Attachment 9 Environmental Review No. 1889, Addendum to Certified EIR (SCH No. 2021090399) Technical Appendices — Orange City Council, September 9, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

SIDE-BY-SIDE
The Side-By-Side
orientation places the
pretreatment and
discharge chamber
adjacent to one
another with the
biofiltration chamber running
parallel on either side. This
minimizes the system length, providing a highly
compact footprint. It has been proven useful in
situations such as streets with directly adjacent
sidewalks, as half of the system can be placed
under that sidewalk. This orientation also offers
internal bypass options as discussed below.

DVERT LOW FLOW DIVERSION
This simple yet innovative diversion trough can be
installed in existing or new curb and grate inlets
to divert the first flush to the Modular Wetlands®
System Linear via pipe. It works similar to a rain
gutter and is installed just below the opening into
the inlet. It captures the low flows and channels
them over to a connecting pipe exiting out the
wall of the inlet and leading to the MWS Linear.

The DVERT is perfect for retrofit and green street
applications that allow the system to be installed
anywhere space is available.

DVERT Trough
BYPASS
MODEL # DIMENSIONS

WETLANDMEDIA

SURFACE AREA
(sq. ft.)

TREATMENT FLOW
RATE
(cfs)
MWS-L-4-4 4’ x 4’ 23 0.052
MWS-L-4-6 4’ x 6’ 32 0.073
MWS-L-4-8 4’ x 8’ 50 0.115
MWS-L-4-13 4’ x 13’ 63 0.144
MWS-L-4-15 4’ x 15’ 76 0.175
MWS-L-4-17 4’ x 17’ 90 0.206
MWS-L-4-19 4’ x 19’ 103 0.237
MWS-L-4-21 4’ x 21’ 117 0.268
MWS-L-6-8 7’ x 9’ 64 0.147
MWS-L-8-8 8’ x 8’ 100 0.230
MWS-L-8-12 8’ x 12’ 151 0.346
MWS-L-8-16 8’ x 16’ 201 0.462
MWS-L-8-20 9’ x 21’ 252 0.577
MWS-L-8-24 9’ x 25’ 302 0.693
MWS-L-10-20 10' x 20' 302 0.693

VOLUME-BASED DESIGNS

HORIZONTAL FLOW BIOFILTRATION ADVANTAGE
In the example above, the Modular Wetlands® System Linear is installed downstream of the UrbanPond storage system. The MWS Linear is designed for the water quality volume and will treat and discharge the required volume within local draindown time requirements. The MWS Linear’s unique horizontal flow design, gives it benefits no other biofilter has - the ability to be placed downstream of detention ponds, extended dry detention basins, underground storage systems and permeable paver reservoirs. The system’s horizontal flow configuration and built-in orifice control allows it to be installed with just 6” of fall between inlet and outlet pipe for a simple connection to projects with shallow downstream tie-in points.

DESIGN SUPPORT
Bio Clean engineers are trained to provide you with superior support for all volume sizing configurations throughout the country. Our vast knowledge of state and local regulations allow us to quickly and efficiently size a system to maximize feasibility. Volume control and hydromodification regulations are expanding the need to decrease the cost and size of your biofiltration system. Bio Clean will help you realize these cost savings with the MWS Linear, the only biofilter than can be used downstream of storage BMPs.

SPECIFICATIONS

FLOW-BASED DESIGNS
The Modular Wetlands® System Linear can be used in stand-alone applications to meet treatment flow requirements, and since it is the only biofiltration system that can accept inflow pipes several feet below the surface, it can be used not only in decentralized design applications but also as a large central end-of-the-line application for maximum feasibility.

ADVANTAGES
• BUILT-IN ORIFICE CONTROL STRUCTURE
• WORKS WITH DEEP INSTALLATIONS
• LOWER COST THAN FLOW-BASED DESIGN
• MEETS LID REQUIREMENTS
MODULAR WETLANDS® SYSTEM LINEAR WITH URBANPONDTM PRESTORAGE UrbanPond
Single and Double Modules

PLANT SELECTION
Abundant plants, trees, and grasses bring value and an aesthetic benefit to any urban setting, but those in the Modular Wetlands® System Linear do even more - they increase pollutant removal. What’s not seen, but very important, is that below grade, the stormwater runoff/flow is being subjected to nature’s secret weapon: a dynamic physical, chemical, and biological process working to break down and remove non-point source pollutants. The flow rate is controlled in the MWS Linear, giving the plants more contact time so that pollutants are more successfully decomposed, volatilized, and incorporated into the biomass of the Modular Wetlands’® micro/macro flora and fauna.

A wide range of plants are suitable for use in the Modular Wetlands®, but selections vary by location and climate.

View suitable plants by visiting biocleanenvironmental.com/plants.

INSTALLATION MAINTENANCE
The Modular Wetlands® System Linear is simple, easy
to install, and has a space-efficient design that offers lower excavation and installation costs compared to
traditional tree-box type systems. The structure of
the system resembles precast catch basin or utility
vaults and is installed in a similar fashion.

The system is delivered fully assembled for quick
installation. Generally, the structure can be unloaded
and set in place in 15 minutes. Our experienced
team of field technicians is available to supervise
installations and provide technical support.

Reduce your maintenance costs, man hours, and
materials with the Modular Wetlands® System
Linear. Unlike other biofiltration systems that
provide no pretreatment, the MWS Linear is a selfcontained treatment train which incorporates simple and effective pretreatment.

Maintenance requirements for the biofilter itself are
almost completely eliminated, as the pretreatment
chamber removes and isolates trash, sediments, and
hydrocarbons. What’s left is the simple maintenance
of an easily accessible pretreatment chamber that
can be cleaned by hand or with a standard vac truck.

Only periodic replacement of low-cost media in the
pre-filter boxes is required for long-term operation,
and there is absolutely no need to replace expensive
biofiltration media.

INDUSTRIAL
Many states enforce strict regulations for discharges
from industrial sites. The MWS Linear has helped
various sites meet difficult EPA-mandated effluent
limits for dissolved metals and other pollutants.

PARKING LOTS
Parking lots are designed to maximize space and the
Modular Wetlands’® 4 ft. standard planter width
allows for easy integration into parking lot islands
and other landscape medians.

MIXED USE
The MWS Linear can be installed as a raised planter
to treat runoff from rooftops or patios, making it
perfect for sustainable “live-work” spaces.

RESIDENTIAL
Low to high density developments can benefit from
the versatile design of the MWS Linear. The system
can be used in both decentralized LID design and
cost-effective end-of-the-line configurations.

STREETS
Street applications can be challenging due to limited
space. The MWS Linear is very adaptable, and it
offers the smallest footprint to work around the
constraints of existing utilities on retrofit projects.

COMMERCIAL
Compared to bioretention systems, the MWS
Linear can treat far more area in less space, meeting
treatment and volume control requirements.

APPLICATIONS
The Modular Wetlands® System Linear has been successfully used on numerous new construction and retrofit projects. The system’s superior versatility makes it beneficial for a wide range of stormwater and waste water applications - treating rooftops, streetscapes, parking lots, and industrial sites.

More applications include:
• Agriculture • Reuse • Low Impact Development • Waste Water A Forterra Company
01172020
5796 Armada Drive Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
855.566.3938
[email protected]
biocleanenvironmental.com
1 Modular Wetland Systems, Inc.

MWS LINEAR Scale Model
Bacteria Removal Testing
Prepared for
Modular Wetland Systems, Inc.

September 2007
Prepared By
Waves Environmental
P.O. Box 462290
Escondido, CA 92046-2290
Phone: 760-743-6720
www.wavesenv.com
Testing Laboratory
Test America
1014 E. Cooley Dr, Suite A
Colton, CA 92324
Phone: 909-377-4667
2 Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE
Scope of Work 3
Description of Testing Apparatus 3
Test Set Up 4
Testing Procedure 4
Results 6
Summary 7
Appendix A 8
3 Reference: Bacteria Removal Testing
MWS LINEAR Hybrid Stormwater Treatment System
Waves Environmental is pleased to submit this report to Modular Wetland Systems, Inc.

This report includes the laboratory analysis and photo documentation of testing procedures. The conclusions and recommendations are not part of this report since they are not part of the scope of work with Waves Environmental.

Scope of Work
Waves Environmental measured the percentage removal of bacteria retained/captured by a Modular Wetland System – Linear (MWS-LINEAR). Laboratory testing was accomplished by the design of an exact ¼ scale model of the MWS - LINEAR. The dimensions (I.D.) of a MWS – LINEAR are 21’x 4’ x 4’. The dimensions of the scale model are 5.5’ x 1’ x 1’. A local stormwater discharge point was identified as having consistent levels of bacteria over several weeks. This source was used to gather water to test for the systems ability of bacteria removal. Numerous grab samples were taken from the influent and effluent ends of the test unit. Grab samples were taken to the lab for analysis. A summary of the resulting data is presented in the report.

Description of Testing Apparatus
On July 27, 2007 Waves Environmental arrived at a Bio Clean Environmental testing and maintenance facility on San Luis Rey Road, in Oceanside, CA. The quarter scale model of the MWS-LINEAR was contracted to be built by Bio Clean Environmental. An exact quarter scale model was constructed using a wood frame and fiberglass coating.

Following are pictures of the construction of the model. 4 Specifications of the model are as follows (inside dimensions): 5.5 ft. in length, 1 ft. wide and 1 ft. tall. All internal piping was also sized to scale. The model was then water tested to ensure no leaks between chambers or piping joints. The sub surface flow wetland chamber was filled with a specific mixture of pre-washed 3-5mm pea gravel and BioMediaGREEN. The wetland chamber was then planted with various wetland plants.

To catalyze the plants rate of growth the entire model was placed under a constructed vegetative lighting system and a programmable recirculating watering system. The plants were placed in the test unit on May 1, 2007. This would allow for adequate time for the plant roots to establish throughout the gravel and media. This maturation process is an important aspect of a natural filtration system allowing for time for numerous biological functions and cycles to establish. A recirculating drip irrigation system was used to provide a continuous flow of water and nutrients in 15 minute per hour intervals 24 hours a day. Light was provided by two high powered 1000 watt high pressure sodium light bulbs mounted in a glass cooling tube and hooked up to a high powered exhaust fan. Two weeks prior to testing low nutrient water was used to water the plants, as to remove any excess nutrient accumulation that may have occurred by high doses of nutrients during the catalyzed establishment of the plants. It is expected that accumulated nutrients may have an effect on the effluent concentrations of dissolved nutrients, specifically phosphorus and nitrate. Future testing for nutrient removal will be performed after a few months to allow for the phosphorus and nitrogen cycles to regulate and accumulation to subside as plants and test unit will be moved to a natural low nutrient growing environment.

Test Set Up
A test was designed to simulate a rainfall event and measure the ability of a MWSLINEAR to remove pathogens that are commonly found in stormwater runoff. A local source of stormwater discharge high in bacteria was identified the prior week. A pump truck arrived on at the source at 1:45 PM on July 27th, 2007. 55 gallons of polluted stormwater was pulled from the source and loaded into a clean 55 gallon drum. The drum was completely filled by 2 PM. Due to time sensitivity issues the sample was immediately taken to the test facility. Testing of the model commenced at 2:14 PM.

Once the drum arrived a forklift raised the drum approximately 5.5 feet to allow for the water to discharge from the bottom of the drum to the influent top end of the MWSLINEAR. A valve was used to regulate the flow into the system. Discharged water was collected into a container placed at the outflow of the test unit.

Testing Procedure
Michael Alberson a CPESC, CPSWQ and REA from Waves Environmental performed the testing, measurements, and pollutant sampling. The forklift with a 55 gallon tank was positioned over the influent end of the testing model and was allowed to discharge through a 2” valve used to regulate the flow of the discharged batch water into the test model at a rate of 1.8 gpm. This flow rate was determined by scaling down the peak flow 5 rate of 120 gpm for a full size system. This is done by dividing by 64, since the capacity if one 1/64th that of a full size system. This scaling will allow for similar residence times.

Once mixed thoroughly a grab sample was taken from the drum (CQG1010-01). This sample provided the background (influent) levels in the drum to be compared to the five grab samples that were gathered from the effluent end of the MWS-LINEAR test unit. A second influent grab sample (CQG1010-03) was taken to statistically verify the result of the first influent grab sample.

Each grab sample was composed of equal portion of three separate grabs taken at the 3rd, 4th, and 5th minute of a five minute run time. This ensures an accurate average of effluent concentrations over a run time of five minutes. Water was allowed to flow through the test unit for 3 minutes, and then one third of the sample water was collected in a clean vessel and poured into the pathogen sampling bottle. The second and third sample was taken at 4 minutes of flow and the final portion of the sample was taken at approximately 5 minutes as the final amount of contaminated water from the test was flowing through the MWS-LINEAR test model.

Following are photographs of the procedure.

Test Model
Testing Setup
Inflowing Stormwater
6 Results
Following are the results.

MWS LINEAR Scale Model Testing
Run Pollutant
Influent
(MPN/100mL)
Effluent
(MPN/100mL) Percent Reduction
1 Total Coliform >1600 >1600 n/d
Fecal Coliform >1600 170 >89.3%
E. coli >1600 110 >93.1%

2 Total Coliform >1600 >1600 n/d
Fecal Coliform >1600 900 >43.75%
E. coli >1600 900 >43.75%

3 Total Coliform >1600 >1600 n/d
Fecal Coliform >1600 >1600 n/d
E. coli >1600 1600 n/d

4 Total Coliform >1600 >1600 n/d
Fecal Coliform >1600 1600 n/d
E. coli >1600 900 >43.75%

5 Total Coliform >1600 >1600 n/d
Fecal Coliform >1600 1600 n/d
E. coli >1600 1600 n/d

Discharge Containment Grab Sample Collection
7 Summary of Results
Following is a summary of the results
Summary
Pollutant
Influent
(MPN/100mL)
Effluent
(MPN/100mL) Percent Reduction
Total Coliform >1600 >1600 n/d
Fecal Coliform >1600 535 >66.65%
E. coli >1600 636.6 >60.2%

n/d = non determinable
Summary
A total of five runs where performed to provide verifiable removal efficiencies. After five 5 minute runs through the MWS – LINEAR stormwater filtration system the effluent concentrations coming out of the system where analyzed and compared to influent concentrations. An influent concentration was sampled at the influent end of the system, prior to entering the systems filter processes. The MWS-LINEAR demonstrated some substantial reductions in the concentrations of fecal Coliform and E.coli. Following is a summary of the effluent concentrations and resulting removal efficiencies.

Unfortunately, certified testing has a concentration limit of 1600 MPS/100mL. All influent concentrations where over this limit; therefore making impossible to determine the actual concentration. Two days prior, samples pulled from the same source had counts of >2,419 MPN/100mL for Total Coliform and 2,419 MPN/100mL for E. coli.

Local officials do ongoing sampling at this location and usually report even higher concentrations. Further testing will need to be preformed to allow for more accurate analysis for the system performance.

On test runs which effluent concentrations were less than the limit, a few minimum removal efficiencies can be quantified. For two samples of Fecal Coliform there was an average effluent concentration of 890 MPN/100mL. Therefore there was a reduction of at least 44.4%. For three samples of E. coli there was an average effluent concentration of 636.6 MPN/100mL. Therefore there was a reduction of at least 60.2%. 8 Appendix A
1014 E. Cooley Dr, Ste A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 Fax:(909) 370-1046

LABORATORY REPORT
Prepared For: Bio Clean - Environmental Services, Inc.
2972 San Luis Rey Road
Oceanside, CA 92054
Attention: Zack Kent Sampled:

Received:

Issued:
07/27/07
07/27/07
08/02/07 07:09
The results listed within this Laboratory Report pertain only to the samples tested in the laboratory. The analyses contained in this report were performed in accordance with the applicable certifications as noted. All soil samples are reported on a wet weight basis unless otherwise noted in the report. This Laboratory Report is confidential and is intended for the sole use of TestAmerica and its client. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written permission from TestAmerica. The Chain of Custody, 1 page, is included and is an integral part of this report.

This entire report was reviewed and approved for release.

Project: Bacterial Analysis
Bacterial Analysis

CASE NARRATIVE
SAMPLE RECEIPT: Samples were received intact, at 0°C, on ice and with chain of custody documentation.

HOLDING TIMES: All samples were analyzed within prescribed holding times and/or in accordance with the TestAmerica Sample Acceptance Policy unless otherwise noted in the report.

PRESERVATION: Samples requiring preservation were verified prior to sample analysis.

QA/QC CRITERIA: All analyses met method criteria, except as noted in the report with data qualifiers.

COMMENTS: No significant observations were made.

SUBCONTRACTED: No analyses were subcontracted to an outside laboratory.

LABORATORY ID CLIENT ID MATRIX
CQG1010-01 1- Water
CQG1010-02 2- Water
CQG1010-03 3- Water
CQG1010-04 4- Water
CQG1010-05 5- Water
CQG1010-06 6- Water
CQG1010-07 7- Water
Reviewed By:

Project Manager
TestAmerica - Ontario, CA
CQG1010
John Stuart Styles
<Page 1 of 5>
1014 E. Cooley Dr, Ste A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 Fax:(909) 370-1046 Bio Clean - Environmental Services, Inc.
2972 San Luis Rey Road
Oceanside, CA 92054
Attention: Zack Kent
Sampled:

Received:
07/27/07
Report Number: 07/27/07
Project ID:

CQG1010
Bacterial Analysis
Bacterial Analysis
Analyte Method
Date
Extracted
Date
Analyzed
Dilution
Factor
COLIFORMS BY MULTIPLE TUBE FERMENTATION - MPN (SM9221/40 CFR 141.21(f)(6)(i)) Data
Batch Qualifiers
Reporting
Limit
Sample
Result
Sample ID: CQG1010-01 (1- - Water)
Reporting Units: MPN/100 ml
Total Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Fecal Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 E. Coli SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Sample ID: CQG1010-02 (2- - Water)
Reporting Units: MPN/100 ml
Total Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Fecal Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 170 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 E. Coli SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 110 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Sample ID: CQG1010-03 (3- - Water)
Reporting Units: MPN/100 ml
Total Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Fecal Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 E. Coli SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Sample ID: CQG1010-04 (4- - Water)
Reporting Units: MPN/100 ml
Total Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Fecal Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 900 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 E. Coli SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 900 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Sample ID: CQG1010-05 (5- - Water)
Reporting Units: MPN/100 ml
Total Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Fecal Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 E. Coli SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Sample ID: CQG1010-06 (6- - Water)
Reporting Units: MPN/100 ml
Total Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Fecal Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 E. Coli SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 900 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Sample ID: CQG1010-07 (7- - Water)
Reporting Units: MPN/100 ml
Total Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 > or = 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Fecal Coliform SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 E. Coli SM9221 A,B,C,E C7G2719 2.0 1600 1 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 Project Manager
TestAmerica - Ontario, CA
CQG1010
John Stuart Styles
The results pertain only to the samples tested in the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written permission from TestAmerica. <Page 2 of 5> 1014 E. Cooley Dr, Ste A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 Fax:(909) 370-1046 Bio Clean - Environmental Services, Inc.
2972 San Luis Rey Road
Oceanside, CA 92054
Attention: Zack Kent
Sampled:

Received:
07/27/07
Report Number: 07/27/07
Project ID:

CQG1010
Bacterial Analysis
Bacterial Analysis

SHORT HOLD TIME DETAIL REPORT
Date/Time
Analyzed
Date/Time
Extracted
Date/Time
Sampled
Date/Time
Received
Hold Time
(in days)
Sample ID: 1- (CQG1010-01) - Water
SM9221 A,B,C,E 0 07/27/2007 14:14 07/27/2007 16:51 07/27/2007 17:20 07/30/2007 11:00 Sample ID: 2- (CQG1010-02) - Water
SM9221 A,B,C,E 0 07/27/2007 14:17 07/27/2007 16:51 07/27/2007 17:20 07/30/2007 11:00 Sample ID: 3- (CQG1010-03) - Water
SM9221 A,B,C,E 0 07/27/2007 14:23 07/27/2007 16:51 07/27/2007 17:20 07/30/2007 11:00 Sample ID: 4- (CQG1010-04) - Water
SM9221 A,B,C,E 0 07/27/2007 14:27 07/27/2007 16:51 07/27/2007 17:20 07/30/2007 11:00 Sample ID: 5- (CQG1010-05) - Water
SM9221 A,B,C,E 0 07/27/2007 14:28 07/27/2007 16:51 07/27/2007 17:20 07/30/2007 11:00 Sample ID: 6- (CQG1010-06) - Water
SM9221 A,B,C,E 0 07/27/2007 14:32 07/27/2007 16:51 07/27/2007 17:20 07/30/2007 11:00 Sample ID: 7- (CQG1010-07) - Water
SM9221 A,B,C,E 0 07/27/2007 14:36 07/27/2007 16:51 07/27/2007 17:20 07/30/2007 11:00 Project Manager
TestAmerica - Ontario, CA
CQG1010
John Stuart Styles
The results pertain only to the samples tested in the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written permission from TestAmerica. <Page 3 of 5> 1014 E. Cooley Dr, Ste A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 Fax:(909) 370-1046 Bio Clean - Environmental Services, Inc.
2972 San Luis Rey Road
Oceanside, CA 92054
Attention: Zack Kent
Sampled:

Received:
07/27/07
Report Number: 07/27/07
Project ID:

CQG1010
Bacterial Analysis
Bacterial Analysis

DATA QUALIFIERS AND DEFINITIONS
RPD Relative Percent Difference
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit or MDL, if MDL is specified.

Project Manager
TestAmerica - Ontario, CA
CQG1010
John Stuart Styles
The results pertain only to the samples tested in the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written permission from TestAmerica. <Page 4 of 5> 1014 E. Cooley Dr, Ste A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 Fax:(909) 370-1046 Bio Clean - Environmental Services, Inc.
2972 San Luis Rey Road
Oceanside, CA 92054
Attention: Zack Kent
Sampled:

Received:
07/27/07
Report Number: 07/27/07
Project ID:

CQG1010
Bacterial Analysis
Bacterial Analysis
Certification Summary
Method Matrix Nelac California
TestAmerica - Ontario, CA
SM9221 A,B,C,E Water X X
Project Manager
TestAmerica - Ontario, CA
CQG1010
John Stuart Styles
The results pertain only to the samples tested in the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written permission from TestAmerica. <Page 5 of 5> Preliminary WQMP for
534 W. Struck Ave Redevelopment Project
June 2024 37
Appendix D:

BMP Maintenance Information
www.modularwetlands.com

Maintenance Guidelines for
Modular Wetland System - Linear
Maintenance Summary
o Remove Trash from Screening Device – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months.  (5 minute average service time).
o Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months.  (10 minute average service time).
o Replace Cartridge Filter Media – average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months.  (10-15 minute per cartridge average service time).
o Replace Drain Down Filter Media – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months.  (5 minute average service time).
o Trim Vegetation – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months.  (Service time varies).

System Diagram

Access to screening device, separation
chamber and cartridge filter
Access to drain
down filter
Pre-Treatment
Chamber
Biofiltration Chamber
Discharge
Chamber
Outflow
Pipe
Inflow Pipe
(optional)
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Procedures
Screening Device

1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the PreTreatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry.

2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device.

3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole cover when completed.

Separation Chamber

1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber.

2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters.

3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed.

Cartridge Filters

1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters.

2. Enter separation chamber.

3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid.

4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place.

5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants.

6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants.

7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase.

8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed.

Drain Down Filter

1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber.

2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place.

3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover.
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Notes

1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms.

2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time.

3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements.

4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations.

5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber.

6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation.

www.modularwetlands.com

Maintenance Procedure Illustration
Screening Device
The screening device is located directly
under the manhole or grate over the
Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted
directly underneath for easy access
and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by
hand or with a vacuum truck.

Separation Chamber
The separation chamber is located
directly beneath the screening device.

It can be quickly cleaned using a
vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure
washer is useful to assist in the
cleaning process.

www.modularwetlands.com

Cartridge Filters
The cartridge filters are located in the
Pre-Treatment chamber connected to
the wall adjacent to the biofiltration
chamber. The cartridges have
removable tops to access the
individual media filters. Once the
cartridge is open media can be
easily removed and replaced by hand
or a vacuum truck.

Drain Down Filter
The drain down filter is located in the
Discharge Chamber. The drain filter
unlocks from the wall mount and hinges
up. Remove filter block and replace with
new block.
www.modularwetlands.com
Trim Vegetation
Vegetation should be maintained in the
same manner as surrounding vegetation
and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall
be used on the plants. Irrigation
per the recommendation of the
manufacturer and or landscape
architect. Different types of vegetation
requires different amounts of
irrigation.

www.modularwetlands.com
Inspection Form
Modular Wetland System, Inc.

Yes No
Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault): Size (22', 14' or etc.):

Other Inspection Items:

Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to
the left.
2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Inspection Report
Modular Wetlands System

Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section.

Chamber:

Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity:

Working Condition:

Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit?
Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Project Name
Project Address
Inspection Checklist
No Comments
Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber.

Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below.

Sediment / Silt / Clay
Trash / Bags / Bottles
Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage
Waste: Plant Information
No Cleaning Needed
Recommended Maintenance
Additional Notes:

Damage to Plants
Plant Replacement
Plant Trimming
Schedule Maintenance as Planned
Needs Immediate Maintenance
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Report
Modular Wetland System, Inc.

P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [email protected]
For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code) (Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company
(Date)
Contact Phone ( ) _
Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM
Weather Condition Additional Notes
Site
Map #
Comments:
2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Inlet and Outlet
Pipe Condition
Drain Down Pipe
Condition
Discharge Chamber
Condition
Drain Down Media
Condition
Plant Condition
Media Filter
Condition
Long:

MWS
Sedimentation
Basin
Total Debris
Accumulation
Condition of Media
25/50/75/100
(will be changed
@ 75%)
Operational Per
Manufactures'
Specifications
(If not, why?)
Lat: MWS
Catch Basins
GPS Coordinates
of Insert
Manufacturer /
Description / Sizing
Trash
Accumulation
Foliage
Accumulation
Sediment
Accumulation
Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to
the left.

Project Address
Project Name
Cleaning and Maintenance Report
Modular Wetlands System
Preliminary WQMP for
534 W. Struck Ave Redevelopment Project
June 2024 38
Appendix E:

Geotechnical Information
(Storm water infiltration BMP evaluation)

GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION EVALUATION

PROPOSED WAREHOUSE FACILITY
534 WEST STRUCK AVENUE

ORANGE, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

PROLOGIS
11777 CENTER COURT DRIVE NORTH, SUITE 100
CERRITOS, CALIFORNIA 90703

PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC. 1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92880
PROJECT NO. 2361-CR MARCH 31, 2020
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
March 31, 2020
Project No. 2361-CR
ProLogis
11777 Center Court Drive North, Suite 100
Cerritos, California 90703
Attention: Mr. John Carter
Subject: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Warehouse Facility
534 West Struck Avenue
Orange, Orange County, California
Dear Mr. Carter:

We are pleased to provide the results of our geotechnical and infiltration evaluation for the proposed warehouse facility that will be constructed on the subject site in the city of Orange, Orange County. This report presents a discussion of our evaluation and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, infiltration rates and construction.

Based on the results of our evaluation, development of the property appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations presented in this report and in future reports are incorporated into design and construction.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page ii
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.

Robert R. Russell
GE 2042, Exp. 12/31/20
Senior Project Engineer
Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/20
Principal Geologist
Anna M. Scott
Project Geologist
Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file)
G:\Projects\2351 to 2400\2361CR ProLogis 534 West Struck Avenue Orange\Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation\2361CR Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Orange.docx
ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................. 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................... 2

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................................................2

2.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................................................2

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................ 3

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ..............................................................................................................................................................3

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................................................................................................4

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 4

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING................................................................................................................................................................4

4.2 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................5

4.2.1 Undocumented Fill..........................................................................................................................................................................5

4.2.2 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits..........................................................................................................................................................5

4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER...........................................................................................................................................5

4.3.1 Surface Water .................................................................................................................................................................................5

4.3.2 Groundwater.....................................................................................................................................................................................6

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY....................................................................................................................................................6

4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters..........................................................................................................................................................6

4.5 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................................7

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS .....................................................................................................................................................8

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 8

5.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................................................................................................8

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................................................8

5.2.1 Site Clearing & Demolition ..........................................................................................................................................................8

5.2.2 Remedial Grading ...........................................................................................................................................................................9

5.2.3 Preparation of Excavation Bottoms...........................................................................................................................................9

5.2.4 Engineered Fills................................................................................................................................................................................9

5.2.5 Excavation Characteristics ...........................................................................................................................................................9

5.2.6 Shrinkage and Subsidence ...........................................................................................................................................................9

5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................................10

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................................................10

5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations....................................................................................................................13

5.3.3 Foundation Setbacks..................................................................................................................................................................14

5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity...............................................................................................................................................................................14

5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content.....................................................................................................................................................................14

5.3.6 Import Soils....................................................................................................................................................................................14

5.3.7 Concrete Flatwork........................................................................................................................................................................15

5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................................................16

5.5 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................18

5.6 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................19

5.7 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................21

5.7.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ..................................................................................................................................21 ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.7.2 Drainage .........................................................................................................................................................................................21

5.8 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................22

6. INTENT ............................................................................................................................................... 22

7. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 23

8. SELECTED REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 23

ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 – Site Location and Topography Map
Figures 2 – Exploration Location Map
Appendix A – Geophysical Survey and Logs of Exploratory Borings Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C – Infiltration Test Data
Appendix D – General Grading Guidelines
ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 1

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions for the proposed development. Services provided for this study included the following:
 Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site,  A site reconnaissance,  A geophysical survey, performed by SubSurface Surveys & Associates, Inc., to locate and identify the existence of any pipes, conduits, utilities and other underground obstructions within the vicinity of our 12 borings,  Excavation and logging of eight (8) geotechnical exploratory borings,  Logging and infiltration testing of an additional four (4) hollow stem auger borings in the vicinity of the planned storm water treatment areas,  Collection of soil samples,  Laboratory testing of selected soil samples,  Review and evaluation of site seismicity, and;  Compilation of this geotechnical report which presents our preliminary recommendations for site development.

The intent of this report is to aid in the evaluation of the site for future proposed development from a geotechnical perspective. The professional opinions and geotechnical information contained in this report may need to be updated based upon our review of the final site development plans. These plans should be provided to GeoTek, Inc. for review when available.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 2

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The approximately 10-acre site is located on the south side of Struck Avenue near its eastern terminus in the city of Orange, Orange County. The site is currently developed with an approximate 40,000 square foot 1-story building, several canopy structures, storage areas, parking/drive areas and landscaping. Several silos exist near the southern limits of the existing 1- story building. Topographically, the site is relatively level sloping down gently to the west. The site location is presented on Figure 1.

Based on a review of aerial photographs flown between 1938 and 2016, the site was undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes until between 1966 to 1972. Since that time, the site has been developed and used for industrial purposes. As noted in the CERCLA Screening Report (Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1990), six or seven (conflicting information) underground storage tanks (USTs) were previously present on the site. The USTs appear to have ranged in storage capacity from about 3,500 to 50,000 gallons. Reportedly, six of the USTs were removed in 1983.

However, the report only obtained documentation for the removal of three of the USTs.

The site is bounded by Struck Avenue to the north, a railroad right-of-way to the east and commercial/industrial properties to the west and south.

2.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
We understand that the existing improvements on the site are to be demolished and a new 216,860 square foot warehouse building and associated surface parking and drive areas are to be constructed. The new building will include 34 dock doors along the east side of the building.

The structure is anticipated to be a single-story concrete tilt-up (or similar) building and maximum column and wall loads of about 150 kips and 6 kips per foot have been estimated for the purpose of this report. Once actual structural loading information is known, that information should be provided to GeoTek to determine if modifications to the recommendations presented in this report are warranted.

Due to the relatively level nature of the site, we anticipate that the maximum depth of cut and fill will be less than about 5 feet, not including any remedial grading.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 3

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
Prior to our subsurface explorations, a geophysical survey was performed at the site by SurbSurface Surveys & Associates, Inc. in order to locate and identify the existence of any pipes, conduits, utilities and other underground obstructions within the vicinity of our proposed borings. A copy of the report is included in Appendix A.

Our field exploration was conducted on March 9, 2019 and consisted of eight (8) geotechnical test borings which were excavated with a hollow-stem auger drill rig to a maximum depth of 30- ½ feet below ground surface (bgs). A hollow-stem auger with an outside diameter of 8 inches was utilized. The inside diameter of the auger was 4.5 inches. A geologist from GeoTek, Inc. logged the exploratory borings. The boring locations are presented on Figure 2. Logs of the exploratory borings are included in Appendix A. The exploration logs show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated and may not be representative of other locations and times. The stratification lines presented on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transitions may be gradual.

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were recovered at various intervals in the geotechnical borings with a California sampler. The California sampler is a 3-inch outside diameter, 2.4-inch inside diameter, split barrel sampler lined with brass rings. The sampler was 18 inches long. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 3550. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping 30 inches for each blow. The relatively undisturbed samples, together with bulk samples of representative soil types, were returned to the laboratory for testing and evaluation. The California Ring sampler data are presented on the boring logs.

Four borings were also excavated in the vicinity of the proposed stormwater infiltration areas to depths of about six to eight feet. The locations and depths of the infiltration borings were as requested by the civil engineer. Infiltration testing was conducted in these borings in general accordance with the requirements of the County of Orange The infiltration tests consisted of drilling eight-inch diameter test holes to the desired depth and installing approximately two inches of gravel in the bottom of the hole. A three-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, wrapped in a filter sock, was placed in the excavations and the annular space was filled with gravel to prevent caving within the boring. Water was then placed in the borings to presoak the holes overnight and percolation testing was performed the following day.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 4

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples obtained during our field exploration.

The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soils encountered and to evaluate the physical properties of the soils for use in engineering design and analysis.

Included in our laboratory testing were moisture-density determinations on undisturbed samples. Gradation (percent passing #200 sieve) testing was performed on selected samples.

Collapse testing was performed on representative undisturbed samples to evaluate the collapse and settlement potential of the site soils. Optimum moisture content-maximum dry density relationships were established for typical soil types so that the relative compaction of the subsoils could be determined. Direct shear testing was performed on a selected sample to help evaluate the bearing capacity of the soils. Expansion index and Atterberg Limit testing was performed on selected samples to evaluate the expansion potential and plasticity of the on-site soils. Chemical testing comprised of pH, soluble sulfate, chloride and resistivity testing was conducted on selected samples. Resistance value (R-Value) testing was performed on two selected samples to help determine a preliminary pavement design section for the project. The moisture-density, Atterberg Limits and gradation data are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. The maximum density, direct shear, expansion index, chemical test and R-Value data are presented in Appendix B.

4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS

4.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The subject property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends approximately 975 miles south of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province.

The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks.

Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 5
Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.

More specific to the subject property, the site is located in an area geologically mapped to be underlain by older alluvial fan deposits (Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K., 2006).

4.2 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
A brief description of the soils encountered on the site is presented in the following sections. Based on our field exploration and observations, the site is generally underlain by undocumented fill and older alluvial fan deposits. 4.2.1 Undocumented Fill Undocumented fill soils were encountered within ten of the test borings to depths ranging from about 3 to 5 feet below existing grade. As encountered, the undocumented fill consisted of medium dense to dense silty sand, very dense/hard clayey sand to sandy clay, clayey silt and silty clay.

Expansion index testing reveals that the near-surface soils exhibit a “medium” expansion potential.

4.2.2 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits
Older alluvial fan deposits generally consisting of medium dense to very dense sand and silty and clayey sands and stiff to very stiff sandy silts, clayey silts and sandy clays were encountered below the undocumented fill and/or the existing ground surface and extended to the maximum depths explored.

4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER

4.3.1 Surface Water
Surface water was not observed during our site visit. If encountered during earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from immediately surrounding properties. Overall site area drainage is generally in a westerly direction, as directed by site topography. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 6

4.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within our test borings to depths up to about 30 feet below grade. Based on a review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange Quadrangle, historic high groundwater at the site is estimated to be greater than 40 feet below grade.

4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest- trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region.

The site is not situated within a State of California “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 1980). A review of the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map (Orange Quadrangle, CGS, 1998), the site is not located within a fault or liquefaction hazard area. The nearest known active faults are the San Joaquin Hills and Elsinore fault zones, located about 7.5 miles to the south and 8.3 miles to the northeast, respectively.

4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 33.8052⁰ Latitude and -117.8580⁰ Longitude. Site spectral accelerations (Sa and S1), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, was determined from the SEAOC/OSHPD web interface that utilizes the USGS web services and retrieves the seismic design data and presents that information in a report format. As noted using the ASCE 7-16 option on the SEAOC/OSHPD website, the values for SM1 and SD1 are reported as “null-See Section 11.4.8 (of ASCE 7-16). As noted in ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, a site-specific ground motion procedure is recommended for Site Class D when the value S1 exceeds 0.2. The value S1 for the subject site exceeds 0.2.

For a site Class D, an exception to performing a site-specific ground motion analysis is allowed in ASCE 7-16 where S1 exceeds 0.2 provided the value of the seismic response coefficient, Cs, is conservatively calculated by Eq 12.8-2 of ASCE 7-16 for values of T≤1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL≥T>1.5Ts or Eq.

12.8-4 for T>TL. Assuming that the Cs value calculated by and used by the structural engineer allows for the exclusion per ASCE 7-16, noted above, then a site-specific ground motion analysis is not required.

For this assumption and condition, the following seismic design parameters, based on the 2015 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), are presented on the following table:

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 7

SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.405g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.499g
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D,” Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D,” Fv 1.801
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for

0.2 Second, SMS

1.405g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for

1.0 Second, SM1

0.899g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS

0.937g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1 second, SD1

0.599g
PGAM 0.649g
Seismic Design Category D
Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism. 4.5 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.

The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, soil plasticity, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content and some low plastic silts and clays under low confining pressures.

The project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California for liquefaction potential. Based on the current map designation and the estimated depth to historic high groundwater (+40 feet) and the density of the materials encountered, it is our opinion that the site possesses a very low potential for liquefaction during a seismic event.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 8

4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instability at this site was not observed during our investigation and the project site is relatively flat. Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible for design purposes.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL
The anticipated site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations, and those provided by this firm at a later date are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. Site development and grading plans should be reviewed by GeoTek, Inc. when they become available.

The on-site soils exhibit “very low” to “medium” expansion potentials. Expansion index testing for near-surface soils should be conducted at the completion of earthwork operations to verify.

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS
Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Orange, the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix D outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix D. 5.2.1 Site Clearing & Demolition In areas of planned grading and improvements, the site should be cleared of vegetation and other deleterious materials. Demolition of the existing buildings and improvements should include removal of their floor slabs, foundations, pavements and any other below-grade construction.

Existing utilities should be properly capped off at the property boundaries and removed or be re- routed around the new building. All debris resulting from site clearing and demolition should be properly disposed of off-site. Voids resulting from site clearing should be replaced with engineered fill following proper preparation as described in the following report sections.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 9

5.2.2 Remedial Grading
Subsequent to site clearing and lowering of site grades, where necessary, all existing undocumented fill and the upper 1 foot of alluvium should be removed beneath and extending at least 5 feet beyond the planned building limits. As previously noted, USTs were previously present on-site and were reportedly removed in about 1983. No documentation has been provided to indicated that the UST excavations were backfilled with compacted engineered fill.

Some localized deeper over-excavations should be expected. As a minimum, all foundations should be underlain by at least 3 feet of newly placed properly compacted engineered fill.

In other areas of the site to support new improvements, we recommend that following site clearing and prior to fill placement, the exposed soil should then be proof rolled with a heavy rubber-tired piece of construction equipment approved by and in the presence of GeoTek. The proof roll equipment should possess a minimum weight of 15 tons and proof rolling should include at least four passes, 2 in each perpendicular direction. Any soil that ruts or excessively deflects during proof rolling should be removed as recommended by the GeoTek representative.

5.2.3 Preparation of Excavation Bottoms
A representative of this firm should observe the bottom of all excavations. Upon approval, the exposed soils and all soils in areas to receive engineered fill should be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moistened to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557).

5.2.4 Engineered Fills
The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided that they are free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Engineered fill should be placed in loose lifts with a thickness of eight inches or less, moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D- 1557). 5.2.5 Excavation Characteristics Excavation in the on-site soils is expected to be feasible utilizing heavy-duty grading equipment in good operating condition. All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground utilities should be constructed in accordance with local and Cal-OSHA guidelines.

Temporary excavations within the on-site materials should be stable at 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) inclinations for cuts less than ten feet in height.

5.2.6 Shrinkage and Subsidence
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, subsidence, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 10
Shrinkage and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction. For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of about 5 to 15 percent may be considered for undocumented fill materials requiring removal and recompaction. A shrinkage factor of about 0 to 10 percent may be considered for excavation and recompaction of the native soils. Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork. Subsidence on the order of up to 0.10 foot may be anticipated resulting from preparation of the underlying soils. 5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria
Foundation design criteria for a conventional foundation system, in general conformance with the 2019 CBC, are presented below. Based on laboratory test results and the recommendations provided in this report, subsequent to earthwork operations it is anticipated that the as-graded near-surface soils may have a “very low” to “medium” expansion potential. Additional expansion index and soluble sulfate testing of the soils should be performed during construction to evaluate the as-graded conditions. Final recommendations should be based upon the as-graded soils conditions.

A summary of our foundation design recommendations is presented in the following table:

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 11
Design Parameter “Very Low” to “Low”
Expansion Potential
“Medium” Expansion
Potential
Foundation Depth or Minimum
Perimeter Beam Depth
(inches below lowest adjacent
grade)
12 18
Minimum Foundation Width
(Inches)* 12 12
Minimum Slab Thickness (actual)1 4 – Actual 4 – Actual
Sand Blanket and Moisture
Retardant Membrane Below On- Grade Building Slabs
2 inches of sand** overlying
moisture vapor retardant
membrane overlying 2 inches of
sand**
2 inches of sand** overlying
moisture vapor retardant
membrane overlying 2 inches of
sand**
Minimum Slab Reinforcing
6” x 6” – W1.4/W1.4 welded wire
fabric placed in middle of slab or
No. 3 bars at 24 inch centers
6” x 6” – W2.9/W2.9 welded wire
fabric placed in middle of slab or
No. 3 bars at 18 inch centers.

Minimum Footing Reinforcement
Two No. 4 reinforcing bars,
one placed near the top and one
near the bottom
Four No. 4 reinforcing bars,
two placed near the top and two
near the bottom
Effective Plasticity Index*** N/A 18
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil
(Percent of Optimum)
Minimum of 110% of the optimum
moisture content to a depth of at
least 12 inches prior to placing
concrete
Minimum of 120% of the optimum
moisture content to a depth of at
least 12 inches prior to placing
concrete
* Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2019 CBC. ** Sand should have a sand equivalent of at least 30. *** Effective plasticity index should be verified at the completion of rough grading.

1. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined necessary by the structural engineer.

It should be noted that the criteria provided are based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the slab and beam reinforcement based on actual loading conditions.

The following criteria for design of foundations are preliminary and should be re-evaluated based on the results of additional laboratory testing of samples obtained near finish pad grade.

An allowable bearing capacity of 2,800 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of footings 12 inches deep and 12 inches wide. This value may be increased by 400 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth and 150 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 3,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads).

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 12
Structural foundations may be designed in accordance with the 2019 CBC, and to withstand a total static settlement of 1 inch and maximum differential static settlement of one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 210 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 psf for footings founded on engineered fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.3 may be used with dead load forces.

When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third.

If desired, the building floor slab may be designed using an estimated subgrade modulus of 125 pci, which is based on a value typically obtained from a 1 foot by 1 foot plate bearing test. Depending on how the floor slab is loaded, the subgrade modulus may need to be geometrically modified.

A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2, the 2019 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E 1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane.

It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g. stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the vapor retarder placed on the underlying aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. Although the CBC specifies a 6-mil vapor retarder membrane, a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. The membrane should consist of Stego wrap or the equivalent.

A two-inch layer of clean sand with a sand equivalent of at least 30 should be placed over the moisture vapor retardant membrane to promote setting of the concrete. The moisture in the sand should not exceed two percent below the optimum moisture content.

Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 13
used and environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e. thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level.

Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarder systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, Post- Tensioning Concrete Institute, ASTM and California Building Code requirements and guidelines.

GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as a flooring contractor, structural engineer, architect, and/or other experts specializing in moisture control within the buildings be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture and vapor transmission paths and associated potential impact on the proposed construction. That person should provide recommendations relative to the slab moisture and vapor retarder systems and for migration of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures, as deemed appropriate.

In addition, the recommendations in this report and our services in general are not intended to address mold prevention, since we, along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in the area of mold prevention. If specific recommendations addressing potential mold issues are desired, then a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted.

We recommend that control joints be placed in two directions spaced approximately 24 to 36 times the thickness of the slab in inches. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer.

5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations
To minimize moisture penetration beneath the slab-on-grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge.

Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 14

5.3.3 Foundation Setbacks
Minimum setbacks for all foundations should comply with the 2019 CBC or City of Orange requirements, whichever is more stringent. Improvements not conforming to these setbacks are subject to the increased likelihood of excessive lateral movement and/or differential settlement. If large enough, these movements can compromise the integrity of the improvements.  The outside top edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least five feet and need not exceed 40 feet.  The bottom of any proposed foundations should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 upward projection from the bottom edge of the nearest excavation and the bottom edge of the closest footing.

5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity
Based on the chemical test results presented in Appendix B, the corrosivity test results indicate that the on-site soils are “highly corrosive” to “corrosive” to buried ferrous metal. This corrosion classification is obtained from “Corrosion Basics: An Introduction,” by Pierre R.

Roberge, 2nd Edition, 2000. Recommendations for protection of buried ferrous metal should be provided by a corrosion engineer. Additional corrosion testing should be performed at the time of site grading to assess the corrosion of potential of the as-graded soils.

5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content
The results of chemical testing performed on three representative samples of the site soils indicate soluble sulfate contents less than 0.1 percent by weight. Soluble sulfate contents of this level would be in the range of “not applicable” per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318. Based on the test results and Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318, special concrete mix design is not anticipated to be necessary to resist sulfate attack. Additional soluble sulfate testing should be performed during site grading to further evaluate the as-grade sulfate exposure.

5.3.6 Import Soils
Import soils should consist of soils similar or better than the on-site soils and should be tested for expansion and corrosivity potential prior to their use. GeoTek, Inc. should be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 15

5.3.7 Concrete Flatwork

5.3.7.1 Exterior Concrete Slabs, Sidewalks and Driveways Exterior concrete slabs, sidewalks and driveways should be designed using a four-inch minimum thickness. Some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated as a result of typical mix designs and curing practices typically utilized in construction.

Sidewalks and driveways may be under the jurisdiction of the governing agency. If so, jurisdictional design and construction criteria would apply, if more restrictive than the recommendations presented in this report.

Subgrade soils should be pre-moistened prior to placing concrete. The subgrade soils below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, etc. should be pre-saturated to a minimum of 110 percent (for “low”) or 120 percent (for “medium”) of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches. All concrete installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, should be done in accordance with the City of Orange specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek, Inc. and a City inspector, if necessary.

5.3.7.2 Concrete Performance
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticeable to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete, while unsightly, do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time.

One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are.

GeoTek, Inc. suggests that control joints be placed in two directions and located a distance apart approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 16

5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.4.1 General Design Criteria
Recommendations presented in this report apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer.

Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of this report. A minimum foundation embedment of 12 inches into engineered compacted fill with “very low” to “low” expansion potential and 18 inches below grade for footings underlain by “medium” expansive soil is recommended. Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer.

All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization.

The backfill material placement for all earth retention structures should meet the requirement of Section 5.4.4 in this report.

In general, cantilever earth retention structures, which are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the height of the wall to the base of the footing, may be designed using the active condition. Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls, and walls braced at top, such as typical basement walls) should be designed using the at-rest condition.

In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharges due to improvements, such as an adjacent building or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth retention structures. Loads applied within a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the surcharge on the stem of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design.

Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the designer of the earth retention structures.

5.4.2 Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 17
horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions.

ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained Materials
(h:v)
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(pcf)
Native Backfill*
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(pcf) Select Backfill**
Level 45 35
2:1 65 55
* The design pressures assume the backfill material has an expansion index less than or equal to 50. Backfill zone includes area between the back of the wall and footing to a plane (1:1 h:v) up from the bottom of the wall foundation to the ground surface.
** Select backfill to consist of soil with angle of internal friction of at least 34 degree and a very low expansion potential.

5.4.3 Restrained Retaining Walls
Retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material, or that have reentrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 70 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading, for native backfill (EI<50) and level back slope condition. If backfilled with select soil (EI<20), the walls may be designed for an at-rest pressure of 55 pcf. For areas of male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner, or a distance otherwise determined by the project structural engineer.

5.4.4 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
Retaining wall backfill should consist of materials with expansion index (EI) ≤ 20 or <50, dependent upon what design value is used, and free of deleterious and/or oversized materials. The wall backfill should also include a minimum one-foot wide section of ¾- to 1-inch clean crushed rock (or approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of wall and extend up from the back drain to within approximately 12 inches of finish grade. The upper 12 inches should consist of compacted onsite materials. Presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than 8-inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. Bracing of the walls during backfilling and compaction may also be necessary.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 18
All earth retention structures should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressure build up. As a minimum, backdrains should consist of a four-inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot of ¾- to 1-inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent). The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet, as determined by the civil engineer. Drain outlets should be maintained over the life of the project and should not be obstructed or plugged by adjacent improvements. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the wall is undesirable.

Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. Water should not be allowed to pond behind retaining walls. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the wall is undesirable.

5.5 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Field percolation testing was performed on March 10 and 11, 2020. Percolation rates obtained from the infiltration testing were converted to a field infiltration rate using the Porchet Method. The field infiltration rates calculated are indicated in the following table:

SUMMARY OF FIELD INFILTRATION RATES
Boring/Area Depth of Test
(Feet)
Material Encountered at
Depth of Test
Field Infiltration Rate
(Inches per Hour)
I-1 6 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay 0.02
I-2 7 Clayey Silt 0.02
I-3 8 Clayey Silt 0.02
I-4 6 Clayey Silt 0.02
The percolation data sheets and infiltration conversion worksheets are presented in Appendix C. The field infiltration rates presented above do not incorporate a safety factor. The civil engineer should assign a suitable safety factor to these values prior to determining the design infiltration rate.

In addition, over the lifetime of the detention or retention basin, the infiltration rates may be affected by silt build up and biological activities, as well as local variations in near surface soil conditions. A suitable factor of safety should be applied to the field rates to design the infiltration system.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 19
It should be noted that the infiltration rates provided above were performed in relatively undisturbed native soils. Infiltration rates will vary and are mostly dependent on the underlying consistency of the site soils and relative density. Infiltration rates will be impacted by weight of equipment travelling over the soils, placement of engineered fill and other various factors.

GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for the ultimate design or performance of the storm water facility.

5.6 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
Asphalt Pavements
Preliminary pavement design for areas to receive new asphalt pavements was conducted per Caltrans Highway Design Manual guidelines for flexible pavements. Two representative samples of the near surface subgrade in the future pavement improvement areas were collected and submitted to our subconsultant (LaBelle•Marvin) to determine the resistance value (R-value) of the collected samples. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method 301 and those results are provided in Appendix B. Assumed Traffic Indices (TIs) of 5.0, 8.0 and

10.0 were utilized for light, medium and heavy-duty pavement areas, respectively.

The R-value results indicated an R-value for the silty sand soils of 71 and an R-value for the clayey silt soils of 13. Since it is not currently known what soils will be present at the subgrade elevation following site grading, we have provided preliminary pavement thickness recommendations based on the R-value of 13. Based on these preliminary assumptions, the following preliminary sections were calculated:

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION FOR MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTION Traffic Index Thickness of Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Thickness of Aggregate Base
(inches)

5.0 3 8-½

8.0 5 15-½

10.0 5 22-½
All base material and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density, per ASTM D-1557.

Traffic Indices (TIs) used in our preliminary pavement design are considered reasonable values for the proposed pavement areas and should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Irrigation adjacent to pavements, without a deep curb or other cutoff to separate landscaping from the paving may result in premature pavement failure. Traffic parameters used for preliminary design were selected based ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 20
upon engineering judgment and not upon information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel load analysis or a traffic study. We recommend that final pavement design be based on R-value testing of the subgrade soils along with the assigned TI values for the planned pavement areas. Asphalt concrete and aggregate base should conform to current Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 39 and 26-1.02, respectively. As an alternative, asphalt concrete can conform to Section 203-6 of the current Standard Specifications for Public Work (Green Book). Crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base can conform to Section 200-2.2 and 200-2.4 of the Green Book, respectively.

All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with the City of Orange specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern.

Concrete Pavements
We understand that Portland Cement concrete (PCC) pavements will also be used for select pavement areas for the site. For this preliminary design we have utilized a subgrade modulus of 75 kci, which is considered to be approximately equivalent to an R-value of 13. PCC design is based on equivalent 18-kip single axle loads (ESAL). In our analysis we have utilized ESAL values of 8,000, 380,000 and 2,500,000 ESAL for light duty, medium duty and heavy-duty pavement areas.

The ESAL values noted are approximately equivalent to TI values of 5.0, 8.0 and 10.0, respectively.

The design thicknesses presented below are also based on design procedures from the Portland Cement Association (PCA, 1966). Based on these assumptions, the following preliminary PCC pavement thickness are recommended.

Light Duty Pavement
(PCC/AB)
Medium Duty Pavement
(PCC/AB)
Heavy Duty Pavement
(PCC/AB)
6”/4” 7”/4” 7-½”/4”
6-½”/no base 7-½”/no base 8”/no base
PCC-Portland Cement Concrete
AB-Aggregate Base
We have based this preliminary analysis on a minimum 28-day concrete compressive strength of 4,000 psi. All base material and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at least 95% of the material/s maximum dry density, per ASTM D 1557.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 21
PCC pavements can be designed as jointed plain (unreinforced), with or without dowels for load transfer, or as jointed reinforced pavement. In general, the use of reinforcement typically allows for a wider, or longer, joint spacing, but the reinforcement does not increase the structural capacity of the pavement. In accordance with AASHTO design procedures, the maximum joint spacing for unreinforced pavement is two times the thickness of the pavement (i.e. for a 6-inch thick pavement, the maximum joint spacing is 12 feet). It should be noted that a larger joint spacing is possible for concrete with maximum aggregate sizes of ¾-inch and larger and for concrete with slumps less than 4 to 6 inches. Traffic should not be allowed on the finished pavement until the concrete has attained the minimum compressive strength. Final PCC design should be provided upon completion of rough grading based on R-value tests on the as-graded soils and the assigned TI (or ESAL) values determined by others. 5.7 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.7.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate.

Overwatering should be avoided. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and maintained. Burrowing rodents can decrease the long-term performance of slopes.

It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundations. This type of landscaping should be avoided.

5.7.2 Drainage
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings and floor-slabs. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 22
Roof gutters should be installed that will direct the collected water at least 20 feet from the buildings.

5.8 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
We recommend that specifications and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that GeoTek, Inc. representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to observe and document proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should verify that GeoTek, Inc. representatives perform at least the following duties:  Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of unsuitable materials.  Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement.  Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary.  Observe the fill for uniformity during placement, including utility trench backfill. Also, perform field density testing of the fill materials.  Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials with respect to density.

If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek, Inc. which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained.

6. INTENT
It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development.

Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction.

The scope of our evaluation is limited to the boundaries of the subject property. This review does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 23
site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this locality.

7. LIMITATIONS
Our findings are based on site conditions observed and the stated sources. Thus, our comments are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data.

GeoTek has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report.

Since our recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty of any kind is expressed or implied. Standards of care/practice are subject to change with time.

8. SELECTED REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Publication 302.2R-06, Guide for Concrete Slabs That Receive Moisture Sensitive Flooring Materials.
_____, 2010, Publications 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs-On-Ground.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, Errata Incorporated through March 15.

Bowles, J. E., 1977, “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Second Edition.

Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, "Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps," California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page 24
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2019, Part 2, “California Building Code,” 2 volumes.

CGS, 1997, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange Quadrangle”, January 1.

Department of the Navy, 1982, “Foundations and Earth Structures”, Design Manual 7.2.

GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.

Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K., 2006, “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California,” U.S. Geological Survey OF-2006-1217, scale 1:100.000.

Portland Cement Association (PCA), 1966, “Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements”.

Roberge, P. R., 2000, “Corrosion Basics: An Introduction”, second edition.

SEA/OSHPD web service, “Seismic Design Maps” (https://seismicmaps.org) Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Martin, G. R., and Lew, M., ed., “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,”, dated March 1999.

State of California, California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A. Terzaghi, K and Peck, R. B., 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, second edition.

ProLogis
534 West Struck Street
Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 2361-CR
Figure 1
Site Location
and
Topography
Map

APPROXIMATE

SITE AREA
Modified from USGS
Orange and Anaheim

7.5-minute Topographic
Map Sheets
Plate 1
Exploration Location
Map
Prologis
534 West Struck Avenue
Oraneg, Orange County, California
Project No. 2361-CR
Legend
(Locations are approximate)
B-1
- Exploratory Boring
P-4
- Percolation Boring 200 FEET
P-2
P-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
P-3
B-8
P-4

APPENDIX A

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY AND LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Proposed Warehouse Facility
City of Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 2361-CR
ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page A-1

A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring)
The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140- pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Bulk Samples (Large)
These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.

Bulk Samples (Small)
These are plastic bag samples which are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices.

B – BORING/TRENCH LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of borings/trenches:

SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-c Fine to coarse
f-m Fine to medium

GEOLOGIC
B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip
J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip
C: Contact line ……….. Dashed line denotes USCS material change Solid Line denotes unit / formational change
Thick solid line denotes end of boring/trench
(Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the log of borings/trenches) SubSurface Surveys
& A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . An Applied Geophysical Company 2075 Corte Del Nogal, Suite W
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Office: (760) 476-0492
Fax: (760) 476-0493
Subsurface Surveys & Associates, Inc. www.subsurfacesurveys.com [email protected] March 8, 2020
GeoTek, Inc. Project No. 20-120
1548 North Maple Street
Corona, CA 90501

Attn: Kyle R. McHargue, P.G.

Re: Geophysical Investigation, Nursery Supplies Plant, 534 Struck Avenue, Orange, California

This report is to present the results of our geophysical survey carried out over the Nursery Supplies Plant property located at 534 Struck Avenue in Orange, California (Figure 1). The survey was performed on March 5, 2020, and its purpose was to locate and identify, insofar as possible, the existence of any pipes, conduits, utilities, and other underground obstructions within the vicinity of twelve (12) proposed boreholes scheduled for drilling.

A combination of electromagnetic induction (EM), magnetometry, and ground penetrating radar (GPR) were brought to the field with anticipation of use. Utility locators with line tracing capabilities were also used where applicable.

FIGURE 1 – Site location map
Survey Design – The areas to be surveyed were identified in the field by the client. It included twelve (12) proposed boreholes placed in various locations on an asphalt/concrete surfaced parking lot and landscaping.

In site situations and survey objectives such as this, the best use of time is achieved by systematically free-traversing with the instruments while monitoring them continuously to determine which responses are significant and due to true subsurface targets, and which are due to other non-target or aboveground features and must be ignored. Where applicable, the EM devices, magnetic gradiometer, and GPR were traversed systematically over the survey areas in multiple, organized directions. Other traverses were taken for detailing and confirmation where anomalous conditions were found.

In addition, the line tracers were used to impress signals onto pipes, generally through accessible risers and tracer wires when present, to delineate the lines’ locations and orientations. The instruments were also used in passive mode, configured to detect 60 Hz electrical signals and other common radiofrequency signals.

Hard copy of the EM data was not acquired, that is, discrete readings on the nodes of a grid were not recorded that could be put into a contoured map format. Rather, the instruments’ meters were read continuously, and in real-time, during each traverse. This free-traversing method allowed for immediate detection of anomalous objects and facilitated the opportunity to investigate them further, without the need to first download and process data in the office. The lack of hard copy for EM data sets does not degrade the quality of the survey in any way. Hard copy merely provides a basis for report documentation of these geophysical fields, if such documentation is needed.

A Fischer M-Scope was used for the EM sampling and a Sensors & Software Noggin Ground Penetrating Radar unit with a 500 MHz antenna produced the radar images. A Metrotech 9890 and RIDGID SR-60 SeekTech utility locator rounded out the tools applied.

Brief Description of the Geophysical Methods Applied – The M-Scope device energizes the ground by producing an alternating primary magnetic field with AC current in a transmitting coil. If conducting materials are within the area of influence of the primary field, AC eddy currents are induced to flow in the conductors. A receiving coil senses the secondary magnetic field produced by these eddy currents, and outputs the response as anomalous conditions. The strength of the secondary field is a function of the conductivity of the object, say a pipe, tank or cluster of drums, its size, and its depth and position relative to the instrument's two coils. Conductive objects, to a depth of approximately 7 feet below ground surface (bgs) for the M-Scope are sensed. The device is also somewhat focused; that is, it is more sensitive to conductors below the instrument than they are to conductors off to the side.

The line locator is used to passively detect energized high voltage electric lines and electrical conduit (50-60 Hz), VLF signals (14-22 kHz), as well as to actively trace other utilities. Where risers are present, the utility locator transmitter can be connected directly to the object, and a signal (9.8-82 kHz) is sent traveling along the conductor, pipe, conduit, etc. In the absence of a riser, the transmitter can be used to impress an input signal on the utility by induction. In either case, the receiver unit is tuned to the input signal, and is used to actively trace the signal along the pipe’s surface projection.

The GPR instrument beams energy into the ground from its transducer/antenna, in the form of electromagnetic waves. A portion of this energy is reflected back to the antenna at a boundary in the subsurface across which there is an electrical contrast. The instrument produces a continuous record of the reflected energy as the antenna is traversed across the ground surface. The greater the electrical contrast, the higher the amplitude of the returned energy. The radar wave travels at a velocity unique to the material properties of the ground being investigated, and when these velocities are known, the twoway travel times can be converted to depth. The depth of penetration and image resolution produced are a function of ground electrical conductivity and dielectric constant.

Interpretation and Conclusions - The interpretation took place in real time as the survey progressed, and accordingly, the findings of our investigation were verbally relayed to the client, and further documented with site photographs (Figures 2-13).

Utilities detected were marked out in chalk spray paint using red for electric and white for rebar and unknown piping.

Once completed, the proposed boreholes were spray painted white with a white circle and a yellow “SSS” to indicate they had been investigated by Subsurface Surveys personnel. Please refer to the attached photos for location and orientation of items detected in the survey.

Limitations and Further Recommendations - It should be understood that limitations inherent in geophysical instruments and/or surveying techniques exist at all sites, and nearly all sites exhibit conditions under which such might not perform optimally. Consequently, the detection of buried objects in all circumstances cannot be guaranteed. Such limitations are numerous and include, but are not limited to, rebar-reinforced ground cover, abrupt changes in ground cover type, above-ground obstacles preventing full traverses or traverses in one direction only, above-ground conductive objects interfering with instrument signal, nearby power lines or EM transmitters, highly conductive background soil conditions, limited GPR penetration, non-metallic targets, shallower or larger objects shielding deeper or smaller targets, tracing signal jumping from one line to another, and inaccessible risers, cleanouts, valve boxes, and manholes. If one or more geophysical instrument is rendered ineffective and cannot be utilized, the quality of the survey can be somewhat degraded.

For the above reasons, and in the interest of maximum safety, we encourage our clients to take advantage of Underground Service Alert (USA), Dig Alert, or other similar services, when possible.

Furthermore, we recommend hand auguring and the use of a drilling method known as air knifing or vacuum extraction, when feasible or if applicable to this project. These methods may significantly limit damage to underground pipes, conduits, and utilities that might not have been detectable during the course of this survey. Please bear in mind, that geophysical surveying is only one of several levels of protection that is available to our clients.

SubSurface Surveys may include maps in some reports. While they are an accurate general representation of the site and our findings, they are not of engineering quality (i.e., measured and mapped by a licensed land surveyor).

SubSurface Surveys and Associates makes no guarantee either expressed or implied regarding the accuracy of the findings and interpretations present. And, in no event will SubSurface Surveys and Associates be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from interpretations and opinions presented herewith.

All data generated on this project are in confidential file in this office and are available for review by authorized persons at any time. The opportunity to participate in this investigation is very much appreciated. Please call, if there are questions.

Daniel L. Matticks, MS Travis Crosby, GP# 1044
Staff Geophysicist Senior Geophysicist
TITLE:

SSS PROJECT NO:

Nursery Supplies Plant
534 Struck Avenue
Orange, California 20-120
March 5, 2020
SITE: SURVEY DATE:

PREPARED FOR:

GeoTek, Inc
Borehole Photographs
Figure 6 Figure 7
Figure 4 Figure 5
Figure 2 Figure 3
BH BH
BH
BH
BH BH
rebar
rebar
TITLE:

SSS PROJECT NO:

Nursery Supplies Plant
534 Struck Avenue
Orange, California 20-120
March 5, 2020
SITE: SURVEY DATE:

PREPARED FOR:

GeoTek, Inc
Borehole Photographs
Figure 12 Figure 13
Figure 10 Figure 11
Figure 8 Figure 9
BH BH
BH
BH
BH BH
rebar
rebar
rebar
rebar
rebar
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING

ML SH, EI, MD, SR
EI = 59
5 16.0 119.0
12 19
CL/ML
11 CL 13.4 124.8 Collapse
15 16
7 11
12 12 13.3 121.4 AL
17 LL=35; PL=17; PI=18
20 7
9 8
50/6" SC
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test LEGEND
SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Silty CLAY, brown, moist to very moist, very stiff
20 Clayey f-c SAND, grayish brown, moist, very dense, few gravel BORING TERMINATED AT 20.5 FEET
15 Clayey SILT, light brown, moist, stiff, trace very fine to fine grained sand Sandy CLAY, light reddish brown, slightly moist to moist, stiff 10 Same as above, very stiff
Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:

Silty CLAY to clayey SILT, light reddish brown, moist, stiff 5 F sandy CLAY, light brown, moist, very stiff, trace coarse grained sand 4" Concrete over 4" CAB
Undocumented fill:

Clayey SILT, dark brown, moist, trace fine to coarse grained sand Sample Number Water Content (%)
Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
DATE: 3/9/2020

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-1
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in
PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR LOCATION: See Boring Location Map OPERATOR: Miguel DRILLER:
140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75
2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: HAMMER:

CLIENT: ProLogis DRW
PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
5 SC 8.1 121.6
10 20
22 SP 8.0
50/5"
35 5.2
50/6"
40 SP/GP
50/2"
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test LEGEND
SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
20 No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
15 10 Gravelly f-c SAND to f-c sandy GRAVEL, grayish brown, slightly moist to moist, very dense, some cobbles
BORING TERMINATED AT 11 FEET (REFUSAL)
Same as above
Gravelly f-c SAND, dark reddish brown, moist, very dense, trace clay 5 Undocumented fill:

Clayey f-c SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense, few gravel Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:

Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
4" Concrete over 2" CAB

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-2
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
MD, SR
10 SC
14 19
20 SP 3.7 129.8
30 40
26 GC 4.2 114.8
38 50
38 SP
50/5"
33 GP
50/5"
7 CL
15 22
GC
50/2" GP
50/4" SC
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density F-c sandy GRAVEL, grayish brown, slightly moist to moist, very dense, some cobbles LEGEND
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 Clayey f-c SAND, brown, moist, very dense, some gravel, few cobbles BORING TERMINATED AT 30.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
25 Clayey sandy GRAVEL, grayish brown, moist
20 Silty CLAY, dark reddish brown, moist, very stiff
15 F-c sandy GRAVEL, grayish brown, moist, very dense
10 Gravelly f-c SAND, grayish brown, moist, very dense, trace clay Clayey sandy GRAVEL, brown, moist, very dense
Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:
5 Gravelly f-c SAND, brown to grayish brown, moist, dense, trace clay Undocumented fill:

Clayey f-c SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense, some gravel, trace plastic debris
Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
4" Concrete over 3" CAB

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-3
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
3 SM
10 17
19 SM 3.2 125.5 SA
40 % Passing #200 = 14.9
23 16 5.3 125.0
20 21
16 SC
36 38
24 SP
34 40
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Silty clayey f-c SAND, reddish brown, moist, medium dense, some gravel, trace cobbles LEGEND
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
20 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET (REFUSAL)
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Gravelly f-c SAND, brown to orangish brown, moist, dense 15 10
Clayey f-c SAND, brown, moist to very moist, dense, some gravel, trace cobble Gravelly silty f-c SAND, grayish brown, moist, dense, some cobbles Gravelly silty f-c SAND, grayish brown, moist, dense, some cobbles 5 Undocumented Fill:

Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:

Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

5.5" Concrete over 2" CAB

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-4
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
RV
2 ML 10.5 125.3
2 4
17 SP 5.5
18 27
32 7.3
38 40
23 GP
35 50/5"
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density No groundwater encountered LEGEND
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
20 Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
15 BORING TERMINATED AT 14 FEET (REFUSAL)
10 F-c sandy GRAVEL, grayish brown, slightly moist, very dense, some cobbles Same as above, dense
Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:
5 Gravelly f-c SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium dense Undocumented fill:

Clayey SILT, dark brown, moist, soft, some gravel
Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
4" Concrete over 2" CAB

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-5
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
SM
6 ML 11.4 123.7
10 10
27 SM-SP 18.4 SA
36 % Passing #200 = 11.9
37 20 5.7 130.8
38 35
18 SC
25 30
26 50/6"
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test LEGEND
SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
BORING TERMINATED AT 18.5 FEET (REFUSAL)
20 No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
More cobbles become apparent
15 Same as above, very dense
10 Clayey gravelly f-c SAND, brown, moist, dense, trace cobbles Same as above
Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:
5 Gravelly silty f-c SAND, grayish brown, moist, dense
Undocumented fill:

Silty f-c SAND, dark brown, moist, trace gravel
Clayey SILT, light reddish brown, moist, stiff, trace fine to coarse grained sand, trace gravel
Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
3" Concrete over 2" CAB

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-6
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
10 SC 9.3 128.5
14 16
15 SC 5.8
16 17
SP
25 4.8 114.9
23 25
50/4" GP/SP
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density F-c sandy GRAVEL to gravelly f-c SAND, grayish brown, moist, very dense Older Alluvial Fan Deposits: LEGEND
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
20 No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
15 10
BORING TERMINATED AT 10.5 FEET (REFUSAL)
Same as above
Clayey gravelly f-c SAND, reddish brown, moist, medium dense 5 Gravelly f-c SAND, brown, moist, dense, trace clay
Undocumented fill:

Clayey f-c SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense, some gravel Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
3" Concrete over 2" CAB

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-7
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
RV
6 ML 14.8 119.5 Collapse
10 11
6 13.9 119.3
8 11
8 ML/CL 15.3 119.2
13 18
7 ML
9 9
6 CL
10 13
36 SP
50/6"
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test LEGEND
SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
20 Gravelly f-c SAND, grayish brown, moist, very dense, trace clay 15 Silty CLAY, reddish brown, moist to very moist, stiff, trace gravel 10 Clayey SILT, light brown, moist, stiff
Clayey SILT to silty CLAY, orangish brown, moist, very stiff 5 Same as above
Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:

Clayey SILT, orangish brown, moist, stiff
Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
5" of asphaltic concrete

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-8
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
ML
ML
ML/CL
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test LEGEND
SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
20 15
10 BORING TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Clayey SILT, reddish brown, moist
5 Clayey SILT to silty CLAY, brown, moist
Undocumented fill:

Clayey SILT, dark brown, moist, trace fine to coarse grained sand Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:

Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
5" Concrete over 2" CAB

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: I-1
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
ML
ML
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test LEGEND
SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
20 15
10 BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Clayey SILT, reddish brown, moist
5 Same as above
Undocumented fill:

Clayey SILT, dark brown, moist, trace fine grained sand Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:

Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
4" Concrete over 3" CAB

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: I-2
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
ML
CL
ML
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Clayey f-m sandy SILT, light orangish brown, moist, some gravel LEGEND Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
20 15
BORING TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
10 No groundwater encountered
Silty CLAY, orangish brown to brown, moist
5 Clayey SILT, brown to reddish brown, moist, some gravel Undocumented fill:

Clayey SILT, orangish brown, slightly moist to moist, trace fine gravel Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:

Dry Density
(pcf) Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
7" of asphaltic concrete

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: I-3
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Water Content (%) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
ML
---Ring ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Clayey SILT, orrangish brown, moist, stiff LEGEND
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing: EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
30 25
20 15
10 BORING TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
5 Same as above
Older Alluvial Fan Deposits:

Dry Density
Depth (ft)
(pcf)
Sample Type Blows/ 6 in Sample Number Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
5" of asphaltic concrete

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: I-4
Laboratory Testing Water Content (%)
LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 3/9/2020 PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: CME 75 PROJECT NAME: 534 Struck Avenue DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Miguel CLIENT: ProLogis DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: DRW

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Warehouse Facility
City of Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 2361-CR
ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page B-1

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits testing were performed on a fine-grained sample collected from the site. The test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The test results are presented on the log of borings in Appendix A. Classification
Soils were classified visually in general accordance to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D 2487). The soil classifications are shown on the log of borings in Appendix A.

Consolidation
Consolidation/collapse testing was performed on selected samples of the site soils according to ASTM Test Method D 2435. The results of this testing are presented in Appendix B. Direct Shear Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3080. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.035 inch per minute. The samples were sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The results of the testing are presented in Appendix B.

Expansion Index
The expansion potential of the soils was determined by performing expansion index testing on a representative sample in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The results of the testing is provided below.

Boring No. Depth (ft.) Soil Type Expansion Index Classification B-1 1-5
Silty Clay to
Clayey Silt 59 Medium
In-Situ Moisture and Density
The natural water content was determined (ASTM D 2216) on samples of the materials recovered from the subsurface exploration. In addition, in-place dry density determination (ASTM D 2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples to measure the unity weight of the subsurface soils. Results of these tests are shown on the logs at the appropriate sample depths in Appendix A.

Percent of Soil Finer than No. 200 Sieve
Tests to determine the percent of soil finer than No. 200 sieve were performed on selected samples obtained from the property. The tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM D1140. The results of these tests are presented on the log of borings in Appendix A.

ProLogis Project No. 2361-CR
Proposed Warehouse Facility March 31, 2020
Orange, Orange County, California Page B-2
Moisture-Density Relationship
Laboratory testing was performed on a sample obtained during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B.

Boring No. Depth (ft.) Description Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content (%)
B-1 1-5 Silty Clay to Clayey Silt 124.0 11.0
R-Value
R-Value (i.e. resistance value) testing was performed on two samples collected from the site. The tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Method No. 301. The test results are presented in Appendix B. Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed by others in general accordance with ASTM D4327. Resistivity testing was completed by others in general accordance with ASTM G187. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed by others in general accordance with ASTM D4327. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B.

Boring No. Depth (ft.) pH
G51
Chloride
ASTM D4327
(ppm)
Sulfate
ASTM D4327
(% by weight)
Resistivity
ASTM G187
(ohm-cm)
B-1 1-5 8.6 7.6 0.0309 1,340
B-3 1-5 8.5 4.7 0.0110 4,020
534 West Struck Avenue
Orange, California
Seating Cycle
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle
PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR Date: 03/2020
CHECKED BY: RRR Lab: DI

COLLAPSE REPORT
Sample: B-1 @ 5'

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 CONSOLIDATION-PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%)

STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
534 West Struck Avenue
Orange, California
Seating Cycle
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle
PROJECT NO.: 2361-CR Date: 03/2020
CHECKED BY: RRR Lab: DI

COLLAPSE REPORT
Sample: B-8 @ 2'

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 CONSOLIDATION-PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%)

STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
Sample Location:

Date Tested:

Shear Strength: = 24.7 O
, C = 384.00 psf
Notes:
3/25/2020

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions. 1 - The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90% relative compaction from a bulk sample collected during the field investigation.

Project Name: 534 West Struck Ave., Orange
Project Number:
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.035 in/min. 2361-CR
B-1 @ 1 - 5

0.0 500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 SHEAR STRESS (psf)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)

MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Client: Prologis Job No.: 2361-CR
Project: 534 West Struck Avenue Lab No.: Corona
Location: Orange
Material Type: Brown Clayey Silt
Material Supplier: - Material Source: - Sample Location: B-1 @ 1 - 5 - Sampled By: DRW Date Sampled: 3/10/2020
Received By: DLI Date Received: 3/11/2020
Tested By: DLI Date Tested: 3/21/2020
Reviewed By: - Date Reviewed: - Test Procedure: ASTM D1557 Method: A Oversized Material (%): 5.7 Correction Required: yes x no MOISTURE CONTENT (%): 13.69894 11.59912 9.698473 7.497917 12.9181 10.93797 9.1456605 7.070536 DRY DENSITY (pcf): 119.3659 123.6881 123.1154 119.7234
ORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf): 0 0 0 0
AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf):

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES
Maximum Dry Density, pcf 124.0 @ Optimum Moisture, % 11.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, %

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Grain Size Distribution: Atterberg Limits:
% Gravel (retained on No. 4) Liquid Limit, %
% Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) Plastic Limit, % % Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200) Plasticity Index, %
Classification:

Unified Soils Classification:

AASHTO Soils Classification:
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

DRY DENSITY, PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT, %

MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE
DRY DENSITY (pcf):

CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf):

ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
S.G. 2.7
S.G. 2.8
S.G. 2.6
Poly. (DRY DENSITY (pcf):)

OVERSIZE CORRECTED

ZERO AIR VOIDS
Poly. (S.G. 2.7)
Poly. (S.G. 2.8)
Poly. (S.G. 2.6)

MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Client: Prologis Job No.: 2361-CR
Project: 534 West Struck Avenue Lab No.: Corona
Location: Orange
Material Type: Brown Clayey Silt
Material Supplier: - Material Source: - Sample Location: B-3 @ 1 - 5 - Sampled By: DRW Date Sampled: 3/10/2020
Received By: DLI Date Received: 3/11/2020
Tested By: DLI Date Tested: 3/21/2020
Reviewed By: - Date Reviewed: - Test Procedure: ASTM D1557 Method: C Oversized Material (%): 29.9 Correction Required: yes x no MOISTURE CONTENT (%): 8.994253 7.503197 5.46539 3.396176 6.304971 5.259741 3.8312387 2.380719 DRY DENSITY (pcf): 128.021 132.3122 132.5554 128.5274
ORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf): 0 0 0 0
AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf):

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES
Maximum Dry Density, pcf 133.0 @ Optimum Moisture, % 6.5 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, %

Unified Soils Classification:

AASHTO Soils Classification:
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

DRY DENSITY, PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT, %

MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE
DRY DENSITY (pcf):

CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf):

ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
S.G. 2.7
S.G. 2.8
S.G. 2.6
Poly. (DRY DENSITY (pcf):)

OVERSIZE CORRECTED

ZERO AIR VOIDS
Poly. (S.G. 2.7)
Poly. (S.G. 2.8)
Poly. (S.G. 2.6)

Project X REPORT S200316H
Corrosion Engineering Page 1
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Results Only Soil Testing
for
534 Struck Ave, Orange
March 19, 2020
Prepared for:

Anna Scott
GeoTek, Inc.
1548 North Maple Street
Corona, CA 92880
[email protected]
Project X Job#: S200316H
Client Job or PO#: 2361-CR
Respectfully Submitted,
Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E.

Sr. Corrosion Consultant
NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592
Professional Engineer
California No. M37102
[email protected]
Project X REPORT S200316H
Corrosion Engineering Page 2
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Soil Analysis Lab Results
Client: GeoTek, Inc.

Job Name: 534 Struck Ave, Orange
Client Job Number: 2361-CR
Project X Job Number: S200316H
March 19, 2020
Method ASTM
G51
ASTM
G200
SM 4500-
S2-D
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Bore# / Description Depth pH Redox Sulfide
S
2- Nitrate
NO3
- Ammonium
NH4
+ Lithium
Li+
Sodium
Na
+ Potassium
K
+ Magnesium
Mg
2+ Calcium
Ca
2+ Flouride
F2
-- Phosphate
PO4
3-
(ft) (mg/kg) (wt%) (mg/kg) (wt%) (Ohm-cm) (Ohm-cm) (mV) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) B1 1.0-5.0 308.9 0.0309 7.6 0.0008 48,240 1,340 8.6 147.0 0.1 241.1 ND ND 112.5 ND 7.3 38.9 6.6 ND B3 1.0-5.0 109.8 0.0110 4.7 0.0005 36,850 4,020 8.5 118.0 0.6 40.1 ND ND 44.8 0.8 6.2 50.7 2.2 6.5 ASTM
G187
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Resistivity
As Rec'd | Minimum
Sulfates
SO4
2- Chlorides
Cl
-
Cations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract

APPENDIX C

INFILTRATION TEST DATA
Proposed Warehouse Facility
City of Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 2361-CR
Equation - It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = 0.02 Inches per Hour
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 72
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 20
HF = DT - DF = 19.875
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF
= 0.125

19.9375
Final Depth to Water, DF = 52.125
Test Hole Radius, r = 4
Initial Depth to Water, DO = 52
Date: 3/11/2020
Percolation Rate (Porchet Method)
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Boring No. I-1
Client: ProLogis
Project:

Project No: 2361-CR
Orange
Equation - It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client: ProLogis
Project: Orange
Project No: 2361-CR
Date: 3/11/2020
Boring No. I-2
Percolation Rate (Porchet Method)
Final Depth to Water, DF = 64.125
Test Hole Radius, r = 4
Initial Depth to Water, DO = 64

0.02 Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 84
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 20
HF = DT - DF = 19.875
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF
= 0.125

19.9375
Equation - It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client: ProLogis
Project: Orange
Project No: 2361-CR
Date: 3/11/2020
Boring No. I-3
Percolation Rate (Porchet Method)
Final Depth to Water, DF = 76.125
Test Hole Radius, r = 4
Initial Depth to Water, DO = 76

0.02 Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 96
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 20
HF = DT - DF = 19.875
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF
= 0.125

19.9375
Equation - It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client: ProLogis
Project: Orange
Project No: 2361-CR
Date: 3/11/2020
Boring No. I-4
Percolation Rate (Porchet Method)
Final Depth to Water, DF = 52.125
Test Hole Radius, r = 4
Initial Depth to Water, DO = 52

0.02 Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 72
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 20
HF = DT - DF = 19.875
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF
= 0.125

19.9375

APPENDIX D

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
Proposed Warehouse Facility
City of Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 2361-CR

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
534 West Struck Avenue Page D-1
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 2361-CR

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures.

General
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC (2016) and the guidelines presented below.

Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting.

Grading Observation and Testing

1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading.

Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified.

2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor’s overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor’s personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor’s responsibility to properly compact the fill.

3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
534 West Struck Avenue Page D-2
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 2361-CR

4. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm.

5. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill.

More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained.

6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials.

7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows:
a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved.

8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete.

Site Clearing

1. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area.

2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials.

This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers.

3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
534 West Struck Avenue Page D-3
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 2361-CR
Treatment of Existing Ground

1. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report.

2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative.

3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.

4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.

5. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.

Fill Placement

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report).

2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative.

3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates.
b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557.

4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
534 West Struck Avenue Page D-4
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 2361-CR

5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested.

6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill.

Slope Construction

1. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.

2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary.

3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades.

Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built.

4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction.

5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization.

UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors’ methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
534 West Struck Avenue Page D-5
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 2361-CR
Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that “worked” on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience.

1. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench.

2. Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is typically limited to the following uses:
a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b) as bedding in pipe zone.

The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction.

3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation.

Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade.

4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil.

5. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractors procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractors attention.

JOB SAFETY
General
Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility.

However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
534 West Struck Avenue Page D-6
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 2361-CR
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects.

1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings.

2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site.

3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits.

In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.

Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern.

Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.

A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow.

This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
534 West Struck Avenue Page D-7
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 2361-CR
50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
Traffic Direction
Vehicle
parked here Test Pit Spoil
pile
Spoil
pile
Test Pit

SIDE VIEW

PLAN VIEW

TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN
10 0 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
Slope Tests
When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing.

The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location.

Trench Safety
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill.

All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment.

Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which;

1. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back,

2. exit points or ladders are not provided,

3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or

4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
534 West Struck Avenue Page D-8
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 2361-CR
If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal.

Procedures
In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor’s representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal.

In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general.

The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment.

Preliminary WQMP for
534 W. Struck Ave Redevelopment Project
June 2024 39
Appendix F:

Hydrology Information
(Q2 – Two-year frequency storm evaluation)
Orange County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date(s) October 1986 & November 1996) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2004 Version 8.0 Rational Hydrology Study, Date: 03/29/24 File Name: EX2.roc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-YEAR EXISTING CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY
534 W. STRUCK AVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
WO 21-0201 MJS
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 4010
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 2.0
Decimal fraction of study above 2000 ft., 600M = 0.0000 English Units Used for input data
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 305.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 190.800(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 185.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 5.800(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01902 s(%)= 1.90
TC = k(0.304)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 6.619 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.927(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.891 Subarea runoff = 2.918(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 185.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 182.100(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 230.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 100.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 100.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 3.788(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 3.788(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.141(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.900(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 28.240(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.90(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.02 min.

Time of concentration = 8.64 min.

Critical depth = 0.154(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.654(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.889
Subarea runoff = 1.641(CFS) for 1.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.559(CFS) Total area = 3.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.151(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.990(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.167(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 182.100(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.000(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 227.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 5.593(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 0.500(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 5.593(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.329(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.069(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 16.443(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.07(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.83 min.

Time of concentration = 10.46 min.

Critical depth = 0.316(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.481(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.888
Subarea runoff = 2.017(CFS) for 1.900(Ac.)
Total runoff = 6.577(CFS) Total area = 5.00(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.349(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.154(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.336(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 179.300(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 272.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 7.624(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 0.500(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 7.624(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.352(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.459(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 17.608(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.46(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.84 min.

Time of concentration = 12.31 min.

Critical depth = 0.355(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.350(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.887
Subarea runoff = 2.040(CFS) for 2.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 8.617(CFS) Total area = 7.20(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.369(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.535(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.375(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 104.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 7.200(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 8.617(CFS)
Time of concentration = 12.31 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.350(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 105.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 304.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 190.800(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 185.100(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 5.700(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01875 s(%)= 1.88
TC = k(0.304)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 6.629 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.925(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.891 Subarea runoff = 1.715(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 105.000 to Point/Station 106.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 185.100(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.400(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 473.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 19.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 3.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 2.884(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 2.884(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.320(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.566(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 7.033(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.57(Ft/s)
Travel time = 3.07 min.

Time of concentration = 9.70 min.

Critical depth = 0.336(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.547(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.888
Subarea runoff = 2.272(CFS) for 1.900(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.986(CFS) Total area = 2.90(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.361(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.782(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.383(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 106.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** ______________________________________________________________________ Top of street segment elevation = 181.400(Ft.)
End of street segment elevation = 179.300(Ft.)
Length of street segment = 429.000(Ft.)
Height of curb above gutter flowline = 8.0(In.)
Width of half street (curb to crown) = 24.000(Ft.)
Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = 18.000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020
Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) = 0.020
Street flow is on [1] side(s) of the street
Distance from curb to property line = 6.000(Ft.)
Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020
Gutter width = 2.000(Ft.)
Gutter hike from flowline = 2.000(In.)
Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150
Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0150
Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0150
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 3.986(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.407(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.911(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel:

Halfstreet flow width = 13.999(Ft.)
Flow velocity = 1.91(Ft/s)
Travel time = 3.74 min. TC = 13.44 min.

Adding area flow to street
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.283(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.886
Subarea runoff = 0.000(CFS) for 0.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.986(CFS) Total area = 2.90(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Street flow at end of street = 3.986(CFS)
Half street flow at end of street = 3.986(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.407(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.911(Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards crown)= 13.999(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 104.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 2.900(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 3.986(CFS)
Time of concentration = 13.44 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.283(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 7.20 8.617 12.31 0.020 1.350
2 2.90 3.986 13.44 0.020 1.283
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 8.617) +

1.053 * 0.916 * 3.986) + = 12.459
Qmax(2) =

0.950 * 1.000 * 8.617) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 3.986) + = 12.172
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

8.617 3.986
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

12.459 12.172
Area of streams before confluence:

7.200 2.900
Effective area values after confluence:

9.855 10.100
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 12.459(CFS)
Time of concentration = 12.308 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 9.855(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 10.10(Ac.)
End of computations, total study area = 10.10 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

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

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Area averaged SCS curve number (AMC 2) = 75.0
Orange County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date(s) October 1986 & November 1996) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2004 Version 8.0 Rational Hydrology Study, Date: 04/01/24 File Name: PROP2.roc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-YEAR DEVELOPED CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY
534 W. STRUCK AVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Initial area flow distance = 291.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 187.800(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 181.800(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 6.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.02062 s(%)= 2.06
TC = k(0.304)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 6.391 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.966(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.891 Subarea runoff = 1.576(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.800(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.200(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 112.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 2.842(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 2.842(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.250(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.814(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 12.519(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.81(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.03 min.

Time of concentration = 7.42 min.

Critical depth = 0.240(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.805(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.890
Subarea runoff = 2.439(CFS) for 1.600(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.016(CFS) Total area = 2.50(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.285(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.977(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.275(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.700(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 227.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 4.016(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 4.016(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 10.97(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 17.56(In.)
Critical Depth = 9.21(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.56(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 1.06 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.48 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Time of concentration = 8.48 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.671(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.889
Subarea runoff = 3.563(CFS) for 2.600(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.579(CFS) Total area = 5.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Pipe length = 700.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 7.579(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 7.579(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 15.19(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 18.78(In.)
Critical Depth = 12.24(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.07(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 2.87 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.35 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 5.100(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 7.579(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.35 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.414(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 200.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 235.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 186.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 184.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.000(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00851 s(%)= 0.85
TC = k(0.304)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.003 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.866(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.890 Subarea runoff = 0.332(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 202.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 184.500(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 182.500(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 301.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 0.870(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 0.870(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.154(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.462(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 7.712(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.46(Ft/s)
Travel time = 3.43 min.

Time of concentration = 10.43 min.

Critical depth = 0.149(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.484(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.888
Subarea runoff = 0.985(CFS) for 0.800(Ac.)
Total runoff = 1.318(CFS) Total area = 1.00(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.180(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.622(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.177(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 178.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 496.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.318(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.318(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.20(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.76(In.)
Critical Depth = 5.82(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 2.68(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 3.09 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 13.52 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 1.000(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 1.318(CFS)
Time of concentration = 13.52 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.279(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 204.000 to Point/Station 205.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 304.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 187.800(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 182.200(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 5.600(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01842 s(%)= 1.84
TC = k(0.304)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 6.652 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.922(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.891 Subarea runoff = 1.027(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 205.000 to Point/Station 206.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 182.200(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.300(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 202.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 1.697(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 1.697(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.214(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.488(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 10.679(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.49(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.26 min.

Time of concentration = 8.92 min.

Critical depth = 0.195(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.624(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.889
Subarea runoff = 1.283(CFS) for 1.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.310(CFS) Total area = 1.60(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.240(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.607(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.221(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 206.000 to Point/Station 207.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.300(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 180.700(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 135.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 3.267(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 3.267(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.273(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.751(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 13.660(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.75(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.29 min.

Time of concentration = 10.20 min.

Critical depth = 0.254(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.503(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.888
Subarea runoff = 1.829(CFS) for 1.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.139(CFS) Total area = 3.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.299(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.857(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.279(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 207.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.100(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 6.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 4.139(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 4.139(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 8.90(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 10.51(In.)
Critical Depth = 10.30(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.63(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.02 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.22 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 3.100(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 4.139(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.22 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.502(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 1.00 1.318 13.52 0.020 1.279
2 3.10 4.139 10.22 0.020 1.502
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 1.318) +

0.849 * 1.000 * 4.139) + = 4.833
Qmax(2) =

1.177 * 0.755 * 1.318) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 4.139) + = 5.311
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

1.318 4.139
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

4.833 5.311
Area of streams before confluence:

1.000 3.100
Effective area values after confluence:

4.100 3.855
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 5.311(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.215 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 3.855(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 4.10(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Pipe length = 149.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 5.311(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 5.311(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.18(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.62(In.)
Critical Depth = 11.21(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.75(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.37 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.58 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 3.855(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 5.311(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.58 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.472(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 5.10 7.579 11.35 0.020 1.414
2 3.86 5.311 10.58 0.020 1.472
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 7.579) +

0.960 * 1.000 * 5.311) + = 12.677
Qmax(2) =

1.042 * 0.932 * 7.579) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 5.311) + = 12.671
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

8.579 6.311
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

12.677 12.671
Area of streams before confluence:

5.100 3.855
Effective area values after confluence:

8.955 8.610
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 12.677(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.352 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 8.955(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total = 8.96(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Pipe length = 23.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 12.677(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 27.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 12.677(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 17.32(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 25.90(In.)
Critical Depth = 14.83(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.71(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.08 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.43 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 8.955(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 12.677(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.43 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.408(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 209.000 to Point/Station 210.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 259.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 184.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 181.500(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00965 s(%)= 0.97
TC = k(0.304)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.100 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.851(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.890 Subarea runoff = 0.659(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 210.000 to Point/Station 211.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.500(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 180.700(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 195.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 0.907(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 0.907(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.171(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.233(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 8.575(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.23(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.64 min.

Time of concentration = 9.74 min.

Critical depth = 0.152(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 1.544(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.888
Subarea runoff = 0.438(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 1.097(CFS) Total area = 0.80(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.184(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.293(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.164(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 211.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 175.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Pipe length = 5.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.097(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.097(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 3.73(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 8.87(In.)
Critical Depth = 5.77(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 6.34(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.01 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.75 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 0.800(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 1.097(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.75 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.543(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 8.96 12.677 11.43 0.020 1.408
2 0.80 1.097 9.75 0.020 1.543
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 12.677) +

0.911 * 1.000 * 1.097) + = 13.677
Qmax(2) =

1.097 * 0.853 * 12.677) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 1.097) + = 12.957
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

12.677 1.097
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

13.677 12.957
Area of streams before confluence:

8.955 0.800
Effective area values after confluence:

9.755 8.436
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 13.677(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.434 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 9.755(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 9.76(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 213.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.810(Ft.)
Pipe length = 8.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 13.677(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 27.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 13.677(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 19.72(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 23.97(In.)
Critical Depth = 15.42(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.40(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.03 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.46 min.

End of computations, total study area = 10.00 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

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

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Area averaged SCS curve number (AMC 2) = 75.0

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
APN
375-321-01 APN 375-321-02 APN 375-321-03 APN 375-321-04 APN 375-321-05 APN
375-321-06 APN 375-321-07 APN 375-321-08 APN 375-331-05 APN 375-331-06 APN
375-291-14

WEBB N WE S
R
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))) )
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
) )))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ) ) ))) ))))) )
))
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) X X X X X X X X X X X X
APN
375-321-01 APN 375-321-02 APN 375-321-03 APN 375-321-04 APN 375-321-05 APN
375-321-06 APN 375-321-07
APN
375-291-14
)
))
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
))
)
)
))
) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))) )
))
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) EX SD EX SD EX SD

WEBB N WE S
534 W. Struck Ave
Major Site Plan No. 1166-24
Orange, Orange County, California
Prepared for:

Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC.
17777 Center Court Dr. N, Suite 100
(562) 345-9327
Prepared By:
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Original Date Prepared: April 2024
Revision Date(s):
[Stamp]
___________________________________
Joshua Lesinski, P.E.

Senior Engineer
Preliminary Drainage Study
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Table of Contents Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................1-1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................................1-1 DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED....................................................................................................................1-1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS...............................................................................................................................1-1 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................................1-2 FIG. 1 VICINITY MAP
FIG. 2 USGS TOPOGRAPHY MAP
FIG. 3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
FIG. 4 RECEIVING WATERBODIES
FIG. 5 SOILS MAP
SECTION 2 - HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................2-1 HYDROLOGY PARAMETERS .........................................................................................................................2-1 ON-SITE RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY...........................................................................................2-1 SECTION 3 - HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS............................................................................................................3-1 ON-SITE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES............................................................................................................3-1 OFF-SITE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES ..........................................................................................................3-1 SECTION 4 - CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................4-1 APPENDIX A – HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................A HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP MAP (plate A)
2-YEAR ONSITE HYDROLOGY (RATIONAL METHOD)
10-YEAR ONSITE HYDROLOGY (RATIONAL METHOD)
100-YEAR ONSITE HYDROLOGY (RATIONAL METHOD)

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY MAPS
APPENDIX B – HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................H

WSPG CALCULATIONS

INLET AND CATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C – REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................C

ONSITE PRECISE GRADING PLAN

STRUCK AVENUE EXISTING STORM DRAIN PLANS
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Section 1 Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Section 1 1-1
The purpose of this report is to document the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in support of the 534 W. Struck Ave project located in Orange, County of Orange, California. The project site is bounded by Struck Avenue to the north, Parker Street to the west, W. Collins Avenue to the south, and the Santa Fe Railroad to the east. The project proposes to build an industrial building on approximately

10.0 acres. This report will summarize the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that were conducted in order to determine the necessary drainage improvements required to provide flood protection for the proposed building and safely convey the runoff through the site.

The scope of this report will include the following:
• Determine the peak 100-year and 10-year flow rates for the developed condition using the County of Orange Rational Method.
• Determine the required storm drain facilities, alignment, and sizes required to flood protect the project site.
• Preparation of a preliminary report summarizing the hydrology and hydraulic results.

As previously described, the project is proposing an industrial building on approximately 10.0 acres of previously developed industrial land. Existing elevations across the site vary from 190 to 180 (NAVD88 datum). The site currently slopes down at approximately 1% grade to the west. The existing drainage pattern for the site and the general area is characterized by draining south to north and east to west. For the majority of the existing site, flows drain to a ribbon gutter located on the western side of the project site. The ribbon gutter conveys flows offsite to Struck Avenue without mitigation or treatment. The eastern portion of the site, including the existing railroad, drains from south to north along an existing curb and gutter. This includes the existing railroad facility along the eastern boundary of the project. All flows from this area drain north to Struck Avenue as well. Flows exiting the site are picked up in a set of catch basins located at the intersection of Struck Avenue and N. Batavia Street. At this location, flows are conveyed into the existing 36” storm drain to Collins Channel and ultimately the Santa Ana River. All downstream facilities are stabilized and developed.

In the proposed condition, the site shall perpetuate the existing drainage pattern by draining flows from the south to the north, to the northwest corner. The drainage facilities onsite include curb and gutters, ribbon gutters, and storm drain pipes. Ribbon gutters are proposed along the trailer parking on both the south and east sides of the proposed building. Multiple inlets along the western and eastern ribbon gutter are proposed to collect flows and deposit them into the onsite storm drain facilities. All onsite runoff that is captured will be directed towards a proposed manhole located in the northwest corner of the site. This outlet structure is designed to divert the minimum water quality flow rate towards proposed Modular Wetlands System (MWS) vaults in order to treat for water quality requirements.

According to the “Basemap of Drainage Facilities in Orange County”, the existing storm drain adjacent to the project site in Struck Avenue is a 33” RCP. This pipe transitions into a 36” RCP just west of the site where a lateral connection exists to convey flows from the City Corporation Yard. The 36” RCP continues to the intersection of Batavia Avenue. At this location, a set of catch basins pick up the street flow from Struck Avenue and the adjacent building sites, including the existing drainage of the Struck Redevelopment Project. These storms drain lines were sized to accommodate the Q10 peak flow based upon review of the plans for the existing storm drain. It was assumed that the facilities were designed to accept flows from the surrounding parcels in their developed condition. The proposed project site will Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Section 1 Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Section 1 1-2
also drain onto Struck Avenue similar to the existing condition and eventually discharge into the existing catch basins near the intersection of Batavia Avenue.

HYDROLOGY
Hydrologic calculations were performed in accordance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual, dated October 1986. The Rational Method was utilized in determining peak flow rates.

The hydrological parameters, including rainfall values and soil types were derived from the Orange County Hydrology Manual. This information has been included in Section 2.

Rational Method calculations were performed using a computer program developed by CivilDesign Corporation and Joseph E. Bonadiman and Associates Inc. The computer program is commonly referred to as CivilD which incorporates the hydrological parameters outlined in the Orange County Hydrology Manual. The program uses the AMC II values as a reference. Calculations are done in accordance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual.

The Rational Method was used to determine the peak flow rates to size and design the drainage facilities needed to convey onsite flows through the site to the proposed basin. The flow rates were computed by generating a hydrologic “link-node” model in which the overall area is divided into separate drainage sub-areas, each tributary to a concentration point (node) determined by the proposed layout and grading.

HYDRAULICS
Water quality calculations were performed using formulas and worksheets included with the Orange County Water Quality Technical Guidance Document. Final calculations and additional details can be found in the Final WQMP.

Hydraulic calculations to determine the required pipe sizes of proposed onsite storm drain facilities have been included in Appendix B.

Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Section 1 Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Section 1
20-0017 W. Struck Ave Redevelopment
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Source: Orange County GIS, 2019
H:\2020\20-0017\GIS\Pro\Struck Ave Hyd Maps.aprx Map Created 05 May 2020; alis Prado
Lake Basin
Santa Ana River
Pacific
Ocean
IRVINE

UNINCORPORATED

ANAHEIM
ORANGE

SANTA ANA
BREA

FULLERTON
TUSTIN

YORBA LINDA

NEWPORT BEACH

GARDEN GROVE

LA HABRA

HUNTINGTON BEACH

COSTA MESA LAKE FOREST

MISSION VIEJO

BUENA PARK

WESTMINSTER

CYPRESS

PLACENTIA

ALISO VIEJO

FOUNTAIN VALLEY

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

LAGUNA HILLS

STANTON

LAGUNA WOODS

LA PALMA

VILLA PARK

LAGUNA BEACH

LAGUNA NIGUEL
CORONA
NORCO

EASTVALE

JURUPA VALLEY
·|þ}241
·|þ}39
·|þ}91
·|þ}1
·|þ}73
·|þ}55
·|þ}22
·|þ}57 ·|þ}90
·|þ}261
·|þ}142
·|þ}133
·|þ}55
§¨¦
405
·|þ}83
·|þ}60
·|þ}71 ·|þ}142
·|þ}91
·|þ}60
§¨¦
10 §¨¦
15 §¨¦
15 £¤66
·|þ}60
·|þ}57
·|þ}19
·|þ}72
·|þ}39
·|þ}91
·|þ}71
·|þ}71
·|þ}71
§¨¦
10 §¨¦
605
§¨¦
5 Map
Area
0 2 4 6
Miles
I

PROJECT
SITE
Figure 2 - USGS Map
LEGEND
Project Site
H:\2020\20-0017\GIS\Pro\Struck Ave Hyd Maps.aprx; Map created 05 May 2020; alis 20-0017 W. Struck Ave Redevelopment
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
I
Feet
Sources: ESRI / USGS 7.5min Quad
DRGs: ANAHEIM / ORANGE
Figure 3 - Aerial Map Sources: ESRI / Orange County GIS, 2019; USDA NAIP, 2016.

COLLINS

KATELLA

BATAVIASTRUCK
LEMON
PARKER

NICHOLAS
OLIVE

CYPRESS
ALLEY
WILSON
HOOVER
BRENNA

BARKLEY
ALLEY

BATAVIA
LEMON
PARKER
ALLEY
HOOVER
LEMON
ALLEY

BARKLEY
LEGEND
Project Site
H:\2020\20-0017\GIS\Pro\Struck Ave Hyd Maps.aprx; Map created 05 May 2020 20-0017 W. Struck Ave Redevelopment
0 I
500 1,000 1,500
Feet
20-0017 W. Struck Ave Redevelopment
Sources: USGS DLG; USGS 30m DEM Figure 4 – Receiving Waterbodies H:\2020\20-0017\GIS\Pro\Struck Ave Hyd Maps.aprx Map Created 05 May 2020; alis Prado
Lake Basin
Lake
Mathews
Riverside Co Orange Co.

San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.

Santa Ana River
Temescal Wash
Pacific
Ocean

UNINCORPORATED
IRVINE

ANAHEIM
ORANGE

SANTA ANA
BREA

FULLERTON
TUSTIN

YORBA LINDA

NEWPORT BEACH

HUNTINGTON BEACH

COSTA MESA

MISSION VIEJO

LAKE FOREST

GARDEN GROVE

SEAL BEACH

LAGUNA NIGUEL

BUENA PARK

SAN CLEMENTE

LA HABRA

WESTMINSTER

CYPRESS

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

PLACENTIA

LAGUNA BEACH

ALISO VIEJO

DANA POINT

FOUNTAIN VALLEY

LAGUNA HILLS

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA

LOS ALAMITOSSTANTON

LAGUNA WOODS

LA PALMA

VILLA PARK
CORONA

RIVERSIDE

JURUPA VALLEY
NORCO

EASTVALE

ONTARIO CITY

CHINO CITY

CHINO HILLS CITY

FONTANA CITY

UPLAND CITYRANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY

RIALTO CITY

MONTCLAIR CITY

SAN BERNARDINO CITY

SAN BERNARDINO CITY
·|þ}241
·|þ}39
·|þ}91
·|þ}73
·|þ}22
·|þ}55
·|þ}90
·|þ}74
·|þ}261
·|þ}142
·|þ}55
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
605
·|þ}
·|þ}83
60 ·|þ}71
·|þ}91
·|þ}74
§¨¦
10 §¨¦
15 §¨¦
15 ·|þ}60
·|þ}19
·|þ}39
·|þ}57
·|þ}91
·|þ}72
·|þ}42
·|þ}210
·|þ}1
·|þ}71
·|þ}110
·|þ}134
§¨¦ ·|þ}71
10 §¨¦
605
§¨¦
210
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
105
0 2 4 6 8
Miles
I

PROJECT
SITE
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Section 2 Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Section 4 2-1
The Orange County Hydrology Manual was used to determine several of the hydrological parameters.

The following rainfall depths were utilized in the hydrology analyses:

Based on the Plate A (Hydrologic Classification of Soils – Orange County, California) in the Orange County Hydrology Manual, the project site is classified as soil type D. The soils map is included in Appendix A.

The cover type was determined based on the existing land cover and proposed land use of the site. In this case, both the existing and developed conditions used “Commercial” land cover since it produces the highest runoff coefficient and is in line with the industrial type of land use. The table below summarizes the runoff index values from Figure C-3 of the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the imperviousness of the site for each condition:

Table 2 – Cover Type
Cover
Type
Soil
Group
A
Soil
Group
B
Soil
Group
C
Soil
Group
D
Percentage
of
Impervious
Cover
Existing Residential or
Commercial
N/A N/A N/A 100% 84.1%
Proposed Residential or
Commercial
N/A N/A N/A 100% 83.9%
The rational method was used to determine peak flow rates in order to adequately size the proposed subsurface storm drains and associated inlets used to convey on-site flows to the proposed basins.

In the existing condition, the rational method was broken up into two different watercourses. Both watercourses begin at the southeastern corner of the project site. One watercourse drains to the west where flows are picked up in a ribbon gutter and conveyed north. The flows drain offsite through the existing driveway without any mitigation or treatment. The other watercourse drains north along the eastern portion of the site. This includes the existing railroad facilities. An existing curb and gutter drain the flows offsite through another existing driveway without treatment or mitigation. Both watercourses Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Section 2 Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Section 4 2-2
drain west along Struck Avenue before entering a set of catch basins near the intersection of Struck Avenue and Batavia Street.

In the proposed condition, the rational method was broken up based on the location of proposed inlets throughout the site. Most subareas consist of a combination of parking stalls, concrete walkways, drive aisles, portions of the proposed building, and/or landscape areas. All subareas within the rational method calculations were considered as commercial subarea types. All onsite runoff that is captured will be directed towards the proposed outlet structure in the northwestern corner of the site.

The onsite rational method consists of two main watercourses. The first watercourse consists of the areas east and north of the proposed building. A proposed ribbon gutter conveys the eastern flows northwards to be captured in a series of drainage inlets. A proposed ribbon gutter near the northern boundary of the site convey flows westward to be captured by a catch basin. All captured flows in these areas are conveyed to the northwest corner of the site via underground storm drain pipes towards a proposed outlet structure. The second watercourse consists of the area located south and west of the proposed building. Flows near the southern boundary of the site are conveyed west via a proposed ribbon gutter towards a drainage inlet. Flows west of the proposed building are conveyed north via proposed curb and gutter and captured in a proposed drainage inlet. Roof drain (per architectural plans) locations will be provided in the final engineering stage. The proposed storm drain conveys these collected flows north to combine with the flows of the first watercourse before discharging into the proposed outlet structure. The following table summarizes the rational method results at key points:

Table 3 – Rational Method Results
Point of Interest
10-Year
Peak Flow Rate
(cfs)
100-Year
Peak Flow Rate
(cfs)
Node 203 - Flow to Line A from western/southern portions of site 9.9 15.4 Node 103 - Flow to Line B from eastern portions of site 13.9 21.6 Node 208 - Flow to Line A from northern portions of site 2.0 3.1 Node 212 - Total flow generated onsite 25.4 39.4
The rational method output files and hydrology map have been included in Appendix A.

All captured flows will be directed towards a proposed outlet structure near the northwestern corner of the site. Flows are expected to pond up within the outlet structure before spilling out of the structure and into a concrete-lined u-channel. The u-channel conveys the onsite flows north towards a proposed parkway culvert (type B) that will discharge all flows underneath the sidewalk and onto Struck Avenue.

Within the manhole, a 12” storm drain lateral is proposed to divert approximately 2.0 cfs of flows east towards the proposed treatment vaults for water quality treatment. Flows that have been treated by the proposed MWS vaults are then directed towards a proposed pump located northeast of the treatment vaults. The pump will discharge the water quality flows into a second concrete-lined u-channel. From there, treated flows are directed towards a second proposed parkway culvert (type B) that will discharge treated flows underneath the sidewalk and onto Struck Avenue.

Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Section 2 Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Section 4 2-3
The following table summarizes the existing and developed conditions:

Table 4 – Rational Method Analysis Results
Storm Event
Existing Condition Proposed Condition
Q (cfs) Tc (min) Q (cfs) Tc (min)
2-Year 12.5 12.31 13.7 11.46
10-Year 23.3 11.50 25.4 10.75
100-Year 36.5 10.97 39.4 10.35
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Section 3 Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Section 4 3-1
The project proposes to construct private storm drain facilities throughout the project site to convey flows towards the proposed outlet structure near the northwest corner of the site. The storm drain lines will collect flows within the gutters (curb and gutter or ribbon gutter). The onsite proposed storm drain lines will convey the 10-year peak flow rates. The starting water surface elevation for the storm drain shall be set at the top of the outlet structure where flows are proposed to spill out of before discharging onto Struck Avenue. The outlet structure has been designed to bypass approximately 2.0 cfs towards the MWS vaults for compliance with water quality requirements. Treated flows are proposed to enter a pump in order to be discharged off the site and onto Struck Avenue. The proposed outlet structure receives approximately 25.4 cfs of onsite flows from the proposed Line A and Line B.

Line-A
Line A is a 18”-30” storm drain proposed near the northwestern portion of the proposed site. The proposed line will collect flows generated by the areas west of the proposed building that are conveyed along the ribbon gutter. A lateral is also provided near the end of the line to allow for flows within the auto parking stalls in the northwest corner of the site to be collected. Line A confluences with Line B before discharging into the proposed outlet structure. Line A conveys the total site runoff of approximately 25.4 cfs of runoff generated onsite.

The hydraulic model for Line A will be included in Appendix B during final engineering.

Line-B
Line B is a 24”-30” storm drain proposed along the eastern and northern portion of the proposed site.

Line B conveys approximately 21.6 cfs runoff when it confluences with Line A. The proposed line will collect flows draining through the ribbon gutter along the eastern trailer parking stalls and the eastern auto parking areas before discharging into Line A. Proposed laterals along Line B are proposed at various drainage inlets.

The hydraulic model for Line B will be included in Appendix B during final engineering.

According to the “Basemap of Drainage Facilities in Orange County”, the existing storm drain adjacent to the project site in Struck Avenue is a 33” RCP. This pipe transitions into a 36” RCP just west of the site where a lateral connection exists to convey flows from the City Corporation Yard. The 36” RCP continues to the intersection of Batavia Avenue. At this location, a set of catch basins pick up the street flow from Struck Avenue and the adjacent building sites, including the existing drainage of the Struck Redevelopment Project. These storm drain lines were sized to accommodate the Q10 peak flow based upon review of the plans for the existing storm drain. It was assumed that the facilities were designed to accept flows from the surrounding parcels in their developed condition. At this time, the existing 33” RCP is not sized to accept flows from the Struck Redevelopment project, therefore no connection is being proposed.

Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Section 5 Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Section 4 4-1
Based on the analyses and results of this report, the following conclusions were derived from the hydrology and hydraulic results:
• The proposed drainage improvements will adequately convey flows to the basin and provide flood protection for the 100-year storm event.
• The proposed basins will provide adequate water quality treatment. • The proposed project will not impact flooding condition to upstream or downstream properties.

Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial CTR 6 LLC Appendix A – Hydrologic Analysis Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix A
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix B – Basin Analysis Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix C

PROJECT SITE
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix B – Basin Analysis Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix D
Orange County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date(s) October 1986 & November 1996) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2004 Version 8.0 Rational Hydrology Study, Date: 03/29/24 File Name: EX2.roc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-YEAR EXISTING CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY
534 W. STRUCK AVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Time of concentration = 8.64 min.

Time of concentration = 10.46 min.

Time of concentration = 12.31 min.

Time of concentration = 9.70 min.

Halfstreet flow width = 13.999(Ft.)
Flow velocity = 1.91(Ft/s)
Travel time = 3.74 min. TC = 13.44 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.283(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 7.20 8.617 12.31 0.020 1.350
2 2.90 3.986 13.44 0.020 1.283
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 8.617) +

1.053 * 0.916 * 3.986) + = 12.459
Qmax(2) =

0.950 * 1.000 * 8.617) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 3.986) + = 12.172
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

8.617 3.986
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

12.459 12.172
Area of streams before confluence:

7.200 2.900
Effective area values after confluence:

9.855 10.100
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 12.459(CFS)
Time of concentration = 12.308 min.

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

Time of concentration = 7.42 min.

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 5.100(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 7.579(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.35 min.

Time of concentration = 10.43 min.

Time of concentration = 8.92 min.

Time of concentration = 10.20 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.502(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 1.00 1.318 13.52 0.020 1.279
2 3.10 4.139 10.22 0.020 1.502
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 1.318) +

0.849 * 1.000 * 4.139) + = 4.833
Qmax(2) =

1.177 * 0.755 * 1.318) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 4.139) + = 5.311
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

1.318 4.139
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

4.833 5.311
Area of streams before confluence:

1.000 3.100
Effective area values after confluence:

4.100 3.855
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 5.311(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.215 min.

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 3.855(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 5.311(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.58 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.472(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 5.10 7.579 11.35 0.020 1.414
2 3.86 5.311 10.58 0.020 1.472
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 7.579) +

0.960 * 1.000 * 5.311) + = 12.677
Qmax(2) =

1.042 * 0.932 * 7.579) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 5.311) + = 12.671
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

8.579 6.311
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

12.677 12.671
Area of streams before confluence:

5.100 3.855
Effective area values after confluence:

8.955 8.610
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 12.677(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.352 min.

Time of concentration = 9.74 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.543(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 8.96 12.677 11.43 0.020 1.408
2 0.80 1.097 9.75 0.020 1.543
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 12.677) +

0.911 * 1.000 * 1.097) + = 13.677
Qmax(2) =

1.097 * 0.853 * 12.677) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 1.097) + = 12.957
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

12.677 1.097
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

13.677 12.957
Area of streams before confluence:

8.955 0.800
Effective area values after confluence:

9.755 8.436
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 13.677(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.434 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.46 min.

End of computations, total study area = 10.00 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

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

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Area averaged SCS curve number (AMC 2) = 75.0
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix B – Basin Analysis Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix E
Orange County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date(s) October 1986 & November 1996) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2004 Version 8.0 Rational Hydrology Study, Date: 03/29/24 File Name: EX10.roc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10-YEAR EXISTING CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY
534 W. STRUCK AVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
WO 21-0201 MJS
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 4010
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 10.0
Decimal fraction of study above 2000 ft., 600M = 0.0000 English Units Used for input data
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 3.457(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895 Subarea runoff = 5.258(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 185.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 182.100(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 230.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 100.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 100.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 6.860(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 6.860(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.176(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.204(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 35.283(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.20(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.74 min.

Time of concentration = 8.36 min.

Critical depth = 0.196(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 3.024(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894
Subarea runoff = 3.124(CFS) for 1.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 8.382(CFS) Total area = 3.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.190(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.317(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.213(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 182.100(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.000(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 227.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 10.354(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 0.500(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 10.354(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.414(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.413(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 20.714(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.41(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.57 min.

Time of concentration = 9.93 min.

Critical depth = 0.402(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 2.741(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.893
Subarea runoff = 3.861(CFS) for 1.900(Ac.)
Total runoff = 12.243(CFS) Total area = 5.00(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.441(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.516(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.430(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 179.300(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 272.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 14.263(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 0.500(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 14.263(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.445(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.876(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 22.270(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.88(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.58 min.

Time of concentration = 11.50 min.

Critical depth = 0.457(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 2.519(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.893
Subarea runoff = 3.948(CFS) for 2.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 16.191(CFS) Total area = 7.20(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.467(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.969(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.480(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 104.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 7.200(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 16.191(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.50 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.519(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 105.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 3.454(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895 Subarea runoff = 3.090(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 105.000 to Point/Station 106.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 185.100(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.400(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 473.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 19.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 3.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 5.266(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 5.266(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.401(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.983(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 8.814(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.98(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.64 min.

Time of concentration = 9.27 min.

Critical depth = 0.426(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 2.850(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894
Subarea runoff = 4.295(CFS) for 1.900(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.386(CFS) Total area = 2.90(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.455(Ft.), Average velocity = 3.246(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.488(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 106.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** ______________________________________________________________________ Top of street segment elevation = 181.400(Ft.)
End of street segment elevation = 179.300(Ft.)
Length of street segment = 429.000(Ft.)
Height of curb above gutter flowline = 8.0(In.)
Width of half street (curb to crown) = 24.000(Ft.)
Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = 18.000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020
Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) = 0.020
Street flow is on [1] side(s) of the street
Distance from curb to property line = 6.000(Ft.)
Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020
Gutter width = 2.000(Ft.)
Gutter hike from flowline = 2.000(In.)
Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150
Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0150
Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0150
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 7.386(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.485(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.218(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel:

Halfstreet flow width = 17.897(Ft.)
Flow velocity = 2.22(Ft/s)
Travel time = 3.22 min. TC = 12.50 min.

Adding area flow to street
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 2.402(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.893
Subarea runoff = 0.000(CFS) for 0.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.386(CFS) Total area = 2.90(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Street flow at end of street = 7.386(CFS)
Half street flow at end of street = 7.386(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.485(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.218(Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards crown)= 17.897(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 104.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 2.900(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 7.386(CFS)
Time of concentration = 12.50 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.402(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 7.20 16.191 11.50 0.020 2.519
2 2.90 7.386 12.50 0.020 2.402
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 16.191) +

1.049 * 0.921 * 7.386) + = 23.323
Qmax(2) =

0.953 * 1.000 * 16.191) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 7.386) + = 22.820
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

16.191 7.386
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

23.323 22.820
Area of streams before confluence:

7.200 2.900
Effective area values after confluence:

9.869 10.100
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 23.323(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.502 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 9.869(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 10.10(Ac.)
End of computations, total study area = 10.10 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

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

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Area averaged SCS curve number (AMC 2) = 75.0
Orange County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date(s) October 1986 & November 1996) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2004 Version 8.0 Rational Hydrology Study, Date: 04/01/24 File Name: PROP10.roc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10-YEAR DEVELOPED CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY
534 W. STRUCK AVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
WO 21-0201 MJS
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 4010
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 10.0
Decimal fraction of study above 2000 ft., 600M = 0.0000 English Units Used for input data
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 3.527(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895 Subarea runoff = 2.841(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.800(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.200(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 112.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 5.117(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 5.117(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.312(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.101(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 15.607(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.10(Ft/s)
Travel time = 0.89 min.

Time of concentration = 7.28 min.

Critical depth = 0.305(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 3.273(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895
Subarea runoff = 4.479(CFS) for 1.600(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.320(CFS) Total area = 2.50(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.357(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.297(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.352(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.700(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 227.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 7.320(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 7.320(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 14.63(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 19.31(In.)
Critical Depth = 12.03(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.09(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.92 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.20 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Time of concentration = 8.20 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.057(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894
Subarea runoff = 6.618(CFS) for 2.600(Ac.)
Total runoff = 13.938(CFS) Total area = 5.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Pipe length = 700.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 13.938(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 27.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 13.938(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 18.63(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 24.97(In.)
Critical Depth = 15.59(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.76(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 2.45 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.65 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 5.100(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 13.938(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.65 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.632(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 200.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 3.347(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895 Subarea runoff = 0.599(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 202.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 184.500(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 182.500(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 301.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 1.557(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 1.557(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.192(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.692(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 9.595(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.69(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.97 min.

Time of concentration = 9.97 min.

Critical depth = 0.189(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 2.734(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.893
Subarea runoff = 1.844(CFS) for 0.800(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.442(CFS) Total area = 1.00(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.227(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.893(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.227(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 178.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 496.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.442(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.442(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.14(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.64(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.51(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.12(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 2.65 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 12.62 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 1.000(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 2.442(CFS)
Time of concentration = 12.62 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.388(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 204.000 to Point/Station 205.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 3.447(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895 Subarea runoff = 1.851(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 205.000 to Point/Station 206.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 182.200(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.300(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 202.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 3.098(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 3.098(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.268(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.729(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 13.384(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.73(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.95 min.

Time of concentration = 8.60 min.

Critical depth = 0.248(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 2.975(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894
Subarea runoff = 2.405(CFS) for 1.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.256(CFS) Total area = 1.60(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.302(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.872(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.283(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 206.000 to Point/Station 207.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.300(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 180.700(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 135.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 6.009(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 6.009(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.343(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.039(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 17.167(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.04(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.10 min.

Time of concentration = 9.70 min.

Critical depth = 0.324(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 2.777(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894
Subarea runoff = 3.435(CFS) for 1.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.691(CFS) Total area = 3.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.377(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.169(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.359(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 207.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.100(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 6.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 7.691(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 7.691(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 11.36(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 12.86(In.)
Critical Depth = 13.20(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.71(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.01 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.72 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 3.100(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 7.691(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.72 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.774(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 1.00 2.442 12.62 0.020 2.388
2 3.10 7.691 9.72 0.020 2.774
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 2.442) +

0.860 * 1.000 * 7.691) + = 9.055
Qmax(2) =

1.163 * 0.770 * 2.442) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 7.691) + = 9.878
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

2.442 7.691
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

9.055 9.878
Area of streams before confluence:

1.000 3.100
Effective area values after confluence:

4.100 3.870
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 9.878(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.715 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 3.870(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 4.10(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Pipe length = 149.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 9.878(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 9.878(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 12.09(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 16.91(In.)
Critical Depth = 14.55(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.83(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.32 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.03 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 3.870(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 9.878(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.03 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.724(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 5.10 13.938 10.65 0.020 2.632
2 3.87 9.878 10.03 0.020 2.724
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 13.938) +

0.966 * 1.000 * 9.878) + = 23.479
Qmax(2) =

1.035 * 0.942 * 13.938) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 9.878) + = 23.466
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

14.938 10.878
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

23.479 23.466
Area of streams before confluence:

5.100 3.870
Effective area values after confluence:

8.970 8.673
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 23.479(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.654 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 8.970(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total = 8.97(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Pipe length = 23.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 23.479(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 33.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 23.479(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 22.42(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 30.80(In.)
Critical Depth = 19.23(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.46(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.07 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.72 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 8.970(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 23.479(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.72 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.622(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 209.000 to Point/Station 210.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 3.321(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895 Subarea runoff = 1.188(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 210.000 to Point/Station 211.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.500(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 180.700(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 195.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 1.652(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 1.652(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.215(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.433(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 10.737(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.43(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.27 min.

Time of concentration = 9.37 min.

Critical depth = 0.193(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 2.833(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.894
Subarea runoff = 0.837(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.025(CFS) Total area = 0.80(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.232(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.508(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.210(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 211.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 175.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Pipe length = 5.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.025(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.025(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 5.36(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 8.83(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.74(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.39(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.01 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.38 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 0.800(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 2.025(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.38 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.831(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 8.97 23.479 10.72 0.020 2.622
2 0.80 2.025 9.38 0.020 2.831
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 23.479) +

0.926 * 1.000 * 2.025) + = 25.353
Qmax(2) =

1.080 * 0.875 * 23.479) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 2.025) + = 24.211
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

23.479 2.025
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

25.353 24.211
Area of streams before confluence:

8.970 0.800
Effective area values after confluence:

9.770 8.645
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 25.353(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.724 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 9.770(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 9.77(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 213.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.810(Ft.)
Pipe length = 8.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 25.353(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 33.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 25.353(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 25.90(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 27.12(In.)
Critical Depth = 20.03(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.07(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.03 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.75 min.

End of computations, total study area = 10.00 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

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

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Area averaged SCS curve number (AMC 2) = 75.0
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix B – Basin Analysis Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix F
Orange County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date(s) October 1986 & November 1996) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2004 Version 8.0 Rational Hydrology Study, Date: 03/29/24 File Name: EX100.roc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100-YEAR EXISTING CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY
534 W. STRUCK AVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
WO 21-0201 MJS
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 4010
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0
Decimal fraction of study above 2000 ft., 600M = 0.0000 English Units Used for input data
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 5.269(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.897 Subarea runoff = 8.031(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 185.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 182.100(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 230.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 100.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 100.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 10.525(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 10.525(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.207(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.453(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 41.426(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.45(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.56 min.

Time of concentration = 8.18 min.

Critical depth = 0.232(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.666(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 4.932(CFS) for 1.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 12.963(CFS) Total area = 3.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.224(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.584(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.254(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 182.100(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.000(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 227.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 16.054(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 0.500(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 16.054(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.488(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.693(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 24.417(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.69(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.41 min.

Time of concentration = 9.59 min.

Critical depth = 0.480(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.261(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 6.122(CFS) for 1.900(Ac.)
Total runoff = 19.085(CFS) Total area = 5.00(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.517(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.858(Ft/s) !!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations ERROR - Channel depth exceeds maximum allowable depth
Critical depth = 0.512(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 179.300(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 272.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 22.293(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 0.500(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 22.293(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.522(Ft.), Average velocity = 3.283(Ft/s) !!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations Channel flow top width = 25.000(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 3.28(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.38 min.

Time of concentration = 10.97 min.

Critical depth = 0.543(Ft.)
ERROR - Channel depth exceeds maximum allowable depth
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 3.945(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895
Subarea runoff = 6.348(CFS) for 2.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 25.433(CFS) Total area = 7.20(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.544(Ft.), Average velocity = 3.461(Ft/s) !!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations ERROR - Channel depth exceeds maximum allowable depth
Critical depth = 0.566(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 104.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 7.200(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 25.433(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.97 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.945(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 105.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 5.264(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.897 Subarea runoff = 4.720(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.000(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 105.000 to Point/Station 106.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 185.100(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.400(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 473.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 19.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 3.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 8.138(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 8.138(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.472(Ft.), Average velocity = 3.326(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 10.377(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 3.33(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.37 min.

Time of concentration = 9.00 min.

Critical depth = 0.508(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.418(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 6.760(CFS) for 1.900(Ac.)
Total runoff = 11.479(CFS) Total area = 2.90(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.537(Ft.), Average velocity = 3.624(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.582(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 106.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** ______________________________________________________________________ Top of street segment elevation = 181.400(Ft.)
End of street segment elevation = 179.300(Ft.)
Length of street segment = 429.000(Ft.)
Height of curb above gutter flowline = 8.0(In.)
Width of half street (curb to crown) = 24.000(Ft.)
Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = 18.000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020
Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) = 0.020
Street flow is on [1] side(s) of the street
Distance from curb to property line = 6.000(Ft.)
Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020
Gutter width = 2.000(Ft.)
Gutter hike from flowline = 2.000(In.)
Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150
Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0150
Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0150
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 11.479(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.552(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.471(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel:

Halfstreet flow width = 21.257(Ft.)
Flow velocity = 2.47(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.89 min. TC = 11.89 min.

Adding area flow to street
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 3.766(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.895
Subarea runoff = 0.000(CFS) for 0.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 11.479(CFS) Total area = 2.90(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Street flow at end of street = 11.479(CFS)
Half street flow at end of street = 11.479(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.552(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.471(Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards crown)= 21.257(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 104.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 2.900(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 11.479(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.89 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.766(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 7.20 25.433 10.97 0.020 3.945
2 2.90 11.479 11.89 0.020 3.766
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 25.433) +

1.048 * 0.922 * 11.479) + = 36.525
Qmax(2) =

0.954 * 1.000 * 25.433) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 11.479) + = 35.753
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

25.433 11.479
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

36.525 35.753
Area of streams before confluence:

7.200 2.900
Effective area values after confluence:

9.874 10.100
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 36.525(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.967 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 9.874(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 10.10(Ac.)
End of computations, total study area = 10.10 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

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

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Area averaged SCS curve number (AMC 2) = 75.0
Orange County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date(s) October 1986 & November 1996) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2004 Version 8.0 Rational Hydrology Study, Date: 04/01/24 File Name: PROP100.roc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100-YEAR DEVELOPED CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY
534 W. STRUCK AVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
WO 21-0201 MJS
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 4010
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0
Decimal fraction of study above 2000 ft., 600M = 0.0000 English Units Used for input data
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 5.375(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.897 Subarea runoff = 4.338(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.900(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.800(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.200(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 112.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 7.825(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 7.825(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.366(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.336(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 18.302(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.34(Ft/s)
Travel time = 0.80 min.

Time of concentration = 7.19 min.

Critical depth = 0.359(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 5.025(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 6.922(CFS) for 1.600(Ac.)
Total runoff = 11.260(CFS) Total area = 2.50(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.420(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.559(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.418(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.700(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 227.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 11.260(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 24.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 11.260(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 17.74(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 21.08(In.)
Critical Depth = 14.46(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.52(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.84 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.03 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 103.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Time of concentration = 8.03 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.717(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 10.301(CFS) for 2.600(Ac.)
Total runoff = 21.561(CFS) Total area = 5.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Pipe length = 700.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 21.561(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 30.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 21.561(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 23.57(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 24.62(In.)
Critical Depth = 18.94(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.21(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 2.24 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.27 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 5.100(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 21.561(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.27 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.097(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 200.000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 5.101(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896 Subarea runoff = 0.915(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 202.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 184.500(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 182.500(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 301.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 2.383(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 2.383(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.225(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.881(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 11.254(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.88(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.67 min.

Time of concentration = 9.67 min.

Critical depth = 0.225(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.240(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 2.883(CFS) for 0.800(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.798(CFS) Total area = 1.00(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.268(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.114(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.270(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 178.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 496.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 3.798(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 3.798(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 10.65(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 17.70(In.)
Critical Depth = 8.93(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.49(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 2.37 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 12.04 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 1.000(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 3.798(CFS)
Time of concentration = 12.04 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.740(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 204.000 to Point/Station 205.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 5.254(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.897 Subarea runoff = 2.826(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.600(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 205.000 to Point/Station 206.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 182.200(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 181.300(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 202.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 4.739(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 4.739(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.314(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.923(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 15.697(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.92(Ft/s)
Travel time = 1.75 min.

Time of concentration = 8.40 min.

Critical depth = 0.295(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.595(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 3.762(CFS) for 1.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 6.588(CFS) Total area = 1.60(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.355(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.088(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.336(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 206.000 to Point/Station 207.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.300(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 180.700(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 135.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 9.306(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 9.306(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.405(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.275(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 20.227(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 2.27(Ft/s)
Travel time = 0.99 min.

Time of concentration = 9.39 min.

Critical depth = 0.387(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.311(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 5.385(CFS) for 1.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 11.973(CFS) Total area = 3.10(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.445(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.422(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.426(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 207.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.100(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 6.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 11.973(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 11.973(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 13.14(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 15.98(In.)
Critical Depth = 15.76(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 8.66(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.01 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.40 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 3.100(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 11.973(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.40 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.308(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 1.00 3.798 12.04 0.020 3.740
2 3.10 11.973 9.40 0.020 4.308
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 3.798) +

0.867 * 1.000 * 11.973) + = 14.183
Qmax(2) =

1.153 * 0.781 * 3.798) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 11.973) + = 15.393
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

3.798 11.973
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

14.183 15.393
Area of streams before confluence:

1.000 3.100
Effective area values after confluence:

4.100 3.881
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 15.393(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.403 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 3.881(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 4.10(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 177.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Pipe length = 149.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 15.393(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 15.393(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 14.45(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 19.46(In.)
Critical Depth = 17.41(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 8.72(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.28 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.69 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 107.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 3.881(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 15.393(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.69 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.235(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 5.10 21.561 10.27 0.020 4.097
2 3.88 15.393 9.69 0.020 4.235
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 21.561) +

0.967 * 1.000 * 15.393) + = 36.450
Qmax(2) =

1.034 * 0.944 * 21.561) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 15.393) + = 36.432
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

22.561 16.393
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

36.450 36.432
Area of streams before confluence:

5.100 3.881
Effective area values after confluence:

8.981 8.694
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 36.450(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.265 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 8.981(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total = 8.98(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 107.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 174.900(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Pipe length = 23.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 36.450(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 36.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 36.450(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 29.20(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 28.18(In.)
Critical Depth = 23.54(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.93(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.33 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1
Stream flow area = 8.981(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 36.450(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.33 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.083(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 209.000 to Point/Station 210.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Initial subarea data:

Rainfall intensity = 5.061(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896 Subarea runoff = 1.815(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.400(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 210.000 to Point/Station 211.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 181.500(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 180.700(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 195.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 0.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 25.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 2.508(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Maximum depth of channel = 1.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 2.508(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.251(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.590(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 12.558(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.59(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.04 min.

Time of concentration = 9.14 min.

Critical depth = 0.229(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
COMMERCIAL subarea type
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0.1000 Max loss rate(Fp)= 0.200(In/Hr) Max Catchment Loss (Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Rainfall intensity = 4.378(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area,(total area with modified rational method)(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.896
Subarea runoff = 1.323(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.138(CFS) Total area = 0.80(Ac.)
Area averaged Fm value = 0.020(In/Hr)
Depth of flow = 0.273(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.682(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.250(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 211.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 175.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Pipe length = 5.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 3.138(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 3.138(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 5.84(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 12.00(In.)
Critical Depth = 9.10(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 8.27(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.01 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.15 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 208.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 0.800(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 3.138(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.15 min.

Rainfall intensity = 4.375(In/Hr)
Area averaged loss rate (Fm) = 0.0200(In/Hr)
Area averaged Pervious ratio (Ap) = 0.1000
Summary of stream data:

Stream Area Flow rate TC Fm Rainfall Intensity
No. (Ac.) (CFS) (min) (In/Hr) (In/Hr)
1 8.98 36.450 10.33 0.020 4.083
2 0.80 3.138 9.15 0.020 4.375
Qmax(1) =

1.000 * 1.000 * 36.450) +

0.933 * 1.000 * 3.138) + = 39.377
Qmax(2) =

1.072 * 0.886 * 36.450) +

1.000 * 1.000 * 3.138) + = 37.766
Total of 2 streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

36.450 3.138
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:

39.377 37.766
Area of streams before confluence:

8.981 0.800
Effective area values after confluence:

9.781 8.759
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 39.377(CFS)
Time of concentration = 10.330 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 9.781(Ac.)
Study area average Pervious fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Study area average soil loss rate(Fm) = 0.020(In/Hr)
Study area total (this main stream) = 9.78(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 213.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 174.830(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 174.810(Ft.)
Pipe length = 8.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 39.377(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 39.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 39.377(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 30.46(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 32.26(In.)
Critical Depth = 23.95(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.66(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.02 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.35 min.

End of computations, total study area = 10.00 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

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

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
APN
375-321-01 APN 375-321-02 APN 375-321-03 APN 375-321-04 APN 375-321-05 APN
375-321-06 APN 375-321-07 APN 375-321-08 APN 375-331-05 APN 375-331-06 APN
375-291-14

WEBB N WE S
R )) )
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
) ))) )
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
))
)
) ))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))) )) )))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ) ) ))) ))))) )
))
)
))
)
))
)
)
) ) )) ) ) X X X X X X X X X X X X
APN
375-321-01 APN 375-321-02 APN 375-321-03 APN 375-321-04 APN 375-321-05 APN
375-321-06 APN 375-321-07
APN
375-291-14
)
))
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
))
)
)
))
) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))) )
))
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
) )) )))) EX SD EX SD EX SD

WEBB N WE S
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix B – Basin Analysis Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix H
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix B – Basin Analysis Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix I
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix B – Basin Analysis Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix J
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix C – References Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix C
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix C – References Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix C

CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 36''SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD 3''G 3''G 3''G 3''G 3''G 3''G 3''G 10''W 10''W 10''W 10''W 10''W 10''W OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU G G G G G G G G G G G G G 12''W 8''FW
8''FW
4''W
4''W
IRR

EX W X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R 3''G 3''G 3''G OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU

WEBB N WE S

LAND USE PROJECT APPLICATION

CONCEPTUAL GRADING
534. W. STRUCK AVE

LAND USE PROJECT APPLICATION

CROSS SECTIONS
534. W. STRUCK AVE

FIRE FIRE FIRE

FIRE FIRE

FIRE FIRE FIRE

FIRE FIRE

FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE
FIRE X X X X X X X X 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD 3''G 3''G 3''G 3''G 3''G 3''G 3''G 10''W 10''W 10''W 10''W 10''W 10''W G G G G G G G G G G G G 12''W 8''FW
8''FW
4''W
4''W
IRR

EX W

WEBB N WE S

LAND USE PROJECT APPLICATION

UTILITY PLAN
534. W. STRUCK AVE
Prologis-Exchange Orange Industrial Ctr 6 LLC Appendix C – References Preliminary Drainage Study 534 W. Struck Ave
Appendix C

534 Struck Avenue

NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS

CITY OF ORANGE
PREPARED BY:

Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 584-3148
DECEMBER 11, 2024
15724-03 NA
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
ii
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................III APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF EXHIBITS .............................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS........................................................................................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................3

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

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS .......................................................................................................................7

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

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

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

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

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

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 10

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

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

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

3.2 City of Orange General Plan Noise Element ............................................................................... 13

3.3 City of Orange Municipal Code Standards.................................................................................. 14

3.4 Vibration Standards .................................................................................................................... 15 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA...........................................................................................................17

4.1 Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) ........................................................................................... 17

4.2 Vibration (Threshold B)............................................................................................................... 17

4.3 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed (Threshold C) ............................................................... 18

4.4 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 18 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS..................................................................................19

5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria........................................................................................ 19

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Noise Measurement Results....................................................................................................... 20 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES...........................................................................23

6.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 23 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS...........................................................................................29

7.1 Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................................................................ 29

7.2 Existing Project Traffic Noise Level Increases............................................................................. 31

7.3 OYC Traffic Noise Level Increases............................................................................................... 32

7.4 Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts.................................................................................. 33 8 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS..............................................................................................35 9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................................37 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
iv

9.1 Operational Noise Sources.......................................................................................................... 37

9.2 Reference Noise Levels............................................................................................................... 37

9.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 40

9.4 Project Operational Noise Levels................................................................................................ 41

9.5 Project Operational Noise Level Compliance.............................................................................. 42

9.5 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 43 10 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS........................................................................................................45

10.1 Construction Noise Levels........................................................................................................... 45

10.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 45

10.3 Construction Noise Analysis........................................................................................................ 47

10.4 Construction Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ 48

10.6 Construction Vibration Analysis.................................................................................................. 49 11 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................51 12 CERTIFICATION........................................................................................................................53

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 9.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 10.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP.............................................................................................................4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN......................................................................................................................5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS...................................................................................................7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................10 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION..........................................................12 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS..............................................................................21 EXHIBIT 8-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS..................................................................................................36 EXHIBIT 9-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ...................................................................38 EXHIBIT 10-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS...............................................................46 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
v

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................1 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY ................................................................................18 TABLE 5-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ........................................................................20 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS .................................................................................24 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................25 TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS..........................................................................................25 TABLE 6-4: WITHOUT PROJECT VEHICLE MIX ....................................................................................26 TABLE 6-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX............................................................................26 TABLE 6-6: OYC WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX....................................................................................27 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS .......................................................................29 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONTOURS ..............................................................................30 TABLE 7-3: OYC WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS ...............................................................................30 TABLE 7-4: OYC WITH PROJECT CONTOURS......................................................................................31 TABLE 7-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES..............................................32 TABLE 7-6: OYC WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .....................................................33 TABLE 7-7: CUMULATIVE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES............................................................................34 TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS......................................................................39 TABLE 9-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS..............................................................41 TABLE 9-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ..........................................................42 TABLE 9-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE.......................................................................42 TABLE 9-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .............................................43 TABLE 9-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ........................................................44 TABLE 10-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS....................................................................47 TABLE 10-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ..................................................48 TABLE 10-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ..................................................................48 TABLE 10-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ......................................49 TABLE 10-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS ................................................................50 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Calveno California Vehicle Noise
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
mph Miles per hour
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
Project 534 Struck Avenue
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed 534 Struck Avenue (“Project”). The Project site is located south of Struck Avenue and east of Batavia in the City of Orange. The Project is proposing to redevelop the site with a 214,956 square foot warehouse building along with a 450 square foot pump house for a total of 215,406 square feet. This noise study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of Orange noise standards and significance criteria based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) The results of this Noise and Vibration Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Off-Site Traffic Noise 7 Less Than Significant -
Operational Noise 9 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
10 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
2 This page intentionally left blank
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed 534 Struck Avenue (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures for transportation related CNEL traffic noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential Project-related long-term stationary-source operational noise and short-term construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed 534 Struck Avenue Project is located south of Struck Avenue and east of Batavia Street in the City of Orange, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. Existing uses that surround the Project site include mostly manufacturing industrial land uses to the west and east, with public-institutional uses to the north and the nearest multi-family residential land uses located northeast of the Project site.

1.2 BACKGROUND
The site was previously occupied by Nursery Supplies, Inc., a manufacturer of plastic nursery planting pots. Site improvements consist of an approximate 40,000 square-foot concrete tilt-up building, 5 open canopy storage areas, 14 silos for plastic granule storage, open storage areas, and parking. The Project site is designated Light Industrial in the City of Orange General Plan and zoned under City of Orange Zoning Map as Industrial Manufacturing (M-2).

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project was recently approved (Approved Project) to redevelop the site with a 57,900 square foot truck terminal building (consisting of 52,900 square feet of warehousing space and 5,000 square feet of office use) with 84 dock doors (in a cross-dock configuration). However, the Proposed Project is considering redeveloping the site with a 214,956 square foot warehouse building with 27 dock doors along the eastern side of the building (square footage includes an optional 3,500 square foot mezzanine) and a 450 square foot pump house. A preliminary site plan is shown on Exhibit 1-B.

At the time this noise analysis was prepared, the future tenants of the proposed Project were unknown. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, diesel fire pump, parking lot vehicle movements and truck movements.
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
6 This page intentionally left blank
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.

Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). Aweighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

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

2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
8 at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

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

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

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

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

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

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
9 sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (4)

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

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

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

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

Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must block the lineof-sight path of sound from the noise source. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
10 2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (6)

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

Surveys have shown that community response to noise varies from no reaction to vigorous action for newly introduced noises averaging from 10 dB below existing to 25 dB above existing. (8) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (7), the percentage of high annoyance ranges from approximately 0 percent at 45 dB or less, 10 percent are highly annoyed around 60 dB, and increases rapidly to approximately 70 percent being highly annoyed at approximately 85 dB or greater. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
11 2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (8) , vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

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

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities.

The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
12 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
13 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas.

Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

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

3.2 CITY OF ORANGEGENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Orange has adopted a Noise Element of the General Plan to control and abate environmental noise, and to protect the citizens of the City of Orange from excessive exposure to noise. (10) The Noise Element specifies the maximum allowable exterior noise levels for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads. In addition, the Noise Element identifies several polices to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community and establishes noise level requirements for all land uses. To protect City of Orange residents from excessive noise, the Noise Element contains the following policies related to the Project:

Policy 1.1: Consider potential excessive noise levels when making land use planning decisions.

Policy 1.2: Encourage new development projects to provide sufficient spatial buffers to separate excessive noise generating land uses and noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 1.4: Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near noise-sensitive uses.

Policy 1.5: Reduce impacts of high-noise activity centers located near residential areas.

Policy 6.1: Encourage the design and construction of industrial uses to minimize excessive noise through project design features that include noise control.

Policy 6.2: Encourage industrial uses to locate vehicular traffic and operations away from abutting residential zones as much as possible.

Policy 7.2: Require developers and contractors to employ noise minimizing techniques during construction and maintenance operations.
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
14 Policy 7.3: Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located adjacent to noisesensitive land uses.

To ensure noise-sensitive land uses are protected from high levels of noise the City of Orange has developed its own land use compatibility standards, based on recommended parameters from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (9) The City’s Land Use Compatibility standards use the CNEL noise descriptor, are intended to be applicable for land use designations exposed to noise levels generated by transportation related sources. Land use compatibility noise exposure limits are generally established as 65 dBA CNEL for most land use designations throughout the City. Higher exterior noise levels are permitted for multiple-family housing and housing in mixed-use contexts than for single-family houses. This is because multiple-family complexes are generally located in transitional areas between single-family and commercial districts or in proximity to major arterials served by transit, and a more integrated mix of residential and commercial activity (accompanied by higher noise levels) is often desired in mixed-use areas close to transit routes. The City of Orange does not identify any transportation related noise exposure standards for industrial land uses.

3.3 CITY OF ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the 534 Struck Avenue Project, stationary-source (operational) noise levels and noise from construction activities are typically evaluated against standards established under the City’s Municipal Code.

3.3.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
For noise-sensitive residential property, the City of Orange Municipal Code, Section 8.24.040, identifies exterior noise levels standards of 55 dBA Leq for the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA Leq during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours for all residential property. The City of Orange Municipal Code Noise Standards are included in Appendix 3.1. Per Section 8.24.040[B] for multi-family residential or mixed-use developments located within the City's Urban Mixed Use, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Old Towne Mixed Use or Medium Density Residential General Plan land use districts, exterior noise standards shall apply to common recreation areas only and shall not apply to private exterior space (such as a private yard, patio, or balcony). The City of Orange Municipal Code does not identify any exterior noise level standards for non-residential land uses.

3.3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Orange has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project. Section 8.24.050[E] of the City’s Municipal Code states: Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Neither the City’s General Plan nor Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
15 for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.

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

3.4 VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (8)
To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of the 534 Struck Avenue, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Orange does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (12 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
16 This page intentionally left blank
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
17 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

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

4.1 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (13) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged.

To describe the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable, the City Orange General Plan has adopted criteria for determining appropriate mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following:
• Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 65 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater. • Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater.

4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.4, the vibration impacts originating from the construction of 534 Struck Avenue, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
18 described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

4.3 CEQAGUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED (THRESHOLD C)
The Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan; nor is the Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is conducted in relation to Guideline C.

4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix that includes the allowable criteria used to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site
Traffic
If ambient is < 65 dBA CNEL1 ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL1 ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase Operational
Exterior Noise Level Standards2 55 dBA Leq 50 dBA Leq
If ambient is < 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase Construction
Permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day
except for Sunday or a Federal holiday3
Noise Level Threshold4 80 dBA Leq n/a
Vibration Level Threshold5 0.3 PPV (in/sec) n/a
1 City Orange General Plan Noise Element, Table N-3.
2 City Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.040.
3 City Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.050[E].
4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 5 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
19 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Monday, April 18th, 2022. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the equivalent daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (14)

5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (8)
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (8) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
20 and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

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

TABLE 5-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located northwest of the Project site near the Department of Public Works at 637 West Struck Avenue. 54.3 50.5
L2 Located northeast of the Project site near proposed
residential development north of West Struck Avenue. 51.2 47.2 L3 Located northeast of the Project site near The HUB OC (Mary's Kitchen) at 517 West Struck Avenue. 52.6 49.3
L4 Located northeast of the Project site near the Citrus Grove Apartments at 1120 North Lemon Street. 51.0 46.8
L5 Located south of the Project site near the Top Dog Inn at 606 West Collins Avenue. 68.0 63.0
1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table 5-1 provides the equivalent noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each of the daytime and nighttime hours.
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
21 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
22 This page intentionally left blank
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
23 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to estimate and analyze the future traffic noise environment. Consistent with City of Orange Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines(10), all transportation related noise levels are presented in terms of the 24-hour CNEL’s.

6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (15) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (16) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (17)

6.1.1 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
Table 6-1 presents the roadway parameters used to assess the Project’s off-site transportation noise impacts. Table 6-1 identifies the 13 off-site study area roadway segments, the distance from the centerline to adjacent land use based on the functional roadway classifications per the City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element, and the vehicle speeds. The ADT volumes used in this study area presented on Table 6-2 are based on the 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for the following traffic scenarios. (18) • Existing (E)
• Existing plus Project (E+P)
• Opening Year Cumulative without Project Conditions (OYC) • Opening Year Cumulative with Project Conditions (OYC+P) The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on the existing traffic volumes and the combination of project traffic distributions. This analysis relies on a comparative evaluation of the off-site traffic noise impacts at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use, without and with project ADT traffic volumes from the Project traffic analysis. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
24 As noted previously, the Approved Project includes a 57,900 square foot truck terminal building (consisting of 52,900 square feet of warehousing space and 5,000 square feet of office use) with 84 dock doors (in a cross-dock configuration). Trip generation for the Approved Project site was calculated based on the surveys collected at five similar facilities used to develop a site-specific trip generation rate. The Approved Project was estimated to generate a net total of 396 twoway trips per day (actual vehicles) that include 176 truck trips.

According to the 534 Struck Avenue Trip Generation Assessment, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (18), the Proposed Project will generate a net total of 372 two-way trips per day (actual vehicles) that include 132 truck trips. The 534 Struck Avenue Trip Generation Assessment shows that the Proposed Project is anticipated to result in a net reduction in daily trips as compared to the Approved Project truck terminal use. Therefore, the following off-site traffic noise analysis based on the Approved Project conservatively represents the worst-case traffic conditions.

TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID Roadway Segment Classification1
Distance
from
Centerline to
Receiving
Land Use
(Feet)2
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)3
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. Primary Arterial 50' 40
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. Primary Arterial 50' 40
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. Primary Arterial 50' 40
4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. Primary Arterial 50' 40
5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. Primary Arterial 50' 40
6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. Smart Street 67' 40
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. Smart Street 67' 40
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. Smart Street 67' 40
9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps Smart Street 67' 40
10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps Smart Street 67' 40
11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. Collector 33' 40
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. Collector 33' 40
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. Collector 33' 40
1 City of Orange General Plan Circulation Element functional roadway classification. 2 Distance to receiving land use is based upon the right-of-way distances. 3 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
25 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes1
Existing OYC (2024)
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 15,522 15,533 16,205 16,216
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 18,156 18,167 19,026 19,037
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 12,119 12,149 13,174 13,205 4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 9,676 9,975 10,417 10,716 5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 10,892 10,923 11,648 11,679 6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 24,088 24,268 25,269 25,449
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 28,483 28,663 29,870 30,050
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 31,672 31,760 33,328 33,416 9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 36,377 36,388 38,027 38,038 10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 35,065 35,289 37,009 37,234 11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 5,142 5,186 5,668 5,712
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 1,525 1,591 1,823 1,889
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 1,477 1,873 1,875 2,271
1 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

To quantify the off-site noise levels, the Project related truck trips were added to the heavy truck category in the FHWA noise prediction model. The addition of the Project related truck trips increases the percentage of heavy trucks in the vehicle mix. This approach recognizes that the FHWA noise prediction model is significantly influenced by the number of heavy trucks in the vehicle mix. Table 6-3 provides the time of day (daytime, evening, and nighttime) vehicle splits.

The daily Project truck trip-ends were assigned to the individual off-site study area roadway segments based on the Project truck trip distribution percentages documented in the 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis. Using the Project truck trips in combination with the Project trip distribution, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the number of additional Project truck trips and vehicle mix percentages for each of the study area roadway segments. Table 6-4 shows the traffic flow by vehicle type (vehicle mix) used for all without Project traffic scenarios, and Tables 6-5 to 6-6 show the vehicle mixes used for the with Project traffic scenarios.

TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Vehicle Type
Time of Day Splits1
Total of Time of
Daytime Evening Nighttime Day Splits
Autos 75.46% 12.53% 12.02% 100.00%
Medium Trucks 81.62% 5.32% 13.06% 100.00%
Heavy Trucks 79.88% 6.17% 13.95% 100.00%
1 Based on the August 31, 2022, 24-hour directional vehicle classification count collected on Katella Avenue west of Struck Avenue (534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.) "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
26 TABLE 6-4: WITHOUT PROJECT VEHICLE MIX
Classification
Total % Traffic Flow1
Total
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
All Segments 91.47% 6.36% 2.17% 100.00%
1 Based on the August 31, 2022, 24-hour directional vehicle classification count collected on Katella Avenue west of Struck Avenue (534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.)
Due to the added Project truck trips, the increase in Project traffic volumes and the distributions of trucks on the study area road segments, the percentage of autos, medium trucks and heavy trucks will vary for each of the traffic scenarios. This explains why the existing and future traffic volumes and vehicle mixes vary between seemingly identical study area roadway segments.

TABLE 6-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX
ID Roadway Segment
With Project1
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total2
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 91.48% 6.35% 2.17% 100.00%
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 91.48% 6.35% 2.17% 100.00%
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 91.42% 6.35% 2.23% 100.00% 4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 90.05% 6.42% 3.53% 100.00% 5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 91.41% 6.35% 2.24% 100.00% 6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 91.06% 6.38% 2.56% 100.00%
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 91.12% 6.38% 2.50% 100.00%
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 91.36% 6.36% 2.29% 100.00% 9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 91.47% 6.35% 2.17% 100.00% 10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 91.20% 6.36% 2.44% 100.00% 11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 91.54% 6.30% 2.16% 100.00%
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 91.82% 6.09% 2.08% 100.00%
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 83.88% 6.42% 9.70% 100.00% 1 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Total of vehicle mix percentage values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
27 TABLE 6-6: OYC WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX
ID Roadway Segment
With Project1
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total2
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 91.48% 6.35% 2.17% 100.00%
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 91.47% 6.35% 2.17% 100.00%
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 91.42% 6.35% 2.23% 100.00% 4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 90.15% 6.41% 3.44% 100.00% 5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 91.42% 6.35% 2.23% 100.00% 6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 91.08% 6.38% 2.54% 100.00%
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 91.14% 6.37% 2.48% 100.00%
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 91.36% 6.36% 2.28% 100.00% 9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 91.47% 6.35% 2.17% 100.00% 10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 91.21% 6.36% 2.42% 100.00% 11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 91.54% 6.31% 2.16% 100.00%
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 91.77% 6.13% 2.10% 100.00%
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 85.21% 6.41% 8.38% 100.00% 1 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Total of vehicle mix percentage values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
28 This page intentionally left blank
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
29 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the Proposed Project, noise contours were developed based on the 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (17) Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.

7.1 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area.

Tables 7-1 to 7-5 present a summary of the exterior traffic noise levels for each traffic condition.

Appendix 7.1 includes the traffic noise level contours worksheets for each traffic condition.

TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 71.0 58 125 269
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 71.6 64 138 298
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 69.9 RW 106 228
4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 68.9 RW 91 196
5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 69.4 RW 98 212
6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 71.2 81 174 375
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 71.9 90 194 419
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 72.4 97 209 450
9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 73.0 106 229 493
10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 72.8 104 223 481
11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 68.0 RW 52 113
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 62.7 RW RW 50
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 62.6 RW RW 49
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
30 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 71.0 58 125 269
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 71.6 64 138 298
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 69.9 RW 107 230
4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 69.9 RW 106 229
5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 69.5 RW 99 214
6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 71.5 85 182 392
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 72.2 94 202 436
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 72.5 98 212 456
9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 73.0 106 229 493
10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 73.1 107 231 497
11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 68.0 RW 53 113
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 62.8 RW RW 51
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 67.1 RW 46 98
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

TABLE 7-3: OYC WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 71.1 60 128 276
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 71.8 66 143 308
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 70.2 52 112 241
4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 69.2 RW 96 206
5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 69.7 RW 103 222
6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 71.4 83 180 387
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 72.1 93 201 432
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 72.6 100 216 465
9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 73.2 109 236 508
10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 73.1 107 232 499
11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 68.4 RW 56 121
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 63.5 RW RW 57
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 63.6 RW RW 58
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
31 TABLE 7-4: OYC WITH PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 71.1 60 128 276
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 71.8 66 143 308
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 70.3 52 113 243
4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 70.2 51 111 238
5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 69.8 RW 104 224
6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 71.7 87 188 404
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 72.4 97 208 449
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 72.7 102 219 471
9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 73.2 109 236 508
10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 73.3 111 239 514
11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 68.5 RW 56 121
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 63.6 RW RW 57
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 67.5 RW 49 105
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

7.2 EXISTING PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report for informational purposes and to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. However, the analysis of existing off-site traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project scenario will not actually occur since the Project would not be fully constructed and operational until Year 2024 conditions. Table 7-1 shows the Existing without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing without Project exterior noise levels range from 62.6 to 73.0 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography.

Table 7-2 shows the Existing with Project conditions ranging from 62.8 to 73.1 dBA CNEL. Table 7-5 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 4.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
32 TABLE 7-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increment Limit Exceeded?
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 71.0 71.0 0.0 3.0 No
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 71.6 71.6 0.0 3.0 No
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 69.9 69.9 0.0 3.0 No
4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 68.9 69.9 1.0 3.0 No
5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 69.4 69.5 0.1 3.0 No
6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 71.2 71.5 0.3 3.0 No
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 71.9 72.2 0.3 3.0 No
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 72.4 72.5 0.1 3.0 No
9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 73.0 73.0 0.0 3.0 No
10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 72.8 73.1 0.3 3.0 No
11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 68.0 68.0 0.0 3.0 No
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 62.7 62.8 0.1 5.0 No
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 62.6 67.1 4.5 5.0 No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)?

7.3 OYC TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-3 presents the Opening Year Cumulative (OYC) without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The OYC without Project exterior noise levels range from 63.5 to 73.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 shows that the OYC with Project conditions will range from 63.6 to 73.3 dBA CNEL. Table 7-6 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 3.9 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic under OYC traffic conditions. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
33 TABLE 7-6: OYC WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increment Limit Exceeded?
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 71.1 71.1 0.0 3.0 No
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 71.8 71.8 0.0 3.0 No
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 70.2 70.3 0.1 3.0 No
4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 69.2 70.2 1.0 3.0 No
5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 69.7 69.8 0.1 3.0 No
6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 71.4 71.7 0.3 3.0 No
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 72.1 72.4 0.3 3.0 No
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 72.6 72.7 0.1 3.0 No
9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 73.2 73.2 0.0 3.0 No
10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 73.1 73.3 0.2 3.0 No
11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 68.4 68.5 0.1 3.0 No
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 63.5 63.6 0.1 5.0 No
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 63.6 67.5 3.9 5.0 No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)?

7.4 CUMULATIVE OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
Table 7-7 presents a summary of the cumulative noise level increases for each of the study area roadway segments. The cumulative traffic noise level increase increment describes the difference between the OYC with Project conditions and the Existing (baseline) conditions.

Cumulative impacts are caused by Project traffic in combination with traffic from other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects rather than Project-only traffic.

The cumulative off-site traffic noise level increases presented on Table 7-7 are expected to range from 0.1 to 4.9 dBA CNEL and will not exceed the cumulative off-site traffic noise level increase thresholds on any of the study area roadway segments due to the cumulative and Project-related traffic. Therefore, the cumulative noise impacts are not cumulatively considerable, and the offsite traffic noise impacts are less than significant. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
34 TABLE 7-7: CUMULATIVE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Noise Level
Increase Threshold2
Existing
No
Project
OYC
With
Project
Cumulative
Increase Limit Cumulative Impact?
1 Main St. n/o Struck Av. 71.0 71.1 0.1 3.0 No
2 Main St. s/o Struck Av. 71.6 71.8 0.2 3.0 No
3 Batavia St. n/o Katella Av. 69.9 70.3 0.4 3.0 No
4 Batavia St. s/o Katella Av. 68.9 70.2 1.3 3.0 No
5 Batavia St. s/o Struck Av. 69.4 69.8 0.4 3.0 No
6 Katella Av. w/o Main St. 71.2 71.7 0.5 3.0 No
7 Katella Av. e/o Main St. 71.9 72.4 0.5 3.0 No
8 Katella Av. e/o Batavia Av. 72.4 72.7 0.3 3.0 No
9 Katella Av. w/o SR-57 SB Ramps 73.0 73.2 0.2 3.0 No
10 Katella Av. e/o SR-57 NB Ramps 72.8 73.3 0.5 3.0 No
11 Struck Av. w/o Main St. 68.0 68.5 0.5 3.0 No
12 Struck Av. e/o Main St. 62.7 63.6 0.9 5.0 No
13 Struck Av. e/o Batavia Av. 62.6 67.5 4.9 5.0 No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
35 8 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 8-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.

Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noisesensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, outpatient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include:
industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, four receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.

R1: Location R1 represents the City of Orange Department of Public Works at 637 West Struck Avenue, approximately 96 feet north of the Project site. Receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the proposed noise sensitive multi-family residential project north of West Struck Avenue, approximately 245 feet north of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the planned future residential building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents The HUB OC (previously Mary's Kitchen) at 517 West Struck Avenue, approximately 31 feet north of the Project site. The HUB OC provides food, showers, restrooms and laundry facilities for the homeless community during the daytime hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. with no services provide during the nighttime hours. Receiver R3 is placed at the future building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4: Location R4 represents the Citrus Grove Apartments at 1120 North Lemon Street, approximately 126 feet northeast of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R4 is placed at the building façade.

A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 618 West Collins Avenue, approximately 563 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
36 areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R5 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R6: Location R6 represents the adjacent industrial land uses located on N Parker Street approximately 59 feet west of the Project site near the planned maintenance building.

The City of Orange Municipal Code does not identify any exterior noise level standards for non-residential land uses. Noise level measurement location L1 is used to describe the ambient conditions at this location.

EXHIBIT 8-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
37 9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations, identified in Section 8, resulting from the operation of the Proposed Project.

Exhibit 9-A identifies the noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels.

9.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
At the time this noise analysis was prepared the future tenants of the proposed Project were unknown. Therefore, this operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of warehouse use activities at the Project site. To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, diesel fire pump, parking lot vehicle movements and truck movements.

9.2 REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the Proposed Project. This section provides a detailed description of the reference noise level measurements shown on Table 9-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worstcase noise environment with the loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, diesel fire pump, parking lot vehicle movements and truck movements all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.

9.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
The reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using a Larson Davis LxT Type 1 precision sound level meter (serial number 01146). The LxT sound level meter was calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (14)
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
38 EXHIBIT 9-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
39 TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source1
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./
Hour2
Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA) Day Night 3
Loading Dock Activity 8' 60 60 62.8 103.4
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39 28 57.2 88.9
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 60 30 57.3 89.0
Diesel Fire Pump 8' 60 60 49.8 78.3
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 5' 60 60 52.6 81.1
Truck Movements 8' 60 60 59.8 93.2
1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. Numbers may vary due to size differences between point and area noise sources.

9.2.2 LOADING DOCK ACTIVITY
The reference loading dock activities are intended to describe the typical operational noise source levels associated with the Project. This includes truck idling, deliveries, backup alarms, unloading/loading, docking including a combination of tractor trailer semi-trucks, two-axle delivery trucks, and background forklift operations. At a uniform reference distance of 50 feet, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level of 62.8 dBA Leq. The loading dock activity noise level measurement was taken over a fifteen-minute period and represents multiple noise sources taken from the center of activity. The reference noise level measurement includes employees unloading a docked truck container included the squeaking of the truck’s shocks when weight was removed from the truck, employees playing music over a radio, as well as a forklift horn and backup alarm. In addition, during the noise level measurement a truck entered the loading dock area and proceeded to reverse and dock in a nearby loading bay, adding truck engine, idling, air brakes noise, in addition to on-going idling of an already docked truck. Loading dock activity is estimated during all the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours.

9.2.3 ROOF-TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
The noise level measurements describe a single mechanical roof-top air conditioning unit. The reference noise level represents a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit. At the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise level is 57.2 dBA Leq. Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four-day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for and average 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. These operating conditions reflect peak summer cooling requirements with measured temperatures approaching 96 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with average daytime temperatures of 82°F. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located on the roof of the Project buildings. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
40 9.2.6 TRASH ENCLOSURE ACTIVITY
To describe the noise levels associated with a trash enclosure activity, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at an existing trash enclosure containing two dumpster bins. The trash enclosure noise levels describe metal gates opening and closing, metal scraping against concrete floor sounds, dumpster movement on metal wheels, and trash dropping into the metal dumpster. The reference noise levels describe trash enclosure noise activities when trash is dropped into an empty metal dumpster, as would occur at the Project Site. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 57.3 dBA Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The reference noise level describes the expected noise source activities associated with the trash enclosures for the Project’s proposed building.

9.2.5 DIESEL FIRE PUMP
The site plan shows that the Project may include the use of a fire pump. To describe the diesel pump, a reference noise level measurement was taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) pump site number 5676, located at 38-130 Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert. The reference noise level measurement indicates that pump activity generates noise levels of at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 49.8 dBA Leq at 50 feet.

9.2.4 PARKING LOT VEHICLE MOVEMENTS
To describe the on-site parking lot activity, a long-term reference noise level measurement was collected in the center of activity within the staff parking lot of a warehouse distribution center.

At 50 feet from the center of activity, the parking lot produced a reference noise level of 52.6 dBA Leq. Parking activities are expected to take place during the full hour (60 minutes) throughout the daytime and evening hours. The parking lot noise levels are mainly due to cars pulling in and out of parking spaces in combination with car doors opening and closing.

9.2.7 TRUCK MOVEMENTS
The truck movements reference noise level measurement was collected over a period of 1 hour and 28 minutes and represent multiple heavy trucks entering and exiting the outdoor loading dock area producing a reference noise level of 59.8 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The noise sources included at this measurement location account for trucks entering and existing the Project driveways and maneuvering in and out of the outdoor loading dock activity area.

9.3 CADNAANOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels. Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
41 with the ISO 9613-2 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment.

The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the CadnaA noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces. Appendix 9.1 includes the detailed noise model inputs.

9.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, diesel fire pump, parking lot vehicle movements and truck movements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table 9-2 shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 40.6 to 51.2 dBA Leq.

TABLE 9-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Loading Dock Activity 26.9 45.6 49.7 49.0 39.8 27.3
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 38.1 31.8 33.3 31.2 32.0 40.4 Trash Enclosure Activity 10.1 28.3 33.9 31.2 6.3 6.9
Diesel Fire Pump 5.2 21.9 27.4 24.8 2.2 0.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 39.3 33.5 38.8 33.8 19.0 18.5 Truck Movements 29.3 36.6 44.3 38.5 26.8 13.5
Total (All Noise Sources) 42.1 46.6 51.2 49.6 40.7 40.6 1 See Exhibit 9-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
42 Table 9-3 shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 38.4 to 51.2 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the estimated duration of noise activity as outlined in Table 9-1 and Appendix 9.1.

TABLE 9-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Loading Dock Activity 26.9 45.6 49.7 49.0 39.8 27.3
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 35.7 29.4 30.9 28.8 29.6 38.0 Trash Enclosure Activity 6.1 24.4 29.9 27.2 2.3 2.9
Diesel Fire Pump 5.2 21.9 27.4 24.8 2.2 0.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 39.3 33.5 38.8 33.8 19.0 18.5 Truck Movements 29.3 36.6 44.3 38.5 26.8 13.5
Total (All Noise Sources) 41.3 46.5 51.2 49.6 40.4 38.4 1 See Exhibit 9-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1.

9.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Orange exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 9-4 shows the operational noise levels associated with 534 Struck Avenue Project will satisfy the City of Orange daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the Approved Project, the operational noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.

TABLE 9-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Land
Use
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 Public-Institutional 42.1 41.3 n/a n/a No No
R2 Proposed Residential 46.6 46.5 55 50 No No
R3 The HUB OC 51.2 51.2 n/a n/a No No
R4 Residential 49.6 49.6 55 50 No No
R5 Residential 40.7 40.4 55 50 No No
R6 Industrial 40.6 38.4 n/a n/a No No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 9-2 and 9-3. 3 Exterior noise level standards, as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? 5 The City of Orange Municipal Code does not identify any exterior noise level standards for non-residential land uses. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
43 9.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project-source noise is added to the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions are presented on Tables 9-5 and 9-6, respectively. As indicated on Tables 9-5, the Project will generate a daytime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 2.4 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations.

Table 9-6 shows that the Project will generate a nighttime operational noise level increase ranging from 0.0 to 4.6 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table 4-1. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the Approved Project, the operational noise increases at the sensitive receiver locations associated with the Proposed Project are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.

TABLE 9-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 42.1 L1 54.3 54.6 0.3 5.0 No
R2 46.6 L2 51.2 52.5 1.3 5.0 No
R3 51.2 L3 52.6 55.0 2.4 5.0 No
R4 49.6 L4 51.0 53.4 2.4 5.0 No
R5 40.7 L5 68.0 68.0 0.0 1.5 No
R6 40.6 L1 54.3 54.5 0.2 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
44 TABLE 9-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 41.3 L1 50.5 51.0 0.5 5.0 No
R2 46.5 L2 47.2 49.9 2.7 5.0 No
R3 51.2 L3 49.3 53.3 4.0 5.0 No
R4 49.6 L4 46.8 51.4 4.6 5.0 No
R5 40.4 L5 63.0 63.0 0.0 5.0 No
R6 38.4 L1 50.5 50.8 0.3 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
45 10 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of both the Approved and Proposed Project since they share the same limits of construction. Exhibit 8-A shows the construction activity boundaries in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 6. According to Section

8.24.050[E] of the City’s Municipal Code, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. (20) In addition, since neither the City of Orange General Plan or Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers for CEQA analysis purposes. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use. (8 p. 179)

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

10.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (21) The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
46 EXHIBIT 10-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
47 10.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Consistent with FTA guidance for general construction noise assessment, Table 10-1 presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate at the same time. As shown on Table 10-2, the construction noise levels when operating at the property line are expected to range from 51.1 to 78.7 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Appendix 10.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 10-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Combined Sound
Power Level
(PWL)3
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 78
Hauling Trucks 72 80 112
Rubber Tired Dozers 75
Grading
Graders 81
Excavators 77 83 115
Compactors 76
Building
Construction
Cranes 73
Tractors 80 81 113
Welders 70
Paving
Pavers 74
Paving Equipment 82 83 115
Rollers 73
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 73
Air Compressors 74 77 109
Generator Sets 70
1 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
2 Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance.
3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calibrated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
48 TABLE 10-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
2 Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels
R1 70.8 73.8 71.8 73.8 67.8 73.8
R2 63.2 66.2 64.2 66.2 60.2 66.2
R3 75.7 78.7 76.7 78.7 72.7 78.7
R4 67.3 70.3 68.3 70.3 64.3 70.3
R5 56.0 59.0 57.0 59.0 53.0 59.0
R6 54.1 57.1 55.1 57.1 51.1 57.1
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.1.

10.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Table 10-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to the Approved and Proposed Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations since they both share the same limits of construction.

TABLE 10-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 73.8 80 No
R2 66.2 80 No
R3 78.7 80 No
R4 70.3 80 No
R5 59.0 81 No
R6 57.1 82 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 10-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
49 10.6 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 10-4. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
TABLE 10-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 10-5 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations.

At distances ranging from 31 to 563 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.001 to 0.064 PPV (in/sec). Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all the noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.

Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
50 TABLE 10-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Location1
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 96' 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.012 0.012 0.3 No
R2 245' 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.3 No
R3 31' 0.002 0.025 0.055 0.064 0.064 0.3 No
R4 126' 0.000 0.003 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.3 No
R5 563' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R6 59' 0.001 0.010 0.021 0.025 0.025 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 Distance from receiver to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 10-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
51 11 REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA 550/9/82/106.

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

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

10. City of Orange. General Plan Noise Element. March 2010.

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

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

13. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.

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

15. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03.

16. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.

17. Urban Crossroads, Inc. 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis. October 2022.

18. —. 534 Struck Avenue Trip Generation Assessment. April 2024 .

19. City of Orange. Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24 - Noise Control.

20. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
52 This page intentionally left blank
534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-03 NA
53 12 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed 534 Struck Avenue Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 584-3148.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
1133 Camelback #8329
Newport Beach, CA 92658
(949) 581-3148
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • December, 1993 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • June, 1992

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
PE – Registered Professional Traffic Engineer – TR 2537 • January, 2009 AICP – American Institute of Certified Planners – 013011 • June, 1997–January 1, 2012 PTP – Professional Transportation Planner • May, 2007 – May, 2013 INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineering • March, 2004

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of San Diego • March, 2018 Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
54 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE
55 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
56 Chapter 8.24 - NOISE CONTROL
[2]
Sections:

Footnotes:
--- (2) ---
Editor's note— Ord. No. 1-14, § I, adopted August 12, 2014, repealed the former Ch. 8.24, §§

8.24.010—8.24.110 and enacted a new Ch. 8.24 as set out herein. The former Ch. 8.24 pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Prior Code 9500.1—9500.16; Ord. Nos. 49-74, 17-74, 1-80, and 26-96.

8.24.010 - Policy.

A. In order to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds emanating from the City, it is the policy of the City to regulate such sounds generated from all sources as specified in this chapter.

The intent of this chapter is to protect residential land uses from unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds.

B. It is determined that certain sound levels are detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety, and contrary to public interest.
(Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.020 - Definitions.

The following words, phrases and terms as used in this chapter shall have the meaning as indicated below:

A. "Ambient noise level" means the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the alleged offensive noise, at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made.

B. "Adjusted ambient noise level" means the measured ambient noise level plus 3 dB (A). Three (3) dB (A) is the industry-accepted threshold of human perceptibility for a change in the noise environment.

C. "Decibel (dB)" means a unit which denotes the ratio between two quantities which are proportional to power: the number of decibels corresponding to the ratio of two amounts of power is ten times the logarithm to the base ten of this ratio.

D. "Emergency machinery, vehicle or work" means any machinery, vehicle or work used, employed or performed in an effort to protect, provide or restore safe conditions in the community or for the citizenry, or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service.

E. "Fixed noise source" means a stationary noise source which creates sounds while fixed or motionless, including but not limited to construction equipment, industrial and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, generators, air conditioners and refrigeration equipment.

F. "Grading" means any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof conducted to prepare a site for construction or other improvements thereon.

G. "Hourly Average" (L eq ) means the energy mean or average sound level over a one (1) hour period of time.

H. "Impact noise" means the noise produced by the collision of one mass in motion with a second mass which may be either in motion or at rest.
57 I. "Mobile noise source" means any noise source other than a fixed noise source.

J. "Noise level" means the "A" weighted sound pressure level in decibels obtained by using a sound level meter at slow response with a reference pressure of twenty (20) micronewtons per square meter. The unit of measurement shall be designated as dB(A).

K. "Person" means a person, firm, association, co-partnership, joint venture, corporation or any entity, public or private in nature.

L. "Recurring impulsive noise" means a noise of short duration, usually less than one (1) second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay, which occurs repeatedly or in a cyclical manner. Examples include jack hammering, pile driving, or operational noise from a generator or other mechanical equipment that is cyclical in nature.

M. "Residential property" means a parcel of real property which is developed and used either in part or in whole for residential purposes, other than transient uses such as hotels and motels.

N. "Simple tone noise" means a noise characterized by a predominant frequency or frequencies so that other frequencies cannot be readily distinguished.

O. "Sound level meter" means an instrument meeting American National Standard Institute's Standard Sl.4- 1983 for Type 1 sound level meters or an instrument and the associated recording and analyzing equipment which will provide equivalent data.

P. "Sound pressure level" of a sound, in decibels, means twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the pressure of the sound to a reference pressure, which reference pressure shall be explicitly stated.
(Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.030 - Noise Level Measurement Criteria.

Any noise level measurements made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be performed using a sound level meter as defined in Section 8.24.020P. (Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.040 - Exterior Standards.

A. The following noise standards for fixed noise sources, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property:

Table 8.24.040 Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Level Time Period
Hourly Average (L eq ) 55 dB (A) 7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m.
50 dB (A) 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m.

Maximum Level 70 dB (A) 7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m.
65 dB (A) 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m.
58 B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other residential property to exceed the noise standards identified in Table 8.24.040. For multi-family residential or mixed use developments located within the City's Urban Mixed Use, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Old Towne Mixed Use or Medium Density Residential General Plan land use districts, exterior noise standards shall apply to common recreation areas only and shall not apply to private exterior space (such as a private yard, patio, or balcony).

C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standards identified in Table 8.24.040 of this section, the "adjusted ambient noise level" shall be applied as the noise standard. In cases where the noise standard is adjusted due to a high ambient noise level, the noise standard shall not exceed the "adjusted ambient noise level", or 70 dB (A), whichever is less. In cases where the ambient noise level is already greater than 70 dB (A), the ambient noise level shall be applied as the noise standard.

D. Each of the noise limits specified in Table 8.24.040 shall be reduced by 5 dB(A) for impact or simple tone noises, recurring impulsive noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music. (Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.050 - Exemptions from Chapter Provisions.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:

A. School bands, school athletic and school entertainment events; B. Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows, and sporting and entertainment events provided such events are conducted pursuant to any permit requirements established by the City; C. Activities conducted on public parks, public playgrounds, and public or private school grounds; D. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle or work;
E. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Noise generated outside of the hours specified are subject to the noise standards identified in Table 8.24.040;
F. All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment which are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions;
G. Noise sources associated with agricultural operations provided such operations take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday; H. Noise sources associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application, provided that the application is made in accordance with restricted material permits issued by or regulations enforced by the Agricultural Commissioner;
I. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided such activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Operation of leaf blowers are regulated under OMC Chapter 8.26;
59 J. Industrial or commercial noise affecting residential units, when the residential unit is associated with said industrial or commercial use (e.g. caretaker's dwellings); K. Any maintenance or construction activity undertaken by a public agency or utility within street right of way;
L. Mobile noise sources including but not limited to operational noise from trains, or automobiles or trucks traveling on roadways. Transportation noise as related to noise/land use compatibility is subject to the City's General Plan Noise Element;
M. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal Law. (Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.060 - Special Provisions for Schools, Hospitals and Churches.

It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital or church, while the same is in use, to exceed the noise limits as specified in Section 8.24.040, or which noise level unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions. (Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.070 - Measurement of Noise Levels.

The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels shall be the point closest to the noise source along the perimeter of the outdoor activity area (such as a private yard, patio, balcony, or common recreation area, as applicable pursuant to Section 8.24.040B. of this chapter) of the affected residential receiving property. If the location of the outdoor activity area is unknown or unclear, the noise standard shall be applied at the point closest to the noise source along the property line of the affected residential receiving property.
(Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.080 - Enforcement Authority.

A. The Chief Building Official or his/her designee are directed to enforce the provisions of this chapter.

The Chief Building Official or his/her designee are authorized, pursuant to Penal Code Section 836.5, to arrest any person without a warrant when they have reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed a misdemeanor in their presence.

B. No person shall interfere with, oppose or resist any authorized person charged with the enforcement of this chapter while such person is engaged in the performance of his duty. (Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.090 - Violation—Public Nuisance.

Any violation of this chapter is a public nuisance and may be abated in accordance with law. The expense of such abatement may, by resolution of the City Council, be declared to be a lien against the property on which such nuisance is maintained, and such lien shall be made a personal obligation of the property owner.
(Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)
60 8.24.100 - Alternative Noise Prohibition.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter and in addition thereto, it is unlawful for any person to willfully make, continue, maintain, permit or cause to be made, continued, maintained, or permitted, any loud, unnecessary and unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any residential property or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area. It shall be a prima facie violation of this section if any power tool, radio, receiving set, television, music amplifier, tape player, record player, compact disc player, musical instrument or similar device is played, used or permitted to be played or used between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when audible from a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the property line of the noise source or from a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet from any non-stationary noise source. For the purpose of this chapter, these prohibitions shall also be applied to stationary vehicles parked on the street or on private property. The determination may be made by a peace officer or may be proven by the testimony of any other person. Furthermore, and in addition to the provisions of this chapter, noise prohibitions pursuant to Penal Code Section 415 and Orange Municipal Code Chapter 9.39 may also be applied. (Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)

8.24.110 - Violation—Misdemeanor.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed as permitting conduct not prescribed herein and shall not affect the enforceability of any other applicable provisions of law. (Ord. No. 1-14, § I, 8-12-14)
61 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
62 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS
63 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
64 JN: 13101 Study Area Photos
L1_E
33, 48' 23.140000"117, 51' 34.000000"
L1_N
33, 48' 23.100000"117, 51' 34.080000"
L1_S
33, 48' 23.050000"117, 51' 34.050000"
L1_W
33, 48' 23.160000"117, 51' 33.970000"
L2_E
33, 48' 25.420000"117, 51' 25.590000"
L2_N
33, 48' 25.430000"117, 51' 25.570000"
65 JN: 13101 Study Area Photos
L2_S
33, 48' 25.420000"117, 51' 25.590000"
L2_W
33, 48' 25.430000"117, 51' 25.590000"
L3_E
33, 48' 21.380000"117, 51' 26.770000"
L3_N
33, 48' 21.390000"117, 51' 26.750000"
L3_S
33, 48' 21.390000"117, 51' 26.750000"
L3_W
33, 48' 21.280000"117, 51' 26.830000"
66 JN: 13101 Study Area Photos
L4_E
33, 48' 23.360000"117, 51' 25.700000"
L4_N
33, 48' 23.370000"117, 51' 25.700000"
L4_S
33, 48' 23.370000"117, 51' 25.700000"
L4_W
33, 48' 23.340000"117, 51' 25.780000"
L5_E
33, 48' 8.090000"117, 51' 30.760000"
L5_N
33, 48' 8.040000"117, 51' 30.730000"
67 JN: 13101 Study Area Photos
L5_S
33, 48' 8.060000"117, 51' 30.780000"
L5_W
33, 48' 8.170000"117, 51' 30.780000"
68 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
69 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
70 Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13101
Project: 534 Struck Avenue Source: Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 46.2 54.1 42.4 53.6 52.7 50.5 49.1 46.5 44.7 42.9 42.7 42.5 46.2 10.0 56.2 1 47.9 55.0 41.5 54.4 53.6 52.2 51.4 49.3 45.3 42.6 41.9 41.6 47.9 10.0 57.9 2 43.7 48.5 41.0 48.2 47.8 47.1 46.5 44.1 42.9 41.5 41.3 41.1 43.7 10.0 53.7 3 43.3 49.1 41.1 48.8 48.2 46.5 45.4 43.5 42.5 41.5 41.4 41.2 43.3 10.0 53.3 4 46.0 54.3 42.0 53.8 53.3 51.6 49.9 45.6 44.0 42.4 42.2 42.1 46.0 10.0 56.0 5 53.9 64.2 46.8 63.5 62.5 59.9 58.6 53.9 50.0 47.4 47.2 46.9 53.9 10.0 63.9 6 56.7 66.2 49.2 65.7 64.9 62.5 61.4 56.4 53.2 50.3 49.9 49.3 56.7 10.0 66.7 7 53.4 62.5 47.6 61.9 61.2 59.1 57.4 52.9 50.8 48.4 48.1 47.8 53.4 0.0 53.4 8 51.0 58.7 46.2 58.1 57.4 55.6 54.3 51.4 49.3 47.1 46.7 46.3 51.0 0.0 51.0 9 56.2 66.1 48.1 65.6 64.9 62.8 60.9 55.9 52.1 49.3 48.8 48.2 56.2 0.0 56.2 10 52.6 60.8 46.5 60.3 59.6 57.9 56.6 53.1 50.4 47.4 46.9 46.6 52.6 0.0 52.6 11 56.0 66.8 48.7 66.2 65.4 63.2 60.6 54.5 51.9 49.7 49.2 48.8 56.0 0.0 56.0 12 56.2 66.4 48.9 65.6 64.2 61.1 59.9 56.6 53.6 49.8 49.4 49.0 56.2 0.0 56.2 13 58.6 70.1 47.9 69.8 69.3 67.2 64.8 53.9 51.1 48.7 48.4 48.1 58.6 0.0 58.6 14 54.8 64.4 47.2 63.7 62.7 61.0 59.1 54.7 52.4 48.2 47.8 47.3 54.8 0.0 54.8 15 55.3 65.6 47.8 64.9 63.8 61.2 59.3 55.5 51.8 48.6 48.3 47.9 55.3 0.0 55.3 16 53.4 61.6 47.6 60.8 60.2 58.2 57.3 54.3 50.7 48.3 48.0 47.7 53.4 0.0 53.4 17 52.5 61.0 46.7 60.5 60.1 58.3 57.1 52.6 49.8 47.4 47.2 46.9 52.5 0.0 52.5 18 55.0 67.8 45.8 66.2 65.0 62.2 60.1 51.6 49.2 46.6 46.3 45.9 55.0 0.0 55.0 19 49.2 57.7 44.4 57.0 55.7 53.2 52.0 49.9 47.4 45.2 44.9 44.6 49.2 5.0 54.2 20 45.7 51.2 43.1 50.8 50.1 48.7 47.9 46.2 45.0 43.7 43.5 43.2 45.7 5.0 50.7 21 48.8 56.1 42.9 55.8 55.5 54.7 53.5 49.5 45.7 43.5 43.2 43.0 48.8 5.0 53.8 22 47.0 52.1 43.9 51.7 51.2 50.0 49.3 47.6 46.2 44.4 44.2 44.0 47.0 10.0 57.0 23 46.6 61.3 40.9 60.1 58.1 47.9 45.5 43.0 42.2 41.4 41.2 41.0 46.6 10.0 56.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 45.7 51.2 42.9 50.8 50.1 48.7 47.9 46.2 45.0 43.5 43.2 43.0 Max 58.6 70.1 48.9 69.8 69.3 67.2 64.8 56.6 53.6 49.8 49.4 49.0

54.3 61.8 61.0 59.0 57.4 52.8 50.1 47.5 47.1 46.8
Min 43.3 48.5 40.9 48.2 47.8 46.5 45.4 43.0 42.2 41.4 41.2 41.0 Max 56.7 66.2 49.2 65.7 64.9 62.5 61.4 56.4 53.2 50.3 49.9 49.3

50.5 55.5 54.7 52.0 50.8 47.8 45.7 43.8 43.6 43.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Monday, April 18, 2022 L1 - Located northwest of the Project site near Department of Public Works at 637 West Struck Avenue.

Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

53.2 54.3 50.5

46.247.943.743.346.0

53.9 56.7

53.4 51.0

56.2 52.6

56.0 56.2

58.6 54.8

55.3 53.4

52.5 55.0

49.245.748.847.046.6

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13100-13500\_13100\13101_partial\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\13101_L1_X 71 Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13101
Project: 534 Struck Avenue Source: Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 42.5 69.7 41.5 69.3 68.6 65.5 62.7 54.8 44.7 42.0 41.8 41.6 42.5 10.0 52.5 1 46.7 64.0 50.2 62.6 60.9 58.6 57.7 56.2 54.5 51.7 51.2 50.4 46.7 10.0 56.7 2 41.9 71.0 50.7 70.7 70.4 69.6 67.7 60.8 57.9 51.9 51.3 51.0 41.9 10.0 51.9 3 43.0 45.9 41.4 45.6 45.4 44.7 44.4 43.4 42.7 41.9 41.7 41.6 43.0 10.0 53.0 4 43.1 45.2 42.0 44.9 44.7 44.3 44.0 43.3 42.9 42.4 42.3 42.1 43.1 10.0 53.1 5 48.4 60.4 47.3 60.0 59.5 57.4 56.3 49.2 48.3 47.7 47.6 47.4 48.4 10.0 58.4 6 52.6 62.9 48.6 62.5 61.6 59.2 57.2 50.1 49.5 49.0 48.9 48.7 52.6 10.0 62.6 7 49.7 67.5 48.4 67.0 65.9 62.1 59.9 50.6 49.4 48.8 48.7 48.5 49.7 0.0 49.7 8 50.1 62.9 46.5 62.5 61.8 60.4 59.0 50.9 48.7 47.1 46.9 46.6 50.1 0.0 50.1 9 49.3 59.4 46.5 58.9 58.6 57.5 56.8 49.6 48.1 47.0 46.8 46.6 49.3 0.0 49.3 10 51.2 58.0 47.5 57.4 56.8 55.5 54.5 52.0 49.6 48.0 47.8 47.6 51.2 0.0 51.2 11 51.3 56.7 48.8 56.0 55.3 54.2 53.5 51.9 50.6 49.3 49.1 48.9 51.3 0.0 51.3 12 53.4 59.8 48.6 59.3 58.8 57.8 57.2 54.5 51.5 49.3 49.0 48.7 53.4 0.0 53.4 13 51.2 57.3 47.9 56.7 56.0 54.7 54.1 52.1 50.0 48.4 48.3 48.0 51.2 0.0 51.2 14 50.2 58.1 46.7 57.5 56.9 55.4 54.9 49.2 48.2 47.3 47.1 46.8 50.2 0.0 50.2 15 55.2 66.2 48.3 65.2 63.8 61.4 60.4 54.2 50.6 48.9 48.7 48.4 55.2 0.0 55.2 16 52.4 60.7 47.7 60.2 59.6 57.9 57.2 52.0 49.9 48.3 48.1 47.8 52.4 0.0 52.4 17 50.4 72.1 47.5 71.6 70.7 67.0 62.8 52.9 49.7 48.1 47.9 47.6 50.4 0.0 50.4 18 49.8 55.3 46.4 54.7 54.1 53.2 52.6 50.7 48.8 46.9 46.7 46.5 49.8 0.0 49.8 19 50.1 58.4 45.3 58.1 57.5 56.1 55.1 49.3 47.3 45.7 45.6 45.4 50.1 5.0 55.1 20 46.8 50.5 44.5 50.2 49.9 49.2 48.8 47.4 46.1 45.0 44.9 44.7 46.8 5.0 51.8 21 50.1 56.2 44.1 55.9 55.7 55.3 55.0 50.8 46.2 44.6 44.5 44.2 50.1 5.0 55.1 22 48.6 52.6 45.9 52.4 52.1 51.4 51.0 49.2 47.9 46.4 46.2 46.0 48.6 10.0 58.6 23 44.3 48.4 42.5 48.0 47.4 46.6 46.1 44.7 43.8 43.0 42.8 42.6 44.3 10.0 54.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 46.8 50.5 44.1 50.2 49.9 49.2 48.8 47.4 46.1 44.6 44.5 44.2 Max 55.2 72.1 48.8 71.6 70.7 67.0 62.8 54.5 51.5 49.3 49.1 48.9

51.2 59.4 58.8 57.2 56.1 51.2 49.0 47.5 47.3 47.1
Min 41.9 45.2 41.4 44.9 44.7 44.3 44.0 43.3 42.7 41.9 41.7 41.6 Max 52.6 71.0 50.7 70.7 70.4 69.6 67.7 60.8 57.9 51.9 51.3 51.0

47.2 57.3 56.7 55.2 54.1 50.2 48.0 46.2 46.0 45.7
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

50.1 51.2 47.2
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Monday, April 18, 2022 L2 - Located northeast of the Project site near future residential development north of West Struck Avenue.

Night
Day

42.546.741.943.043.148.452.649.750.149.351.251.3

53.4 51.250.2

55.2 52.450.449.850.146.850.148.644.3

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13100-13500\_13100\13101_partial\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\13101_L2_U 72 Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13101
Project: 534 Struck Avenue Source: Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 46.0 74.2 45.2 74.1 73.7 70.7 68.2 61.4 50.2 45.6 45.5 45.3 46.0 10.0 56.0 1 46.4 67.5 45.7 67.1 66.3 64.4 63.4 59.8 57.0 46.2 46.0 45.8 46.4 10.0 56.4 2 54.8 75.2 57.5 75.0 74.8 73.7 72.3 68.0 64.8 58.8 58.4 57.9 54.8 10.0 64.8 3 48.0 49.5 47.0 49.2 49.0 48.8 48.7 48.4 47.9 47.3 47.2 47.1 48.0 10.0 58.0 4 47.3 49.9 45.8 49.6 49.3 48.7 48.4 47.6 47.2 46.3 46.1 45.9 47.3 10.0 57.3 5 48.5 66.6 47.2 66.4 65.6 62.8 61.5 49.8 48.4 47.7 47.6 47.4 48.5 10.0 58.5 6 49.9 69.2 48.2 68.7 67.7 65.0 63.4 52.5 49.7 48.8 48.6 48.4 49.9 10.0 59.9 7 55.3 72.9 48.2 72.5 71.4 67.4 63.2 51.7 49.7 48.8 48.6 48.3 55.3 0.0 55.3 8 58.0 69.7 47.7 69.3 68.7 66.8 64.9 51.6 49.5 48.2 48.1 47.8 58.0 0.0 58.0 9 54.4 64.2 48.6 63.9 63.5 62.1 61.1 51.2 49.9 49.1 48.9 48.7 54.4 0.0 54.4 10 50.9 55.4 48.3 55.0 54.6 53.9 53.3 51.6 50.1 48.9 48.7 48.4 50.9 0.0 50.9 11 50.7 54.9 48.7 54.5 54.0 53.0 52.4 51.1 50.2 49.1 49.0 48.8 50.7 0.0 50.7 12 53.9 59.2 49.2 58.7 58.2 57.4 56.9 55.1 52.9 50.3 49.9 49.4 53.9 0.0 53.9 13 50.6 55.2 48.2 54.7 54.2 53.3 52.8 51.1 49.9 48.8 48.6 48.3 50.6 0.0 50.6 14 50.8 63.4 47.8 63.2 62.4 61.0 60.4 51.6 50.1 48.5 48.3 48.0 50.8 0.0 50.8 15 52.0 69.2 48.9 68.7 67.7 65.7 64.4 54.4 52.2 50.0 49.6 49.1 52.0 0.0 52.0 16 52.5 65.0 48.4 64.5 63.9 62.6 62.2 53.5 51.1 49.1 48.8 48.6 52.5 0.0 52.5 17 50.2 76.7 47.7 76.4 75.4 71.1 67.5 56.7 49.7 48.2 48.0 47.8 50.2 0.0 50.2 18 50.3 55.5 47.5 54.9 54.2 53.0 52.4 51.0 49.7 48.1 47.9 47.7 50.3 0.0 50.3 19 49.3 65.8 47.1 65.2 64.0 61.6 61.0 50.4 48.7 47.6 47.4 47.2 49.3 5.0 54.3 20 48.0 52.7 46.5 52.1 51.3 49.7 49.1 48.1 47.6 47.0 46.8 46.6 48.0 5.0 53.0 21 48.8 53.7 46.1 53.4 53.0 52.3 51.9 49.5 47.4 46.5 46.4 46.2 48.8 5.0 53.8 22 47.8 51.0 46.1 50.6 50.3 49.7 49.4 48.4 47.5 46.6 46.4 46.2 47.8 10.0 57.8 23 45.5 46.7 44.9 46.4 46.2 45.9 45.8 45.6 45.4 45.1 45.1 45.0 45.5 10.0 55.5 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 48.0 52.7 46.1 52.1 51.3 49.7 49.1 48.1 47.4 46.5 46.4 46.2 Max 58.0 76.7 49.2 76.4 75.4 71.1 67.5 56.7 52.9 50.3 49.9 49.4

52.6 61.8 61.1 59.4 58.2 51.9 49.9 48.5 48.3 48.1
Min 45.5 46.7 44.9 46.4 46.2 45.9 45.8 45.6 45.4 45.1 45.1 45.0 Max 54.8 75.2 57.5 75.0 74.8 73.7 72.3 68.0 64.8 58.8 58.4 57.9

49.3 60.8 60.3 58.9 57.9 53.5 50.9 48.0 47.9 47.7
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Monday, April 18, 2022 L3 - Located northeast of the Project site near Mary's Kitchen at 517 West Struck Avenue.

Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

51.7 52.6 49.3

46.046.4

54.8 48.047.348.549.9

55.3 58.0

54.4 50.950.7

53.9 50.650.852.052.550.250.349.348.048.847.845.5

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13100-13500\_13100\13101_partial\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\13101_L3_O 73 Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13101
Project: 534 Struck Avenue Source: Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 44.5 79.3 43.5 78.8 78.2 76.7 75.0 69.5 48.0 43.9 43.8 43.6 44.5 10.0 54.5 1 45.8 74.5 45.8 74.3 74.1 72.4 71.3 68.1 64.9 48.6 47.0 46.0 45.8 10.0 55.8 2 45.2 83.3 66.5 83.1 82.8 81.7 80.5 75.9 73.8 68.2 67.8 66.8 45.2 10.0 55.2 3 45.5 46.9 44.5 46.7 46.6 46.4 46.2 45.8 45.4 44.9 44.8 44.7 45.5 10.0 55.5 4 45.1 46.3 44.2 46.1 46.0 45.7 45.6 45.2 45.0 44.6 44.5 44.3 45.1 10.0 55.1 5 47.5 74.8 46.5 74.5 73.8 72.0 69.9 48.8 47.4 46.9 46.8 46.6 47.5 10.0 57.5 6 49.4 76.2 48.1 75.6 74.6 72.6 71.0 50.4 49.1 48.6 48.5 48.3 49.4 10.0 59.4 7 49.2 81.4 47.9 80.6 79.4 73.2 69.8 50.6 49.0 48.4 48.2 48.0 49.2 0.0 49.2 8 52.5 77.3 47.4 77.1 76.1 74.2 73.1 54.0 50.7 48.3 48.0 47.6 52.5 0.0 52.5 9 50.8 73.4 47.0 72.7 72.1 70.8 69.8 51.2 48.9 47.6 47.4 47.2 50.8 0.0 50.8 10 53.1 61.8 47.3 61.1 60.3 58.1 56.9 53.8 50.4 48.0 47.7 47.4 53.1 0.0 53.1 11 51.3 57.5 47.6 57.1 56.5 55.2 54.4 52.1 50.0 48.1 47.9 47.7 51.3 0.0 51.3 12 54.2 63.0 47.5 62.6 62.1 61.2 60.1 55.8 51.3 48.3 48.0 47.7 54.2 0.0 54.2 13 48.8 61.1 46.8 60.6 59.8 58.1 57.0 53.7 49.2 47.3 47.1 46.9 48.8 0.0 48.8 14 48.7 70.3 46.3 70.0 69.2 68.6 68.4 49.8 48.0 46.8 46.7 46.4 48.7 0.0 48.7 15 51.5 78.2 47.5 77.7 76.9 72.4 70.8 53.7 49.9 48.1 47.9 47.6 51.5 0.0 51.5 16 50.8 71.8 47.4 71.2 70.8 69.5 68.8 52.4 49.5 47.9 47.7 47.5 50.8 0.0 50.8 17 51.4 82.3 47.8 81.7 80.7 76.6 74.4 59.5 50.8 48.5 48.2 47.9 51.4 0.0 51.4 18 51.5 56.8 47.0 56.4 56.1 55.5 55.0 52.8 49.9 47.7 47.5 47.2 51.5 0.0 51.5 19 48.9 72.3 45.0 71.7 70.7 69.0 67.7 50.7 47.5 45.4 45.3 45.1 48.9 5.0 53.9 20 47.9 51.2 45.9 50.8 50.6 50.0 49.7 48.7 47.5 46.4 46.2 46.0 47.9 5.0 52.9 21 47.5 57.6 45.4 57.3 57.1 56.7 56.4 53.2 47.2 46.0 45.8 45.6 47.5 5.0 52.5 22 49.4 53.6 46.0 53.3 53.1 52.4 51.9 50.5 48.6 46.5 46.3 46.1 49.4 10.0 59.4 23 45.0 47.8 43.9 47.3 46.9 46.0 45.8 45.2 44.9 44.3 44.2 44.1 45.0 10.0 55.0 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 47.5 51.2 45.0 50.8 50.6 50.0 49.7 48.7 47.2 45.4 45.3 45.1 Max 54.2 82.3 47.9 81.7 80.7 76.6 74.4 59.5 51.3 48.5 48.2 48.0

51.0 67.3 66.6 64.6 63.5 52.8 49.3 47.5 47.3 47.1
Min 44.5 46.3 43.5 46.1 46.0 45.7 45.6 45.2 44.9 43.9 43.8 43.6 Max 49.4 83.3 66.5 83.1 82.8 81.7 80.5 75.9 73.8 68.2 67.8 66.8

46.8 64.4 64.0 62.9 61.9 55.5 51.9 48.5 48.2 47.8
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Monday, April 18, 2022 L4 - Located northeast of the Project site near Citrus Grove Apartments at 1120 North Lemon Street.

Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

49.8 51.0 46.8

44.545.845.245.545.147.549.449.252.550.8

53.1 51.3

54.2 48.848.751.550.851.451.548.947.947.549.445.0

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13100-13500\_13100\13101_partial\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\13101_L4_H 74 Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13101
Project: 534 Struck Avenue Source: Analyst: A. Khan
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 60.6 72.2 45.0 72.0 71.3 68.4 66.3 57.5 51.0 45.6 45.3 45.1 60.6 10.0 70.6 1 56.8 69.0 45.8 68.5 67.5 64.0 61.4 54.2 50.3 46.3 46.1 45.9 56.8 10.0 66.8 2 60.1 68.3 56.1 68.0 67.4 65.3 64.0 59.8 57.9 56.4 56.3 56.1 60.1 10.0 70.1 3 57.5 69.2 47.6 68.9 68.0 65.1 62.9 54.3 49.7 48.1 47.9 47.7 57.5 10.0 67.5 4 61.0 71.7 48.8 71.3 70.5 68.3 66.7 59.8 54.1 49.4 49.2 48.9 61.0 10.0 71.0 5 65.5 74.2 53.0 73.8 73.2 71.5 70.5 66.3 61.8 54.6 53.9 53.1 65.5 10.0 75.5 6 68.8 77.0 56.7 76.5 75.8 74.2 73.3 70.1 66.1 58.8 57.8 56.9 68.8 10.0 78.8 7 70.8 78.9 59.0 78.4 77.8 76.2 75.0 71.9 68.7 61.4 60.3 59.2 70.8 0.0 70.8 8 70.4 78.3 58.2 77.7 77.0 75.3 74.5 71.6 68.7 61.2 59.6 58.5 70.4 0.0 70.4 9 67.7 76.5 54.8 76.1 75.3 73.1 71.9 68.8 65.1 57.8 56.3 55.0 67.7 0.0 67.7 10 67.1 76.2 54.6 75.5 74.6 72.3 71.2 68.2 64.6 57.4 56.1 54.8 67.1 0.0 67.1 11 66.6 74.5 54.9 74.1 73.5 71.9 70.8 67.8 64.4 57.5 56.2 55.1 66.6 0.0 66.6 12 68.2 79.2 55.6 78.7 77.7 74.6 72.2 67.9 64.5 58.1 56.9 55.8 68.2 0.0 68.2 13 66.8 75.3 54.9 74.9 74.2 72.4 71.0 67.7 64.4 57.7 56.4 55.2 66.8 0.0 66.8 14 67.8 76.7 54.6 76.4 75.7 74.0 72.7 68.4 64.9 57.5 56.1 54.9 67.8 0.0 67.8 15 67.5 76.9 55.1 76.3 75.4 72.7 71.4 68.4 65.1 57.9 56.7 55.3 67.5 0.0 67.5 16 69.6 80.9 56.2 80.3 79.2 75.7 73.3 69.3 66.1 59.1 57.7 56.4 69.6 0.0 69.6 17 68.5 76.4 56.4 76.0 75.5 73.9 72.7 69.7 66.5 59.5 57.9 56.6 68.5 0.0 68.5 18 68.3 79.4 52.4 78.8 77.9 74.6 72.7 68.3 63.7 55.2 53.9 52.7 68.3 0.0 68.3 19 65.1 73.7 50.9 73.4 72.6 71.2 70.3 66.2 61.1 53.0 51.9 51.1 65.1 5.0 70.1 20 65.0 75.2 49.6 74.9 74.1 72.0 70.5 65.1 58.9 51.3 50.5 49.8 65.0 5.0 70.0 21 63.9 74.0 49.2 73.5 72.6 70.5 69.1 64.3 58.8 50.8 50.0 49.4 63.9 5.0 68.9 22 61.5 71.9 47.9 71.5 70.8 68.8 67.2 61.1 54.9 49.0 48.4 48.0 61.5 10.0 71.5 23 59.3 70.8 45.2 70.4 69.6 67.2 65.2 56.7 49.2 45.7 45.5 45.3 59.3 10.0 69.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 63.9 73.7 49.2 73.4 72.6 70.5 69.1 64.3 58.8 50.8 50.0 49.4 Max 70.8 80.9 59.0 80.3 79.2 76.2 75.0 71.9 68.7 61.4 60.3 59.2

68.0 76.3 75.5 73.4 71.9 68.2 64.4 57.0 55.8 54.7
Min 56.8 68.3 45.0 68.0 67.4 64.0 61.4 54.2 49.2 45.6 45.3 45.1 Max 68.8 77.0 56.7 76.5 75.8 74.2 73.3 70.1 66.1 58.8 57.8 56.9

63.0 71.2 70.5 68.1 66.4 60.0 55.0 50.4 50.0 49.7
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Monday, April 18, 2022 L5 - Located south of the Project site near Top Dog Inn at 606 West Collins Avenue.

Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

66.7 68.0 63.0

60.6 56.8

60.1 57.5

61.0 65.5

68.8 70.8

70.4 67.7

67.1 66.6

68.2 66.8

67.8 67.5

69.6 68.5

68.3 65.1

65.0 63.9

61.5 59.3

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13100-13500\_13100\13101_partial\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\13101_L5_M 75 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
76 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
APPENDIX 7.1:

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
77 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis
15724-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
78 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: n/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Main St.

Scenario: E
15,522

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,459 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.07
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -11.65 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.31 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.0 64.3 62.5 57.6 65.7 66.2

65.7 66.3

64.3 58.4 57.6 65.5 65.7

64.8 59.7 58.5 66.3 66.5
Vehicle Noise: 70.8 69.2 65.3 62.7 70.6 71.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
55 118 255 550
58 125 269 579
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: n/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Main St.

Scenario: E+P
15,533

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,460 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.48%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -11.65 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.31 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.0 64.3 62.5 57.6 65.7 66.2

65.7 66.3

64.3 58.4 57.6 65.5 65.7

64.8 59.7 58.5 66.3 66.5
Vehicle Noise: 70.8 69.2 65.3 62.7 70.6 71.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
55 118 255 550
58 125 269 579
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: n/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Main St.

Scenario: OYC
16,205

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,523 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

0.11 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -11.47 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.13 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.2 64.5 62.7 57.7 65.9 66.4

65.9 66.5

64.5 58.6 57.8 65.7 65.9

65.0 59.9 58.7 66.5 66.7
Vehicle Noise: 71.0 69.4 65.5 62.8 70.8 71.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
57 122 263 566
60 128 276 596
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: n/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Main St.

Scenario: OYC+P
16,216

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,524 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

0.12 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.48%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -11.47 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.13 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.2 64.5 62.7 57.7 65.9 66.4

65.9 66.5

64.5 58.6 57.8 65.7 65.9

65.0 59.9 58.7 66.5 66.7
Vehicle Noise: 71.0 69.4 65.5 62.8 70.8 71.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
57 122 263 566
60 128 276 596
Friday, October 21, 2022
79 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Main St.

Scenario: E
18,156

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,707 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

0.61 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -10.97 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -15.63 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.7 65.0 63.2 58.2 66.4 66.9

66.4 67.0

65.0 59.1 58.2 66.2 66.4

65.5 60.4 59.2 67.0 67.2
Vehicle Noise: 71.5 69.9 66.0 63.3 71.3 71.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
61 132 283 610
64 138 298 643
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Main St.

Scenario: E+P
18,167

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,708 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

0.61 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.48%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -10.97 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -15.63 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.7 65.0 63.2 58.2 66.4 66.9

66.4 67.0

65.0 59.1 58.2 66.2 66.4

65.5 60.4 59.2 67.0 67.2
Vehicle Noise: 71.5 69.9 66.0 63.3 71.3 71.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
61 132 283 610
64 138 298 643
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Main St.

Scenario: OYC
19,026

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,788 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

0.81 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -10.77 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -15.43 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.9 65.2 63.4 58.4 66.6 67.1

66.6 67.2

65.2 59.3 58.5 66.4 66.6

65.7 60.6 59.4 67.2 67.4
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 70.1 66.2 63.5 71.5 71.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
63 136 292 630
66 143 308 663
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Main St.

Scenario: OYC+P
19,037

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,789 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

0.81 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -10.77 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -15.43 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.9 65.2 63.4 58.4 66.6 67.1

66.6 67.2

65.2 59.3 58.5 66.4 66.6

65.7 60.6 59.4 67.2 67.4
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 70.1 66.2 63.5 71.5 71.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
63 136 292 630
66 143 308 663
Friday, October 21, 2022
80 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: n/o Katella Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: E
12,119

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,139 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.15
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.73 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.39 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.0 63.2 61.4 56.5 64.6 65.1

64.6 65.2

63.2 57.4 56.5 64.4 64.7

63.7 58.6 57.4 65.2 65.5
Vehicle Noise: 69.7 68.2 64.3 61.6 69.5 69.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
47 100 216 466
49 106 228 491
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: n/o Katella Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: E+P
12,149

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,142 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.14
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.42%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.23%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.72 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.27 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.0 63.2 61.4 56.5 64.6 65.1

64.6 65.3

63.2 57.4 56.5 64.5 64.7

63.8 58.7 57.5 65.3 65.6
Vehicle Noise: 69.8 68.2 64.3 61.6 69.6 69.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
47 101 218 470
49 107 230 494
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: n/o Katella Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: OYC
13,174

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,238 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.78
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.37 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.02 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.3 63.6 61.8 56.8 65.0 65.5

65.0 65.6

63.6 57.7 56.9 64.8 65.0

64.1 59.0 57.8 65.6 65.8
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 68.5 64.6 61.9 69.9 70.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
49 106 229 493
52 112 241 519
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: n/o Katella Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: OYC+P
13,205

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,241 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.78
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.42%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.23%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.36 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.91 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.3 63.6 61.8 56.8 65.0 65.5

65.0 65.7

63.6 57.7 56.9 64.8 65.0

64.2 59.1 57.9 65.7 65.9
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 68.6 64.7 62.0 70.0 70.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
50 107 230 496
52 113 243 522
Friday, October 21, 2022
81 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Katella Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: E
9,676

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 910 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.13
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.71 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.37 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

64.0 62.2 60.5 55.5 63.6 64.2

63.6 64.2

62.2 56.4 55.5 63.5 63.7

62.7 57.6 56.4 64.2 64.5
Vehicle Noise: 68.7 67.2 63.3 60.6 68.6 68.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
40 86 186 401
42 91 196 422
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Katella Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: E+P
9,975

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 938 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.06
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 90.05%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.42%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 3.53%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.53 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.12 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

64.0 62.3 60.5 55.6 63.7 64.2

63.8 66.5

62.4 56.6 55.7 63.6 63.9

65.0 59.9 58.7 66.5 66.7
Vehicle Noise: 69.7 68.2 64.1 61.7 69.6 69.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
47 101 218 470
49 106 229 493
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Katella Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: OYC
10,417

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 979 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.80
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.39 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.04 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

64.3 62.6 60.8 55.8 63.9 64.5

64.0 64.6

62.5 56.7 55.8 63.8 64.0

63.1 58.0 56.7 64.6 64.8
Vehicle Noise: 69.1 67.5 63.6 60.9 68.9 69.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
42 91 196 421
44 96 206 444
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Katella Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: OYC+P
10,716

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,007 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.74
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 90.15%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.41%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 3.44%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.22 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -15.93 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

64.4 62.6 60.8 55.9 64.0 64.5

64.1 66.7

62.7 56.9 56.0 64.0 64.2

65.2 60.1 58.9 66.7 66.9
Vehicle Noise: 70.0 68.4 64.3 61.9 69.8 70.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
49 105 227 489
51 111 238 513
Friday, October 21, 2022
82 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: E
10,892

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,024 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.61
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.19 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.85 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

64.5 62.7 61.0 56.0 64.1 64.7

64.1 64.8

62.7 56.9 56.0 64.0 64.2

63.3 58.2 56.9 64.8 65.0
Vehicle Noise: 69.2 67.7 63.8 61.1 69.1 69.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
43 94 202 434
46 98 212 457
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: E+P
10,923

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,027 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.60
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.41%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.24%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.18 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.72 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

64.5 62.8 61.0 56.0 64.2 64.7

64.2 64.9

62.7 56.9 56.0 64.0 64.2

63.4 58.3 57.1 64.9 65.1
Vehicle Noise: 69.3 67.7 63.8 61.2 69.1 69.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
44 94 203 438
46 99 214 461
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: OYC
11,648

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,095 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.32
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.90 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.56 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

64.8 63.0 61.3 56.3 64.4 65.0

64.4 65.1

63.0 57.2 56.3 64.3 64.5

63.6 58.5 57.2 65.1 65.3
Vehicle Noise: 69.5 68.0 64.1 61.4 69.4 69.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
45 98 211 454
48 103 222 478
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: s/o Struck Av.

Road Name: Batavia St.

Scenario: OYC+P
11,679

9.40%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,098 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 50.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.31
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.42%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.23%

0.79 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.89 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.43 0.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

43.589

43.386

43.405
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

64.8 63.0 61.3 56.3 64.4 65.0

64.4 65.2

63.0 57.2 56.3 64.3 64.5

63.7 58.6 57.4 65.2 65.4
Vehicle Noise: 69.6 68.0 64.1 61.5 69.4 69.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
46 99 212 458
48 104 224 482
Friday, October 21, 2022
83 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: w/o Main St.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: E
24,088

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,264 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 67.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 74 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.84 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.17%
-0.85
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -9.74 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -14.40 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.3 64.6 62.8 57.8 65.9 66.5

65.9 66.6

64.5 58.7 57.8 65.8 66.0

65.1 60.0 58.7 66.6 66.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.0 69.5 65.6 62.9 70.9 71.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
77 165 356 767
81 174 375 807
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: w/o Main St.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: E+P
24,268

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,281 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

1.85 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.06%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.38%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.56%
-0.85
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -9.70 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -13.66 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.3 64.6 62.8 57.8 66.0 66.5

66.0 67.3

64.6 58.7 57.9 65.8 66.1

65.8 60.7 59.5 67.3 67.5
Vehicle Noise: 71.3 69.8 65.8 63.2 71.2 71.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
80 173 373 804
85 182 392 845
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: w/o Main St.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: OYC
25,269

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,375 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.04 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -9.54 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -14.20 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.5 64.8 63.0 58.0 66.2 66.7

66.1 66.8

64.7 58.9 58.0 66.0 66.2

65.3 60.2 58.9 66.8 67.0
Vehicle Noise: 71.2 69.7 65.8 63.1 71.1 71.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
79 171 367 792
83 180 387 833
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: w/o Main St.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: OYC+P
25,449

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,392 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.06 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.08%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.38%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.54%
-0.85
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -9.49 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -13.49 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

66.5 64.8 63.0 58.0 66.2 66.7

66.2 67.5

64.8 59.0 58.1 66.0 66.3

66.0 60.9 59.6 67.5 67.7
Vehicle Noise: 71.5 70.0 66.0 63.4 71.4 71.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
83 178 384 828
87 188 404 871
Friday, October 21, 2022
84 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: e/o Main St.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: E
28,483

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,677 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.56 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -9.02 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -13.68 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

67.0 65.3 63.5 58.5 66.7 67.2

66.7 67.3

65.3 59.4 58.6 66.5 66.7

65.8 60.7 59.5 67.3 67.5
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 70.2 66.3 63.6 71.6 71.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
86 185 398 857
90 194 419 902
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: e/o Main St.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: E+P
28,663

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,694 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.57 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.12%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.38%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.50%
-0.85
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -8.98 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -13.04 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

67.0 65.3 63.5 58.6 66.7 67.2

66.7 67.9

65.3 59.5 58.6 66.5 66.8

66.4 61.3 60.1 67.9 68.2
Vehicle Noise: 72.0 70.5 66.5 63.9 71.9 72.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
89 192 414 892
94 202 436 939
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: e/o Main St.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: OYC
29,870

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,808 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.77 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -8.81 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -13.47 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

67.2 65.5 63.7 58.8 66.9 67.4

66.9 67.5

65.5 59.6 58.8 66.7 66.9

66.0 60.9 59.7 67.5 67.7
Vehicle Noise: 72.0 70.4 66.5 63.9 71.8 72.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
88 191 411 885
93 201 432 931
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: e/o Main St.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: OYC+P
30,050

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,825 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

2.78 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.14%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.37%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.48%
-0.85
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -8.77 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -12.86 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

67.2 65.5 63.7 58.8 66.9 67.4

66.9 68.1

65.5 59.7 58.8 66.8 67.0

66.6 61.5 60.3 68.1 68.3
Vehicle Noise: 72.2 70.7 66.7 64.1 72.1 72.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
92 198 427 919
97 208 449 967
Friday, October 21, 2022
85 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: e/o Batavia Av.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: E
31,672

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,977 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.02 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -8.56 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -13.22 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

67.5 65.7 64.0 59.0 67.1 67.7

67.1 67.7

65.7 59.9 59.0 67.0 67.2

66.2 61.1 59.9 67.7 68.0
Vehicle Noise: 72.2 70.7 66.8 64.1 72.1 72.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
92 198 427 920
97 209 450 969
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: e/o Batavia Av.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: E+P
31,760

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,985 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.03 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.36%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.29%
-0.85
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -8.54 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -12.99 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

67.5 65.7 64.0 59.0 67.1 67.7

67.1 68.0

65.7 59.9 59.0 67.0 67.2

66.5 61.4 60.1 68.0 68.2
Vehicle Noise: 72.3 70.8 66.9 64.2 72.2 72.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
93 201 433 933
98 212 456 982
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: e/o Batavia Av.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: OYC
33,328

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,133 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.25 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -8.33 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -12.99 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

67.7 66.0 64.2 59.2 67.4 67.9

67.3 68.0

65.9 60.1 59.2 67.2 67.4

66.5 61.4 60.1 68.0 68.2
Vehicle Noise: 72.5 70.9 67.0 64.3 72.3 72.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
95 205 442 952
100 216 465 1,002
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: e/o Batavia Av.

Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: OYC+P
33,416

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,141 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.25 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.36%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

79.9% 6.2% 14.0% 2.28%
-0.85
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -8.32 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -12.78 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

67.7 66.0 64.2 59.2 67.4 67.9

67.4 68.2

66.0 60.1 59.2 67.2 67.4

66.7 61.6 60.4 68.2 68.4
Vehicle Noise: 72.5 71.0 67.1 64.4 72.4 72.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
96 208 448 965
102 219 471 1,015
Friday, October 21, 2022
86 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: w/o SR-57 SB Ramps
Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: E
36,377

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,419 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -7.95 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -12.61 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

68.1 66.3 64.6 59.6 67.7 68.3

67.7 68.3

66.3 60.5 59.6 67.6 67.8

66.8 61.7 60.5 68.3 68.6
Vehicle Noise: 72.8 71.3 67.4 64.7 72.7 73.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
101 217 468 1,009
106 229 493 1,062
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: w/o SR-57 SB Ramps
Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: E+P
36,388

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,420 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -7.95 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -12.61 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

68.1 66.3 64.6 59.6 67.7 68.3

67.7 68.3

66.3 60.5 59.6 67.6 67.8

66.8 61.7 60.5 68.3 68.6
Vehicle Noise: 72.8 71.3 67.4 64.7 72.7 73.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
101 217 468 1,009
106 229 493 1,062
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: w/o SR-57 SB Ramps
Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: OYC
38,027

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,574 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.82 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.36%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -7.76 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -12.42 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.004

56.080

55.922

55.938
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

68.3 66.5 64.8 59.8 67.9 68.5

67.9 68.5

66.5 60.7 59.8 67.8 68.0

67.0 61.9 60.7 68.5 68.8
Vehicle Noise: 73.0 71.5 67.6 64.9 72.9 73.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
104 224 482 1,039
109 236 508 1,094
Friday, October 21, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (9/12/2021)

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: 534 Struck
Job Number: 13101
Road Segment: w/o SR-57 SB Ramps
Road Name: Katella Av.

Scenario: OYC+P
38,038

9.40%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,576 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

3.82 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 12.5% 12.0% 91.47%

81.6% 5.3% 13.1% 6.35%

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -7.76 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -12.42 -0.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Orange City CouncilSeptember 9, 2025

Orange City Council
September 9, 2025