 Level of Service Criteria ........................................................................................................ 7

3.5.1 City of Orange Locations ................................................................................................ 7

3.5.2 City of Garden Grove Locations ..................................................................................... 8

3.5.3 City of Santa Ana Locations ........................................................................................... 8

3.6 Existing Level of Service Results .......................................................................................... 8

3.6.1 Intersections .................................................................................................................... 8

3.6.2 Roadway Segments ......................................................................................................... 8

4.0 Traffic Forecasting Methodology ......................................................................................... 15

5.0 Project Traffic Characteristics ............................................................................................. 16

5.1 Project Traffic Generation .................................................................................................... 16

5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment ....................................................................... 17

5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions .............................................................................. 17

6.0 Future Traffic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 19

6.1 Ambient Traffic Growth....................................................................................................... 19

6.2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Characteristics ........................................................................ 19

6.3 Year 2024 Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................. 20

7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology ................................................................................. 28

7.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds ............................................................................................ 28

7.1.1 City of Orange............................................................................................................... 28

7.1.2 City of Garden Grove.................................................................................................... 28

7.1.3 City of Santa Ana .......................................................................................................... 29

7.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios ....................................................................................... 30 2864
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

SECTION PAGE

8.0 Existing Plus Project Analysis .............................................................................................. 31

8.1 Intersections ......................................................................................................................... 31

8.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ...................................................................... 31

8.2 Roadway Segments .............................................................................................................. 31

8.2.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ...................................................................... 32

9.0 Year 2024 Plus Project Analysis ........................................................................................... 35

9.1 Intersections ......................................................................................................................... 35

9.1.1 Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions ................................................................... 35

9.1.2 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................... 35

9.2 Roadway Segments .............................................................................................................. 36

9.2.1 Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions ................................................................... 36

9.2.2 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................... 36

10.0 State of California (Caltrans) Methodology ........................................................................ 39

10.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds ........................................................................................ 39

10.2 Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) .. 39

10.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions .......................................................................... 41

10.3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions........................................................................................... 41

10.3.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ...................................................................... 41

10.4 Year 2024 Plus Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................................... 41

10.4.1 Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions ................................................................... 41

10.4.2 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................... 41

10.5 Recommended Improvements – Caltrans Analysis .......................................................... 42

11.0 Site Access and Internal Circulation Evaluation ................................................................ 45

11.1 Site Access Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 45

11.1.1 Recommended Improvements ...................................................................................... 46

11.2 Internal Circulation Evaluation ........................................................................................ 46

12.0 Area-Wide Traffic Improvements ........................................................................................ 48

12.1 Existing Plus Project Recommended Improvements ........................................................ 48

12.2 Year 2024 Plus Project Recommended Improvements .................................................... 48

13.0 Congestion Management Program (CMP) .......................................................................... 49

14.0 Summary Of Findings And Conclusions ............................................................................. 50 2865
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc iii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Traffic Study Scope of Work
A-I Internal Capture Worksheets
B. Existing Traffic Count Data
B-I Intersection Counts
B-II Roadway Segment Counts
C. Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets C-I Existing Traffic Conditions
C-II Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
C-III Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions
C-IV Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions D. Caltrans Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets D-I Existing Traffic Conditions
D-II Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
D-III Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions
D-IV Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions E. Project Driveway Level of Service Calculation Worksheets E-I Existing Traffic Conditions
E-II Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions E-III Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions E-IV Existing Signal Warrant Analysis
2866
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc iv

LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE
1–1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 3 2–1 Existing Aerial Site Plan................................................................................................... 4 2–2 Proposed Overall Site Plan (Orange City Square)......................................................... 4 3–1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls ........................................... 6 3–2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................................................................... 6 3–3 Existing PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes..................................................... 6 5–1 Project Traffic Distribution Pattern – Residential Component ................................... 18 5–2 Project Traffic Distribution Pattern – Retail Component............................................18 5–3 AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes...................................................................... 18 5–4 PM Peak Hour and Daily Project Traffic Volumes..................................................... 18 5–5 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................... 18 5–6 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes.............................. 18 6–1 Location of Cumulative Projects.................................................................................... 27 6–2 AM Peak Hour Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes................................................ 27 6–3 PM Peak Hour and Daily Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes............................... 27 6–4 Year 2024 Cumulative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................ 27 6–5 Year 2024 Cumulative PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ........................... 27 6–6 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes....................... 27 6–7 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes...... 27 11-1 Recommended Improvements....................................................................................... 47 2867
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc v

LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
3–1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections...................................................... 9 3–2 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM 6 Methodology) ........10 3–3 Roadway Link Capacities – City of Orange Locations..................................................11 3–4 Roadway Link Capacities – City of Santa Ana and Garden Grove Locations.............. 12 3–5 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service............................................................................ 13 3–6 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................................... 14 5–1 Project Traffic Generation Forecast................................................................................ 18 6–1 Location and Description of Cumulative Projects.................................................... 21-24 6–2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Generation Forecast.................................................... 25-27 8–1 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis.................................. 33 8–2 Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary........................... 34 9–1 Year 2024 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ................................................... 37 9–2 Year 2024 Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary............................................ 38 10–1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM 6 Methodology).............40 10–2 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis – Caltrans................. 43 10–3 Year 2024 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis – Caltrans.................................. 44 11–1 Project Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ............................................ 47 2868
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
840 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH APARTMENTS
Orange, California
December 11, 2020
(Revised September 21, 2022)

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact analysis addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed 840 The City Drive South Apartments (hereinafter referred to as Project). The project site is located at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange, California. The project site is currently occupied by a 9,000 square-foot (SF) strip retail center and an existing parking lot. The Project proposes to demolish the existing 9,000 SF strip retail center and construct a maximum of 226 apartment units with a maximum of 9,169 SF of mixed-use retail space.

This report documents the findings and recommendations of a traffic impact analysis conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine the potential impacts associated with the Project. The traffic analysis evaluates the existing operating conditions at six (6) key study intersections, two (2) existing project driveways and four (4) key roadway segments within the project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the Project, and forecasts future operating conditions without and with the proposed Project. Where necessary, intersection improvements/mitigation measures are identified.

This traffic report satisfies the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated July 2020, the most current Caltrans requirements, where applicable, and is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the most current Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County. The Scope of Work for this traffic study, which is included in Appendix A, was developed in conjunction with City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff.

The project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed. Existing traffic information has been collected at six (6) key study intersections, two (2) existing project driveways and four (4) key roadway segments on a “typical” weekday for use in the preparation of intersection and roadway segment level of service calculations. Information concerning cumulative projects (planned and/or approved) in the vicinity of the proposed Project has been researched at the City of Orange, the City of Garden Grove, the City of Anaheim and the City of Santa Ana. Based on our research, there are fourteen (14) cumulative projects in the City of Orange, four (4) cumulative projects in the City of Garden Grove, ten (10) cumulative projects in the City of Anaheim and thirty-six (36) cumulative projects in the City of Santa Ana within the vicinity of the subject site. These sixty-four (64) planned and/or approved cumulative projects were considered in the cumulative traffic analysis for this project. 2869
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 2 This traffic report analyzes existing and future weekday daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions for a near-term (Year 2024) traffic setting upon completion of the proposed Project. Daily and peak hour traffic forecasts for the Year 2024 horizon year have been projected by increasing existing traffic volumes by an annual growth rate of one percent (1.0%) per year and adding traffic volumes generated by sixty-four (64) cumulative projects.

1.1 Study Area
The six (6) key study intersections, two (2) existing project driveways and four (4) key roadway segments selected for evaluation were determined based on coordination with City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff and application of the “51 or more peak hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated July 2020. The intersections and roadway segments listed below provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation.

The jurisdiction where each key study intersection/roadway segment is located is also identified with the following nomenclature utilized; (O) = City of Orange, (GG) = City of Garden Grove, (SA) = City of Santa Ana and (C) = Caltrans.

Key Study Intersections

1. SR-22 WB Ramps at Metropolitan Drive (O/C)

2. The City Drive at Metropolitan Drive (O)

3. The City Drive at SR-22 EB Ramps (O/C)

4. Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard (O/GG)

5. The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane (O)

6. Bristol Street at Memory Lane (SA)

7. The City Drive at Existing Driveway No. 1 (O)

8. Existing Driveway No. 2 at Garden Grove Boulevard (O) Key Roadway Segments
A. Metropolitan Drive between SR-22 WB Ramps and The City Drive (O) B. The City Drive between SR-22 EB Ramps and Garden Grove Blvd/Memory Lane (O) C. Garden Grove Boulevard between Lewis Street and The City Drive (O/SA/GG) D. Memory Lane between The City Drive and Bristol Street (O/SA) Figure 1-1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the proposed Project and depicts the study locations and surrounding street system. The Level of Service (LOS) investigations at these key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic-related impacts associated with area growth, cumulative projects and the proposed Project. When necessary, this report recommends intersection improvements that may be required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service and/or mitigate the impact of the project.
2870
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 3 Included in this Traffic Impact Analysis are:
 Existing traffic counts,
 Estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment,  Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/assignment,  Daily, AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing conditions,  Daily, AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing plus project conditions,  Daily, AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for future (Year 2024) conditions without and with project traffic,
 Caltrans Analysis,
 Site Access Evaluation,
 Recommended Improvements, and
 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis.
2871
2872
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange, California. The project site is currently occupied by a 9,000 SF strip retail center and an existing parking lot. Figure 2-1 presents an aerial depiction of the existing site.

The Project proposes to demolish the existing strip retail center and construct a maximum of 226 apartment units with a maximum of 9,169 SF of mixed-use retail space. The proposed Project is expected to be completed by the Year 2024. Figure 2-2 presents the proposed overall site plan (Orange City Square), which presents the Project site and adjacent office park development.

2.1 Site Access
As shown in Figure 2-2, access to the proposed Project is currently provided and will continue to be provided via one full access driveway located along The City Drive (key study intersection #7) and via one right-turn in/right-turn out only driveway located along Garden Grove Boulevard (key study intersection #8), which are both shared with the adjacent office complex. 2873
2874
2875
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 5 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Existing Street System
Regional access to the site is provided via the I-5 Freeway and the SR-22 Freeway. The principal local network of streets serving the proposed Project includes The City Drive and Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of these key area streets. The descriptions are based on an inventory of existing roadway conditions.

The City Drive is generally a five-lane, divided roadway (three northbound lanes and two southbound lanes) in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The City Drive borders the project site to the east and currently provides access to the project site via Existing Driveway No. 1. Onstreet parking is generally not permitted along this roadway within the vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit on The City Drive is 35 miles per hour (mph). Traffic signals control the study intersections of The City Drive at Metropolitan Drive, the SR-22 EB Ramps and Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane.

Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane is generally a four-lane, divided roadway west of The City Drive, a six-lane, divided roadway between The City Drive and Bristol Street and a four-lane, divided roadway east of Bristol Street. The roadway is designated Garden Grove Boulevard west of The City Drive and Memory Lane east of The City Drive. Garden Grove Boulevard borders the Project site to the south and currently provides access to the project site via Existing Driveway No.

2. On-street parking is generally not permitted along this roadway within the vicinity of the project.

The posted speed limit on Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane is 40 mph west of Bristol Street and 35 mph east of Bristol Street. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane at Lewis Street, The City Drive and Bristol Street.

Figure 3-1 presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions for the arterials and intersections evaluated in this report. This figure identifies the number of travel lanes for key arterials, as well as intersection configurations and controls for the key area study intersections.

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Six (6) key study intersections, two (2) existing project driveways and four (4) key roadway segments have been identified as the locations at which to evaluate existing and future traffic operating conditions. Some portion of potential project-related traffic will pass through each of these intersections/roadway segments, and their analysis will reveal the expected relative impacts of the project. These key intersections and roadway segments were selected for evaluation based on coordination with City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff and application of the “51 or more peak hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated July 2020.

Existing daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the six (6) key study intersections, two (2) existing project driveways and four (4) key roadway segments evaluated in this report were conducted by Transportation Studies Inc. in August 2019. Given that current traffic 2876
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 6 patterns are not typical due to the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic, use of the August 2019 traffic count data was deemed appropriate for use by City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the six (6) key study intersections and two (2) existing project driveways evaluated in this report, respectively. Figure 3- 3 also presents the existing average daily traffic volumes for the four (4) key roadway segments.

Appendix B contains the detailed peak hour count sheets for the key intersections and driveways evaluated in this report. Appendix B also contains the average daily traffic volumes for the key roadway segments.

3.3 Existing Intersection Conditions
Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in Chapter 20 of the HCM 6 for two-way stop-controlled intersections, and the methodology outlined in Chapter 21 of the HCM 6 for all-way stop-controlled intersections.

3.3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) In conformance with City of Orange, City of Garden Grove and City of Santa Ana requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing.

Per City of Orange and City of Garden Grove requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. Per City of Santa Ana requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through lanes and 1,600 vph for left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation.

The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3-1.

3.3.2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The HCM unsignalized methodology for stop-controlled intersections was utilized for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections (i.e. the existing project driveways). LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections differ from LOS criteria for signalized intersections as signalized intersections are designed for heavier traffic and therefore a greater delay. Unsignalized intersections are also 2877
2878
2879
2880
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 7 associated with more uncertainty for users, as delays are less predictable, which can reduce users’ delay tolerance.

3.3.2.1 Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Two-way stop-controlled intersections are comprised of a major street, which is uncontrolled, and a minor street, which is controlled by stop signs. Level of service for a two-way stop-controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay. The control delay by movement, by approach, and for the intersection as a whole is estimated by the computed capacity for each movement. LOS is determined for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well as major-street left turns. The worst side street approach delay is reported. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole or for major-street approaches, as it is assumed that major-street through vehicles experience zero delay. The HCM control delay value range for two-way stopcontrolled intersections are shown in Table 3-2.

3.3.2.2 All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
All-way stop-controlled intersections require every vehicle to stop at the intersection before proceeding. Because each driver must stop, the decision to proceed into the intersection is a function of traffic conditions on the other approaches. The time between subsequent vehicle departures depends on the degree of conflict that results between the vehicles and vehicles on the other approaches. This methodology determines the control delay for each lane on the approach, computes a weighted average for the whole approach, and computes a weighted average for the intersection as a whole. Level of service (LOS) at the approach and intersection levels is based solely on control delay. The HCM control delay value range for all-way stop-controlled intersections are shown in Table 3-2.

3.4 Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) Existing daily operating conditions for the key roadway segments have been investigated according to the daily volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of each link. The daily V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment with the volume based on 24-hour traffic count data and the capacity based on either the City of Orange General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element or the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) street classifications. The daily roadway link capacity of each street classification according to the City of Orange General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element which is used for City of Orange locations is presented in Table 3- 3, along with the six corresponding service levels and associated V/C ratios. The daily roadway link capacity of each street classification according to the Orange County MPAH which is used for City of Santa Ana and City of Garden Grove locations is presented in Table 3-4, along with the six corresponding service levels and associated V/C ratios.

3.5 Level of Service Criteria

3.5.1 City of Orange Locations
According to the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element and stated in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, 2881
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 8 dated July 2020, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections and LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments.

3.5.2 City of Garden Grove Locations
According to the City of Garden Grove, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections and LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments.

3.5.3 City of Santa Ana Locations
According to the City of Santa Ana, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained for all intersections and roadway segments. However, the City of Santa Ana has defined exceptions to this criterion at specific locations within the City. The City of Santa Ana has defined Major Development Areas where LOS “E” is considered acceptable. It should be noted that all City of Santa Ana intersections and roadway segments evaluated in this traffic study (i.e. key study intersection #6 and key roadway segments C and D) are not designated as Major Development Areas and therefore LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained.

3.6 Existing Level of Service Results

3.6.1 Intersections
Table 3-5 summarizes the existing peak hour service level calculations for the six (6) key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry. Review of Table 3-5 indicates that one (1) of the six (6) key study intersections currently operates at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard currently operates at unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. The remaining five (5) key study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Appendix C presents the ICU/LOS calculations for the six (6) key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour.

3.6.2 Roadway Segments
Table 3-6 summarizes the existing service level calculations for the four (4) key roadway segments based on existing 24-hour traffic volumes and current roadway geometry. The first column (1) shows the number of lanes, the second column (2) shows the arterial classification and the third column (3) shows the existing LOS “E” capacity. The fourth column (4) shows the daily volume, V/C ratio and resulting level of service. Review of Table 3-6 indicates that all four (4) key roadway segments currently operate at acceptable LOS A on a daily basis. 2882
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 9 TABLE 3-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS1 Level of Service
(LOS)
Intersection Capacity
Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description
A ≤ 0.60
EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer
than one red light, and no approach phase is
fully used.

B 0.61 – 0.70
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach
phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin
to feel somewhat restricted within groups
of vehicles.

C 0.71 – 0.80
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to
wait through more than one red light;
backups may develop behind turning
vehicles.

D 0.81 – 0.90
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during
portions of the rush hours, but enough
lower volume periods occur to permit
clearing of developing lines, preventing
excessive backups.

E 0.91 – 1.00
POOR. Represents the most vehicles
intersection approaches can accommodate;
may be long lines of waiting vehicles
through several signal cycles.

F > 1.00
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations
or on cross streets may restrict or prevent
movement of vehicles out of the
intersection approaches. Potentially very
long delays with continuously increasing
queue lengths.
1 Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212 – Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. 2883
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 10 TABLE 3-2
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 6 METHODOLOGY)2,3 Level of Service
(LOS)
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A ≤ 10.0 Little or no delay
B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 Short traffic delays
C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 Average traffic delays
D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 Long traffic delays
E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 Very long traffic delays
F > 50.0 Severe congestion
2 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 20: Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections. The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole. 3 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 21: All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections. For approaches and intersection-wide assessment, LOS is defined solely by control delay.
2884
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 11 TABLE 3-3
ROADWAY LINK CAPACITIES – CITY OF ORANGE LOCATIONS
Facility Type
Number
of Lanes
Level of Service Criteria With Associated Roadway Capacity Daily Values (VPD)
Level of Service (LOS)
A B C D E4 F
Principal 8-lanes
divided 45,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 --
Major 6-lanes
divided 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 --
Primary 4-lanes
divided 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 --
Secondary 4-lanes
undivided 14,400 16,800 19,200 21,600 24,000 --
Collector 2-lanes
undivided 7,200 8,400 9,600 10,800 12,000 --
V/C Ratio ≤ 0.60 0.61-0.70 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 0.91-1.00 ≥ 1.00 Notes:
 VPD = vehicles per day

4 Source: City of Orange General Plan; Circulation and Mobility. 2885
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 12 TABLE 3-4
ROADWAY LINK CAPACITIES – CITY OF SANTA ANA AND GARDEN GROVE LOCATIONS Facility Type
Number
of Lanes
Level of Service Criteria With Associated Roadway Capacity Daily Values (VPD)
Level of Service (LOS)
A B C D E5 F
Principal 8-lanes
divided 45,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 --
Major 6-lanes
divided 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 --
Primary 4-lanes
divided 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 --
Secondary 4-lanes
undivided 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 --
Collector 2-lanes
undivided 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 --
V/C Ratio ≤ 0.60 0.61-0.70 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 0.91-1.00 ≥ 1.00 Notes:
 VPD = vehicles per day
5 Source: Most current Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 2886
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 13 TABLE 3-5

EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
Key Intersection
Time
Period Jurisdiction
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
Control
Type ICU LOS

1. SR-22 WB Ramps at AM Orange/
Caltrans
D
4∅ Traffic 0.417 A
Metropolitan Drive PM Signal 0.536 A

2. The City Drive at AM
Orange D
3∅ Traffic 0.468 A
Metropolitan Drive PM Signal 0.412 A

3. The City Drive at AM Orange/
Caltrans
D
6∅ Traffic 0.652 B
SR-22 EB Ramps PM Signal 0.618 B

4. Lewis Street at AM Orange/
Garden Grove D
6∅ Traffic 0.729 C
Garden Grove Boulevard PM Signal 1.041 F

5. The City Drive at AM
Orange D
6∅ Traffic 0.589 A
Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane PM Signal 0.646 B

6. Bristol Street at AM
Santa Ana D
6∅ Traffic 0.762 C
Memory Lane PM Signal 0.886 D
Notes:
 BOLD ICU/LOS values indicate unacceptable service level 2887
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 14 TABLE 3-6

EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Key Roadway Segment Jurisdiction
Min.

Acc.

LOS
(1)
No. of
Existing
Lanes
(2)
Arterial
Classification
(3)
Existing
Capacity at
LOS “E”
(4)
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Daily
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS
A. Metropolitan Drive between
SR-22 WB Ramps and The City Drive Orange D 4D Primary 37,500 22,021 0.587 A B.

The City Drive between SR-22 EB Ramps
and Garden Grove Blvd/Memory Lane Orange D 5D Major 46,900 20,614 0.440 A C.

Garden Grove Boulevard between
Lewis Street and The City Drive
Orange/
Santa Ana/
Garden Grove
D 4D Primary 37,500 21,820 0.582 A
D.

Memory Lane between
The City Drive and Bristol Street
Orange/
Santa Ana D 6D Major 56,300 25,542 0.454 A
2888
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 15 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the proposed Project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the project development tabulation.

The second step of the forecasting process is trip distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/anticipated travel patterns in the study area.

The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area.

With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed Project is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast project traffic. The need for sitespecific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated and the significance of the project’s impacts identified.
2889
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 16 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 Project Traffic Generation
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017].

Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates and/or equations used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the existing land use and the proposed Project and presents the forecast daily and peak hour project traffic volumes for a “typical” weekday. As shown in the upper portion of Table 5-1, the trip generation potential of the existing land use is estimated using ITE Land Use 820:

Shopping Center equations. The trip generation potential of the proposed Project is estimated using ITE Land Use 221: Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise trip rates and ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center equations.

Review of the middle portion of Table 5-1 indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 2,091 daily trips, with 219 trips (107 inbound, 112 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 147 trips (82 inbound, 65 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Review of the lower portion of Table 5-1 indicates that the existing land use generates approximately 1,052 daily trips, with 140 trips (87 inbound, 53 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 60 trips (29 inbound, 31 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.

Review of the last row of Table 5-1 shows that with application of existing trip credits, the proposed Project is forecast to generate a net of 1,039 daily trips, a net of 79 AM peak hour trips and a net of 87 PM peak hour trips. The potential traffic impacts of the aforementioned net Project trips are evaluated in the traffic impact analysis section of this report.

Please note that the aforementioned trip generation includes adjustments for internal capture (proposed Project) and for pass-by (existing land use and proposed Project), consistent with the methodology contained within the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, published by ITE (2014).

It should be noted that internal capture reductions were only applied to half of the proposed Project retail trips to provide a conservative trip generation forecast. Appendix A also contains the internal capture worksheets. The pass-by reduction factors used in this report (applied to the existing land use and proposed Project), which are summarized in the footnotes of Table 5-1, consist of 10% daily (estimated), 10% AM peak hour (estimated) and 34% PM peak hour (Trip Generation Handbook – ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center).

It should also be noted that the trip generation methodology and forecasts were approved by City of Orange staff prior to proceeding with further analysis. 2890
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 17 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Figures 5-1 and 5-2 illustrate the general, directional traffic distribution patterns for the residential project component and the retail project component, respectively. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the project site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:
 directional flows on the freeways in the immediate vicinity of the project site (i.e. I-5 Freeway and SR-22 Freeway),
 the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. The City Drive, Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane, etc.),
 expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals,
 ingress/egress availability at the project site, and
 input from City staff.

The anticipated AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project are presented in Figures 5-3 and 5-4, respectively. Figure 5-4 also presents the daily project traffic volumes for the proposed Project. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 5-3 and 5-4 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, and the traffic generation forecast presented in Table 5-1.

5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
The existing plus project traffic conditions have been generated based upon existing conditions and the estimated project traffic. These forecast traffic conditions have been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, which require that the potential impacts of a Project be evaluated upon the circulation system as it currently exists. This traffic volume scenario and the related intersection capacity analyses will identify the roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the direct traffic impacts of the Project, if any.

Figures 5-5 and 5-6 present projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the six (6) key study intersections and two (2) existing project driveways with the addition of the trips generated by the proposed Project to existing traffic volumes, respectively. Figure 5-6 also presents the existing plus project daily traffic volumes.
2891
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 18 TABLE 5-1
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST6
ITE Land Use Code /
Project Description
Daily
2-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Generation Factors:
 221: Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise (TE/DU) 5.44 26% 74% 0.36 61% 39% 0.44  820: Shopping Center (TE/TSF) Eq.7 62% 38% Eq.7 48% 52% Eq.7 Generation Forecasts:
840 The City Drive South Apartments
 Apartments (226 DU) 1,229 21 60 81 60 39 99
Internal Capture8 -107 0 -1 -1 -6 -2 -8
Proposed Apartments Subtotal 1,122 21 59 80 54 37 91
 Retail (9,169 SF) 1,184 97 59 156 45 48 93
Internal Capture8 -107 -1 0 -1 -2 -6 -8
Subtotal 1,077 96 59 155 43 42 85
Pass-By (Daily: 10%, AM: 10%, PM: 34%)9 -108 -10 -6 -16 -15 -14 -29 Proposed Retail Subtotal 969 86 53 139 28 28 56
Total Proposed Project Trip Generation 2,091 107 112 219 82 65 147 Existing Retail Center
 Retail (9,000 SF) 1,169 97 59 156 44 47 91
Pass-By (Daily: 10%, AM: 10%, PM: 34%)9 -117 -10 -6 -16 -15 -16 -31 Subtotal 1,052 87 53 140 29 31 60
Net Difference Trip Generation Forecast
Proposed Project vs. Existing Land Use 1,039 20 59 79 53 34 87 Notes:
• TE/DU = trip end per dwelling unit
• TE/1,000 SF = trip end per 1,000 SF of development
• It should be noted that the TIA conservatively evaluates the development of 226 apartment units and 9,169 SF of retail uses, even though the proposed Project will only develop 225 apartment units and 9,000 SF of retail uses. 6 Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). 7 Trip Generation rates based on the following equations:
 Weekday Daily: Ln(T) = 0.68Ln(X) + 5.57
 Weekday AM Peak Hour: T = 0.50(X) + 151.78
 Weekday PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X) + 2.89 8 Consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook, published by ITE (2017), the project trip generation was adjusted to account for the internal capture between the retail and residential components of the Project. It should be noted that internal capture reductions were only applied to half of the retail trips to provide a conservative trip generation forecast. 9 Consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, published by ITE (2014), pass-by reductions for ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center consist of the following: 10% daily (estimated), 10% AM peak hour (estimated), and 34% PM peak hour. 2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 19 6.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

6.1 Ambient Traffic Growth
Horizon year, background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future cumulative projects in the study area, as well as account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The future growth in traffic volumes has been calculated at one percent (1.0%) per year. Applied to the Year 2019 existing traffic volumes, this factor results in a 5.0% growth in existing volumes to the near-term horizon year 2024.

6.2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Characteristics
In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, the status of other known development projects (cumulative projects) in the vicinity of the proposed Project has been researched at the City of Orange, the City of Garden Grove, the City of Anaheim and the City of Santa Ana. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed Project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development.

Based on our research, there are fourteen (14) cumulative projects in the City of Orange, four (4) cumulative projects in the City of Garden Grove, ten (10) cumulative projects in the City of Anaheim and thirty-six (36) cumulative projects in the City of Santa Ana within the vicinity of the subject site that have either been built, but not yet fully occupied, or are being processed for approval.

These sixty-four (64) planned and/or approved cumulative projects were considered in the cumulative traffic analysis for this project.

Table 6-1 provides a brief description for each of the sixty-four (64) cumulative projects. Figure 6-1 graphically illustrates the location of the cumulative projects. These cumulative projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic, which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections and/or roadway segments.

Table 6-2 presents the trip generation for the sixty-four (64) cumulative projects. As shown in Table 6-2, the sixty-four (64) cumulative projects are forecast to generate a total of 185,531 daily trips, with 10,220 trips (4,827 inbound and 5,393 outbound) forecast during the AM peak hour and 14,640 trips (7,564 inbound and 7,076 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. 2899
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 20 6.3 Year 2024 Traffic Volumes
The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the sixty-four (64) cumulative projects are presented in Figures 6-2 and 6-3, respectively. Figure 6-3 also presents the daily cumulative project traffic volumes.

Figures 6-4 and 6-5 present the AM and PM peak hour cumulative traffic volumes (existing traffic + ambient growth traffic + cumulative project traffic) at the key study intersections for the Year 2024, respectively. Figure 6-5 also presents the Year 2024 daily cumulative traffic volumes.

Figures 6-6 and 6-7 illustrate the Year 2024 forecast AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed Project, respectively. Figure 6-7 also presents the Year 2024 daily cumulative plus project traffic volumes. 2900
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 21 TABLE 6-1
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS10
No. Description Location/Address Size
City of Orange

1. Ronald McDonald House Expansion 383 & 389 S. Batavia Street 23 DU Multifamily Expansion

2. Woody’s Diner 2145 W. Chapman Avenue 3,400 SF Restaurant

3. 7-11 Gas Station 2245 W. Chapman Avenue 2,400 SF Conv. Store and Gas Station

4. 3800 Chapman Apartments 3800 Chapman Avenue 280 DU Apartments

5. City Plaza 1 West City Boulevard
335 DU Apartments
165 Room Hotel

6. The Terrace Apartments Southeast Corner of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street 167 DU Apartments

7. City Parkway West Apartments 500 & 600 City Parkway 220 DU Apartments

8. Chick-fil-A Main Street Southwest Corner of Main St & Almond Ave 4,563 SF Fast-Food with Drive-Thru

9. Plaza Bible Church and School 671 Poplar Street 22,940 SF Church 350 Student School

10. 999 Town and Country Apartments 999 Town and Country Road 262 DU Apartments

11. Town and Country Apartments and
Townhomes 702 W. Town and Country Road
653 DU Apartments
74 DU Townhomes

12. Villa St. Joseph 450 S. Batavia Street 54 DU Affordable Senior Apartments

13. St. Joseph MOB 331-393 S. Main Street 137,500 SF Medical Office Building

14. In-N-Out 3520 E. The City Way
3,885 SF Fast-Food Restaurant with
Drive-Thru (196 seats)
City of Garden Grove

15. CUP-153-2019
SP-067-2019
12612 Buaro Street
8,400 SF Church (3,918 SF Existing
Church with 200 Seats and 4,482 SF
Addition of Ancillary Space)

16. Single Family Homes
Northwest corner of Lewis Street and
Garden Grove Boulevard
70 DU Single-Family Homes

17. Site “C” Hotel and Restaurant
Northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Twintree Lane
769 Room Hotel and 45,000 SF
Restaurant

18. Nickelodeon Resort Northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Twintree Lane
60 DU Timeshare
500 Room Resort Hotel
5,703 SF Quality Restaurant
10 Source: Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Anaheim and Santa Ana Planning Departments staff. 2901
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 22 TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED)
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS11
No. Description Location/Address Size
City of Anaheim

19. A-Town Metro Southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue
1,746 Apartments
50,000 SF Commercial

20. LT Platinum Center Northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue
405 Apartments
77,000 SF Office
583,000 SF Commercial

21. Jefferson Stadium Park
Southwest corner of State College Boulevard
and Gene Autry Way
1,078 Apartments
14,600 SF Commercial

22. Trumark Homes Generally north of Katella Avenue and east of Lewis Street
153 DU Townhomes

23. Cambria Suites 1721 South Manchester Avenue
352 Room Hotel
15,000 SF Restaurant

24. Manchester and
Chapman Townhomes
2337-2415 South Manchester Avenue 120 DU Townhomes

25. Panera Bread (Drive Through) 1750 S. State College Boulevard 4,519 SF Restaurant with Drive-Thru

26. 7-11 Convenience Store 1818 S. Lewis Street 3,060 SF Convenience Market

27. Affordable Apartment Homes 2121 S. Manchester Avenue 102 DU Apartments

28. 1700 Lewis 1700 Lewis Street 153 DU Single-Family
City of Santa Ana

29. The Line 3630 W. Westminster Avenue 228 DU Apartments

30. Saint Thomas 3-Lot Subdivision 2828 N. Flower Street 3 DU Single Family

31. 2700 Main Street Apartments 2700 N. Main Street 312 DU Apartments 51,000 SF Office

32. Main Place Mall Revitalization Plan 2800 N. Main Street 1,590 DU Residential
400 Room Hotel
750,000 SF Office
94,500 SF Commercial

33. Town and Country Manor 555 E. Memory Lane 174 DU Apartments

34. Magnolia at the Park 2525 N. Main Street 256 DU Apartments

35. Hampton Inn Hotel 2129 N. Main Street 73,322 SF Hotel (135 Rooms)

36. The Academy Charter High School 1901 N. Fairview Street 8 DU Apartments 146,136 SF High School

37. Samueli Academy Expansion 1919 N. Fairview Street 800 Student Expansion 11 Source: Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Anaheim and Santa Ana Planning Departments staff. 2902
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 23 TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED)
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS12
No. Description Location/Address Size

38. In-N-Out Burger Bristol Rebuild and
Expansion 815 N. Bristol Street 1,776 SF Restaurant Expansion

39. North Bristol Medical Project 1415 N. Bristol Street 5,120 SF Medical-Dental Office

40. Arts Collective Meta Housing
Adaptive Reuse
1666 N. Main Street 58 DU Apartments

41. Broadway Live/Work Units 1412 N. Broadway Avenue 3 DU Apartments

42. Craftsman Residential Duplex 1002 N. Van Ness Avenue 2 DU Apartments

43. The Orleans Adaptive Reuse
Apartments 1212 N. Broadway Avenue 24 DU Apartments

44. YCU Conversion of SFD to Office
Use 1008 N. Broadway Avenue 2,800 SF Office

45. One Broadway Plaza 1109 N. Broadway Avenue
190,047 SF Office
9,803 SF Rehabilitated Office
8,525 SF Commercial
15,915 SF Quality Restaurant
2,681 SF High Turn Over Restaurant
415 DU Apartments

46. Bridging the Aqua 317 E. Seventeenth Street 57 DU Apartments

47. Lam Residential 1514 N. English Street 6 DU Single Family

48. Tiny Tim Plaza Mixed Use 2223 W. Fifth Street 54 DU Apartments 51,300 SF Commercial

49. Vista Heritage School Expansion 2609 W. Fifth Street 400 Student School Expansion

50. King Street Five Home Subdivision 1102 N. King Street 5 DU Single Family

51. Westminster & Fairview LLC
Commercial Building 2530 Westminster Avenue 66,185 SF Commercial

52. Westview Housing 2534 W. Westminster Avenue 85 DU Apartments

53. Town and County Manor 501 E. Memory Lane 48 DU (88 Bed) Senior Care Facility

54. Chuze Fitness Shopping Center 1900 N. Grand Avenue 109,276 SF Commercial

55. Dantes North Olive Subdivision 1510 N. Olive Street 4 DU Single-Family

56. Farmers & Merchants Bank 1702 N. Main Street 6,233 SF Bank

57. Budget Inn Conversion 1108 N. Harbor Boulevard 91 DU Apartments

58. Bewley La Townhomes 1122 N. Bewley Street 10 DU Townhomes 12 Source: Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Anaheim and Santa Ana Planning Departments staff. 2903
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 24 TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED)
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS13
No. Description Location/Address Size

59. Hue-Vo Two Unit Development 3402 W. Seventh Street 3 DU Single Family

60. John Le 5-Unit Development 1113 N. Bewley Street 5 DU Apartments

61. Bewley Townhomes 921 Bewley Street 12 DU Townhomes

62. Healthcare Medical Office Building 800 W. Tenth Street 3,928 SF Medical Office

63. Eight Eight 8 – Adaptive Reuse 888 N. Main Street
121 DU Apartments
25 DU Live-Work
3,700 SF Commercial

64. Chevron Gas Station 1904 W. First Street
8 VFP Gas Station
2,182 SF Convenience Store
13 Source: Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Anaheim and Santa Ana Planning Departments staff. 2904
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 25 TABLE 6-2
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST14
No. Cumulative Project Description
Daily
Two-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total

1. Ronald McDonald House Expansion 168 3 8 11 8 5 13

2. Woody’s Diner 343 17 14 31 11 8 19

3. 7-11 Gas Station 749 18 18 36 20 20 40

4. 3800 Chapman Apartments15 1,490 25 97 122 90 49 139

5. City Plaza16 3,130 80 152 232 158 107 265

6. The Terrace Apartments17 727 14 38 52 36 23 59

7. City Parkway West Apartments18 1,170 19 76 95 70 39 109

8. Chick-fil-A Main Street19 1,612 47 46 93 38 36 74

9. Plaza Bible Church and School20 690 181 147 328 32 34 66

10. 999 Town and Country Apartments21 1,742 26 108 134 105 58 163

11. Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes22 2,589 -198 255 57 238 -90 148

12. Villa St. Joseph 231 4 9 13 10 6 16

13. St. Joseph MOB 4,785 298 84 382 133 343 476

14. In-N-Out 2,869 0 0 0 50 45 95

15. CUP-153-2019/SP-067-2019 88 1 1 2 2 4 6

16. Single Family Homes 661 13 39 52 43 26 69

17. Site “C” Hotel and Restaurant23 8,256 271 176 447 348 269 617

18. Nickelodeon Resort24 4,937 131 55 186 117 148 265

19. A-Town Metro 14,480 211 634 845 677 427 1,104

20. LT Platinum Center 23,522 426 342 768 861 921 1,782

21. Jefferson Stadium Park 8,394 122 387 509 399 242 641

22. Trumark Homes 1,120 16 54 70 54 32 86

23. Cambria Suites 4,458 171 128 299 160 135 295
14 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 10th Editions, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2017)]. 15 Source: 3800 Chapman Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers. 16 Source: City Plaza Project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers. 17 Source: The Terrace Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers. 18 Source: City Parkway West Apartments Project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers. 19 Source: Chick-fil-A Main Street Project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers. 20 Source: Plaza Bible Church and School Project TIA Scope of Work, prepared by LLG Engineers. 21 Source: 999 Town & Country Apartments Project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers. 22 Source: Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers. 23 Source: Traffic Impact Analysis Report for The Garden Grove Site “C” Hotel and Restaurant, prepared by RK Engineering Group. 24 Source: Nickelodeon Resort Traffic Impact Scope of Work, prepared by LLG Engineers. 2905
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 26 TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED)
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST25
No. Cumulative Project Description
Daily
Two-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total

24. Manchester and Chapman Townhomes26 697 9 44 53 42 20 62

25. Panera Bread (Drive Through) 1,596 47 46 93 38 36 74

26. 7-11 Convenience Store 2,100 86 86 172 38 35 73

27. Affordable Apartment Homes 747 11 36 47 36 21 57

28. 1700 Lewis 1,444 28 85 113 95 56 151

29. The Line 1,669 24 81 105 81 47 128

30. Saint Thomas 3-Lot Subdivision 28 1 1 2 2 1 3

31. 2700 Main Street Apartments 2,781 84 119 203 119 115 234

32. Main Place Mall Revitalization Plan27 61,050 1,707 1,107 2,814 2,416 2,893 5,309

33. Town and Country Manor 1,274 18 62 80 61 36 97

34. Magnolia at the Park 1,874 27 91 118 90 53 143

35. Hampton Inn Hotel28 1,103 42 29 71 41 40 81

36. The Academy Charter High School29 686 107 52 159 25 29 54

37. Samueli Academy Expansion30 879 123 100 223 35 55 90

38. In-N-Out Burger Bristol Rebuild and Expansion 627 0 0 0 15 14 29

39. North Bristol Medical Project 178 11 3 14 5 13 18

40. Arts Collective Meta Housing Adaptive Reuse 425 6 21 27 20 12 32

41. Broadway Live/Work Units 22 0 1 1 1 1 2

42. Craftsman Residential Duplex 15 0 1 1 1 0 1

43. The Orleans Adaptive Reuse Apartments 176 3 8 11 8 5 13

44. YCU Conversion of SFD to Office Use 27 3 0 3 0 3 3

45. One Broadway Plaza31 2,792 146 88 234 150 151 301

46. Bridging the Aqua 417 6 20 26 20 12 32

47. Lam Residential 57 1 3 4 4 2 6

48. Tiny Tim Plaza Mixed Use 2,138 33 35 68 81 78 159
25 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 10th Editions, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2017)]. 26 Source: Manchester and Chapman Townhomes Project Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers. 27 Source: MainPlace Mall Transformation Project Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Kimley Horn, dated January 2019. 28 Source: 2129 North Main Street Hotel Project Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated January 16, 2018. 29 Source: The Academy Charter High School Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Fehr and Peers. 30 Source: Samueli Academy Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated May 30, 2018. 31 Source: One Broadway Plaza Trip Generation Evaluation, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated April 16, 2020. 2906
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 27 TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED)
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST32
No. Cumulative Project Description
Daily
Two-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total

49. Vista Heritage School Expansion 1,644 200 164 364 48 56 104

50. King Street Five Home Subdivision 47 1 3 4 3 2 5

51. Westminster & Fairview LLC Comm. Building 2,248 34 22 56 80 86 166

52. Westview Housing 622 9 30 39 30 18 48

53. Town and County Manor 229 11 6 17 9 14 23

54. Chuze Fitness Shopping Center 3,712 58 35 93 132 143 275

55. Dantes North Olive Subdivision 38 1 2 3 3 1 4

56. Farmers & Merchants Bank 561 24 18 42 42 41 83

57. Budget Inn Conversion 666 10 32 42 32 19 51

58. Bewley La Townhomes 73 1 4 5 4 2 6

59. Hue-Vo Two Unit Development 28 1 1 2 2 1 3

60. John Le 5-Unit Development 37 0 2 2 2 1 3

61. Bewley Townhomes 88 1 5 6 4 3 7

62. Healthcare Medical Office Building 137 9 2 11 4 10 14

63. Eight Eight 8 – Adaptive Reuse 1,098 17 50 67 54 32 86

64. Chevron Gas Station 1,290 31 30 61 31 32 63
Total Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Forecast 185,531 4,827 5,393 10,220 7,564 7,076 14,640 32 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 10th Editions, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2017)]. 2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 28 7.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The relative impact of the proposed Project during the AM peak hour/PM peak hour and on a daily basis was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the six (6) key study intersections, two (2) existing project driveways and four (4) key roadway segments, without, then with the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection and roadway segment. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection and key roadway segment was then evaluated using the following traffic impact criteria.

7.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds

7.1.1 City of Orange
Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Orange are considered significant if:

Intersections:
 An unacceptable peak hour Level of Service (LOS) at any of the key intersections is projected.

According to the City’s Circulation Element and stated in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated July 2020, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections; and  The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1% of capacity (ICU increase ≥

0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (ICU > 0.900).

Roadway Segments:
 An unacceptable daily Level of Service (LOS) at any of the key roadway segments is projected.

According to the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element and stated in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated July 2020, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments; and  The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1% of capacity (V/C increase ≥

0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900).

7.1.2 City of Garden Grove
Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Garden Grove are considered significant if:

Intersections:
 An unacceptable peak hour Level of Service (LOS) at any of the key intersections is projected.

According to the City of Garden Grove, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all intersections; and 2915
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 29  The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1% of capacity (ICU increase ≥

0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (ICU > 0.900).

Roadway Segments:
 An unacceptable daily Level of Service (LOS) at any of the key roadway segments is projected.

According to the City of Garden Grove, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained on a daily basis on all roadway segments; and  The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1% of capacity (V/C increase ≥

0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900).

7.1.3 City of Santa Ana
Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the City of Santa Ana are considered significant if:

Intersections:
 An unacceptable peak hour Level of Service (LOS) at any of the key intersections is projected.

The City of Santa Ana considers LOS D (ICU = 0.801 - 0.900) to be the minimum acceptable LOS for all intersections, except for those locations located within the City’s defined Major Development Areas, where LOS E is considered acceptable. It should be noted that all City of Santa Ana intersections evaluated in this traffic study (i.e. key study intersection #6) are not designated as Major Development Areas and therefore LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained.
 The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1% of capacity (ICU increase ≥

0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900).

Roadway Segments:
 According to the City of Santa Ana, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained for all roadway segments, except for those locations located within the City’s defined Major Development Areas, where LOS E is considered acceptable. It should be noted that all City of Santa Ana roadway segments evaluated in this traffic study (i.e. key roadway segments C and D) are not designated as Major Development Areas and therefore LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained.
 The project increases traffic demand at the roadway segment by 1% of capacity (V/C increase ≥

0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (V/C > 0.900). 2916
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 30 7.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios
The following scenarios are those for which volume/capacity calculations have been performed at the six (6) key study intersections, two (2) existing project driveways and four (4) key roadway segments for existing plus project and near-term (Year 2024) traffic conditions:
(a) Existing Traffic Conditions;
(b) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions;
(c) Scenario (b) with Improvements, if necessary;
(d) Near-Term (Year 2024) Cumulative Traffic Conditions, (e) Near-Term (Year 2024) Cumulative plus Project Traffic Conditions; and (f) Scenario (e) with Improvements, if necessary.
2917
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 31 8.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following summarizes the “Existing Plus Project” level of service results for the six (6) key study intersections and four (4) key roadway segments. The level of service results for the two (2) existing project driveways are presented in Section 11.0 of this report.

8.1 Intersections
Table 8-1 summarizes the peak hour level of service results at the six (6) key study intersections for existing plus project traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 8-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 3-5). The second column (2) lists existing plus project traffic conditions. The third column (3) shows the increase in ICU value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fourth column (4) indicates the anticipated level of service with recommended improvements.

8.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Review of Columns (2) and (3) of Table 8-1 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the six (6) key study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersection of Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour with the addition of Project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value. The remaining five (5) key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic.

Appendix C also presents the existing plus project ICU/LOS calculations for the six (6) key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour.

8.2 Roadway Segments
Table 8-2 summarizes the roadway segment level of service results at the four (4) key roadway segments for existing plus project traffic conditions. The first column (1) shows the number of lanes, the second column (2) shows the arterial classification and the third column (3) shows the existing LOS “E” capacity. The fourth column (4) presents a summary of existing daily traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 3-6). The fifth column (5) lists existing plus project daily traffic conditions. Column (5) also shows the increase in V/C ratio value due to the added daily project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. 2918
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 32 8.2.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Review of Column 5 of Table 8-2 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the four (4) key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. The four (4) key roadway segments currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic. 2919
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 33 TABLE 8-1

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Key Intersections
Time
Period
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
(1)
Existing
Traffic Conditions
(2)
Existing
Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
(3)
Project
Significant
Impact
(4)
Existing
Plus Project
With Mitigation
ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Yes/No ICU LOS

1. SR-22 WB Ramps at AM
D

0.417 A 0.419 A 0.002 No -- --
Metropolitan Drive PM 0.536 A 0.538 A 0.002 No -- --

2. The City Drive at AM
D

0.468 A 0.471 A 0.003 No -- --
Metropolitan Drive PM 0.412 A 0.419 A 0.007 No -- --

3. The City Drive at AM
D

0.652 B 0.668 B 0.016 No -- --
SR-22 EB Ramps PM 0.618 B 0.634 B 0.016 No -- --

4. Lewis Street at AM
D

0.729 C 0.731 C 0.002 No -- --
Garden Grove Boulevard PM 1.041 F 1.043 F 0.002 No -- --

5. The City Drive at AM
D

0.589 A 0.593 A 0.004 No -- --
Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane PM 0.646 B 0.653 B 0.007 No -- --

6. Bristol Street at AM
D

0.762 C 0.764 C 0.002 No -- --
Memory Lane PM 0.886 D 0.888 D 0.002 No -- --
Notes:
 BOLD ICU/LOS values indicate unacceptable service level 2920
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 34 TABLE 8-2

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Key Roadway Segment
Min.

Acc.

LOS
(1)
No. of
Existing
Lanes
(2)
Arterial
Classification
(3)
Existing
Capacity
at LOS “E”
(4)
Existing
Traffic Conditions
(5)
Existing Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
Daily
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS
Daily
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS Inc.

Adverse
(Yes/No)
A. Metropolitan Drive between
SR-22 WB Ramps and The City Dr
D 4D Primary 37,500 22,021 0.587 A 22,252 0.593 A 0.006 No B.

The City Dr between
SR-22 EB Ramps and Garden
Grove Blvd/Memory Lane
D 5D Major 46,900 20,614 0.440 A 21,331 0.455 A 0.015 No C.

Garden Grove Boulevard between
Lewis Street and The City Drive
D 4D Primary 37,500 21,820 0.582 A 21,946 0.585 A 0.003 No D.

Memory Lane between
The City Drive and Bristol Street
D 6D Major 56,300 25,542 0.454 A 25,737 0.457 A 0.003 No 2921
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 35 9.0 YEAR 2024 PLUS PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following summarizes the “Year 2024 Plus Project” level of service results for the six (6) key study intersections and four (4) key roadway segments. The level of service results for the two (2) existing project driveways are presented in Section 11.0 of this report.

9.1 Intersections
Table 9-1 summarizes the peak hour level of service results at the six (6) key study intersections for Year 2024 traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 9-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 3-5). The second column (2) lists projected cumulative traffic conditions (existing plus ambient traffic plus cumulative project traffic) based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2024 nearterm traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in ICU value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) indicates the anticipated level of service with recommended improvements.

9.1.1 Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions
An analysis of future (Year 2024) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic will adversely impact two (2) of the six (6) key study intersections. The remaining four (4) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic. The locations forecast to operate at an adverse LOS are as follows:

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Key Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS

4. Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard 0.993 E 1.424 F

6. Bristol Street at Memory Lane -- -- 1.038 F

9.1.2 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of Columns (3) and (4) of Table 9-1 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the six (6) key study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersections of Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard and Bristol Street at Memory Lane are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of Project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value.

The remaining four (4) key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project generated traffic to Year 2024 cumulative traffic. 2922
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 36 Appendix C also presents the Year 2024 plus project ICU/LOS calculations for the six (6) key study intersections.

9.2 Roadway Segments
Table 9-2 summarizes the roadway segment level of service results at the four (4) key roadway segments for Year 2024 traffic conditions. The first column (1) shows the number of lanes, the second column (2) shows the arterial classification and the third column (3) shows the LOS “E” capacity. The fourth column (4) presents a summary of projected Year 2024 cumulative daily traffic conditions. The fifth column (5) lists Year 2024 plus project daily traffic conditions. Column (5) also shows the increase in V/C ratio value due to the added daily project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report.

9.2.1 Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions
An analysis of future (Year 2024) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that the four (4) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service on a daily basis with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative projects traffic. Please note that the level of service results for Roadway Segment D (i.e. Memory Lane between The City Drive and Bristol Street) include the planned reduction of lanes from six lanes to four lanes, in order to accommodate plans for a bike lane in each direction.

9.2.2 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of column (5) of Table 9-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the four (4) key roadway segments. The four (4) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable service levels on a daily basis with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2024 traffic condition.
2923
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 37 TABLE 9-1
YEAR 2024 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Key Intersections
Time
Period
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
(1)
Existing
Traffic Conditions
(2)
Year 2024
Cumulative
Traffic Conditions
(3)
Year 2024
Cumulative
Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
(4)
Project
Significant
Impact
(5)
Year 2024
Cumulative
Plus Project
With Mitigation
ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS

1. SR-22 WB Ramps at AM
D

0.417 A 0.476 A 0.478 A 0.002 No -- --
Metropolitan Drive PM 0.536 A 0.606 B 0.608 B 0.002 No -- --

2. The City Drive at AM
D

0.468 A 0.535 A 0.538 A 0.003 No -- --
Metropolitan Drive PM 0.412 A 0.467 A 0.483 A 0.016 No -- --

3. The City Drive at AM
D

0.652 B 0.736 C 0.751 C 0.015 No -- --
SR-22 EB Ramps PM 0.618 B 0.711 C 0.727 C 0.016 No -- --

4. Lewis Street at AM
D

0.729 C 0.993 E 0.996 E 0.003 No -- --
Garden Grove Boulevard PM 1.041 F 1.424 F 1.426 F 0.002 No -- --

5. The City Drive at AM
D

0.589 A 0.676 B 0.681 B 0.005 No -- --
Garden Grove Blvd/Memory Lane PM 0.646 B 0.747 C 0.754 C 0.007 No -- --

6. Bristol Street at AM
D

0.762 C 0.857 D 0.859 D 0.002 No -- --
Memory Lane PM 0.886 D 1.038 F 1.040 F 0.002 No -- --
Notes:
 BOLD ICU/LOS values indicate unacceptable service level 2924
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 38 TABLE 9-2
YEAR 2024 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Key Roadway Segment
Min.

Acc.

LOS
(1)
Year 2024
No. of
Lanes
(2)
Arterial
Classification
(3)
Year 2024
Capacity
at LOS “E”
(4)
Year 2024 Cumulative
Traffic Conditions
(5)
Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
Daily
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS
Daily
Volume
V/C
Ratio LOS Inc.

Adverse
(Yes/No)
A. Metropolitan Drive between
SR-22 WB Ramps and The City Dr
D 4D Primary 37,500 25,948 0.692 B 26,179 0.698 B 0.006 No B.

The City Dr between
SR-22 EB Ramps and Garden
Grove Blvd/Memory Ln
D 5D Major 46,900 26,184 0.558 A 26,901 0.574 A 0.016 No C.

Garden Grove Boulevard between
Lewis Street and The City Drive
D 4D Primary 37,500 26,145 0.697 B 26,271 0.701 C 0.004 No D. Memory Lane between
The City Drive and Bristol Street
D 4D33 Primary 37,500 33,065 0.882 D 33,260 0.887 D 0.005 No 33 Per City of Orange staff, Memory Lane, east of The City Drive, is planned to be reduced to a 4-lane, divided roadway by the Year 2024 due to the addition of a bike lane in each direction. 2925
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 39 10.0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CALTRANS) METHODOLOGY
In conformance with the current Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, existing and projected peak hour operating conditions at the two (2) state-controlled study intersections within the study area have been evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6 for signalized intersections) operations method of analysis. These state-controlled locations include the following two (2) of six (6) key study intersections:

1. SR-22 WB Ramps at Metropolitan Drive

3. The City Drive at SR-22 EB Ramps

10.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds
Consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, the following criteria has been utilized to determine project impacts at the aforementioned two (2) state-controlled study intersections.
 Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State highway facilities. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. Caltrans has established that LOS D is the operating standard for all Caltrans facilities.

Caltrans has determined that all state-owned facilities that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS. The Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines states that if an existing State-owned facility operates at less than the target LOS (i.e. LOS D); the existing service level should be maintained.

10.2 Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections and approaches is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of the increase in travel time due to traffic signal control, driver discomfort, and fuel consumption. Control delay includes the delay associated with vehicles slowing in advance of an intersection, the time spent stopped on an intersection approach, the time spent as vehicles move up in the queue, and the time needed for vehicles to accelerate to their desired speed. LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the control delay in seconds per vehicle. The LOS thresholds established for the automobile mode at a signalized intersection are shown in Table 10-1.
2926
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 40 TABLE 10-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 6 METHODOLOGY)34 Level of Service
(LOS)
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description
A < 10.0
This level of service occurs when progression is
extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

B > 10.0 and < 20.0
This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

C > 20.0 and < 35.0
Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result
from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both.

Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level.

The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this
level, though many still pass through the intersection
without stopping.

D > 35.0 and < 55.0
Long traffic delays At level D, the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.

Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E > 55.0 and < 80.0
Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long
cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

F ≥ 80.0
Severe congestion This level, considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over
saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major
contributing factors to such delay levels.
34 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 19: Signalized Intersections. 2927
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 41 10.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Table 10-2 summarizes the peak hour Highway Capacity Manual level of service results at the two (2) state-controlled study intersections within the study area for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. The first column (1) of HCM/LOS values in Table 10-2 presents a summary of existing traffic conditions. The second column (2) presents existing plus project traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry. The third column (3) indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the significant impact criteria defined in this report.

10.3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions
Review of column one (1) of Table 10-2 indicates that all of the state-controlled study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours.

10.3.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Review of columns two (2) and three (3) of Table 10-2 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact the two (2) state-controlled study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards specified in this report. The two (2) state-controlled study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C with the addition of project generated traffic to existing traffic.

10.4 Year 2024 Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Table 10-3 summarizes the peak hour Highway Capacity Manual level of service results at the two (2) state-controlled study intersections within the study area for the 2024 horizon year. The first column (1) of HCM/LOS values in Table 10-3 presents a summary of existing traffic conditions.

The second column (2) presents Year 2024 cumulative traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any Project generated traffic. The third column (3) presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of project traffic. The fourth column (4) indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the significant impact criteria defined in this report.

10.4.1 Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions
An analysis of future (Year 2024) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative projects traffic will not adversely impact the two (2) state-controlled study intersections. The two (2) state-controlled study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative projects traffic.

10.4.2 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of Columns (3) and (4) of Table 10-3 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact the two (2) state-controlled study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards specified in this report. The two (2) state-controlled study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS C with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2024.
2928
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 42 Appendix D presents the existing plus project and Year 2024 plus project HCM/LOS calculations for the two (2) state-controlled study intersections.

10.5 Recommended Improvements – Caltrans Analysis
The results of the Caltrans analyses presented in Tables 10-2 and 10-3 indicate that the proposed Project will not significantly impact the two (2) state-controlled study intersections under “Existing Plus Project” and “Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project” traffic conditions. As there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for the two (2) state-controlled study intersections.
2929
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 43 TABLE 10-2
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS – CALTRANS Key Intersection
Time
Period
(1) (2) (3)
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Existing Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
Project
Significant
Impact
HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No

1. SR-22 WB Ramps at AM 22.2 s/v C 22.2 s/v C No
Metropolitan Drive PM 26.9 s/v C 26.9 s/v C No

3. The City Drive at AM 31.7 s/v C 33.1 s/v C No
SR-22 EB Ramps PM 27.3 s/v C 28.5 s/v C No
Notes:
s/v = seconds per vehicle
2930
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 44 TABLE 10-3
YEAR 2024 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS - CALTRANS Key Intersections
Time
Period
(1)
Existing
Traffic Conditions
(2)
Year 2024
Cumulative
Traffic Conditions
(3)
Year 2024
Cumulative
Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
(4)
Project
Significant
Impact
HCM LOS HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No

1. SR-22 WB Ramps at AM 22.2 s/v C 22.9 s/v C 25.8 s/v C No Metropolitan Drive PM 26.9 s/v C 27.7 s/v C 28.7 s/v C No

3. The City Drive at AM 31.7 s/v C 32.0 s/v C 33.4 s/v C No SR-22 EB Ramps PM 27.3 s/v C 29.8 s/v C 30.4 s/v C No
Notes:
s/v = seconds per vehicle
2931
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 45 11.0 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION EVALUATION

11.1 Site Access Evaluation
As shown previously in Figure 2-2, access to the proposed Project is currently provided and will continue to be provided via one full access driveway located along The City Drive (key study intersection #7) and via one right-turn in/right-turn out only driveway located along Garden Grove Boulevard (key study intersection #8), which are both shared with the adjacent office complex.

Table 11-1 summarizes the intersection operations at the two (2) existing project driveways for existing traffic conditions (column 1) and for Year 2024 plus project traffic conditions (column 2).

The operations analysis for the project driveways is based on the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) unsignalized methodology. Review of column 1 of Table 11-1 shows that the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1 (key study intersection #7) currently operates at an unacceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours and that the intersection of Existing Driveway No. 2/Garden Grove Boulevard (key study intersection #8) currently operates at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that the peak hour traffic signal warrant is satisfied at the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1 under existing PM peak hour traffic conditions.

Review of columns 2 and 3 of Table 11-1 shows that the proposed Project will cumulatively impact the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1 (key study intersection #7). The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1 (key study intersection #7) is forecast to operate in the Year 2024 at unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Existing Driveway No. 2/Garden Grove Boulevard (key study intersection #8) is forecast to operate in the Year 2024 at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

As shown in column 4 of Table 11-1, with recommended improvements, the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1 is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. As such, project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion.

Appendix E presents the level of service calculation worksheets for the two (2) existing project driveways under Existing traffic conditions and Year 2024 Cumulative plus Project traffic conditions. Appendix E also contains the existing peak hour traffic signal warrant worksheets for The City Drive at Existing Driveway No. 1.
2932
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 46 11.1.1 Recommended Improvements
The following improvements are recommended to offset the proposed Project’s cumulative impact at the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1.  No. 7 – The City Drive at Existing Driveway No. 1: Install a five-phase traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in the northbound and southbound directions and permissive phasing in the eastbound and westbound directions. The installation of this improvement is subject to the approval of the City of Orange.

As stated previously, the peak hour traffic signal warrant is satisfied under existing PM peak hour traffic conditions. Although this location is cumulatively impacted by the proposed Project, based on coordination with City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff, the proposed Project will be 100% responsible for the design, engineering and construction of the recommended traffic signal at this location.

Figure 11-1 graphically illustrates the recommended improvements for Year 2024 Plus Project traffic conditions at the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1.

11.2 Internal Circulation Evaluation
The on-site circulation layout of the proposed Project as illustrated in Figure 2-2 on an overall basis is adequate. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are generally adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash trucks.
2933
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 47 TABLE 11-1

PROJECT DRIVEWAY PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Project Driveway
Time
Period
Intersection
Control
(1)
Existing
Traffic Conditions
(2)
Year 2024
Cumulative
Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
(3)
Project
Significant
Impact
(4)
Year 2024
Cumulative
Plus Project
With Mitigation
HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No ICU LOS

7. The City Drive at AM Two–Way 47.6 s/v E 182.2 s/v F Yes 0.460 A Existing Driveway No. 1 PM Stop 301.4 s/v F 979.5 s/v F Yes 0.560 A

8. Existing Driveway No. 2 at AM One–Way 10.9 s/v B 11.6 s/v B No -- -- Garden Grove Boulevard PM Stop 15.4 s/v C 17.7 s/v C No -- -- Notes:
s/v = seconds per vehicle
2934
2935
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 48 12.0 AREA-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
For those intersections and roadway segments where projected traffic volumes are expected to result in significant cumulative impacts, this report recommends traffic improvements that change the intersection and/or roadway segments geometry to increase capacity. These capacity improvements involve roadway widening and/or re-striping to reconfigure (add lanes) roadways to specific approaches of a key intersection and/or roadway segment. The identified improvements are expected to:
 Address the impact of existing traffic, Project traffic and future non-project (ambient traffic growth and cumulative) traffic, and
 Improve Levels of Service to an acceptable range and/or to pre-project conditions.

12.1 Existing Plus Project Recommended Improvements
The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Table 8-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the six (6) key study intersections under the “Existing Plus Project” traffic scenario. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario.

The results of the “Existing Plus Project” daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Table 8-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the four (4) key roadway segments. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario.

12.2 Year 2024 Plus Project Recommended Improvements
The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Table 9-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the six (6) key study intersections under the “Year 2024 Plus Project” traffic scenario. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario.

The results of the “Year 2024 Plus Project” daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Table 9-2 indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the four (4) key roadway segments. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario.
2936
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 49 13.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP)
This analysis is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the current Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be 3.0% or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities’ capacity.

However, as noted in this traffic study, the proposed Project is expected to generate 1,039 net daily trips, and thus does not meet the criteria required for a CMP traffic analysis. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project will not have any significant traffic impacts on the Congestion Management Program Highway System.
2937
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 50 14.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 Project Description – The project site is located at 840 The City Drive South in the City of Orange, California. The project site is currently occupied by a 9,000 SF strip retail center and an existing parking lot. The Project proposes to demolish the existing strip retail center and construct a maximum of 226 apartment units with a maximum of 9,169 square-feet (SF) of mixed-use retail. The Project is expected to be completed by the Year 2024. Access to the proposed Project is currently provided and will continue to be provided via one full access driveway located along The City Drive (key study intersection #7) and via one right-turn in/right-turn out only driveway located along Garden Grove Boulevard (key study intersection #8), which are both shared with the adjacent office complex.  Study Scope – The six (6) key study intersections, two (2) existing project driveways and four (4) key roadway segments selected for evaluation were determined based on coordination with City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff and application of the “51 or more peak hour trip threshold” criteria outlined in the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated July 2020. The intersections and roadway segments listed below provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation. The jurisdiction where each key study intersection/roadway segment is located is also identified with the following nomenclature utilized; (O) = City of Orange, (GG) = City of Garden Grove, (SA) = City of Santa Ana and (C) = Caltrans.

Key Study Intersections

1. SR-22 WB Ramps at Metropolitan Drive (O/C)

2. The City Drive at Metropolitan Drive (O)

3. The City Drive at SR-22 EB Ramps (O/C)

4. Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard (O/GG)

5. The City Drive at Garden Grove Boulevard/Memory Lane (O)

6. Bristol Street at Memory Lane (SA)

7. The City Drive at Existing Driveway No. 1 (O)

8. Existing Driveway No. 2 at Garden Grove Boulevard (O) Key Roadway Segments
A. Metropolitan Drive between SR-22 WB Ramps and The City Drive (O) B. The City Drive between SR-22 EB Ramps and Garden Grove Blvd/Memory Lane (O) C. Garden Grove Boulevard between Lewis Street and The City Drive (O/SA/GG) D. Memory Lane between The City Drive and Bristol Street (O/SA) Detailed peak hour level of service analyses were prepared for Existing Traffic Conditions, Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions, Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Conditions, and Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions at these locations.  Existing Traffic Conditions – One (1) of the six (6) key study intersections currently operates at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard currently operates at unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. 2938
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 51 The remaining five (5) key study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All four (4) key roadway segments currently operate at acceptable LOS A on a daily basis.
 Project Trip Generation – The proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 2,091 daily trips, with 219 trips (107 inbound, 112 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 147 trips (82 inbound, 65 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. The existing land use generates approximately 1,052 daily trips, with 140 trips (87 inbound, 53 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 60 trips (29 inbound, 31 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. With application of existing trip credits, the proposed Project is forecast to generate a net of 1,039 daily trips, a net of 79 AM peak hour trips and a net of 87 PM peak hour trips.
 Cumulative Projects Traffic Characteristics – The sixty-four (64) cumulative projects are forecast to generate a total of 185,531daily trips, with 10,220 trips (4,827 inbound and 5,393 outbound) forecast during the AM peak hour and 14,640 trips (7,564 inbound and 7,076 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour.
 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions – The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the six (6) key study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersection of Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour with the addition of Project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value. The remaining five (5) key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic.

The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the four (4) key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. The four (4) key roadway segments currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level on a daily basis with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic.
 Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions – The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the six (6) key study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Although the intersections of Lewis Street at Garden Grove Boulevard and Bristol Street at Memory Lane are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of Project traffic, the proposed Project is expected to add less than the allowable threshold to the ICU value. The remaining four (4) key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project generated traffic to Year 2024 cumulative traffic.

The proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the four (4) key roadway segments.

The four (4) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable service levels on a daily basis with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2024 traffic condition.
2939
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 52  State of California (Caltrans) Methodology – The results of the “Existing Plus Project” and “Year 2024 Plus Project” traffic analyses using the State of California (Caltrans) Methodology indicate that the proposed Project will not significantly impact the two (2) state-controlled study intersections. As there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for the two (2) state-controlled study intersections.  Site Access Evaluation – The proposed Project will cumulatively impact the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1 (key study intersection #7). The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1 (key study intersection #7) is forecast to operate in the Year 2024 at an unacceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Existing Driveway No. 2/Garden Grove Boulevard (key study intersection #8) is forecast to operate in the Year 2024 at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. With recommended improvements, the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1 is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. As such, project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion.

The following improvements are recommended to offset the proposed Project’s cumulative impact at the intersection of The City Drive/Existing Driveway No. 1.  No. 7 – The City Drive at Existing Driveway No. 1: Install a five-phase traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in the northbound and southbound directions and permissive phasing in the eastbound and westbound directions. The installation of this improvement is subject to the approval of the City of Orange. Although this location is cumulatively impacted by the proposed Project, based on coordination with City of Orange Traffic Engineering staff, the proposed Project will be 100% responsible for the design, engineering and construction of the recommended traffic signal at this location.

It should be noted that the peak hour traffic signal warrant is satisfied under existing PM peak hour traffic conditions.
 Internal Circulation Evaluation – The on-site circulation layout of the proposed Project as illustrated in Figure 2-2 on an overall basis is adequate. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are generally adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash trucks.  Recommended Improvements (Intersections) – The results of the intersection capacity analysis presented previously in Tables 8-1 and 9-1 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the six (6) key study intersections under the “Existing Plus Project” and “Year 2024 Plus Project” traffic scenarios. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario.
 Recommended Improvements (Roadway Segments) – The results of the daily roadway segment analysis presented previously in Tables 8-2 and 9-2 shows that the proposed Project will not significantly impact any of the four (4) key roadway segments under the “Existing Plus Project” and “Year 2024 Plus Project” traffic scenarios. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no improvements are required under this traffic scenario. 2940
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.19.4158.1 840 The City Drive Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments Project, Orange\Report\4158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments TIA, Orange 9-21-22.doc 53  Congestion Management Program (CMP) – The proposed Project will not have any significant traffic impacts on the Congestion Management Program Highway System. 2941
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-19-4158-1 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange
N:\4100\2194158 - 840 The City Drive South Apartments, Orange\Report\4158 Dividers.doc

APPENDIX A

TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPE OF WORK
2942
A-1
2943
Mr. Doug Keys
August 16, 2019

Page 2 ends
← All documents from this meeting