Agenda packet — Orange City Council, May 26, 2026 (part 7 of 10)

3743320 3743350 3743380 3743410 3743440 3743470
3743320 3743350 3743380 3743410 3743440 3743470
422650 422680 422710 422740 422770 422800 422830 422860 422890 422620 422650 422680 422710 422740 422770 422800 422830 422860 422890 33° 49' 43'' N
117° 50' 10'' W
33° 49' 43'' N
117° 49' 59'' W
33° 49' 37'' N
117° 50' 10'' W
33° 49' 37'' N
117° 49' 59'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,280 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
1502

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Aug 30, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 14, 2022—Mar 17, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map—Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/18/2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 209 Sorrento clay loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes, warm MAAT,
MLRA 19

4.4 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 4.4 100.0%
Soil Map—Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/18/2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

1504
Orange County and Part of Riverside County,
California
209—Sorrento clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tz07
Elevation: 20 to 2,040 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 320 to 365 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Sorrento and similar soils: 75 percent
Minor components: 25 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Sorrento
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap1 - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam
Ap2 - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam
AB1 - 12 to 21 inches: silty clay loam
AB2 - 21 to 27 inches: silty clay loam
AB3 - 27 to 37 inches: silty clay loam
Bk1 - 37 to 49 inches: silty clay loam
Bk2 - 49 to 62 inches: silty clay loam
2C - 62 to 72 inches: stratified loamy fine sand to silt loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Map Unit Description: Sorrento clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19--- Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/18/2025

Page 1 of 2 ends

1505
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.3 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R019XD001CA - CLAYEY
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Mocho
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R019XD029CA - LOAMY
Hydric soil rating: No
Sorrento, loam
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R019XD029CA - LOAMY
Hydric soil rating: No
Botella
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R019XD001CA - CLAYEY
Hydric soil rating: No
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California Survey Area Data: Version 18, Aug 30, 2024
Map Unit Description: Sorrento clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19--- Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/18/2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

1506

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY
TTM 19392
2075 N. Tustin Street
OCFCD Facilities Maps
1507

PROJECT SITE
1508
1509

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY
TTM 19392
2075 N. Tustin Street
Tentative Tract Map No. 19392
1510
Appendix H: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
1511

PRELIMINARY PRIORITY

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
(WQMP)
For:

TTM 19392
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Ca 92685
Prepared for:

Melia Homes
9860 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, Ca 92618
(949) 759-4367
Prepared by:

C&V Consulting, Inc.

Dane McDougall, P.E.
9830 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 916-3800
April 2025
Revised September 2025
___________________________________ _________________________ Public Works Director Date
__________________________ _____________________
City Engineer Date
1512
OWNER’S CERTIFICATION

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
2375 North Tustin Street
This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the 2375 North Tustin Street has been prepared for Melia Homes. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Orange’s TTM 19392 requiring the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan.

The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the City of Orange Local Implementation Plan (LIP), and the intent of NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Orange, County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region.

This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. Maintenance requirements within Section V and Appendix D will be adhered to with particular emphasis on maintaining the BMPs described within Sections IV and V. The Owner’s Annual Self Certification Statement along with a BMP maintenance implementation table will be submitted by June 30th every year following project completion. At least one copy of the approved WQMP shall be available on the subject property in perpetuity.

Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. The City of Orange will be notified of the change of ownership and the new owner will submit a new certification.

Signature: ____________________________ Date:

Name: Chad Brown
Title: Vice President of Planning and Development
Company: Melia Homes
Address: 9830 Irvine Center Drive
Telephone Number: (949) 759-4367
1513
Notice of Transfer of Responsibility
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
WQMP Number – As assigned by the City of Orange:

Submission of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (and his/her agent) of the site (or portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below.

I. Owner/ Responsible Party Information
Company/ Individual: Melia Homes Contact Person: Chad Brown Street Address: 9830 Irvine Center Drive Title: VP of Planning and Development City Irvine State CA Zip 92618 Phone: (949) 759-4367
II. Information about Site Relevant to WQMP
Name of Project:

Title of WQMP applicable to site:

Street Address of the site:

Date of Transfer of Responsibility:

III. New Owner (Upon Transfer)/ Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual: Appointed HOA TBD Contact Person:

Street Address: Title:

City State Zip Phone:
1514
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 i
Table of Contents
I. Discretionary Permit Number(s), Water Quality Condition Number(s) and Conditions………………………………………………………………….. 1
II. Project Description………………………………………………………… 2
III. Site Description……………………………………………………………. 4
IV. Best Management Practices……………………………………………… 9
IV.1 Site Design and Drainage Characteristics……………………… 9 IV.2 Source Control BMPs……………………………………………… 11
IV.3 Low Impact Development BMP Selection………………………. 16
IV.4 Water Quality Credits……………………………………………… 21
IV.5 Alternative Compliance Plan…………………………………….. 21
IV.6 Vector Control……………………………………………………… 21
IV.7 Drainage Management Areas……………………………………. 21
IV.8 Calculations………………………………………………………… 21
V. Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Responsibility for BMPs (O&M Plan)……………………………………..…………………… 23
VI. Location Map, Site Plan, and BMP Details………………….…………… 32 VII. Educational Materials………………………………………………………. 33
Appendices
A. Conditions of Approval, Resolution Number ______ dated _______ B. Educational Material
C. BMP Details
D. BMP Maintenance Information
E. Geotechnical Infiltration Testing (for reference only) F. References
List of Tables
Table 1 Site Design BMPs…………………………………………... 9
Table 2 Routine Non-Structural BMPs……………………………… 11
Table 3 Routine Structural BMPs…………………………………… 14
Table 4 Hydrologic Source Control BMPs…………………………. 16
Table 5 Infiltration BMPs…………….. ……………………………… 17
Table 6 Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting……………….. 18 Table 7 Biotreatment BMPs………………………………………….. 19
Table 8 Frequency Inspection Matrix…………………………..……. 23
1515
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 1
I. Discretionary Permit Number(s), Water Quality Condition Number(s) and Conditions of Approval
Tract No 19392 Lot No.______
GPS Coordinates: 33.82781, -117.83406
Water Quality Conditions (WQMP conditions listed below) A complete copy of the signed Conditions of Approval, Resolution Number _________ dated _________ are included as Appendix A
Conditions of Approval: Conditions of approval are not available at this time. 1516
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 2
II. Project Description
Refer to Section 2.2 of the Technical Guidance Document for completion of this section.

Planning Area (Location): 2375 N. Tustin Street, Orange, CA 92685 Project Site Area (ac): 4.322 ac (gross) 4.229 ac (net) Project Disturbed Area (ac): 3.944 acres
Percent Change in Impermeable Surfaces: -4.9% (estimating post developed perviousness at 13%)
Project Description
The property consists of 4.229 acres located at 2375 N. Tustin Street in the City of Orange. The project proposes to construct 71 residential units which consists of 29 duplex residential condominium units and 13 single family detached condominium units.

There will be a triangular shaped dedication (approximately 0.007ac) to the city along the frontage of the property on N. Tustin Street. The existing main access of the site (approximately 0.285 ac) will remain as is and is not being considered in the water quality analysis. The site does experience offsite run-on from the parcel to the east (approximately 0.47 ac). This flow will be accounted for in water quality calculations as comingling of offsite and onsite flows cannot be avoided. The development proposes open space areas, parking areas, walkways, and driveways. Each residential unit will have two garage parking spaces and additional uncovered parking. The site has one (1) entrance/ exit on N. Tustin Street and one (1) secondary access for emergency vehicles only.

Potential Storm Water Pollutants
The proposed residential project is expected to produce: Suspended Solids, Nutrients, Pathogens, Pesticides, Oil and Grease, and Trash and Debris.

Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
Per the TGD Figure 3, Susceptibility Analysis of Santa Ana River dated February 2013, the project site drains to engineered facilities, therefore HCOCs do not exist. Refer to Section IV.8 for the TGD Figure.

Post Development Drainage Characteristics
The proposed development has been designed utilizing three (3) Drainage Management Areas (DMA) based on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage design.

Runoff will be captured by five (5) sump curb inlet catch basins and one (1) proposed grate inlet throughout the site. Runoff will be routed into a proposed Biofiltration Vault treatment device prior to discharge to the existing stormwater sump pump system. After entering the sump pump system, runoff will follow historic drainage patterns. 1517
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 3
The Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) devices will be located onsite upstream of the proposed storm drain overflow pipes to mitigate the required full trash captures requirements.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FIRM rate map Number 06059C0154J, revised December 3, 2009, the site is located within the flood zone as follows: Zone X – “Area of minimal flood hazard.” Project Purpose and Activities
71 Residential units in 29 duplex buildings and 13 single family detach condominium buildings
Site Ownership and Easements
Melia Homes, (Owner/ Developer) will appoint a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) or Property Management Company (PMC) to manage the operation and maintenance of the property.

Melia Homes
9860 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, Ca 92618
(949) 759-4367
An ALTA Survey is shown in Section VI with all easements. 1518
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 4
III. Site Description
Reference Location Map: Refer to Vicinity Map in Section VI Site Address: 2375 N. Tustin Street, Orange, Ca 92685
Zoning: Limited Business Tustin Redevelopment Project Area (C-TR) Predominant Soil Type: C
Pre-Project Percent Pervious: 8% Post Project Percent Pervious: 13% Pre-Project Percent Impervious: 92% Post Project Percent Impervious: 87% Site Characteristics
The existing site at 3.944 acres is currently occupied by a commercial building situated in the more easterly portion of the site with associated parking throughout the rest of the site. There are small landscaped medians throughout the parking area. The site is bounded by a multi family residential development to the north, an existing mobile home park to the south, the 55 Freeway to the east, and a multi family residential development and commercial development to the west. The site has block wall along the north and south property lines and a wall and fencing along the eastern property line. North Tustin Street is along the western property line of the site. The site is accessed via one signalized intersection from N. Tustin Street.

The Precipitation Zone for this area equals 0.9” Per Rainfall Zone per Figure XVI-1 per the Orange County Technical Guidance. Elevations on site range from 271 to 258 above mean sea level. The site primarily slopes in the westerly direction toward N.

Tustin Street. Existing stormwater runoff is collected in valley gutters throughout the site. East of the existing building, runoff is conveyed overland into a valley gutter and into an existing storm drain inlet. To the west of the building, runoff is conveyed overland into existing valley gutters that route runoff into two existing storm drain catch basins in the easterly portion of the main entrance drive aisle. Runoff in the main entrance drive aisle is routed via curb and gutter into two existing catch basins located just east of the public right-of-way of N. Tustin Street. The site does experience offsite runon at the southeast corner from the triangular shaped parcel to the east. Due to the nature of the proposed design this runoff will be comingled with onsite flows and therefore accounted for in the required water quality treatment flows.

Per the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) Drainage Maps, surface runoff from the site continues in the southerly direction in N. Tustin Street where it is conveyed into an existing catch basin and enters the existing underground storm drain system and continues to the Buckeye Storm Channel just south of Meats Avenue. Runoff converges 1519
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 5
with the Collins Storm Channel, Santa Ana River, and ultimately discharging to the Pacific Ocean.

To support the proposed development, all onsite utilities will be demolished and capped appropriately at the right-of-way.

Per the “Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation” dated December 30, 2024, the following subsurface soil conditions were encountered:

Two (2) borings (Borings I-1 and I-2) were excavated on the project site to evaluate preliminary infiltration rates for the proposed stormwater management facilities to be located in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the site. The boring diameter was approximately eight inches. Percolation testing was performed within the lower approximately 24 inches in the borings by a representative of GeoTek, in general conformance with the Boring Percolation Test Procedure outlined in the Technical Guidance Document Appendix VII (Orange County, 2013). As required, the percolation rates were corrected to account for discharge of water from both the sides and bottom of the borings. This correction was done using the Porchet Method, obtaining the infiltration rates tabulated below:

Summary of Results
Boring Observed Infiltration Rate
Kobserved
(inches per Hour)
Observed Infiltration Rate
Kmeasured
(inches per Hour)
I-1 7.7 3.86
I-2 1.1 0.57

As recommended by the referenced Technical Guidance Document (Orange County, 2013), a factor of safety of 2.0 was applied to the observed (field) rates to estimate measured infiltration rates. As shown on the table above, poor to favorable infiltration rates (0.57 to 3.86 inches per hour) were encountered at the site. Detailed infiltration test data is included in Appendix D. Stormwater BMP systems should be setback from foundations and improvements as required by the regulatory agency or jurisdiction. “Field explorations were previously performed at this site by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCGI) in February, 2005. The subsurface exploration program conducted by SCGI occurred on February 9 and 23, and included the excavation of five (5) exploratory borings (B-1 through B-5) to a maximum depth of 32 feet below existing grades.”
“SCGI reported that artificial fill was encountered beneath existing pavement sections at Boring B-5 and extended to a depth of 3± feet below existing grade. SCGI stated that additional soils classified as possible fill were encountered in all of the borings and extended to depths of up to 5.5± feet. These fill soils consisted of stiff to very stiff clays 1520
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 6
with some fine to coarse gravel (CL soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System).

Native soils (alluvium) were reported by SCGI to underlie the artificial fills at the site.

The alluvium encountered to depths of 5.5± to 12± feet generally consisted of very stiff to hard silty clays with tract to some fine gravel content (CL soil type). Beneath these materials, the borings generally encountered interbedded zones of dense to very dense silty sands and very stiff to hard silty clays (SM and CL soil types) with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel content, extending to depths of at least 32± feet (the deepest depth explored).

SCGI stated that the site soils possess a high expansion potential (EI = 108).

GeoTek’s recent exploration also encountered alluvium below the existing asphalt concrete pavement sections to the maximum depth explored of approximately 26.5 feet below existing site grades at the boring locations. The alluvium consisted of interbedded layers of clay, clayey sand, silty sands and fine to coarse gravel CL, SC, SM and GP soil types).

SCGI stated that groundwater was not encountered in their borings to a maximum depth of approximately 32 feet below existing site grades (Boring B-1). SCGI stated that based upon the Seismic Hazard Zone Map published by the Site of California, the project is not mapped as having a potential for seismic induced liquefaction. SCGI stated that based upon the soil encountered on the site and the depth to groundwater liquefaction is not considered to be a significant design concern for the project.

The California Water Data Library shows that the depth to groundwater in the site region is in excess of 40 feet. The depth of historic groundwater at the site is estimated to be greater than 40 feet below existing grades.

Based on the above, groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor during the site grading. However, seasonal perched groundwater may be encountered during grading within portions of the site.”
Per the Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Letter dated June 19, 2025 provided by Geotek, Inc. “Two percolation tests were conducted for the referenced Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation dated December 30, 2024 (GeoTek, 2024) at depths of approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface (see Exploration Location Map, Figure 2, of the referenced report for the test locations). The results of the infiltration testing indicated poor to favorable rates (0.57 to 3.86 inches per hour).

Both percolation tests appear to have been conducted within a fine- to coarse-gravel with sand and trace clay (GP soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System), indicating highly variable percolation characteristics within the on-site soils.” “Soils encountered in the recent borings conducted for the referenced Update Evaluation, as well as a previous Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Southern 1521
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 7
California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCGI, 2005) for the existing site improvements, indicated the presence of fine-grained silty clay and very dense silty sand soils (CL and SM soil types) below the gravel soils. These soils are anticipated to locally act as barriers to downward percolation of water from on-site disposal facilities, most likely leading to “mounding” of the water atop these soils. Over time, this water mounding will lead to a non-functional stormwater disposal system and possible migration of water to adjacent sites.”
“Based on the highly variable infiltration rates obtained from the on-site percolation testing, the presence of expansive clay and very dense soil layers acting as downward water migration barriers leading to “mounding” of subsurface water, along with the possible negative effects of “mounding” subsurface waters on proposed site and off-site improvements, it is GeoTek’s opinion that stormwater infiltration is not considered suitable for the project development.”
1522
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 8
Watershed Characteristics
Watershed: Lower Santa Ana River
Downstream Receiving Waters: Buckeye Storm Channel, Collins Channel, Santa Ana River, Pacific Ocean
Water Quality Impairments (if applicable): None
Identify hydromodification susceptibility: Project site is not susceptible to hydromodification concerns since all downstream waterbodies are stabilized. Refer to the Section IV.8 of this report for a copy of the TGD Appendix XVI, Figure 3 Susceptibility Analysis Map for the Santa Ana River dated February 2013.

Identify watershed management priorities: Not Applicable 1523
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 9
IV. Best Management Practices
Street/ parking lot surface runoff will be collected and conveyed via a concrete longitudinal v-gutter to proposed catch basins connected to a Modular Wetlands System (MWS), Biofiltration vault for water quality treatment. The offsite runon will be conveyed through the proposed wall into the onsite curb and gutter which will direct runoff into the proposed catch basin. An onsite area drain system will connect directly to the MWS Biofiltration system for treatment of landscaped areas. Treated runoff will be routed to the existing stormwater sump pump which discharges through a parkway drain into the public right of way at N. Tustin Street. Overflow runoff will pond at the proposed catch basin and flow overland through the site entry into the public right of way of N. Tustin Street.

The Modular Wetland System (MWS) Biofiltration vault is designed to provide a 3-phase treatment train. Initially, when the stormwater enters the system, a trash rack, filter media and settling chamber will capture large trash/ debris and sediment in the stormwater before entering the planting media. This system is designed to treat stormwater flow horizontally. Before the stormwater enters the planting or “wetland” chamber, the runoff flows through the 2nd phase, a pre-filter cartridge which captures fines TSS, metals, nutrients and bacteria. The pre-filter chamber eliminates additional maintenance of the planting area. The wetland chamber is the 3rd phase of the system which provides final treatment through a combination of physical, chemical and biological processes.

Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) devices will be located at each catch basin to mitigate the required full trash captures requirements.

IV.1 Site Design and Drainage Characteristics
Table 1
Site Design BMPs
Technique Included? If no, state justification.

Yes No
Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs)
(C-Factor Reduction) X
Create Reduced or “Zero Discharge” Areas
(Runoff Volume Reduction)1
X
Although site landscaping design has
been incorporated throughout the
development, additional retention is
not anticipated.

Minimize Impervious Area/Maximize Permeability
(C-Factor Reduction)2
X
Conserve Natural Areas
(C-Factor Reduction) X No existing area to conserve.
1 Detention and retention areas incorporated into landscape design provide areas for retaining and detaining stormwater flows, resulting in lower runoff rates and reductions in volume due to limited infiltration and evaporation. Such Site Design BMPs may reduce the size of Treatment Control BMPs.
1524
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 10
2 The “C Factor” is a representation of the ability of a surface to produce runoff. Surfaces that produce higher volumes of runoff are represented by higher C Factors. By incorporating more pervious, lower C Factor surfaces into a development, lower volumes of runoff will be produced. Lower volumes and rates of runoff translate directly to lowering treatment requirements.

Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs)
The proposed site has been designed at minimum widths in accordance to fire and planning departments.

Minimize Impervious Area/Maximize Permeability
The proposed site has been designed to allow for the maximum pervious coverage possible in order to maximize natural permeability.

The proposed project is designed to capture and treat the required storm water quality volume utilizing a Modular Wetlands System (MWS), Biofiltration vault. 1525
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 11
IV.2 Source Control BMPs
IV.2.1 Routine Non-Structural BMPs
Table 2
Routine Non-Structural BMPs
BMP
No. Name
Check One If not applicable,
Included state brief reason. Not
Applicable
N1
Education for Property Owners, Tenants and
Occupants X
N2 Activity Restriction X
N3 Common Area Landscape Management X
N4 BMP Maintenance X
N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance X
N6 Local Water Quality Permit Compliance
X
This BMP is not applicable.

The City of Orange does
not issue water quality
permits.

N7 Spill Contingency Plan X
N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance X Not Applicable N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance X Not Applicable N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation X
N11 Common Area Litter Control X
N12 Employee Training X
N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks X Not Applicable
N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection X
N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots X
Non-Structural Measures
Non-structural BMPs are generally managerial, educational, inspection and/ or maintenance oriented. These items consist of educating employees and occupants, developing and implementing Owner guidelines, implementing BMPs and enforcing Code requirements. Non-structural BMPs used for this project are summarized below:

N1. Education for Employees and Occupants
Practical informational materials will be provided to owners, occupants and employees on general good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of storm water quality. Among other things, these materials will describe the use of chemicals (including household type) that should be limited to the property, with no discharge of specified wastes via hosing or other direct discharge to gutters, catch basins and storm 1526
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 12
drains. The property owner will provide these materials. Thereafter, such materials will be available through the property owner education program. This program must be maintained, enforced, and updated periodically by the property owner. Educational materials including, but not limited to, the materials included in the Appendix B section of this plan will be made available to the employees and contractors of the property owner.

N2. Activity Restrictions
CC&R’s will be recorded for the subject site and will implement all restrictions as conditions. These will also cover any restrictions as denoted in the final set of conditions of approve as provided by the subject site. Restrictions shall include, but not limited to car washing, washing of any hard pavement such as sidewalks, parking lots, streets, mandatory pet waste management, etc.

N3. Common Area Landscape Management
Management programs will be designed and established by the property owner, who will maintain the common areas within the project site. These programs will include how to mitigate the potential dangers of fertilizer and pesticide usage (refer to the Maintenance and Frequency Table – See project Operations and Maintenance Plan).

Ongoing maintenance will be consistent with the City of Orange Model Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Fertilizer and pesticide usage shall be consistent with City of Orange Guidelines for use of Fertilizers and Pesticides.

N4. BMP Maintenance
The Homeowner Association through use of their management contractors will be responsible for maintenance each of the BMPs detailed in this plan. Maintenance operations should be logged in Appendix D.

N10: Uniform Fire Code Implementation
HOA is responsible for compliance with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code enforced by the City of Orange Fire Department.

N11. Common Area Litter Control
The property owners through the HOA and the contracted maintenance company will perform required common area litter control to remove any accumulated trash, debris and other litter.

N12. Employee Training
A training program will be established as it would apply to future employees, contractors, and leasers of the property owner to inform and train in maintenance activities regarding the impact of dumping oil, paints, solvents, or other potentially harmful chemicals into storm drains; the proper use of fertilizers and pesticides in landscaping maintenance practices; and the impacts of littering and improper water 1527
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 13
disposal. Training will be done annually and with any new employees.

N14. Catch Basin Inspection
The HOA will maintain the drainage systems, including catch basins and detention systems. The HOA is required to have catch basins inspected and, if necessary, cleaned prior to the storm season, no later than October 1st each year. These duties may be contracted out to the landscape maintenance firm hired by the property owner.

Please see Appendix D for maintenance program. Maintenance operations should be logged in Appendix.

N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots
The HOA shall clean the surface of pavement surfaces by mechanized methods at least one time per week.
1528
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 14
IV.2.2 Routine Structural BMPs
Table 3
Routine Structural BMPs
Name
Check One If not applicable, state brief
Included reason Not
Applicable
Provide storm drain system stenciling and
signage- “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” X
Design and construct outdoor material storage
areas to reduce pollution introduction X No outside storage Design and construct trash and waste storage
areas to reduce pollution introduction X No trash enclosures proposed Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape
design X
Protect slopes and channels and provide energy
dissipation X No proposed slopes
Incorporate requirements applicable to individual
project features
a. Dock areas X No proposed dock areas
b. Maintenance bays X No proposed maintenance bays
c. Vehicle or community wash areas X No proposed vehicle wash areas d. Outdoor processing areas X No proposed outdoor processing areas e. Equipment wash areas X No proposed equipment wash areas f. Fueling areas X No proposed fuel areas
g. Hillside landscaping X Project Site not located within hillside area h. Wash water control for food preparation
areas
X No proposed food preparation
areas
Structural BMPs
Structural BMPs shall be installed by the developer/ owner, through the construction and development of the project, for instance; slope planting and irrigation systems shall be designed by licensed landscape architects and installed by qualified contractors to specifications and standards of the City of Orange. The structural BMPs used for this project are summarized below:

Efficient Irrigation
As part of the design of all common area landscape irrigation shall employ water conservation principals, including, but not limited to, such provisions as water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc., will be used. Such common areas will be maintained by the HOA.

Runoff-Minimizing Landscape Design
As part of the design of all common area landscape areas, similar planting material with 1529
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 15
similar water requirements will be used in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Such common areas will be maintained by the property owner/HOA.

Catch Basin Stenciling
Phrase "No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to be stenciled on catch basins to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. This stenciling will be inspected and re-stenciled on a periodic basis by the HOA. Please see Table (8) for maintenance frequency.
1530
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 16
IV.3 Low Impact Development BMP Selection
IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls
Table 4
Hydrologic Source Control BMPs
Name Check If
Used
Localized on-lot infiltration
Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top
disconnection)
Street trees (canopy interception)
Residential rain barrels (not actively managed)
Green roofs/Brown roofs
Blue roofs
Other:

Other:

Other:
* HSC BMPs are not implemented for this development.
1531
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 17
IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs
Table 5
Infiltration BMPs
Name Check If
Used
Bioretention without underdrains
Rain gardens
Porous landscaping
Infiltration planters
Retention swales
Infiltration trenches
Infiltration basins
Drywells
Subsurface infiltration galleries
French drains
Permeable asphalt
Permeable concrete
Permeable concrete pavers
Other:

Other:

Infiltration BMPs will not be utilized and have been determined to be infeasible for this site due to potential geotechnical hazards. Biotreatment BMPs will be utilized to provide the required treatment flow rates. Refer to Geotechnical Report and Infiltration Infeasibility Letter in Appendix E.

Refer to Table 2.7 Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet located within Section IV.8 for additional information.
1532
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 18
IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs
Table 6
Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMP
Name Check If Used
All HSCs; See Section IV.3.1
Surface-based infiltration BMPs
Biotreatment BMPs (Modular Wetlands)
Above-ground cisterns and basins
Underground detention
Other:

Other:

Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs will not be utilized and have been determined to be infeasible for this site due to development type, density and available amount of landscaped area for irrigation purposes. Refer to Worksheet J for feasibility calculations within Attachment A of this report. Biotreatment BMPs will be utilized to provide the required treatment flow rates.
1533
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 19
IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs
Table 7
Biotreatment BMPs
Bioretention with underdrains
Storm water planter boxes with underdrains
Rain gardens with underdrains
Constructed wetlands
Vegetated swales
Vegetated filter strips
Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems
Wet extended detention basin
Dry extended detention basins
Other:

Other:
1534
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 20
Proprietary Vegetated Biotreatment Systems:

Modular Wetland System (MWS) Biofiltration curb inlets will be utilized to capture and treat the stormwater runoff before leaving the site. The Modular Wetland System (MWS) Biofiltration vaults are designed to provide a 3-phase treatment train. Initially, when the stormwater enters the system, a trash rack, filter media and settling chamber will capture large trash/ debris and sediment in the stormwater before entering the planting media. This system is designed to treat stormwater flow horizontally. Before the stormwater enters the planting or “wetland” chamber, the runoff flows through the 2nd phase, a pre-filter cartridge which captures fines TSS, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. The pre-filter chamber eliminates additional maintenance of the planting area. The wetland chamber is the 3rd phase of the system which provides final treatment through a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes. Treated stormwater runoff will be pumped and discharged into a proposed parkway drain on N. Tustin Street. There is an existing cartridge based filtration system in the existing storm drain manhole adjacent to Tustin Street. This development will not be utilizing this system to satisfy water quality requirements. Water quality requirements are satisfied with proposed facilities as noted in this report.

Refer to Attachment C for additional manufacturer’s BMP information.

The MWS Biofiltration vaults were sized based on the drainage management areas and treatment flow rate method per the Orange County Technical Guidance Document worksheets.

Refer to Worksheet D in Attachment A for calculations.

Catch Basin/
MWS #
Tributary Area
(ac)
Required
Treatment
Flowrate, Q (cfs)
MWS Model Treatment
Capacity, Q
(cfs)
1 1.00 0.209 MWS-L-8-8 (3.6) 0.245
2 3.07 0.641 MWS-L-10-20 (3.4) 0.693
3 0.34 0.07 MWS-L-4-6 (3.4) 0.073
*Project-specific Modular Wetland System (MWS) Biofiltration details will be provided during final engineering. Refer to additional manufacturer sizing information located within Attachment C of this report.

Treated storm water runoff discharging from the MWS Biofiltration vaults will enter the existing stormwater sump pump system and follow historic drainage patterns.

Refer to Section V and Attachment E within this report for the project-specific Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan.
1535
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 21
IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs
NA
IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs
NA
IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs
Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) Device: Each proposed onsite MWS vault will be equipped with a Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) device that provides full trash capture compliance and bypass sized for the 1-year, 1-hour storm event. Stormwater Connector Pipe Screens (CPS) are used to prevent trash and debris from entering the stormwater system during dry weather and moderate storm flows by keeping the trash inside the catch basin. The CPS is a screen placed permanently or temporarily in a catch basin at the location of the outlet pipe. The screen separates trash and debris from stormwater treatment flows. Flows that exceed the treatment flow rate bypass over the top of the screen. When the outlet pipe is located below a curb opening the CPS features a lid to prevent debris from passing behind the screen and flowing directly to the outlet pipe.

The CPS shall be designed to retain all trash larger than 5 mm (0.197 inches) in the catch basin.

IV. 4 Water Quality Credits
NA
IV.5 Alternative Compliance Plan
NA
IV.6 Vector Control
NA
IV.7 Drainage Management Area (DMA)
DMA Number BMPs Area Treated
1 BIO-7: Proprietary
Biofiltration

1.00 2 BIO-7: Proprietary
Biofiltration

3.07 3 BIO-7: Proprietary
Biofiltration

0.34 Total Area 4.41
Total Treated Area = 4.42 acres (192,099.6 sf)
IV.8 Calculations
DMA 1
1536
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 22
dremainder= 0.9” remainder of the design capture storm depth A=1.00 acres (area tributary to BMP)
imp=0.87 (project imperviousness)
C=0.803 (runoff coefficient, ((0.75 x imp) + 0.15))
V design = (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12))
= 0.803 x 0.9 x 1.00 x 43560 x (1/12) = 2623.4 cf
Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) = 0.803 x 0.26 x 1.00 = 0.209 cfs DMA 2
dremainder= 0.9” remainder of the design capture storm depth A=3.07 acres (area tributary to BMP)
imp=0.87 (project imperviousness)
C=0.803 (runoff coefficient, ((0.75 x imp) + 0.15))
V design = (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12))
= 0.803 x 0.9 x 3.07 x 43560 x (1/12) = 8053.8 cf
Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) = 0.803 x 0.26 x 3.07 = 0.641 cfs DMA 3
dremainder= 0.9” remainder of the design capture storm depth A=0.34 acres (area tributary to BMP)
imp=0.87 (project imperviousness)
C=0.803 (runoff coefficient, ((0.75 x imp) + 0.15))
V design = (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12))
= 0.803 x 0.9 x 0.34 x 43560 x (1/12) = 891.6 cf
Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) = 0.803 x 0.26 x 0.34 = 0.07 cfs Refer to Worksheet B and D in this section.
1537
Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet
Infeasibility Criteria Yes No
1 Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk for
groundwater related concerns? Refer to Appendix
VII (Worksheet I) for guidance on groundwater-related
infiltration feasibility criteria.

X
Provide basis:

Soils with a medium to high expansion index were found during the geotechnical investigation at depths ranging from 5.5’ to 32’ deep. Historic high groundwater levels were found to be at approximately 40 feet deep. Infiltration in these conditions would pose risk to groundwater concerns.

Per the “Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation” dated December 30, 2024 by Geotek Inc.
“SCGI reported that artificial fill was encountered beneath existing pavement sections at Boring B-5 and extended to a depth of 3± feet below existing grade. SCGI reported that artificial fill was encountered beneath existing pavement sections at Boring B-5 and extended to a depth of 3± feet below existing grade. SCGI stated that additional soils classified as possible fill were encountered in all of the borings and extended to depths of up to 5.5± feet.

These fill soils consisted of stiff to very stiff clays with some fine to coarse gravel (CL soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System).”
“Native soils (alluvium) were reported by SCGI to underlie the artificial fills at the site. The alluvium encountered to depths of 5.5± to 12± feet generally consisted of very stiff to hard silty clays with tract to some fine gravel content (CL soil type). Beneath these materials, the borings generally encountered interbedded zones of dense to very dense silty sands and very stiff to hard silty clays (SM and CL soil types) with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel content, extending to depths of at least 32± feet (the deepest depth explored).”

“SCGI stated that the site soils possess a high expansion potential (EI = 108).” Per the “Review – Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility” Letter dated June 19, 2025 by GeoTek, Inc “Based upon review of the referenced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated February 6, 2024, prepared by EDI Consultants, leaking underground gasoline tanks from a former car wash also dispensing gasoline fuel facility resulted in subsurface soil contamination of the property (2355 North Tustin Street) located adjacent to the southwest corner of the project site. While soil vapor extraction (SVE) well operations conducted on this property resulted in the reduction of soil contamination to levels which allowed “Case Closure” of this site, some soil contamination remained in these site soils. Mounding and migration of water from the project site (2375 North Tustin Street) may also lead to migration of contaminated soil from this adjacent site.”
Refer to Attachment E of this report for a copy of the Geotechnical report. 1538
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
2 Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk of
increasing risk of geotechnical hazards that cannot
be mitigated to an acceptable level? (Yes if the
answer to any of the following questions is yes, as
established by a geotechnical expert):
• The BMP can only be located less than 50 feet
away from slopes steeper than 15 percent
• The BMP can only be located less than eight feet
from building foundations or an alternative setback.
• A study prepared by a geotechnical professional or
an available watershed study substantiates that
stormwater infiltration would potentially result in
significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards
that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level.

X
Provide basis:

The site soils were found to exhibit a “Medium” (51≤EI≤90) to “High” (91≤EI≤120) Expansion Index “Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation” dated December 30, 2024 by Geotek Inc.

Soils encountered in the recent borings conducted for the referenced Update Evaluation, as well as a previous Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCGI, 2005) for the existing site improvements, indicated the presence of fine-grained silty clay and very dense silty sand soils (CL and SM soil types) below the gravel soils. These soils are anticipated to locally act as barriers to downward percolation of water from on-site disposal facilities, most likely leading to “mounding” of the water atop these soils. Over time, this water mounding will lead to a non-functional stormwater disposal system and possible migration of water to adjacent sites.

Historic high groundwater levels are recorded to be 40’ below the existing grade. 3 Would infiltration of the DCV from drainage area violate downstream water rights? X
Provide basis:

Partial Infeasibility Criteria Yes No
1539
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on HSG D soils or the site geotechnical investigation identifies presence of soil characteristics which support categorization as D soils? X
Provide basis:
5 Is measured infiltration rate below proposed facility less than 0.3 inches per hour? This calculation shall be based on the methods described in Appendix VII.

X
Provide basis:

Per the Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Letter dated June 19, 2025 provided by Geotek, Inc. “Two percolation tests were conducted for the referenced Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation dated December 30, 2024 (GeoTek, 2024) at depths of approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface (see Exploration Location Map, Figure 2, of the referenced report for the test locations). The results of the infiltration testing indicated poor to favorable rates (0.57 to 3.86 inches per hour).

Both percolation tests appear to have been conducted within a fine- to coarse-gravel with sand and trace clay (GP soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System), indicating highly variable percolation characteristics within the on-site soils.” “Soils encountered in the recent borings conducted for the referenced Update Evaluation, as well as a previous Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCGI, 2005) for the existing site improvements, indicated the presence of fine-grained silty clay and very dense silty sand soils (CL and SM soil types) below the gravel soils. These soils are anticipated to locally act as barriers to downward percolation of water from on-site disposal facilities, most likely leading to “mounding” of the water atop these soils. Over time, this water mounding will lead to a non-functional stormwater disposal system and possible migration of water to adjacent sites.”
“As discussed in various site documents (GeoTek, 2024 and C&V, 2025), the site soils are also considered to possess up to a high expansion potential. Mounding soils and a non-functional stormwater disposal system will eventually exacerbate problems caused by expansive soil on site improvements (structures and infrastructure).”
6 Would reduction of over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as
change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased
discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? X
Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible:
7 Would an increase in infiltration over predeveloped
conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial
uses, such as change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to
surface waters?
X
1540
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible:

Infiltration Screening Results (check box corresponding to result):
8 Is there substantial evidence that infiltration from the project would result in a significant increase in I&I to the sanitary sewer that cannot be sufficiently mitigated? (See Appendix XVII)
Provide narrative discussion and supporting evidence:

Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.

No
9 If any answer from row 1-3 is yes: infiltration of any volume is not feasible within the DMA or equivalent.

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of infeasibility screening
Not Feasible
10 If any answer from row 4-7 is yes, infiltration is permissible but is not presumed to be feasible for the entire DCV.

Criteria for designing biotreatment BMPs to achieve the maximum feasible infiltration and ET shall apply.

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of infeasibility screening
Not feasible
11 If all answers to rows 1 through 11 are no, infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, BMPs must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the maximum extent practicable.

Not feasible
1541
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method DMA 1 Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches) d= 0.90 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches)
(Worksheet A) dHSC= 0 inches
3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder= 0.90 inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV
1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 1.00 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.87 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.803 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= 2,623.4 cu-ft
Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate N/A
1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr)
(Appendix VII) Kmeasured= NA In/hr
2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal (unitless) Sfinal= NA
3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kmeasured / Sfinal Kdesign= NA In/hr
Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint
4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours) T= NA Hours
5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12) Dmax= NA feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax
Amin= NA sq-ft
1542
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method DMA 2 Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches) d= 0.90 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches)
(Worksheet A) dHSC= 0 inches
3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder= 0.90 inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV
1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 3.07 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.87 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.803 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= 8,053.8 cu-ft
Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate N/A
1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr)
(Appendix VII) Kmeasured= NA In/hr
2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal (unitless) Sfinal= NA
3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kmeasured / Sfinal Kdesign= NA In/hr
Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint
4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours) T= NA Hours
5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12) Dmax= NA feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax
Amin= NA sq-ft
1543
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method DMA 3 Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches) d= 0.90 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches)
(Worksheet A) dHSC= 0 inches
3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder= 0.90 inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV
1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 0.34 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.87 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.803 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= 891.96 cu-ft
Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate N/A
1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr)
(Appendix VII) Kmeasured= NA In/hr
2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal (unitless) Sfinal= NA
3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kmeasured / Sfinal Kdesign= NA In/hr
Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint
4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours) T= NA Hours
5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12) Dmax= NA feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax
Amin= NA sq-ft
1544
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs DMA 1 Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2) Tc= 5 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I1
I1= 0.26 in/hr
3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC= 0 inches
4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y2
(Worksheet A) Y2= 0 %
5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency(Y2), I2
I2= 0
6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, Idesign= I1-I2
Idesign= 0.26
Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate
1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 1.00 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.87 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.803 4 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) Qdesign= 0.209 cfs Supporting Calculations
Describe system:

Stormwater runoff will be collected by catch basins each equipped with a Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) Device: Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) devices will be utilized prior to the proposed overflow storm drain pipe to provide full trash capture requirements and an area drain system and routed to one of three (3) Modular Wetlands System (MWS) Biofiltration vaults for treatment and discharge via a stormwater sump pump system and parkway drain to the public right-of-way of N. Tustin Street.

Provide time of concentration assumptions:

The Time of Concentration was assumed to be 5 minutes for conservative purposes. 1545
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs DMA 2 Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2) Tc= 5 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I1
I1= 0.26 in/hr
3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC= 0 inches
4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y2
(Worksheet A) Y2= 0 %
5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency(Y2), I2
I2= 0
6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, Idesign= I1-I2
Idesign= 0.26
Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate
1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 3.07 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.87 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.803 4 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) Qdesign= 0.641 cfs Supporting Calculations
Describe system:

Provide time of concentration assumptions:

The Time of Concentration was assumed to be 5 minutes for conservative purposes. 1546
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs DMA 3 Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2) Tc= 5 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I1
I1= 0.26 in/hr
3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC= 0 inches
4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y2
(Worksheet A) Y2= 0 %
5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency(Y2), I2
I2= 0
6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, Idesign= I1-I2
Idesign= 0.26
Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate
1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 0.34 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.87 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.803 4 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= (C x idesign x A) Qdesign= 0.07 cfs Supporting Calculations
Describe system:

Provide time of concentration assumptions:

The Time of Concentration was assumed to be 5 minutes for conservative purposes. 1547
Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx
Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Graphical Operations
Provide supporting graphical operations. See Example III.7.

I(2) = 0.00 I(1) = 0.26 1548
P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\SuceptabilityMaps_20100505\9526E_SantaAnaRiverSusceptibility_20100430.mxd Cleveland
National Forest
San Bernardino
County
Riverside County
South Orange
County
Newport Bay
Watershed
Stabilized by
Grade Control
Structure
San Gabriel-Coyote Creek
Watershed
Anaheim BayHuntington Harbor
Watershed
Peters
Canyon
Reservoir
Olive
Hills
Kraemer
Basin
Carbon
Canyon
Walnut
Canyon
Reservoir
Irvine
Lake
Anaheim
Lake
Warner
Basin
Miller
Retarding
Basin
Bartlett
Retarding
Basin
Fletcher
Retarding
Basin

SOUTHPARK
PUMP

STATION
Villa
Park Dam
Yorba Linda
Reservoir
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012 FIGURE
3 JOB TITLE SCALE 1" = 12000'

DESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKED
BMP
04/30/10
DATEJOB NO.

THTH9526-E

ORANGE COUNTY

WATERSHED

MASTER PLANNING
ORANGE CO. CA

SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYIS

SANTA ANA RIVER
I! 0 12,000 24,000
Feet
Susceptibility
Potential Areas of Erosion, Habitat, &
Physical Structure Susceptibility
Channel Type
Earth (Unstable)
Earth (Stabilized)
Stabilized
Tidel Influence
<= Mean High Water Line (4.28')
Water Body
Basin
Dam
Lake
Reservoir
Forest Areas
Cleveland National Forest
Federal Lands
Amarus Salt Marsh
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ,
USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom,
2012
SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP UPATE (FEB 2013)
Project Site
1549
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 23
V. Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Responsibility for BMPs (O&M Plan)
Responsible Party Information (Local Contact Information) Name: Chad Brown Title: Vice President of Planning and Development Company: Melia Homes Phone Number: (949) 759-4367
The property is currently owned by Melia Homes. The Owner will be responsible for the long term maintenance of the project’s storm water facilities and conformance to this WQMP after construction is complete. A Notice of Transfer of Responsibility is located at the beginning of this report and should be executed as part of any ownership transfer after construction is complete. The owner will appoint a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) to provide long term BMP maintenance for the proposed development upon completion of construction.

Table 8 - Frequency Inspection Matrix
BMP Responsible Party *Maintenance Activity *Inspection/Maintenance Frequency
Source Control BMPs (Structural and Non-structural)
N1. Education for
Property Owners,
Tenants &
Occupants
Owner/ HOA
This will be addressed
through educational
materials. All included
materials provide ways
of mitigating
stormwater pollution in
everyday activities
associated with
residents as well as
employees of the
property management
company and their subcontractors. Practical
informational materials
are provided to
residents, occupants,
or tenants to increase
the public’s
understanding of
stormwater quality,
sources of pollutants,
and what they can do
to reduce pollutants in
The distribution of these
materials will be the
responsibility of the HOA
at the time of the leasing
signing or purchase per
property owner, tenant or
occupant. Annual
newsletters shall be
provided by HOA to
property owners, tenants
and occupants.
1550
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 24
stormwater.

N2. Activity
Restriction Owner/ HOA
Rules or guidelines for
developments are
established within the
appropriate documents
which prohibit activities
that can result in
discharges of
pollutants. Car
washing or washing of
hardscaped surfaced
such as sidewalks,
streets, parking lots,
vehicle maintenance
will not be allowed on
the subject site.

The distribution of these
materials will be the
responsibility of the HOA
at the time of the leasing
signing or purchase per
property owner, tenant or
occupant.

N3. Common
Area
Landscaped
Management
Owner / HOA
Specific practices are
followed and ongoing
maintenance is
conducted to minimize
erosion and overirrigation, conserve
water, and reduce
pesticide and fertilizer
applications and
remove all trash/ debris
and litter.

Landscape maintenance
should occur at least once
per week or to the desire
of the HOA. Overall
landscape care should be
inspected monthly.

N4. BMP
Maintenance Owner / HOA
In order to ensure
adequate and
comprehensive BMP
implementation, all
responsible parties are
identified for
implementing all nonstructural and structural
BMPs, cleaning,
inspection, and other
maintenance activities
are specified including
responsible parties for
conducting such
activities.
4 Inspections/ Cleanings
per year per
manufacturer’s
specifications starting on
or near October 1st
(before the rainy season)
N11. Common
Area Litter
Control
The landscape
contractor through the
HOA will remove trash
It will be the responsibility
of the HOA to empty and
maintain the upkeep of
1551
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 25
within the open areas. these areas on a weekly
basis.

N12. Employee
Training Owner / HOA
HOA to provide proper
employee training for
all site concerns.

At the time of employment
or when there is a policy
change
N14. Common
Area Catch Basin
Inspection
Owner / HOA
Common inspection
should occur weekly or
prior to any significant
storm events by
method of clearing any
trash/ debris from the
catch basin.

Weekly visual inspection
and maintenance when
debris is present.

N15. Street
Sweeping Private
Street and
Parking Lots
Owner / HOA
Regular sweeping is
conducted to reduce
pollution of drainage
water.

On a weekly basis
S1. Storm Drain
System
Stenciling &
Signage
Owner / HOA
Catch Basin Stenciling
and Signage will be
specified on all on-site
catch basins.

Any defacement of the
signage should be
addressed immediately by
the HOA and visually
inspected annually.

S2. Use Efficient
Irrigation
Systems &
Landscape
Design
Owner / HOA
Irrigation system and
landscaped design
shall be monitored by
HOA selected
landscaping company
to verify appropriate
watering measures and
the landscaping/
irrigation systems are
maintained.

At minimum one time per
month.

Low Impact Development and Treatment BMPs
BIO-7: Modular
Wetlands System
(MWS)
Biofiltration Vault
Owner/ HOA
Owner/ HOA will be
required to hire a
professional
maintenance company
to provide regular
inspections, repairs and
cleaning per
manufacturer’s
specifications.

Inspections/ Cleanings
should occur at least two
times per year and before
the start of the rainy
season (October 1st).

Refer to Attachment C for
additional information and
manufacturer’s
specifications.

Connector Pipe
Screen (CPS)
Device
Owner/ HOA
HOA will be required to
hire a professional
maintenance company
to provide regular
Inspections/ cleanings
should occur at least two
times per year and before
the start of the rainy
1552
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 26
inspection, repairs, and
cleaning per
manufacturer’s
specifications. All trash/
debris and loose
sediment/ silt shall be
removed and screen
replacement per
manufacturer’s
specifications.
season (October 1st).

Refer to Attachment C for
additional information and
manufacturer’s
specifications.

Storm Water
Sump Pump Owner/ HOA
Owner/ HOA to conduct
regular inspections and
cleanings of pump
station area, report
performance
deficiencies, and
schedule regular
inspections by
professional technician.

Inspections/ cleanings
should occur at least two
times per year and before
the start of the rainy
season (October 1st).

Scheduled inspections by
technician should occur at
least once per year/ per
manufacturer’s
recommendation.

Existing CDS
816 Media Filter
System
Owner/ HOA
Owner/ HOA will be
required to hire a
professional
maintenance company
to provide regular
inspections, repairs and
cleaning per
manufacturer’s
specifications.

Inspections/ Cleanings
should occur at least two
times per year and before
the start of the rainy
season (October 1st).

Refer to Attachment C for
additional information and
manufacturer’s
specifications.

Existing Catch
Basin Inlet Filter Owner/ HOA
Owner/ HOA to conduct
regular inspections and
cleanings. Clean and
remove all debris within
basins at least once per
month.

Inspection three times per
year, at minimum or per
manufacturer’s
specifications.

Replacement of filter
once per year, prior to
start of rainy season
(October 1 st). Repair
and/ or replacement of
components as
needed.
1553
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 27
Regulatory Permits
NA
Funding
Melia Homes
9860 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, Ca 92618
(949) 759-4367
Maintenance requirements and responsibilities for the property will be listed in the Maintenance Contract for this project and will be the responsibility of the HOA after final construction at all times. Maintenance Contract to follow during final WQMP approval. 1554
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 28

OWNER SELF CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
As the owner representative of the 2375 N. Tustin Street project for which a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was approved by the City, I hereby certify under penalty of law that all Best Management Practices contained within the approved Project WQMP have been maintained and inspected in accordance with the schedule and frequency outlined in the approved WQMP Maintenance Table.

The maintenance activities and inspections conducted are shown in the attached table and have been performed by qualified and knowledgeable individuals. Structural Treatment BMPs have been inspected and certified by a licensed professional engineer.

To the best of my knowledge, the information submitted is true and accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and citations for violating water quality regulations.

Signed: ____________________________________

Name: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
Company: __________________________________
Address: __________________________________
Telephone Number: ___________________________
Date: _________________
1555
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 29
BMP Implementation Tracking Table
BMP Activity/ Frequency Completion Dates Initial
Source Control BMPs (Structural and Nonstructural)
N1. Education for
Property Owners,
Tenants &
Occupants
This will be addressed through
educational materials. All included
materials provide ways of mitigating
stormwater pollution in everyday
activities associated with residents
as well as employees of the
property management company
and their sub-contractors. Practical
informational materials are provided
to residents, occupants, or tenants
to increase the public’s
understanding of stormwater
quality, sources of pollutants, and
what they can do to reduce
pollutants in stormwater.

Distribution of these materials is
required at the time of purchase or
lease signing.

N2. Activity
Restriction
Rules or guidelines for
developments are established
within the appropriate documents
which prohibit activities that can
result in discharges of pollutants.

Car washing or washing of
hardscaped surfaced such as
sidewalks, streets, parking lots,
vehicle maintenance will not be
allowed on the subject site.

Distribution of these materials is
required at the time of purchase or
lease signing. Landscape
maintenance shall occur at least
once per week.

N3. Common Area
Landscaped
Management
Specific practices are followed and
ongoing maintenance is conducted
to minimize erosion and overirrigation, conserve water, and reduce pesticide and fertilizer
applications and remove all trash/
debris and litter.

N4. BMP In order to ensure adequate and
1556
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 30
Maintenance comprehensive BMP
implementation, all responsible
parties are identified for
implementing all non-structural and
structural BMPs, cleaning,
inspection, and other maintenance
activities are specified including
responsible parties for conducting
such activities. 4 Inspections per
year per manufacturer’s
specifications.

N11. Common
Area Litter Control
The landscape contractor through
the HOA will remove trash within
the open areas. Litter control shall
be maintained at least once per
week.

N12. Employee
Training
HOA to provide proper employee
training for all site concerns. Shall
be provided to all new employees at
the time of hiring.

N14. Common
Area Catch Basin
Inspection
Common inspection should occur
weekly or prior to any significant
storm events by method of clearing
any trash/ debris from the catch
basin. Shall occur on a weekly
basis.

N15. Street
Sweeping Private
Street and Parking
Lots
Regular sweeping is conducted to
reduce pollution of drainage water.

Shall occur on a weekly basis.

S1. Storm Drain
System Stenciling
& Signage
Catch Basin Stenciling and Signage
will be specified on all on-site catch
basins. Visually inspected yearly,
replace/ repair immediately as
needed.

S2. Use Efficient
Irrigation Systems
& Landscape
Design
Irrigation system and landscaped
design shall be monitored by HOA
selected landscaping company to
verify appropriate watering
measures and the landscaping/
irrigation systems are maintained.

Shall be inspected at minimum one
time per month.

Low Impact Development and Treatment BMPs
BIO-7: Modular Owner/ HOA will be required to hire
1557
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 31
Wetlands System
(MWS) Biofiltration
Vaults
a professional maintenance
company to provide regular
inspections, repairs and cleaning
per manufacturer’s specifications.

Connector Pipe
Screen (CPS)
Device
HOA will be required to hire a
professional maintenance company
to provide regular inspection,
repairs, and cleaning per
manufacturer’s specifications. All
trash/ debris and loose sediment/
silt shall be removed and screen
replacement per manufacturer’s
specifications.

Storm Water Sump
Pump
Owner/ HOA to conduct regular
inspections and cleanings of pump
station area, report performance
deficiencies, and schedule regular
inspections by professional
technician.

Existing CDS 816
Media Filter
System
HOA will be required to hire a
professional maintenance company
to provide regular inspection,
repairs, and cleaning per
manufacturer’s specifications. All
trash/ debris and loose sediment/
silt shall be removed and screen
replacement per manufacturer’s
specifications.

Existing Catch
Basin Inlet Filter
HOA will be required to hire a
professional maintenance company
to provide regular inspection,
repairs, and cleaning per
manufacturer’s specifications. All
trash/ debris and loose sediment/
silt shall be removed and screen
replacement per manufacturer’s
specifications.

* This sheet is to be submitted annually with the Owner Self Certification Statement. ** Structural Treatment BMPs should be certified by a Licensed Professional Engineer. 1558
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 32
VI. Location Map, Site Plan, and BMP Details
Include a location map that identifies project location and proximity to nearby water bodies. In an 11X17 sheet Identify land use, cover, feasibility constraints, structures, buildings, number of units, landscape areas, storm drain inlets, storm drain facilities, drainage flow direction, structural and treatment BMP locations, dumpsters, trash enclosures, wash areas, etc.

Delineate drainage management areas showing limits (acreage) of each drainage area for all structural, treatment and Low Impact Development BMPs used and provide BMP details on plan or in Appendix C.
1559

LOCATION MAP

NOT TO SCALE

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE N
1560

LOCATION MAP

NOT TO SCALE
1561
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 33
VII. Educational Materials
Refer to the City’s website www.cityoforange.org or the Orange County Stormwater Program (ocwatersheds.com) for a library of materials available. Attach only the educational materials specifically applicable to the project.

Education Materials
Residential Material Check If
Applicable
Business Material Check If
Applicable
The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for the Automotive Industry Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar Tips for the Home Mechanic Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable
Water Use
Proper Maintenance Practices for Your
Business
Household Tips
Other Material
Check If
Attached Proper Disposal of Household
Hazardous Waste
Recycle at Your Local Used Oil
Collection Center (North County)
Recycle at Your Local Used Oil
Collection Center (Central County)
Recycle at Your Local Used Oil
Collection Center (South County)
Tips for Maintaining a Septic Tank
System
Responsible Pest Control
Sewer Spill Response
Tips for the Home Improvement
Projects
Tips for Horse Care
Tips for Landscaping and Gardening
Tips for Pet Care
Tips for Pool Maintenance
Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape
and Hardscape Drains
Tips for Projects Using Paint
1562
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025

Appendix A:

Conditions of Approval
Resolution Number____________ dated__________
1563
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025
Appendix B:

Educational Material
1564
Never allow pollutants to enter the
The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door
1565
Follow these simple steps to help reduce water
pollution:

Household Activities
Do not rinse spills with water. Use dry cleanup
methods such as applying cat litter or another
absorbent material, sweep and dispose of in
the trash. Take items such as used or excess
batteries, oven cleaners, automotive fluids,
painting products and cathode ray tubes, like
TVs and computer monitors, to a Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Center (HHWCC).

For a HHWCC near you call (714) 834-6752 or
visit www.oclandfills.com.

Do not hose down your driveway, sidewalk or
patio to the street, gutter or storm drain. Sweep
up debris and dispose of it in the trash.

Automotive
Take your vehicle to a commercial car
wash whenever possible. If you wash your
vehicle at home, choose soaps, cleaners, or
detergents labeled non-toxic, phosphate- free
or biodegradable. Vegetable and citrus-based
products are typically safest for the environment.

Do not allow washwater from vehicle washing
to drain into the street, gutter or storm drain.

Excess washwater should be disposed of in the
sanitary sewer (through a sink or toilet) or onto
an absorbent surface like your lawn.

Monitor your vehicles for leaks and place a pan
under leaks. Keep your vehicles well maintained
to stop and prevent leaks.

Never pour oil or antifreeze in the street, gutter
or storm drain. Recycle these substances at a
service station, a waste oil collection center or
used oil recycling center. For the nearest Used
Oil Collection Center call 1-800-CLEANUP or
visit www.1800cleanup.org.
street, gutter or storm drain!
Lawn and Garden
Pet and animal waste
Pesticides
Clippings, leaves and soil
Fertilizer
Common Pollutants
Automobile
Oil and grease
Radiator fluids and antifreeze
Cleaning chemicals
Brake pad dust
Home Maintenance
Detergents, cleaners and solvents
Oil and latex paint
Swimming pool chemicals
Outdoor trash and litter
Trash
Place trash and litter that cannot be recycled in
securely covered trash cans.

Whenever possible, buy recycled products.

Remember: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

Pet Care
Always pick up after your pet. Flush waste down
the toilet or dispose of it in the trash. Pet waste,
if left outdoors, can wash into the street, gutter
or storm drain.

If possible, bathe your pets indoors. If you must
bathe your pet outside, wash it on your lawn or
another absorbent/permeable surface to keep
the washwater from entering the street, gutter or
storm drain.

Follow directions for use of pet care products
and dispose of any unused products at a
HHWCC.

Pool Maintenance
Pool and spa water must be dechlorinated and free
of excess acid, alkali or color to be allowed in the
street, gutter or storm drain.

When it is not raining, drain dechlorinated pool and
spa water directly into the
sanitary sewer.

Some cities may have ordinances that do not allow
pool water to be disposed of in the storm drain.

Check with your city.

Landscape and Gardening
Do not over-water. Water your lawn and garden by
hand to control the amount of water you use or set
irrigation systems to reflect seasonal water needs.

If water flows off your yard onto your driveway or
sidewalk, your system is over-watering. Periodically
inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers.

Do not rake or blow leaves, clippings or pruning
waste into the street, gutter or storm drain. Instead,
dispose of waste by composting, hauling it to a
permitted landfill, or as green waste through your
city’s recycling program.

Follow directions on pesticides and fertilizer,
(measure, do not estimate amounts) and do not use
if rain is predicted within 48 hours.

Take unwanted pesticides to a HHWCC to be
recycled. For locations and hours of HHWCC, call
(714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com.
1566
Did You Know?
Most people believe that the largest source
of water pollution in urban areas comes from
specific sources such as factories and sewage
treatment plants. In fact, the largest source
of water pollution comes from city streets,
neighborhoods, construction sites and parking
lots. This type of pollution is sometimes
called “non-point source” pollution.

There are two types of non-point source
pollution: stormwater and urban runoff
pollution.

Stormwater runoff results from rainfall.

When rainstorms cause large volumes
of water to rinse the urban landscape,
picking up pollutants along the way.

Urban runoff can happen any time of
the year when excessive water use from
irrigation, vehicle washing and other
sources carries trash, lawn clippings and
other urban pollutants into storm drains.

Where Does It Go?
Anything we use outside homes, vehicles and
businesses – like motor oil, paint, pesticides,
fertilizers and cleaners – can be blown or washed
into storm drains.

A little water from a garden hose or rain can also
send materials into storm drains.

Storm drains are separate from our sanitary
sewer systems; unlike water in sanitary sewers
(from sinks or toilets), water in storm drains is
not treated before entering our waterways.

Even if you live miles from the Pacific
Ocean, you may be unknowingly
polluting it.

Sources of Non-Point Source Pollution
Automotive leaks and spills.

Improper disposal of used oil and other engine
fluids.

Metals found in vehicle exhaust, weathered paint,
rust, metal plating and tires.

Pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, gardens and
farms.

Improper disposal of cleaners, paint and paint
removers.

Soil erosion and dust debris from landscape and
construction activities.

Litter, lawn clippings, animal waste, and other
organic matter.

Oil stains on parking lots and paved surfaces.

The Effect on the Ocean
Non-point source
pollution can have
a serious impact
on water quality
in Orange County.

Pollutants from the
storm drain system
can harm marine life
as well as coastal and wetland habitats. They can
also degrade recreation areas such as beaches,
harbors and bays.

Stormwater quality management programs have
been developed throughout Orange County to
educate and encourage the public to protect water
quality, monitor runoff in the storm drain system,
investigate illegal dumping and maintain storm
drains.

Support from Orange County residents and
businesses is needed to improve water quality
and reduce urban runoff pollution. Proper use
and disposal of materials will help stop pollution
before it reaches the storm drain and the ocean.

Dumping one quart of motor oil into a
storm drain can contaminate 250,000
gallons of water.
1567
For More Information
Aliso Viejo (949) 425-2535
Anaheim Public Works Operations (714) 765-6860
Brea Engineering (714) 990-7666
Buena Park Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 562-3655 Costa Mesa Public Services (714) 754-5323
Cypress Public Works (714) 229-6740
Dana Point Public Works (949) 248-3584
Fountain Valley Public Works . . . . . . . . . . (714) 593-4441 Fullerton Engineering Dept. (714) 738-6853
Garden Grove Public Works (714) 741-5956
Huntington Beach Public Works . . . . . . . . (714) 536-5431 Irvine Public Works (949) 724-6315
La Habra Public Services (562) 905-9792
La Palma Public Works (714) 690-3310
Laguna Beach Water Quality (949) 497-0378
Laguna Hills Public Services (949) 707-2650
Laguna Niguel Public Works . . . . . . . . . . (949) 362-4337 Laguna Woods Public Works (949) 639-0500
Lake Forest Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 461-3480 Los Alamitos Community Dev. (562) 431-3538
Mission Viejo Public Works (949) 470-3056
Newport Beach, Code & Water
Quality Enforcement (949) 644-3215
Orange Public Works (714) 532-6480
Placentia Public Works (714) 993-8245
Rancho Santa Margarita (949) 635-1800
San Clemente Environmental Programs . . . . (949) 361-6143 San Juan Capistrano Engineering (949) 234-4413
Santa Ana Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 647-3380 Seal Beach Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . .(562) 431-2527 x317 Stanton Public Works (714) 379-9222 x204
Tustin Public Works/Engineering (714) 573-3150
Villa Park Engineering (714) 998-1500
Westminster Public Works/Engineering . . . .(714) 898-3311 x446 Yorba Linda Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 961-7138 Orange County Stormwater Program (877) 897-7455
Orange County 24-Hour
Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline
1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455)
On-line Water Pollution Problem Reporting Form
w w w.o c w a t e r s h e d s.c o m
The Ocean Begins
at Your Front Door
California Environmental Protection Agency
www.calepa.ca.gov
• Air Resources Board
www.arb.ca.gov
• Department of Pesticide Regulation
www.cdpr.ca.gov
• Department of Toxic Substances Control
www.dtsc.ca.gov
• Integrated Waste Management Board
www.ciwmb.ca.gov
• Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment
www.oehha.ca.gov
• State Water Resources Control Board
www.waterboards.ca.gov
Earth 911 - Community-Specific Environmental
Information 1-800-cleanup or visit www.1800cleanup.
org
Health Care Agency’s Ocean and Bay Water Closure
and Posting Hotline
(714) 433-6400 or visit www.ocbeachinfo.com
Integrated Waste Management Dept. of Orange
County (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com for
information on household hazardous waste collection
centers, recycling centers and solid waste collection
O.C. Agriculture Commissioner
(714) 447-7100 or visit www.ocagcomm.com
Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook
Visit www.cabmphandbooks.com
UC Master Gardener Hotline
(714) 708-1646 or visit www.uccemg.com
Printed on Recycled Paper
The Orange County Stormwater Program has created
and moderates an electronic mailing list to facilitate
communications, take questions and exchange ideas among its users about issues and topics related to stormwater and urban runoff and the implementation of program elements.

To join the list, please send an email to
[email protected]
Orange County Stormwater Program
1568
For more information,
please call the
Orange County Stormwater Program
at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455)
or visit
www.ocwatersheds.com
To report a spill,
call the
Orange County 24-Hour
Water Pollution Problem
Reporting Hotline
at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455).

For emergencies, dial 911.

Proper Maintenance
Practices for
Your Business
The Ocean Begins
at Your Front Door

PROJECT

PREVENTION
Help Prevent Ocean Pollution:

Preventing water
pollution at your
commercial/industrial site
Clean beaches and healthy creeks, rivers,
bays and ocean are important to Orange
County. However, many landscape and
building maintenance activities can lead to
water pollution if you’re not careful. Paint,
chemicals, plant clippings and other materials
can be blown or washed into storm drains that
flow to the ocean. Unlike water in sanitary
sewers (from sinks and toilets), water in storm
drains is not treated before entering our
waterways.

You would never pour soap or fertilizers into
the ocean, so why would you let them enter the
storm drains? Follow these easy tips to help
prevent water pollution.

Some types of industrial facilities are required
to obtain coverage under the State General
Industrial Permit. For more information visit:
www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwater/industrial.html
Printed on Recycled Paper 1569
Tips for Pool Maintenance
Call your trash hauler to replace leaking
dumpsters.

Do not dump any toxic substance or
liquid waste on the pavement, the
ground, or near a
storm drain. Even
materials that
seem harmless
such as latex paint
or biodegradable
cleaners can
damage the
environment.

Recycle paints, solvents and other
materials. For more information about
recycling and collection centers, visit
www.oclandfills.com.

Store materials indoors or under cover
and away from storm drains.

Use a construction and demolition
recycling company to recycle lumber,
paper, cardboard, metals, masonry,
carpet, plastic, pipes, drywall, rocks,
dirt, and green waste. For a listing of
construction and demolition recycling
locations in your area, visit
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/recycle.

Properly label materials. Familiarize
employees with Material
Safety Data Sheets.

Landscape Maintenance
Compost grass clippings, leaves, sticks
and other vegetation, or dispose of it at
a permitted landfill or in green waste
containers. Do not dispose of these
materials in the street, gutter or storm
drain.

Irrigate slowly and inspect the system
for leaks, overspraying and runoff.

Adjust automatic timers to avoid
overwatering.

Follow label directions for the use and
disposal of fertilizers and pesticides.

Do not apply pesticides or fertilizers if
rain is expected within 48 hours or if
wind speeds are above 5 mph.

Do not spray pesticides within 100 feet
of waterways.

Fertilizers should be worked into the
soil rather than dumped onto the
surface.

If fertilizer is spilled on the pavement
or sidewalk, sweep it up immediately
and place it back in the container.

Building Maintenance
Never allow washwater, sweepings or
sediment to enter the storm drain.

Sweep up dry spills and use cat litter,
towels or similar materials to absorb wet
spills. Dispose of it in the trash.

If you wash your building, sidewalk or
parking lot, you must contain the water.

Use a shop vac to collect the water and
contact your city or sanitation agency
for proper disposal information. Do
not let water enter the street, gutter or
storm drain.

Use drop cloths underneath outdoor
painting, scraping, and sandblasting
work, and properly dispose of materials
in the trash.

Use a ground cloth or oversized tub for
mixing paint and cleaning tools.

Use a damp mop or broom to clean
floors.

Cover dumpsters to keep insects,
animals, rainwater and sand from
entering. Keep the area around the
dumpster clear of trash and debris. Do
not overfill the dumpster.

PROJECT

PREVENTION
Proper Maintenance Practices for your Business
Never Dispose
of Anything
in the Storm
Drain.
1570
• Choose an effective option. Try various types of controls first: washing bugs off plants, pruning diseased parts of plants. If you need to use pest control products, choose one that targets the problem and poses the least hazard.
• Finally, it’s easier to prevent pests than to control them.

Before Buying Pest Control Products
• Identify the pest.
• Decide if pest control products are the best control measure or if there are alternatives available.
• Are integrated pest management guidelines available for this pest? • Read the product label:

Is the pest listed on the label?
Is it the best product for the pest?
Before Mixing Your Sprayer
• Read the label carefully.
• Buy only enough pesticide to treat the area
affected by the pest.
• Check the weather and don’t apply if
it’s windy or about to rain
• Measure the area you’re treating.
• Calculate how much spray to mix.
• Wear long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes and any other protective equipment listed on the label and follow all the label precautions. • Be prepared for spills and know how to clean them up.

When You’re Ready To Spray
• Mix and load spray in an area where any spilled pesticide will not be able to drain or be washed away into storm drains, ditches, streams, ponds or other bodies of water.
• Mix sprayer on grass, not the sidewalk or driveway.
• Mix only as much as needed.

When You’re Spraying
• AVOID spraying in or near storm drains, ditches, streams, and ponds! • Leave an untreated strip around these areas to protect the water.

When You’re done
• Never dump leftovers down any drain; Save for a future application. • Triple-rinse sprayer and apply rinsewater to treated area. • Take any old or unwanted pesticides to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center (714) 834-6752.

With Integrated Pest Management (IPM), homeowners use common sense and nature to make it difficult for pests to survive. IPM techniques include cultural practices (such as mulching to prevent weeds), encouraging natural enemies (good bugs), and judicious use of pest control products.
• First, identify your pest problem. To find the best solution, you need to pin down the problem. Consult gardening books, your county cooperative extension office or your local nursery.
• Decide how much pest control is necessary. If you can live with some pest damage, you can avoid intensive pest control product treatments.

Think ahead.
1571
Original graphics developed with support from:

Coalition For Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship (CURES) Western Crop Protection Association (WCPA)
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE)
This brochure is being distributed in order to reduce the impacts of pesticides on water quality. It was produced with support from the Orange County Storm Water Program, the Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship (CURES) and a 319(h) grant from the State Water Resources Control Board.

Orange County Storm Water Program Participants:

Anaheim Public Works/Engineering ............................... (714) 765-5176 Brea Engineering ............................................................. (714) 990-7666 Buena Park Public Works ................................................ (714) 562-3655 Costa Mesa Public Services ........................................... (714) 754-5248 Cypress Engineering ........................................................ (714) 229-6752 Dana Point Public Works ................................................. (949) 248-3562 Fountain Valley Public Works ................................ (714) 593-4400 x347 Fullerton Engineering Dept ............................................. (714) 738-6853 Garden Grove Development Services ........................... (714) 741-5554 Huntington Beach Public Works ..................................... (714) 536-5432 Irvine Public Works ........................................................... (949)724-6515 La Habra Public Services ................................................ (562) 905-9792 La Palma Public Works .......................................... (714) 523-1140 x102 Laguna Beach Municipal Services ................................. (949) 497-0711 Laguna Hills Engineering ................................................. (949) 707-2600 Laguna Niguel Public Works ........................................... (949) 362-4337 Lake Forest Public Works ............................................... (949) 461-3480 Los Alamitos Community Dev ............................... (562) 431-3538 x301 Mission Viejo Public Works ............................................. (949) 470-3095 Newport Beach Public works .......................................... (949) 644-3311 Orange Public Works ....................................................... (714) 744-5551 Placentia Engineering ...................................................... (714) 993-8131 San Clemente Engineering ............................................. (949) 361-6100 San Juan Capistrano Engineering .................................. (949) 493-1171 Santa Ana Public Works .................................................. (714) 647-3380 Seal Beach Engineering ........................................ (562) 431-2527 x318 Stanton Public Works ............................................. (714) 379-9222 x204 Tustin Public Works Engineering .................................... (714) 573-3150 Villa Park Engineering ..................................................... (714) 998-1500 Westminster Public Works Eng. ............................ (714) 898-3311 x215 Yorba Linda Engineering ....................................... (714) 961-7170 x174 O.C. Storm Water Program ..................
24 Hour Water Pollution Hotline ................................ (714) 567-6363 or [email protected]
Chemical and Hazardous Material Spill Emergencies ...................... 911 Other Important Phone Numbers:

For Additional Brochures .....................

UC Masters & Coop Extension ....................................... (714) 708-1646 [email protected]
O.C. Household Hazardous Waste Information ............ (714) 834-6752 or www.oc.ca.gov/IWMD
Information on agriculture chemicals, pesticides and possible alternatives, O.C. Agriculture Commissioner ........... (714) 447-7115 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455)
.1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455)
1572
Sewage Spill
Regulatory Requirements
This brochure was designed courtesy of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD).

For additional information, call (714) 962-2411, or visit their website at www.ocsd.com Your Responsibilities
as a Private Property Owner
Reference Guide
Sewage Spill
Allowing sewage to discharge to a gutter or storm
drain may subject you to penalties and/or out-ofpocket costs to reimburse cities or public agencies for clean-up efforts.

Here are the pertinent codes, fines, and agency
contact information that apply.

Orange County Stormwater Program
24 Hour Water Pollution Reporting Hotline
1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455)
! County and city water quality ordinances prohibit discharges containing pollutants.

California Health and Safety Code, Sections 5410-5416
! No person shall discharge raw or treated sewage or other waste in a manner that results in contamination, pollution or a nuisance. ! Any person who causes or permits a sewage discharge to any state waters:
• must immediately notify the local health agency of the discharge. • shall reimburse the local health agency for services that protect the public’s health and safety (water-contact receiving waters). • who fails to provide the required notice to the local health agency is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine (between $500–$1,000) and/or imprisonment for less than one year. ! Requires the prevention, mitigation, response to and reporting of sewage spills.

California Water Code, Article 4, Chapter 4, Sections 13268-13271 California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 9.2, Article 2, Sections 2250-2260
! Any person who causes or permits sewage in excess of 1,000 gallons to be discharged to state waters shall immediately notify the Office of Emergency Services.
! Any person who fails to provide the notice required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine (less than $20,000) and/or imprisonment for not more than one year.

Orange County Health Care Agency
Environmental Health
(714) 433-6419
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Region San Diego Region
(951) 782-4130 (858) 467-2952
California Office of Emergency Services
(800) 852-7550
What is a
Sewage Spill?
You Are Responsible for a
Sewage Spill Caused by a Blockage
or Break in Your Sewer Lines!
Grease builds up inside and eventually blocks
sewer pipes. Grease gets into the sewer from food
establishments, household drains, as well as from poorly maintained commercial grease traps and interceptors.

Structure problems caused by tree roots in the lines,
broken/cracked pipes, missing or broken cleanout caps
or undersized sewers can cause blockages.

Infiltration and inflow (I/I) impacts pipe capacity and is caused when groundwater or rainwater enters the
sewer system through pipe defects and illegal
connections.

Time is of the essence in dealing with sewage spills. You are required to immediately:

Control and minimize the spill. Keep spills contained
on private property and out of gutters, storm drains and public waterways by shutting off or not using the water.

Use sandbags, dirt and/or plastic sheeting to
prevent sewage from entering the storm drain system.

Clear the sewer blockage. Always wear gloves and
wash your hands. It is recommended that a plumbing
professional be called for clearing blockages and making necessary repairs.

Always notify your city sewer/public works
department or public sewer district of sewage
spills. If the spill enters the storm drains also notify the Health Care Agency. In addition, if it exceeds 1,000
gallons notify the Office of Emergency Services. Refer to the numbers listed in this brochure.

Caution
Allowing sewage from your home, business or property
to discharge to a gutter or storm drain may subject you to penalties and/or out-of-pocket costs to reimburse cities or public agencies for clean-up and enforcement efforts.

See Regulatory Codes & Fines section for pertinent codes and fines that apply.

What to Look For
You Could Be Liable
Sewage spills can be a very noticeable gushing of water from a manhole or a slow water leak that may take time to be noticed. Don’t dismiss unaccounted-for wet areas.

Look for:
! Drain backups inside the building.
! Wet ground and water leaking around manhole lids
onto your street.
! Leaking water from cleanouts or outside drains.
! Unusual odorous wet areas: sidewalks, external
walls or ground/landscape around a building.

Rev 4/06
printed on recycled paper
Common Causes
of Sewage Spills
Overflowing
cleanout pipe
located on
private property
Keep people and pets away from the affected area.

Untreated sewage has high levels of disease-causing
viruses and bacteria. Call your local health care agency listed on the back for more information.

DTP113
Sewage spills occur when the wastewater being
transported via underground pipes overflows through
a manhole, cleanout or broken pipe. Sewage spills can
cause health hazards, damage to homes and businesses,
and threaten the environment, local waterways and
beaches.

Health Care Agency
Environmental Health
CA
IA
LIFORN

Y OF OR
TA
NN
U
G
O
E
C
If You See a Sewage Spill Occurring,
Notify Your City Sewer/Public Works
Department or Public Sewer District
IMMEDIATELY!
www.ocwatersheds.com

P R O J E C T

P R E V E N T I O N
Residences
Businesses
Homeowner/Condominium Associations
Federal and State Complexes
Military Facilities
Orange County
Sanitation District
1573
How a Sewer
System Works
Orange County
Agency Responsibilites
You Could Be Liable
for Not Protecting
the Environment
Local and state agencies have legal jurisdiction and enforcement authority to ensure that sewage spills are remedied.

They may respond and assist with containment, relieving pipe blockages, and/or clean-up of the sewage spill, especially if
the spill is flowing into storm drains or onto
public property.

A property owner may be charged for
costs incurred by these agencies
responding to spills from private
properties .

How You Can
Prevent Sewage Spills
A property owner's sewer pipes are called
service laterals and are connected to larger
local main and regional trunk lines. Service
laterals run from the connection at the
home to the connection with the public
sewer (including the area under the street).

These laterals are the responsibility of the
property owner and must be maintained
by the property owner. Many city agencies
have adopted ordinances requiring
maintenance of service laterals. Check with
your city sewer/local public works
department for more information.

Operation and maintenance of local and
regional sewer lines are the responsibility of the city sewer/public works departments and public sewer districts.

Preventing
Grease Blockages
The drain is not a dump! Recycle or dispose of grease
properly and never pour grease down the drain.

Homeowners should mix fats, oils and grease with absorbent waste materials such as paper, coffee grounds, or kitty litter and place it in the trash. Wipe food scraps from plates and pans and dump them in the trash.

Restaurants and commercial food service establishments
should always use “Kitchen Best Management Practices.”
These include:
! Collecting all cooking grease and liquid oil from pots, pans and fryers in covered grease containers for recycling.
! Scraping or dry-wiping excess food and grease from
dishes, pots, pans and fryers into the trash.
! Installing drain screens on all kitchen drains.
! Having spill kits readily available for cleaning up spills. ! Properly maintaining grease traps or interceptors by having them serviced regularly. Check your local city codes.
! City Sewer/Public Works Departments—
Responsible for protecting city property
and streets, the local storm drain system, sewage
collection system and other public areas.
! Public Sewer /Sani tat ion Dist r ict—
Responsible for collecting, treating and disposing
of wastewater.
! County of Orange Health Care Agency—
Responsible for protecting public health by closing
ocean/bay waters and may close food-service
businesses if a spill poses a threat to public health.
! Regional Water Quality Control Boards—
Responsible for protecting State waters.
! Orange County Stormwater Program—
Responsible for preventing harmful pollutants from
being discharged or washed by stormwater runoff
into the municipal storm drain system, creeks, bays
and the ocean.
2 3
1 Never put grease down garbage
disposals, drains or toilets.

Perform periodic cleaning to
eliminate grease, debris and roots in
your service laterals.

Repair any structural problems
in your sewer system and eliminate
any rainwater infiltration/inflow
leaks into your service laterals.

Sewage spills can cause
damage to the environment.

Help prevent them!
Regional
Trunk line
Sewer
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Cleanout
Cleanout Grease
Trap
Downspout
(rain water goes into
the storm drain system,
not the sewer)

RESIDENCE

BUSINESS
Manhole
Local Main
Sewer Line
Private
Service
Laterals
Manhole
City Sewer/Public Works Departments
Aliso Viejo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 425-2500 Anaheim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 765-6860 Brea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 990-7691 Buena Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 562-3655 Costa Mesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 645-8400 Cypress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 229-6760 Dana Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 248-3562 Fountain Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 593-4600 Fullerton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 738-6897 Garden Grove. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 741-5375 Huntington Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 536-5921 Irvine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 453-5300 Laguna Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 497-0765 Laguna Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 707-2650 Laguna Niguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 362-4337 Laguna Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 639-0500 La Habra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (562) 905-9792 Lake Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 461-3480 La Palma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 690-3310 Los Alamitos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (562) 431-3538 Mission Viejo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 831-2500 Newport Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 644-3011 Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 532-6480 Orange County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 567-6363 Placentia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 993-8245 Rancho Santa Margarita. . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 635-1800 San Clemente. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 366-1553 San Juan Capistrano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 443-6363 Santa Ana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 647-3380 Seal Beach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (562) 431-2527 Stanton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 379-9222 Tustin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 962-2411 Villa Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 998-1500 Westminster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 893-3553 Yorba Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 961-7170 Public Sewer/Water Districts
Costa Mesa Sanitary District . . . . . . . . . . (714) 393-4433/ (949) 645-8400
El Toro Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 837-0660 Emerald Bay Service District . . . . . . . . . . (949) 494-8571 Garden Grove Sanitary District . . . . . . . . . (714) 741-5375 Irvine Ranch Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 453-5300 Los Alamitos/Rossmoor Sewer District . . . (562) 431-2223 Midway City Sanitary District (Westminster) (714) 893-3553 Moulton Niguel Water District . . . . . . . . . (949) 831-2500 Orange County Sanitation District. . . . . . . (714) 962-2411 Santa Margarita Water District . . . . . . . . (949) 459-6420 South Coast Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . (949) 499-4555 South Orange County Wastewater Authority (949) 234-5400 Sunset Beach Sanitary District. . . . . . . . . (562) 493-9932 Trabuco Canyon Sanitary District . . . . . . . (949) 858-0277 Yorba Linda Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 777-3018 Other Agencies
Orange County Health Care Agency . . . . . (714) 433-6419 Office of Emergency Services. . . . . . . . . . (800) 852-7550 Report Sewage Spills!
1574
For more information,
please call the
Orange County Stormwater Program
at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455)
or visit
www.ocwatersheds.com
UCCE Master Gardener Hotline:
(714) 708-1646
To report a spill,
call the
Orange County 24-Hour
Water Pollution Problem
Reporting Hotline
1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455).

For emergencies, dial 911.

The tips contained in this brochure provide useful
information to help prevent water pollution
while landscaping or gardening. If you have other
suggestions, please contact your city’s stormwater
representatives or call the Orange County
Stormwater Program.

C lean beaches
and healthy
creeks, rivers, bays
and ocean are important to
Orange County. However,
many common activities
can lead to water pollution
if you’re not careful.

Fertilizers, pesticides and
other chemicals that are left
on yards or driveways can
be blown or washed into
storm drains that flow to the
ocean. Overwatering lawns
can also send materials into
storm drains. Unlike water
in sanitary sewers (from sinks
and toilets), water in storm
drains is not treated before
entering our waterways.

You would never pour
gardening products into the
ocean, so don’t let them enter
the storm drains. Follow
these easy tips to help prevent
water pollution.

Printed on Recycled Paper 1575
Tips for Landscape and Gardening Tips for Landscape & Gardening Never allow gardening products or
polluted water to enter the street, gutter
or storm drain.

General Landscaping Tips
Protect stockpiles and materials from
wind and rain by storing them under
tarps or secured plastic sheeting.

Prevent erosion of slopes by planting
fast-growing, dense ground covering
plants. These will shield and bind the
soil.

Plant native vegetation
to reduce the amount
of water, fertilizers, and
pesticide applied to the
landscape.

Never apply pesticides
or fertilizers when rain is
predicted within the next 48 hours.

Garden & Lawn Maintenance
Do not overwater. Use irrigation
practices such as drip irrigation,
soaker hoses or micro spray systems.

Periodically inspect and fix leaks and
misdirected sprinklers.

Do not rake or blow
leaves, clippings or
pruning waste into
the street, gutter
or storm drain.

Instead, dispose
of green waste by
composting, hauling
it to a permitted
landfill, or recycling it through your
city’s program.

Use slow-release fertilizers to
minimize leaching, and use organic
fertilizers.

Read labels and use only as directed.

Do not over-apply pesticides or
fertilizers. Apply to spots as needed,
rather than blanketing an entire
area.

Store pesticides, fertilizers and other
chemicals in a dry covered area to
prevent exposure that may result
in the deterioration
of containers and
packaging.

Rinse empty
pesticide containers
and re-use rinse water
as you would use the
product. Do not dump rinse water
down storm drains. Dispose of empty
containers in the trash.

When available, use non-toxic
alternatives to traditional pesticides,
and use pesticides specifically
designed to control the pest you are
targeting. For more information, visit
www.ipm.ucdavis.edu.

If fertilizer is spilled, sweep up the
spill before irrigating. If the spill is
liquid, apply an absorbent material
such as cat litter, and then sweep it up
and dispose of it in the trash.

Take unwanted pesticides to a
Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Center to be recycled.

Locations are provided below.

Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Centers
Anaheim: 1071 N. Blue Gum St.

Huntington Beach: 17121 Nichols St.

Irvine: 6411 Oak Canyon
San Juan Capistrano: 32250 La Pata Ave.

For more information, call (714) 834-6752
or visit www.oclandfills.com
1576
For more information,
please call the
Orange County Stormwater Program
at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455)
or visit
www.ocwatersheds.com
To report a spill,
call the
Orange County 24-Hour
Water Pollution Problem
Reporting Hotline
at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455).

For emergencies, dial 911.

The tips contained in this brochure provide useful
information to help prevent water pollution while
using, storing and disposing of paint. If you
have other suggestions, please contact your city’s
stormwater representatives or call the Orange
County Stormwater Program.

Clean beaches
and healthy
creeks, rivers, bays
and ocean are important to
Orange County. However,
many common activities
such as painting can lead
to water pollution if you’re
not careful. Paint must be
used, stored and disposed of
properly to ensure that it does
not enter the street, gutter or
storm drain. Unlike water in
sanitary sewers (from sinks
and toilets), water in storm
drains is not treated before
entering our waterways.

You would never dump paint
into the ocean, so don’t let
it enter the storm drains.

Follow these easy tips to help
prevent water pollution.

Printed on Recycled Paper 1577
Tips for Pool Maintenance
Paint can cause significant damage to our
environment. Whether you hire a contractor or
do it yourself, it is important to follow these simple
tips when purchasing, using, cleaning, storing and
disposing of paint.

Purchasing Paint
Measure the room or object to be painted, then buy
only the amount needed.

Whenever possible, use water-based paint since it
usually does not require hazardous solvents such as
paint thinner for cleanup.

Painting
Use only one brush or roller per color of paint to
reduce the amount of water needed for cleaning.

Place open paint containers or trays on a stable
surface and in a position that is unlikely to spill.

Always use a tarp under the area or object being
painted to collect paint drips and contain spills.

Cleaning
Never clean brushes or rinse paint containers in the
street, gutter or storm drain.

For oil-based products, use as much of the paint on
the brushes as possible. Clean brushes with thinner.

To reuse thinner, pour it through a fine filter (e.g.
nylon, metal gauze or filter paper) to remove solids
such as leftover traces of paint.

For water-based products, use as much of the paint
on the brushes as possible, then rinse in the sink.

Collect all paint chips and dust. Chips and dust
from marine paints or paints containing lead,
mercury or tributyl tin are hazardous waste. Sweep
up and dispose of at a Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Center (HHWCC).

Storing Paint
Store paint in a dry location away from the elements.

Store leftover water-based paint, oil-based paint and
solvents separately in original or clearly marked
containers.

Avoid storing paint cans directly on cement floors.

The bottom of the can will rust much faster on
cement.

Place the lid on firmly and store the paint can upsidedown to prevent air from entering. This will keep the paint usable longer. Oil-based paint is usable for up
to 15 years. Water-based paint remains usable for up
to 10 years.

Alternatives to Disposal
Use excess paint to apply another coat, for touch-ups,
or to paint a closet, garage, basement or attic.

Give extra paint to friends or family. Extra paint can
also be donated to a local theatre group, low-income
housing program or school.

Take extra paint to an exchange program such as the
“Stop & Swap” that allows you to drop off or pick up
partially used home care products free of charge.
“Stop & Swap” programs are available at most
HHWCCs.

For HHWCC locations and hours, call (714) 834-6752
or visit www.oclandfills.com.

Disposing of Paint
Never put wet paint in the trash.

For water-based paint:

If possible, brush the leftover paint on cardboard or
newspaper. Otherwise, allow the paint to dry in the
can with the lid off in a well-ventilated area protected from the elements, children and pets. Stirring the
paint every few days will speed up the drying.

Large quantities of extra paint should be taken to a
HHWCC.

Once dried, paint and painted surfaces may be
disposed of in the trash. When setting a dried paint
can out for trash collection, leave the lid off so the
collector will see that the paint has dried.

For oil-based paint:

Oil-based paint is a household hazardous waste.

All leftover paint should be taken to a HHWCC.

Aerosol paint:

Dispose of aerosol paint cans at a HHWCC.

Spills
Never hose down pavement or other impermeable
surfaces where paint has spilled.

Clean up spills immediately by using an absorbent
material such as cat litter. Cat litter used to clean
water-based paint spills can be disposed of in the
trash. When cleaning oil-based paint spills with cat
litter, it must be taken to a HHWCC.

Immediately report spills that have entered the
street, gutter or storm drain to the County’s 24-Hour
Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at (714)
567-6363 or visit www.ocwatersheds.com to fill out an
incident reporting form.

Tips for Projects Using Paint
1578
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025
Appendix C:

BMP Details
1579
// //
// //
// // // 4''FW
4''SS
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 6''SD
6''SD 6''SD > > > > > > >
6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 12''SD 8''SD 12''FW 12''FW 12''FW E E E Z || T > > > > > > > > > > > Z Z ······
1580

1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.65 3.70 3.75 3.80 3.85 3.90 3.95 MWS‐L‐4‐4 6.70 1.0 0.022 0.023 0.025 0.026 0.028 0.029 0.031 0.032 0.034 0.035 0.037 0.038 0.040 0.042 0.043 0.045 0.046 0.048 0.049 0.051 0.052 0.054 0.055 0.056 0.057 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.061 MWS‐L‐3‐6 10.06 1.0 0.032 0.035 0.037 0.039 0.042 0.044 0.046 0.048 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.058 0.060 0.062 0.065 0.067 0.069 0.072 0.074 0.076 0.078 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.087 0.088 0.089 0.090 0.091 MWS‐L‐4‐6 9.30 1.0 0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.041 0.043 0.045 0.047 0.049 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.058 0.060 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.073 0.075 0.077 0.078 0.079 0.080 0.081 0.082 0.083 0.084 MWS‐L‐4‐8 14.80 1.0 0.048 0.051 0.054 0.058 0.061 0.065 0.068 0.071 0.075 0.078 0.082 0.085 0.088 0.092 0.095 0.099 0.102 0.105 0.109 0.112 0.115 0.119 0.122 0.124 0.126 0.127 0.129 0.131 0.132 0.134 MWS‐L‐4‐13 18.40 1.0 0.059 0.063 0.068 0.072 0.076 0.080 0.084 0.089 0.093 0.097 0.101 0.106 0.110 0.114 0.118 0.122 0.127 0.131 0.135 0.139 0.144 0.148 0.152 0.154 0.156 0.158 0.160 0.163 0.165 0.167 MWS‐L‐4‐15 22.40 1.0 0.072 0.077 0.082 0.087 0.093 0.098 0.103 0.108 0.113 0.118 0.123 0.129 0.134 0.139 0.144 0.149 0.154 0.159 0.165 0.170 0.175 0.180 0.185 0.188 0.190 0.193 0.195 0.198 0.200 0.203 MWS‐L‐4‐17 26.40 1.0 0.085 0.091 0.097 0.103 0.109 0.115 0.121 0.127 0.133 0.139 0.145 0.151 0.158 0.164 0.170 0.176 0.182 0.188 0.194 0.200 0.206 0.212 0.218 0.221 0.224 0.227 0.230 0.233 0.236 0.239 MWS‐L‐4‐19 30.40 1.0 0.098 0.105 0.112 0.119 0.126 0.133 0.140 0.147 0.153 0.160 0.167 0.174 0.181 0.188 0.195 0.202 0.209 0.216 0.223 0.230 0.237 0.244 0.251 0.255 0.258 0.262 0.265 0.269 0.272 0.276 MWS‐L‐4‐21 34.40 1.0 0.111 0.118 0.126 0.134 0.142 0.150 0.158 0.166 0.174 0.182 0.189 0.197 0.205 0.213 0.221 0.229 0.237 0.245 0.253 0.261 0.268 0.276 0.284 0.288 0.292 0.296 0.300 0.304 0.308 0.312 MWS‐L‐6‐8 18.80 1.0 0.060 0.065 0.069 0.073 0.078 0.082 0.086 0.091 0.095 0.099 0.104 0.108 0.112 0.116 0.121 0.125 0.129 0.134 0.138 0.142 0.147 0.151 0.155 0.157 0.160 0.162 0.164 0.166 0.168 0.170 MWS‐L‐8‐8 29.60 1.0 0.095 0.102 0.109 0.115 0.122 0.129 0.136 0.143 0.149 0.156 0.163 0.170 0.177 0.183 0.190 0.197 0.204 0.211 0.217 0.224 0.231 0.238 0.245 0.248 0.251 0.255 0.258 0.262 0.265 0.268 MWS‐L‐8‐12 44.40 1.0 0.143 0.153 0.163 0.173 0.183 0.194 0.204 0.214 0.224 0.234 0.245 0.255 0.265 0.275 0.285 0.296 0.306 0.316 0.326 0.336 0.346 0.357 0.367 0.372 0.377 0.382 0.387 0.392 0.397 0.402 MWS‐L‐8‐16 59.20 1.0 0.190 0.204 0.217 0.231 0.245 0.258 0.272 0.285 0.299 0.312 0.326 0.340 0.353 0.367 0.380 0.394 0.408 0.421 0.435 0.448 0.462 0.476 0.489 0.496 0.503 0.509 0.516 0.523 0.530 0.537 MWS‐L‐8‐20 74.00 1.0 0.238 0.255 0.272 0.289 0.306 0.323 0.340 0.357 0.374 0.391 0.408 0.425 0.442 0.459 0.476 0.493 0.509 0.526 0.543 0.560 0.577 0.594 0.611 0.620 0.628 0.637 0.645 0.654 0.662 0.671 MWS‐L‐10‐20 or
MWS‐L‐8‐24

88.80 1.0 0.285 0.306 0.326 0.346 0.367 0.387 0.408 0.428 0.448 0.469 0.489 0.509 0.530 0.550 0.571 0.591 0.611 0.632 0.652 0.673 0.693 0.713 0.734 0.744 0.754 0.764 0.774 0.785 0.795 0.805 4'x'4 media cage 14.80 1.0 0.048 0.051 0.054 0.058 0.061 0.065 0.068 0.071 0.075 0.078 0.082 0.085 0.088 0.092 0.095 0.099 0.102 0.105 0.109 0.112 0.115 0.119 0.122 0.124

MWS MODEL SIZE

WETLAND

PERMITER
LENGTH

LOADING
RATE
GPM/SF

HGL HEIGHT

SHALLOW MODELS STANDARD

HEIGHT MODEL HIGH CAPACITY MODELS
MWS Linear 2.0 HGL Sizing Calculations
1581
1582
1583

PLAN VIEW

ELEVATION VIEW

RIGHT END VIEW

LEFT END VIEW

SITE SPECIFIC DATA

GENERAL NOTES

INSTALLATION NOTES

STANDARD DETAIL

STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM
MWS-L-4-6-V-UG

FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO
www.ContechES.com/IP 1584
MWS Linear
Advanced Stormwater Biofiltration
1585
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Applications
3 Configurations
4 Advantages
5 Operation
6 Orientations | Bypass
7 Performance | Approvals
8 Sizing
9 Installation | Maintenance | Plants
1586
www.ModularWetlands.com
The Urban Impact
For hundreds of years natural wetlands surrounding our shores have played an integral role as nature’s stormwater treatment system. But as our cities grow and develop, these natural wetlands have perished under countless roads, rooftops, and parking lots.

Plant A Wetland
Without natural wetlands our cities are deprived of water purification, flood control, and land stability. Modular Wetlands and the MWS Linear re-establish nature’s presence and rejuvenate water ways in urban areas.

MWS Linear
The Modular Wetland System Linear represents a pioneering breakthrough in stormwater technology as the only biofiltration system to utilize patented horizontal flow, allowing for a smaller footprint and higher treatment capacity. While most biofilters use little or no pre-treatment, the MWS Linear incorporates an advanced pre-treatment chamber that includes separation and prefilter cartridges. In this chamber sediment and hydrocarbons are removed from runoff before it enters the biofiltration chamber, in turn reducing maintenance costs and improving performance. 1587
Parking Lots
Parking lots are designed to maximize space and
the MWS Linear’s 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.

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.

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 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 MWS 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 are available on our website: www.ModularWetlands.com/Applications • Agriculture
• Reuse
• Low Impact Development
• Waste Water 1588
www.ModularWetlands.com
Configurations
The MWS Linear is the preferred biofiltration system of Civil Engineers across the country due to its versatile design. This highly versatile system has available “pipe-in” options on most models, along with built-in curb or grated inlets for simple integration into your stormdrain design.

Curb Type
The Curb Type configuration accepts sheet flow through a curb opening and is commonly used along road ways and parking lots. It can be used in sump or flow by conditions. Length of curb opening varies based on model and size.

Grate Type
The Grate Type configuration offers the same features and benefits as the Curb Type but with a grated/drop inlet above the systems pre-treatment chamber.

It has the added benefit of allowing for pedestrian access over the inlet. ADA compliant grates are available to assure easy and safe access. The Grate Type can also be used in scenarios where runoff needs to be intercepted on both sides of landscape islands.

Downspout Type
The Downspout Type is a variation of the Vault Type and is designed to accept a vertical downspout pipe from roof top and podium areas. Some models have the option of utilizing an internal bypass, simplifying the overall design. The system can be installed as a raised planter and the exterior can be stuccoed or covered with other finishes to match the look of adjacent buildings.

Vault Type
The system’s patented horizontal flow biofilter is able to accept inflow pipes directly into the pre-treatment chamber, meaning the MWS Linear can be used in end-of-the-line installations. This greatly improves feasibility over typical decentralized designs that are required with other biofiltration/bioretention systems. Another benefit of the “pipe in” design is the ability to install the system downstream of underground detention systems to meet water quality volume requirements.

Page 3 ends

1589
Cartridge Housing
Pre-filter Cartridge
Curb Inlet
Individual Media Filters
Advantages & Operation
The MWS Linear is the most efficient and versatile biofiltration system on the market, and the only system with horizontal flow which improves performance, reduces footprint, and minimizes maintenance. Figure-1 and Figure-2 illustrate the invaluable benefits of horizontal flow and the multiple treatment stages. • Horizontal Flow Biofiltration
• Greater Filter Surface Area
• Pre-Treatment Chamber
• Patented Perimeter Void Area
• Flow Control
• No Depressed Planter Area
Separation
• Trash, sediment, and debris are separated before
entering the pre-filter cartridges
• Designed for easy maintenance access
Pre-Filter Cartridges
• Over 25 ft2 of surface area per cartridge
• Utilizes BioMediaGREEN filter material
• Removes over 80% of TSS & 90% of hydrocarbons
• Prevents pollutants that cause clogging from
migrating to the biofiltration chamber
1 Pre-Treatment
1 2
Drain-
1 2 Vertical Underdrain
Manifold
Featured Advantages
1590
www.ModularWetlands.com
Fig. 1
Horizontal Flow
• Less clogging than downward flow biofilters
• Water flow is subsurface
• Improves biological filtration
Patented Perimeter Void Area
• Vertically extends void area between the walls
and the WetlandMEDIA on all four sides.
• Maximizes surface area of the media for higher
treatment capacity
WetlandMEDIA
• Contains no organics and removes phosphorus
• Greater surface area and 48% void space
• Maximum evapotranspiration
• High ion exchange capacity and light weight
Flow Control
• Orifice plate controls flow of water through
WetlandMEDIA to a level lower than the
media’s capacity.
• Extends the life of the media and improves
performance
Drain-Down Filter
• The Drain-Down is an optional feature that
completely drains the pre-treatment
chamber
• Water that drains from the pre-treatment
chamber between storm events will be
treated
Fig. 2 - Top View 2x to 3x More Surface Area Than Traditional Downward Flow Bioretention Systems. 2 Biofiltration
3 Discharge
Perimeter Void Area
3 4
3 Flow Control Riser
-Down Line
Outlet Pipe Page 5
1591
Orientations
Bypass
Internal Bypass Weir (Side-by-Side Only)
The Side-By-Side orientation places the pre-treatment and discharge chambers adjacent to one another allowing for integration of internal bypass.

The wall between these chambers can act as a bypass weir when flows exceed the system’s treatment capacity, thus allowing bypass from the pre-treatment chamber directly to the discharge chamber.

External Diversion Weir Structure
This traditional offline diversion method can be
used with the MWS Linear in scenarios where runoff is being piped to the system. These simple and effective structures are generally configured with
two outflow pipes. The first is a smaller pipe on the
upstream side of the diversion weir - to divert low
flows over to the MWS Linear for treatment. The
second is the main pipe that receives water once the
system has exceeded treatment capacity and water
flows over the weir.

Flow By Design
This method is one in which the system is placed
just upstream of a standard curb or grate inlet to
intercept the first flush. Higher flows simply pass by
the MWS Linear and into the standard inlet downstream.

End-To-End
The End-To-End orientation places the pre-treatment and discharge chambers on opposite ends of the biofiltration chamber therefore minimizing the
width of the system to 5 ft (outside dimension). This
orientation is perfect for linear projects and street
retrofits where existing utilities and sidewalks limit
the amount of space available for installation. One
limitation of this orientation is bypass must be external.

Side-By-Side
The Side-By-Side orientation places the pre-treatment 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.

This simple yet innovative diversion trough can be
installed in existing or new curb and grate inlets to
divert the first flush to the MWS 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 allows the MWS Linear to be installed anywhere space is available.

DVERT Low Flow Diversion
DVERT Trough
1592
www.ModularWetlands.com
Rhode Island DEM Approved
Approved as an authorized BMP and noted to achieve the following minimum removal efficiencies: 85% TSS, 60% Pathogens, 30% Total Phosphorus for discharges to freshwater systems, and 30% Total Nitrogen for discharges to saltwater or tidal systems.

MASTEP Evaluation
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst – Water Resources Research Center, issued a technical evaluation report noting removal rates up to 84% TSS, 70% Total Phosphorus,

68.5% Total Zinc, and more.

Washington State DOE Approved
The MWS Linear is approved for General Use Level Designation (GULD) for Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus treatment at 1 gpm/ft2 loading rate. The highest performing BMP on the market for all main pollutant categories.

Approvals
The MWS Linear has successfully met years of challenging technical reviews and testing from some of the most prestigious and demanding agencies in the nation, and perhaps the world.

DEQ Assignment
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality assigned the MWS Linear, the highest phosphorus removal rating for manufactured treatment devices to meet the new Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Technical Criteria.

VA
TSS Total
Phosphorus
Ortho
Phosphorus Nitrogen Dissolved Zinc Dissolved Copper Total Zinc Total Copper Motor Oil 85% 64% 67% 45% 66% 38% 69% 50% 95%
Performance
The MWS Linear continues to outperform other treatment methods with superior pollutant removal for TSS, heavy metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons and bacteria. Since 2007 the MWS Linear has been field tested on numerous sites across the country. With it’s advanced pre-treatment chamber and innovative horizontal flow biofilter, the system is able to effectively remove pollutants through a combination of physical, chemical, and biological filtration processes. With the same biological processes found in natural wetlands, the MWS Linear harnesses natures ability to process, transform, and remove even the most harmful pollutants.

Page 7 ends

1593
Treatment Flow Sizing Table
Model # Dimensions WetlandMedia
Surface Area
Treatment Flow
Rate (cfs)
MWS-L-4-4 4’ x 4’ 23 ft2 0.052
MWS-L-4-6 4’ x 6’ 32 ft2 0.073
MWS-L-4-8 4’ x 8’ 50 ft2 0.115
MWS-L-4-13 4’ x 13’ 63 ft2 0.144
MWS-L-4-15 4’ x 15’ 76 ft2 0.175
MWS-L-4-17 4’ x 17’ 90 ft2 0.206
MWS-L-4-19 4’ x 19’ 103 ft2 0.237
MWS-L-4-21 4’ x 21’ 117 ft2 0.268
MWS-L-8-8 8’ x 8’ 100 ft2 0.230
MWS-L-8-12 8’ x 12’ 151 ft2 0.346
MWS-L-8-16 8’ x 16’ 201 ft2 0.462
Flow Based Sizing
The MWS Linear can be used in stand alone applications to meet treatment flow requirements. Since the MWS Linear 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.

Volume Based Sizing
Many states require treatment of a water quality volume and do not offer the option of flow based design. The MWS Linear and its unique horizontal flow makes it the only biofilter that can be used in volume based design installed downstream of ponds, detention basins, and underground storage systems.

Treatment Volume Sizing Table
Model # Treatment Capacity (cu. ft.)
@ 24-Hour Drain Down
Treatment Capacity (cu. ft.)
@ 48-Hour Drain Down
MWS-L-4-4 1140 2280
MWS-L-4-6 1600 3200
MWS-L-4-8 2518 5036
MWS-L-4-13 3131 6261
MWS-L-4-15 3811 7623
MWS-L-4-17 4492 8984
MWS-L-4-19 5172 10345
MWS-L-4-21 5853 11706
MWS-L-8-8 5036 10072
MWS-L-8-12 7554 15109
MWS-L-8-16 10073 20145 1594
www.ModularWetlands.com
Installation
The MWS 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 pre-cast 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 are available to supervise
installations and provide technical support.

Plant Selection
Abundant plants, trees, and grasses bring value and an aesthetic benefit to any urban setting, but those in the MWS 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 MWS Linear’s micro/macro flora and fauna.

A wide range of plants are suitable for use in the MWS Linear, but selections vary by location and climate. View suitable plants by selecting the list relative to your project location’s hardy zone.

Please visit www.ModularWetlands.com/Plants for more information and various plant lists.

Maintenance
Reduce your maintenance costs, man hours, and materials with the MWS Linear. Unlike other biofiltration systems that provide no pre-treatment, the MWS Linear is a self-contained treatment train which incorporates simple and effective pre-treatment.

Maintenance requirements for the biofilter itself are almost completely eliminated, as the pre-treatment chamber removes and isolates trash, sediments, and hydrocarbons. What’s left is the simple maintenance of an easily accessible pre-treatment chamber that can be cleaned by hand or with a standard vac truck. Only periodic replacement of lowcost media in the pre-filter cartridges is required for long term operation and there is absolutely no need to replace expensive biofiltration media.

Page 9 ends

1595
www.ModularWetlands.com | (855) 5MOD-WET | [email protected] 1596 MWS – Linear
Hybrid Stormwater Filtration System

SPECIFICATIONS

Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. www.modularwetlands.com
P.O. Box 869 P 760-433-7640
Oceanside, CA 92049 F 760-433-3179
1597
MWS – Linear
Hybrid Stormwater Filtration System
Save valuable space with small
otprint for urban sites.
d tropical
ndscape plants.
er and
ss expensive maintenance
ystem
unoff is
in
d
ischarge chamber the rate of discharge is controlled by valves set to a desired rate”. ested Pollutant Removal Efficiencies:
fo
Improve BMP aesthetics with
attractive native an
la
Reduce lifetime costs with saf
le
“The MWS – Linear hybrid stormwater
treatment system is described as a self contained treatment train. This system utilizes an innovative combination of l treatment processes. Stormwater runoff flows into the s via pipe or curb/grate type catch basin opening. Polluted runoff first encounters a screening device to remove larger pollutants and then enters a hydrodynamic separation chamber which settles out the sediments and larger suspended solids. Next the r treated by a revolutionary filter media, BioMediaGREEN that removes fines and associated pollutants, including bacteria. From there runoff enters of bioretention filter the form of a subsurface flow vegetated gravel wetland. Within the wetland physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms remove the remaining particulate and dissolve pollutants. The purified runoff leaves the system via the discharge chamber. In the d
T
Removal
Di d
Removal
D
Removal
TPH Removal Removal
TSS ssolve
Lead
issolved
Copper E. coli Turbidity
98% 81% 92% 99% 60.2% 92%

“Nature and Harmony Working Together in Perfect Harmony” 1598
SPECIFICATIONS – MWS- LINEAR
gaged in the engineering design and
roduction of treatment systems for stormwater.
treat the entire water quality
olume when used with pre-storage and properly sized.
ls.
g
¾” x 1
nels are
g
ted of UV protected/marine grade
berglass and stainless steel hinge and mount.
uires
tails of this are provided in the installation section of the WS-Linear Design Kit.

Track Record: The MWS- Linear Hybrid Stormwater Treatment System is manufactured by a company whom is regularly en
p
Coverage: The MWS- Linear is designed to treat the water quality volume or water quality flow. For flow based design, high flow bypass is internal, for volume based design, high flow bypass is external and prior to pre-detention system. For offline volume based designs the MWS - Linear has the ability to v
Non-Corrosive Materials: The MWS – Linear is designed with non-corrosive materia All internal piping is SD35 PVC. Catch basin filter components, including mountin hardware, fasteners, support brackets, filtration material, and support frame are constructed of non-corrosive materials (316 stainless steel, and UV protected/marine grade fiberglass). Fasteners are stainless steel. Primary filter mesh is 316 stainless steel welded screens. Filtration basket screens for coarse, medium and fine filtration is ¾“expanded, 10 x 10 mesh, and 35 x 35 mesh, respectively. No polypropylene, monofilament netting or fabrics shall be used in this system. Media Protective Pa constructed of UV protected/marine grade fiberglass. Mounts are constructed of stainless steel. BioMediaGREEN is an inert rock substrate and is non-corrosive.

Perimeter filter structure is constructed of lightweight injection molded plastic. Mountin brackets are constructed of SD40 PVC and are mounted with 3/8” diameter stainless steel redheads. Drain down filter cover is construc
fi
Weight: Each complete unit weighs approximately 29,000 to 40,000 pounds and req a boom crane to install. De
M
1599
Transportation: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is designed to be transported a standard flat bed t
on
ruck. The unit easily fits on a flat bed truck without the need of pecial permitting.
d
noff can enter the system through a pipe, and/or a
uilt in curb or grate type opening.
etland System – Linear is completely passive and
quires no external energy sources.
he
tation. As a precaution a footing can
lso be built into the systems concrete structure.
re
o slippage, breaking, or tearing. All filters are warranted for a minimum of five (5) years. e
hydrocarbon removal abilities. Within the wetland filter biological processes capture and s
Alternative Technology Configurations: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is modular is design. Each module will be up to 22 feet long and 5 feet wide. The system can be made in lengths varying from 13 to 100s of feet long. For lengths longer than 22 feet the system will shipped in modules and assembled on site. The Modular Wetlan System – Linear has many alternative configurations. This allows the system to be adapted to many site conditions. Ru
b
Energy Requirements: The Modular W
re
Buoyancy Issues: Buoyancy is only a an issue when ground water levels rise above t bottom of the Modular Wetland System – Linear’s concrete structure. With 8.5 cubic yards of wetland media there is no concern of floa
a
Durability: The structure of the box will be precast concrete. The concrete will be 28 day compressive strength fc = 5,000 psi. Steel reinforcing will be ASTM A – C857. Structu will support an H20 loading as indicted by AASHTO. The joint between the concrete sections will ship lap and joint sealed with ram-nek. Filter (excluding oil absorbent media) and support structures are of proven durability. The filter and mounting structures are of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the filter is full, with n
Oil Absorbent Media: The MWS – Linear utilizes both physical and biological mechanisms to capture and filter oil and grease. A skimmer and boom system will b positioned on the internal perimeter of the catch basin insert. The primary filtration media, BioMediaGreen, utilized in the perimeter and drain down filters, has excellent 1600
break down oil and grease. Much of the breakdown and transformation of oil and grease performed by natural occurring bacteria.
n system. For
eak flows that exceed internal bypass capacity, external bypass is use. for internally bypassed flows. External bypass will bypass of eatment processes.
ze. Annual
een and quarter-scale
boratory tests on the MWS – Linear flow based system.

POLLUTANT

FICIENCY
is
Overflow Protection: The grate and curb type MWS – Linear are designed with an internal bypass consisting of two SD PVC pipes which direct high flows around the perimeter and wetland filter, directly into the discharge chamber. For the volume based vault type configuration, bypass should be located prior to the pre-detentio p
Filter Bypass: Runoff will bypass filtration (BioMediaGREEN and wetland filter) components of the MWS - Linear. The system will still provide screening and settling during higher flow rates
tr
Pollutant Removal Efficiency: The MWS - Linear is capable of removing over 90% of the net annual total suspended solids (TSS) load based on a 20-micron particle si TSS removal efficiency models are based on documented removal efficiency performance from full-scale laboratory tests on BioMediaGr la

REMOVAL
EF
Trash & Litter 99%
TPH (mg/L) 99%
TSS (mg/L) 98%
E. Coli (MPN/100ml) 60%
Turbidity (NTU) 92%
Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 76%
Non-Scouring: During heavy storm events the runoff bypasses perimeter and wetland lter components. The system will not re-suspend solids at design flows. rticle
diameter = 19 microns
Sil-Co-Sil 106. Mean pa
fi
1601
Uniqueness: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is a complete self contain treatment train that incorporates capture, screening, sedimentation, filtration, bioretention, high flow bypass, and flow control into a single modular structure. This system provides four stages of treatment making it the only 4 stage treatment train stormwater filtration system, therefore making it unique to the industry. Other s not incorporate all the necessary attributes to make it a complete stormwater management device as
ed
ystems do
with the Modular Wetland System – Linear. Therefore, no equal xists for this system.
ter management system no external
retreatment of preconditioning is necessary.

PECIFICATIONS – BioMediaGREEN
se
nd is also biodegradable. It is stable with no
nown adverse environmental effects.
injection) studies have
hown that the products disappear very rapidly from the lung. dies that show no relation between inhalation exposure
nd the development of tumors.
e
Pretreatment & Preconditioning: Since the Modular Wetland System – Linear is a complete capture and treatment train stormwa
p
S

BioMediaGREEN is a proprietary engineered filter media. Made of a unique combination of the inert naturally occurring material this product is non-combustible and do not po a fire hazard, stable and non-reactive, a
k
This product has been tested in long-term carcinogenicity studies [inhalation and intraperitoneal injection (i.p.)] with no significant increase in lung tumors or abdominal tumors. Short-term biopersistent (inhalation and intra-tracheal s
In October 2001, IARC classified this product as Group 3, "not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans". The 2001 decision was based on the latest epidemiological studies and animal inhalation stu
a
1602
The product can typically be disposed of in an ordinary landfill (local regulations may apply). If you are unsure of the regulations, contact your local Public Health Department r the local office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). nt
REEN
ut
ut filters, catch basin inserts,
ater polishing units, and hydrodynamic separators.
ve Materials: The BioMediaGreen material is made of non-corrosive aterials.

MediaGREEN material has been tested through
gorous flow and loading conditions.
has been proven to capture and
tain hydrocarbons.
and
liage, sediments, TSS, particulate and dissolved
etals, nutrients, and bacteria.
le
o
Coverage: When properly installed BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks provide sufficie contact time, at rated flows, of passing contaminate water. The BioMediaG material will capture and retain most pollutants that pass through it. The BioMediaGREEN material is made of a proprietary blend of inert substances. The BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks can be used in different treatment devices, including b not limited to flume filters, trench drain filters, downspo w
Non-Corrosi
m
Durability: The BioMediaGREEN material has been chosen for its proven durability, with an expected life of 2 plus years. The BioMediaGREEN material is of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the media is at maximum flow; with no slippage, breaking, or tearing. The Bio
ri
Oil Absorbent Media: The BioMediaGREEN material
re
Pollutant Removal Efficiency: The BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks are designed to capture high levels of Hydrocarbons including but not limited to oils & grease, gasoline, diesel, and PAHs. BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks have the physical ability to block filter trash and litter, grass and fo
m
BioMediaGREEN technology is based on a proprietary blend of synthetic inert natural substances aimed at removal of various stormwater pollutants. BioMediaGREEN was created to have a very porous structure capable of selectively removing pollutants whi 1603
allowing high flow through rates for water. As pollutants are captured by its structure, ioMediaGREEN captures most pollutants and maintains porosity and filtering rge percentage of TSS, hydrocarbons, nutrients, and heavy metals. Microbial reduction ary depending on colony size, flow rates and site specific conditions.

REMOVAL

EFFICIENCY
B
capabilities.

Field and laboratory tests have confirmed the BioMediaGREEN capability to capture la
efficiency will v

POLLUTANT
Oil & Grease (mg/L) 90%
TPH (mg/L) 99%
TSS (mg/L) 85%
Turbidity (NTU) 99%
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 69.6%
Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 75.6%
Replacement: Removal and replacement of the blocks is simple. Remove blocks from ltration system. Replace with new block of equal size.

Sil-Co-Sil 106. Mean particle
diameter = 19 microns
fi
1604

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
XIV-69 December 20, 2013
BIO-7: Proprietary Biotreatment
Proprietary biotreatment devices are devices that are
manufactured to mimic natural systems such as bioretention areas by incorporating plants, soil, and microbes engineered to provide treatment at higher flow rates or volumes and with smaller footprints than their natural counterparts.

Incoming flows are typically filtered through a planting media (mulch, compost, soil, plants, microbes, etc.) and either infiltrated or collected by an underdrain and delivered to the storm water conveyance system. Tree box filters are an
increasingly common type of proprietary biotreatment device that are installed at curb level and filled with a bioretention type soil. For low to moderate flows they operate similarly to bioretention systems and are bypassed during high flows.

Tree box filters are highly adaptable solutions that can be used in all types of development and in all types of soils but are especially applicable to dense urban parking lots, street, and roadways.

Feasibility Screening Considerations
x Proprietary biotreatment devices that are unlined may cause incidental infiltration. Therefore, an evaluation of site conditions should be conducted to evaluate whether the BMP should include an impermeable liner to avoid infiltration into the subsurface.

Opportunity Criteria
x Drainage areas of 0.25 to 1.0 acres.
x Land use may include commercial, residential, mixed use, institutional, and subdivisions.

Proprietary biotreatment facilities may also be applied in parking lot islands, traffic circles, road shoulders, and road medians.
x Must not adversely affect the level of flood protection provided by the drainage system.

OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations
□ Frequent maintenance and the use of screens and grates to keep trash out may decrease the likelihood of clogging and prevent obstruction and bypass of incoming flows. □ Consult proprietors for specific criteria concerning the design and performance. □
Proprietary biotreatment may include specific media to address pollutants of concern. However, for proprietary device to be considered a biotreatment device the media must be capable of supporting rigorous growth of vegetation.
□
Proprietary systems must be acceptable to the reviewing agency. Reviewing agencies shall have the discretion to request performance information. Reviewing agencies shall have the discretion to deny the use of a proprietary BMP on the grounds of performance, maintenance considerations, or other relevant factors.

Also known as:
¾ Catch basin planter box
¾ Bioretention vault
¾ Tree box filter
Proprietary biotreatment
Source:
http://www.americastusa.com
/index.php/filterra/
1605

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
XIV-70 December 20, 2013
□ In right of way areas, plant selection should not impair traffic lines of site. Local jurisdictions may also limit plant selection in keeping with landscaping themes.

Computing Sizing Criteria for Proprietary Biotreatment Device x Proprietary biotreatment devices can be volume based or flow-based BMPs. x Volume-based proprietary devices should be sized using the Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method described in Appendix III.3.1 or the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs described in Appendix III.3.2.
x The required design flowrate for flow-based proprietary devices should be computed using the Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-based BMPs described in Appendix III.3.3).

In South Orange County, the provided ponding plus pore volume must be checked to demonstrate that it is greater than 0.75 of the remaining DCV that this BMP is designed to address. Many propretary biotreatment BMPs will not be able to meet the definition of “biofiltration” that applies in South Orange County. See Section III.7 and Worksheet SOC-1.

Additional References for Design Guidance
x Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Stormwater Technical Manual, Chapter 4:
http://www.laschools.org/employee/design/fs-studies-andreports/download/white_paper_report_material/Storm_Water_Technical_Manual_2009-optred.pdf?version_id=76975850 x Los Angeles County Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual, Chapter 9:
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandMaintenance.pdf x Santa Barbara BMP Guidance Manual, Chapter 6:
http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/91D1FA75-C185-491E-A882- 49EE17789DF8/0/Manual_071008_Final.pdf
1606

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
XIV-78 December 20, 2013
PRE-2: Catch Basin Insert Fact Sheet
Catch basin inserts are manufactured filters or fabric placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris and may include sorbent media (oil absorbent pouches) to remove floating oils and grease. Catch basin inserts are selected specifically based upon the orientation of the inlet and the expected sediment and debris loading.

Opportunity Criteria
 Catch basin inserts come in such a wide range of
configurations that it is practically impossible to generalize the expected performance. Inserts should mainly be used for catching coarse sediments and floatable trash and are
effective as pretreatment in combination with other types of structures that are recognized as water quality treatment BMPs. Trash and large objects can greatly reduce the effectiveness of catch basin inserts with respect to sediment and hydrocarbon capture.
 Catch basin inserts are applicable for drainage area that include parking lots, vehicle maintenance areas, and roadways with catch basins that discharge directly to a receiving water.

Proprietary Manufacturer / Supplier Websites
 Table XIV.2 is a list of manufacturers that provide catch basin inserts. The inclusion of these manufacturers does not represent an endorse of their products. Other devices and manufacturers may be acceptable for pretreatment.

Table XIV.2: Proprietary Catch Basin Insert Manufacturer Websites Device Manufacturer Website
AbTech Industries UltraUrban Filter™ AbTech Industries www.abtechindustries.com Aquashield AquaGuardian™ Catch Basin
Insert
Aquashield™ Inc. www.aquashieldinc.com
Bowhead StreamGuard™ Bowhead Environmental & Safety,
Inc. http://www.shopbowhead.com/
Contech®Triton Catch
Basin Filter™
Contech® Construction Products
Inc. www.contech-cpi.com
Contech®Triton Curb Inlet
Filter™
Contech® Construction Products
Inc. www.contech-cpi.com
Also known as:
 Drop Inlet Filters
 Catch Basin Filters
Catch Basin Insert (DrainPac™)
1607

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
XIV-79 December 20, 2013
Table XIV.2: Proprietary Catch Basin Insert Manufacturer Websites Device Manufacturer Website
Contech® Triton Basin
StormFilter™
Contech® Construction Products
Inc. www.contech-cpi.com
Contech® Curb Inlet
StormFilter™
Contech® Construction Products
Inc. www.contech-cpi.com
Curb Inlet Basket SunTree Technologies Inc. www.suntreetech.com Curb Inlet Grates EcoSense International™ http://www.ecosenseint.com/ DrainPacTM United Storm Water, Inc. http://www.unitedstormwater.com Grate Inlet Skimmer Box SunTree Technologies Inc. www.suntreetech.com KriStar FloGard+PLUS®KriStar Enterprises Inc. www.kristar.com KriStar FloGard®KriStar Enterprises Inc. www.kristar.com KriStar FloGard LoPro
Matrix Filter® KriStar Enterprises Inc. www.kristar.com Nyloplast Storm-PURE
Catch Basin Insert
Nyloplast Engineered Surface
Drainage Products www.nyloplast-us.com
StormBasin®FabCo®Industries Inc. www.fabco-industries.com Stormdrain Solutions
Interceptor FabCo®
Industries Inc. www.fabco-industries.com
Stormdrain Solutions
Inceptor® Stormdrain Solutions www.stormdrains.com
StormPod®FabCo®Industries Inc. www.fabco-industries.com Stormwater Filtration
Systems EcoSense International™ http://www.ecosenseint.com/ Ultra-CurbGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Ultra-DrainGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Ultra-GrateGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Ultra-GutterGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Ultra-InletGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com 1608

GENERAL NOTES INSTALLATION NOTES

ISO VIEW - L SHAPE

TOP SECTION VIEW - L SHAPE
1609

GENERAL NOTES INSTALLATION NOTES

ISO VIEW - L SHAPE

TOP SECTION VIEW - L SHAPE
1610
INSTALLATION NOTES:

PLAN VIEW
(GRATE NOT SHOWN)

ELEVATION VIEW

FLOW DIAGRAM

GRATE INLET FILTER

FULL CAPTURE
STANDARD DETAIL1611
Stormwater Connector Pipe Screen Page 1 of 4
Section [________]
Stormwater Connector Pipe Screen
PART 1 – GENERAL

01.01.00 Purpose
The purpose of this specification is to establish generally acceptable criteria for Connector Pipe Screens used for collecting trash and debris inside catch basins. It is intended to serve as a guide to producers, distributors, architects, engineers, contractors, plumbers, installers, inspectors, agencies and users; to promote understanding regarding materials, manufacture and installation; and to provide for identification of devices complying with this specification.

01.02.00 Description
Stormwater Connector Pipe Screens (CPS) are used to prevent trash and debris from entering the stormwater system during dry weather and moderate storm flows by keeping the trash inside the catch basin. The CPS is a screen placed permanently or temporarily in a catch basin at the location of the outlet pipe. The screen separates trash and debris from stormwater treatment flows. Flows that exceed the treatment flow rate bypass over the top of the screen. When the outlet pipe is located below a curb opening the CPS features a lid to prevent debris from passing behind the screen and flowing directly to the outlet pipe. The CPS shall be designed to retain all trash larger than 5 mm (0.197 inches) in the catch basin.

01.03.00 Manufacturer
The manufacturer of the CPS shall be one that is regularly engaged in the engineering, design and production of systems developed for the treatment of stormwater runoff for at least (10) years, and which has a history of successful production, acceptable to the engineer of work. In accordance with the drawings, the CPS(s) shall be a screen device manufactured/distributed by Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc., or assigned distributors or licensees. Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. can be reached at:
5796 Armada Drive, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 433-7640
Fax: (760) 433-3176
www.biocleanenvironmental.net

01.04.00 Submittals

01.04.01 Submittal drawings will be provided with each order to the contractor and engineer of work.

01.04.02 Submittal drawings are to detail the CPS, its components and the sequence for installation, including:
• CPS configuration with primary dimensions
• Various CPS components
• Any accessory equipment

01.04.03 Inspection and maintenance documentation submitted upon request.

01.05.00 Work Included

01.05.01 Specification requirements for installation of CPS.

01.05.02 Manufacturer to supply CPS(s):
1612
Stormwater Connector Pipe Screen Page 2 of 4
• Screen
• Mounting hardware
• Bypass lid with supports (when required)
PART 2 – COMPONENTS

02.01.01 The CPS shall have a sufficient structural integrity to withstand a lateral force of standing water within the catch basin area when the screen becomes 100% clogged. The CPS unit shall be bolted to the catch basin walls.

02.01.02 The CPS shall be configured with deflector plates or screens preventing trash from falling between the screen and connector pipe. The deflector plate shall be designed to withstand a vertical load.

02.01.03 The gap at the bottom, sides, and joints of the CPS unit shall not exceed 5 mm (0.197 inches).

02.01.04 The CPS shall include vertical structural stiffeners extending the full length of the screen in the form as bends in the screen itself, a bolting surface to fasten the CPS to the wall of the catch basin, and support for the upper portion of the CPS unit referred to as the “bypass.”

02.01.05 All parts/components of the CPS unit must be sized to fit through the catch basin’s manhole opening.

02.01.06 The CPS frame shall be fabricated from 304 stainless steel.

02.01.07 The CPS screen shall be fabricated from perforated 304 stainless steel. The screen shall have a minimum thickness of 16 gauge. The geometrical opening shape shall have a diameter of 5 mm (0.197 inches).

02.01.08 The screen material used shall have at least 45% open area.

02.01.09 Any edge of the CPS that is not flush with the wall or floor of the catch basin shall be smooth with no prongs or jagged edges.

02.01.10 The assembly bolts, screws, nuts, and washers shall be fabricated entirely from 316 stainless steel. The concrete anchor bolts shall use a wedge anchor, with Type 316 stainless steel threaded rods, nuts, and washers.

PART 3 – PERFORMANCE

03.01.00 General

03.01.01 Function - The CPS has no moving internal components and functions based on gravity flow, unless otherwise specified. Stormwater runoff enters the catch basin through a curb opening and flows toward the connector pipe. The CPS is placed to intercept flows prior to exiting the catch basin through the connector pipe. The CPS must be able to be removed through the catch basin opening. Stormwater flow up to the peak treatment rate is processed through the screen. Flows in excess of the peak treatment rate will overtop the screen in a bypass. The lid (when required) shall be place high enough above the screen to allow for full bypass flow.

03.01.02 Pollutants - The CPS will remove and retain trash and debris larger than 5 mm in diameter entering the catch basin during frequent storm events and specified flow rates.

03.01.03 Treatment Flow Rate - The CPS operates through gravity flow. The CPS is to be sized so the screen is capable of passing the calculated project specific water quality flow rate per local standards. All treatment flow rates must include a 50% screen clogging factor.
1613
Stormwater Connector Pipe Screen Page 3 of 4

03.01.04 Bypass Flow Rate – The CPS is designed to fit within the catch basin in a way not to affect the existing hydraulics and treat or bypass all flows. The bypass must be sized with a surface area greater than the outlet pipe size, thus the CPS shall not be a critical point of flow restriction.

PART 4 - EXECUTION

04.01.00 General
The installation and use of the CPS shall conform to all applicable national, state, municipal and local specifications.

04.02.00 Installation
The contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials and incidentals required to install the CPS device(s) and appurtenances in accordance with the drawings, installation manual, and these specifications, and be inspected and approved by the local governing agency. Any damage to catch basin and surrounding infrastructure caused by the installation of the CPS is the responsibility of the installation contractor.

04.02.01 CPS and all components or accessories shall be inserted through the catch basin and properly secured per manufactures installation manual and these specifications.

04.03.00 Shipping, Storage and Handling

04.03.01 Shipping – CPS shall be shipped to the contractor’s address and is the responsibility of the contractor to transport the unit(s) to the exact site of installation.

04.03.02 Storage and Handling– The contractor shall exercise care in the storage and handling of the CPS(s) and its components prior to and during installation.

Any repair or replacement costs associated with events occurring after delivery is accepted, and unloading has commenced shall be born by the contractor. The CPS(s) and its components shall always be stored indoors and transported inside the original shipping container(s) until the CPS(s) are ready to be installed. The CPS shall always be handled with care and lifted according to OSHA and NIOSA lifting recommendations and/or contractor’s workplace safety professional recommendations.

04.04.00 Maintenance and Inspection

04.04.01 Inspection – After installation, the contractor shall demonstrate that the CPS has been properly installed at the correct location(s), elevations, and with appropriate supports and fasteners. All components associated with the CPS and its installation shall be subject to inspection by the engineer of work, governing agency, and the manufacture at the place of installation. In addition, the contractor shall demonstrate that the CPS has been installed per the manufacturer’s specifications and recommendations. CPS(s) shall be physically inspected regularly in accordance to owner’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and manufacture’s recommendations. An inspection record shall be kept by the inspection operator. The record shall include the condition of the CPS and its appurtenances. The most current copy of the inspection record shall always be copied and placed in the owner’s SWPPP.

04.04.02 Maintenance – The maintenance shall be performed by someone qualified. A Maintenance Manual is available upon request from the manufacturer. The 1614
Stormwater Connector Pipe Screen Page 4 of 4
manual has detailed information regarding the maintenance of the CPS(s). A detailed Maintenance Record shall be kept by the maintenance operator. The Maintenance Record shall include any maintenance activities preformed, amount and description of debris collected, and the condition of the CPS. The most current copy of the Maintenance Record shall always be copied and placed in the owner’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per governing agency. Upon cleaning: no trash or debris shall be located in the catch basin, on top of the bypass lid, or between the screen; no vegetation shall block the catch basin opening or connector pipe; and no trash or debris shall be located within the catch basin opening.

04.04.03 Material Disposal - All debris, trash, organics, and sediments captured and removed from the CPS shall be transported and disposed of at an approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state regulations. Please refer to state and local regulations for the proper disposal of toxic and nontoxic material.

PART 5 – QUALITY ASSURANCE

05.01.00 Warranty
The manufacturer shall guarantee the CPS against all manufacturing defects in materials and workmanship for a period of (3) years from the date of delivery to the contractor. The manufacturer shall be notified of repair or replacement issues in writing within the warranty period. The CPS is limited to recommended application for which it was designed. [End of This Section]
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
Street Sweeping and Vacuuming SE-7
January 2011 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2
Construction
www.casqa.org
Description and Purpose
Street sweeping and vacuuming includes use of self-propelled and walk-behind equipment to remove sediment from streets and roadways, and to clean paved surfaces in preparation for final paving. Sweeping and vacuuming prevents sediment from the project site from entering storm drains or receiving waters.

Suitable Applications
Sweeping and vacuuming are suitable anywhere sediment is tracked from the project site onto public or private paved streets and roads, typically at points of egress. Sweeping and vacuuming are also applicable during preparation of paved surfaces for final paving.

Limitations
Sweeping and vacuuming may not be effective when sediment is wet or when tracked soil is caked (caked soil may need to be scraped loose).

Implementation
 Controlling the number of points where vehicles can leave the site will allow sweeping and vacuuming efforts to be focused, and perhaps save money.
 Inspect potential sediment tracking locations daily.
 Visible sediment tracking should be swept or vacuumed on a daily basis.

Categories
EC Erosion Control
SE Sediment Control 
TC Tracking Control 
WE Wind Erosion Control
NS Non-Stormwater
Management Control
WM Waste Management and
Materials Pollution Control
Legend:
 Primary Objective
 Secondary Objective
Targeted Constituents
Sediment 
Nutrients
Trash 
Metals
Bacteria
Oil and Grease 
Organics
Potential Alternatives
None
If User/Subscriber modifies this fact
sheet in any way, the CASQA
name/logo and footer below must be
removed from each page and not
appear on the modified version.
1627
Street Sweeping and Vacuuming SE-7
January 2011 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 2 of 2
Construction
www.casqa.org
 Do not use kick brooms or sweeper attachments. These tend to spread the dirt rather than remove it.
 If not mixed with debris or trash, consider incorporating the removed sediment back into the project
Costs
Rental rates for self-propelled sweepers vary depending on hopper size and duration of rental.

Expect rental rates from $58/hour (3 yd3 hopper) to $88/hour (9 yd3 hopper), plus operator costs. Hourly production rates vary with the amount of area to be swept and amount of sediment. Match the hopper size to the area and expect sediment load to minimize time spent dumping.

Inspection and Maintenance
 Inspect BMPs in accordance with General Permit requirements for the associated project type and risk level. It is recommended that at a minimum, BMPs be inspected weekly, prior to forecasted rain events, daily during extended rain events, and after the conclusion of rain events.
 When actively in use, points of ingress and egress must be inspected daily.  When tracked or spilled sediment is observed outside the construction limits, it must be removed at least daily. More frequent removal, even continuous removal, may be required in some jurisdictions.
 Be careful not to sweep up any unknown substance or any object that may be potentially hazardous.
 Adjust brooms frequently; maximize efficiency of sweeping operations.  After sweeping is finished, properly dispose of sweeper wastes at an approved dumpsite.

References
Stormwater Quality Handbooks - Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual, State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), November 2000.

Labor Surcharge and Equipment Rental Rates, State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), April 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003.
1628
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025
Appendix D:

BMP Maintenance Information
1629
Modular Wetland System (MWS) – LINEAR
Maintenance Cost (per acre)
MWS - LINEAR Cleaning Required
Yearly
Maintenance
Cost
Year 1
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 2
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 3
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 4
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 5
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 6
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 7
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 8
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 9
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350 / year
$500 / year
Year 10
1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals)
2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals)
3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media
4) Remove & Replace Wetland Plants & Media
$80 / each (x2)
$350/ year
$500 / year
$2,500
Total 1 - 10 Total Maintenance Cost Over 10 Years $11,800 Average Yearly Cost Assumes 10 Year Replacement of Wetland Media. $1,180 / Year
WWW.MODULARWETLANDS.COM P: 760-433-7640
1630
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)
1631
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.
1632
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.

1633
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.

1634
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.
1635
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.

1636
www.modularwetlands.com
Inspection Form
Modular Wetland System, Inc.

P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [email protected]
1637
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
Yes
Depth:

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
1638
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Report
Modular Wetland System, Inc.

P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [email protected]
1639
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
1640

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
Modular Wetlands® Linear
Operation & Maintenance Manual
1641
2 MODULAR WETLANDS® LINEAR

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE MANUAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview........................................................................................................3 Inspection Summary....................................................................................... 4 Inspection Process..........................................................................................5 Maintenance Indicators.................................................................................. 6 Inspection Process..........................................................................................7 Maintenance Summary .................................................................................. 8 Pretreatment Chamber ................................................................ 9 Prefilter Cartridge ...................................................................... 10 Biofiltration Chamber ................................................................ 11 Discharge Chamber ................................................................... 12 Inspection Report.........................................................................................13 Cleaning and Maintenance Report................................................................ 14 1642
3 OVERVIEW
The Modular Wetlands® Linear Biofilter is designed to remove high levels of trash, debris, sediments, nutrients, metals, and hydrocarbons. Its simple design allows for quick and easy installation. The system is housed in a standard precast structure and can be installed at various depths to meet site-specific conditions.

INTRODUCTION
This is the Modular Wetlands Linear Biofilter operation and maintenance manual. Before starting, read the instructions and equipment lists closely. It is important to follow all necessary safety procedures associated with state and local regulations. Some steps required confined space entry. Please contact Contech for more information on pre-authorized third party contractors who can provide installation services in your area. For a list of service providers in your area please visit: www.conteches.com/maintenance.

Pretreatment
Chamber
Biofiltration
Chamber
Discharger
Chamber
Prefilter Box
Biofiltration
Media
Flow
Control
Riser
Vertical
Underdrain
Outflow
Inflow
1643
4 INSTRUCTIONS

INSPECTION SUMMARY
Stormwater regulations require BMPs be inspected and maintained to ensure they are operating as designed to allow for effective pollutant removal and provide protection to receiving water bodies. It is recommended that inspections be performed multiple times during the first year to assess the site specific loading conditions. The first year of inspections can be used to set inspection and maintenance intervals for subsequent years to ensure appropriate maintenance is provided.
• Inspect pre-treatment, biofiltration, and discharge chambers an average of once every six to twelve months. Varies based on site specific and local conditions.
• Average inspection time is approximately 15 minutes. Always ensure appropriate safety protocol and procedures are followed.

The following is a list of equipment required to allow for simple and effective inspection of the Modular Wetlands Linear:
• Modular Wetlands Linear Inspection Form
• Flashlight
• Manhole hook or appropriate tools to remove access hatches and covers • Appropriate traffic control signage and procedures
• Measuring pole and/or tape measure
• Protective clothing and eye protection
• 7/16” open or closed ended wrench
• Large permanent black marker (initial inspections only - first year) Note: entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally not required for routine inspections of the system

INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE NOTES

1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended that 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.

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 not require irrigation after initial establishment. 1644
5 INSPECTION PROCESS

1. Prepare the inspection form by writing in the necessary information including project name, location, date & time, unit number and other information (see inspection form).

2. Observe the inside of the system through the access covers. If minimal light is available and vision into the unit is impaired, utilize a flashlight to see inside the system and all of its chambers.

3. Look for any out of the ordinary obstructions in the inflow pipe, pre-treatment chamber, biofiltration chamber, discharge chamber or outflow pipe. Write down any observations on the inspection form.

4. Through observation and/or digital photographs, estimate the amount of trash, debris accumulated in the pre-treatment chamber. Utilizing a tape measure or measuring stick, estimate the amount of sediment in this chamber. Record this depth on the inspection form.

5. Through visual observation, inspect the condition of the pre-filter cartridges. Look for excessive build-up of sediment on the cartridges, any build-up on the tops of the cartridges, or clogging of the holes. Record this information on the inspection form. The prefilter cartridges can be further inspected by removing the cartridge tops and assessing the color of the BioMediaGREEN filter cubes (requires entry into pre-treatment chamber - see notes previous notes regarding confined space entry). Record the color of the material. New material is a light green color. As the media becomes clogged, it will turn darker in color, eventually becoming dark brown or black.

The closer to black the media is the higher percentage that the media is exhausted and is in need of replacement.

6. The biofiltration chamber is generally maintenance-free due to the system’s advanced pre-treatment chamber. For units which have open planters with vegetation, it is recommended that the vegetation be inspected. Look for any plants that are dead or showing signs of disease or other negative stressors. Record the general health of the plants on the inspection form and indicate through visual observation or digital photographs if trimming of the vegetation is required.

7. The discharge chamber houses the orifice control structure, drain down filter (only in California - older models), and is connected to the outflow pipe. It is important to check to ensure the orifice is in proper operating conditions and free of any obstructions. It is also important to assess the condition of the drain down filter media which utilizes a block form of the BioMediaGREEN. Assess in the same manner as the cubes in the prefilter cartridge as mentioned above. Generally, the discharge chamber will be clean and free of debris. Inspect the water marks on the side walls. If possible, inspect the discharge chamber during a rain event to assess the amount of flow leaving the system while it is at 100% capacity (pre-treatment chamber water level at peak HGL - top of bypass weir). The water level of the flowing water should be compared to the watermark level on the side walls, which is an indicator of the highest discharge rate the system achieved when initially installed. Record on the form if there is any difference in level from the watermark in inches.

INSPECTION
• Excessive accumulation of sediment in the pre-treatment chamber of more than 6" in depth.
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the BioMediaGREEN media housed within the pretreatment cartridges. The following chart shows photos of the condition of the BioMediaGREEN contained within the pre-filter cartridges. When media is more than 85% clogged, replacement is required.
7 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
New
BioMediaGREEN
0%
Exhausted
BioMediaGREEN
85% 100%
1645
6 MAINTENANCE INDICATORS
Based upon the observations made during inspection,
maintenance of the system may be required based on the
following indicators:
• Missing or damaged internal components or
cartridges
• Obstructions in the system or its inlet and/or outlet pipes
• Excessive accumulation of floatables in the
pretreatment chamber in which the length and
width of the chamber is fully impacted more than
18”. See photo below.
• Excessive accumulation of sediment in the
pretreatment chamber of more than 6” in depth.
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the
BioMediaGREEN media housed within the
pretreatment cartridges. The following chart shows
photos of the condition of the BioMediaGREEN
contained within the pre-filter cartridges. When
media is more than 85% clogged, replacement is
required.
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the
BioMediaGREEN media housed within the
pretreatment cartridges. When media is more than
85% clogged, replacement is required. The darker
the BioMediaGREEN, the more clogged it is and in
need of replacement.

MAINTENANCE INDICATORS
Based upon the observations made during inspection, maintenance of the system may b required based on the following indicators:
• Missing or damaged internal components or cartridges
• Obstructions in the system or its inlet and/or outlet pipes • Excessive accumulation of floatables in the pre-treatment chamber in which the leng of the chamber is fully impacted more than 18". See photo below.

8. Finalize the inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager t determine if maintenance is required.
6 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS

INSPECTION
• Excessive accumulation of sediment in the pre-treatment chamber of more than 6" i depth.

INSPECTION

MAINTENANCE INDICATORS
Based upon the observations made during inspection, maintenance of the system may be required based on the following indicators:
• Missing or damaged internal components or cartridges
• Obstructions in the system or its inlet and/or outlet pipes • Excessive accumulation of floatables in the pre-treatment chamber in which the length and width of the chamber is fully impacted more than 18". See photo below.

8. Finalize the inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if maintenance is required.
6 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS

INSPECTION

MAINTENANCE INDICATORS
Based upon the observations made during inspection
required based on the following indicators:
• Missing or damaged internal components or cartr
• Obstructions in the system or its inlet and/or outle
• Excessive accumulation of floatables in the pre-tr
of the chamber is fully impacted more than 18". S

8. Finalize the inspection report for analysis
determine if maintenance is required.
6 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENG
NOTE: During the first few storms, the water level in the outflow chamber should be observed and a 6” long horizontal watermark line drawn (using a large permanent marker) at the water level in the discharge chamber while the system is operating at 100% capacity. The diagram below illustrates where the line should be drawn. This line is a reference point for future inspections of the system.

Water level in the discharge chamber is a function of flow rate and pipe size. Observation of the water level during the first few months of operation can be used as a benchmark level for future inspections. The initial mark and all future observations shall be made when the system is at 100% capacity (water level at maximum level in the pre-treatment chamber). If future water levels are below this mark when the system is at 100% capacity, this is an indicator that maintenance to the pre-filter cartridges may be needed.

8. Finalize the inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if maintenance is required.
1646
7 INSPECTION PROCESS
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the BioMediaGREEN media housed within the drain down filter (California only - older models). The following photos show the condition of the BioMediaGREEN contained within the drain down filter. When media is more than 85% clogged, replacement is required. • Overgrown vegetation.
• Water level in the discharge chamber during 100% operating capacity (pretreatment chamber water level at max height) is lower than the water mark by 20%.

The following is a list of equipment to required for maintenance of the Modular Wetlands® Linear:
• Modular Wetlands Linear Maintenance Form
• Manhole hook or appropriate tools to access hatches and covers • Protective clothing, flashlight, and eye protection
• 7/16” open or closed ended wrench
• Vacuum assisted truck with pressure washer
• Replacement BioMediaGREEN for pre-filter cartridges if required (order from one of Contech’s Maintenance Team members at https://www.conteches.com/maintenance).
1648
9 MAINTENANCE | PRETREATMENT CHAMBER

1. Remove access cover over pre-treatment chamber and position vacuum truck accordingly.

2. With a pressure washer, spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and pre-filter cartridges.

3. Vacuum out pre-treatment chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants including trash, debris, and sediments. Be sure to vacuum the floor until the pervious pavers are visible and clean.

4. If pre-filter cartridges require media replacement, continue to step 5. If not, replace access cover and move to step 11.
cartridges.

3. Vacuum out pre-treatment chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants including trash, debris, and sediments. Be sure to vacuum the floor until the pervious pavers are visible and clean.

4. If pre-filter cartridges require media replacement, move on to next page. If not, replace access cover.
11 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
cartridges.

3. Vacuum out pre-treatment chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants including trash, debris, and sediments. Be sure to vacuum the floor until the pervious pavers are visible and clean.

4. If pre-filter cartridges require media replacement, move on to next page. If not, replace access cover.
11 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS

2. With a pressure washer, spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and pre-filter cartridges.

3. Vacuum out pre-treatment chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants including trash, debris, and sediments. Be sure to vacuum the floor until the pervious pavers are visible and clean.

4. If pre-filter cartridges require media replacement, move on to next page. If not, replace access cover.
11 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS

2. With a pressure washer, spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and pre-filter cartridges.

3. Vacuum out pre-treatment chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants including trash, debris, and sediments. Be sure to vacuum the floor until the pervious pavers are visible and clean.

4. If pre-filter cartridges require media replacement, move on to next page. If not, replace access cover.
11 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
1649
10 MAINTENANCE | PREFILTER CARTRIDGES

5. After successfully cleaning out the pre-treatment chamber (previous page) enter the pre-treatment chamber.

6. Unscrew the two bolts (circles shown below) holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid.

7. Place the vacuum hose over each individual media filter to suck out filter media.

8. Once filter media has been sucked out, use a pressure washer to spray down the inside of the cartridge and it’s media cages. Remove cleaned media cages and place to the side. Once removed, the vacuum hose can be inserted into the cartridge to vacuum out any remaining material near the bottom of the cartridge.

9. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from the manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. Utilize the manufacture-provided refilling tray and place on top of the cartridge. Fill the tray with new bulk media and shake down into place. Using your hands, lightly compact the media into each filter cage. Once the cages are full, remove the refilling tray and replace the cartridge top, ensuring bolts are properly tightened.

10. Exit the pre-treatment chamber. Replace access hatch or manhole cover.

1. After successfully cleaning out the pre-treatment chamber (previous page) enter the pre-treatment chamber.

2. Unscrew the two bolts (red circles) holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid.

3. Place the vacuum hose over each individual media filter to suck out filter media.

4. Once filter media has been sucked out, use a pressure washer to spray down the inside of the cartridge and it's media cages. Remove cleaned media cages and place to the side. Once removed, the vacuum hose can be inserted into the cartridge to vacuum out any remaining material near the bottom of the cartridge.
12 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
0 0

1. After successfully cleaning out the pre-treatment chamber (previous page) enter the pre-treatment chamber.

2. Unscrew the two bolts (red circles) holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid.

3. Place the vacuum hose over each individual media filter to suck out filter media.

1. After successfully cleaning out the pre-treatment chamber (previous page) enter the pre-treatment chamber.

2. Unscrew the two bolts (red circles) holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid.

3. Place the vacuum hose over each individual media filter to suck out filter media.

5. MAINTENANCE (PRE-FILTER CARTRIDGES)
Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from the manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. utilize the manufacture-provided refilling tray and place on top of the cartridge. Fill the tray with new bulk media and shake down into place. using your hands, lightly compact the media into each filter cage. Once the cages are full, remove the refilling tray and replace the cartridge top, ensuring bolts are properly tightened.

6. Exit the pre-treatment chamber. Replace access hatch or manhole cover.

6. Exit the pre-treatment chamber. Replace access hatch or manhole cover. 1650
11 MAINTENANCE | BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER

11. In general, the biofiltration chamber is maintenance-free with the exception of maintaining the vegetation. The Modular Wetlands Linear utilizes vegetation similar to surrounding landscape areas, therefore trim vegetation to match surrounding vegetation. If any plants have died, replace them with new ones.

12. Each vertical under drain on the biofiltration chamber has a removable (threaded cap) that can be taken off to check any blockages or root growth. Once removed, a jetting attachment can be used to clean out the under drain and orifice riser.

13. As with all biofilter systems, at some point the biofiltration media (WetlandMedia) will need to be replaced. Either because of physical clogging of sorptive exhaustion of the media ion exchange capacity (to remove dissolved metals and phosphorous). The general life of this media is 10 to 20 years based on site specific conditions and pollutant loading. Utilize the vacuum truck to vacuum out the media by placing the hose into the chamber. Once all the media is removed use the power washer to spray down all the netting on the outer metal cage. Inspect the netting for any damage or holes. If the netting is damaged it can be repaired or replaced with guidance by the manufacturer.

14. Contact one of Contech’s Maintenance Team members at https://www.conteches.com/maintenance to order new WetlandMedia. The quantity of media needed can be determined by providing the model number and unit depth. Media will be provided in super sacks for easy installation. Each sack will weigh between 1000 and 2000 lbs. A lifting apparatus (backhoe, boom truck, or other) is recommended to position the super sack over the biofiltration chamber. Fill the media cages up to the same level as the old media. Replant with vegetation. ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS

3. As with all biofilter systems, at some point the biofiltration media (WetlandMedia) will need to be replaced. Either because of physical clogging of sorptive exhaustion of the media ion exchange capacity (to remove dissolved metals and phosphorous).

The general life of this media is 10 to 20 years based on site specific conditions and pollutant loading. Utilize the vacuum truck to vacuum out the media by placing the hose into the chamber. Once all the media is removed use the power washer to spray down all the netting on the outer metal cage. Inspect the netting for any damage or holes. If the netting is damaged it can be repaired or replaced with guidance by the manufacturer.

4. The first step is to contact the manufacturer and order new WetlandMedia. The quantity of media needed can be determined by providing the model number and unit depth. Media will be provided in super sacks for easy installation. Each sack will weigh between 1000 and 2000 lbs. A lifting apparatus (backhoe, boom truck, or other) is rec-ommended to position the super sack over the biofiltration chamber.

Fill the media cages up to the same level as the old media. Replant with vegetation.

2. Each vertical under drain on the biofiltration chamber has a removable (threaded) that can be taken off to check any blockages or root growth. Once removed a a jetting attachment can be used to clean out the under drain and orifice riser. ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
all biofilter systems, at some point the biofiltration media (WetlandMedia) ed to be replaced. Either because of physical clogging of sorptive exhaustion media ion exchange capacity (to remove dissolved metals and phosphorous). neral life of this media is 10 to 20 years based on site specific conditions and nt loading. Utilize the vacuum truck to vacuum out the media by placing the to the chamber. Once all the media is removed use the
washer to spray down all the netting on the outer metal cage. Inspect the for any damage or holes. If the netting is damaged it can be repaired or re with guidance by the manufacturer.
st step is to contact the manufacturer and order new WetlandMedia. The y of media needed can be determined by providing the model number and pth. Media will be provided in super sacks for easy installation. Each sack gh between 1000 and 2000 lbs. A lifting apparatus (backhoe, boom truck, or s rec-ommended to position the super sack over the biofiltration chamber. media cages up to the same level as the old media. Replant with vegetation. vertical under drain on the biofiltration chamber has a removable (threaded) an be taken off to check any blockages or root growth. Once removed a g attachment can be used to clean out the under drain and 1 orifice riser. .

MAINTENANCE (BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER)
In general, the biofiltration chamber is maintenance-free with the exception of maintaining the vegetation. Using standard gardening tools, properly trim back the vegetation to healthy levels. The MW Linear™ utilizes vegetation similar to surrounding landscape areas, therefore trim vegetation to match surrounding vegetation. If any plants have died, replace them with new ones.

Fill the media cages up to the same level as the old media. Replant with vegetation.

15. Remove access hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber.

16. Enter chamber to gain access to the drain down filter. Unlock the locking mechanism and lift up drain down filter housing to remove used BioMediaGREEN filter block as shown below. NOTE: Drain down filter is only found on units installed in California prior to 2023. If no drain down filter is present, skip steps 16 and 17.

17. Insert a new BioMediaGREEN filter block and lock drain down filter housing back in place.

18. Replace access hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber.

INSPECTION
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the BioMediaGREEN media housed within the drain down filter (California only - older models). The following photos show the condition of the BioMediaGREEN contained within the drain down filter. When media is more than 85% clogged, replacement is required.
• Overgrown vegetation.
• Water level in the discharge chamber during 100% operating capacity (pre-treatment chamber water level at max height) is lower than the watermark by 20%. 1652
13 NOTES
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1653
14 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
Yes
Depth:

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.

Inspection Report
Modular Wetlands Linear
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:

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

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
1654
15 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:

Inlet and Outlet
Pipe Condition
Drain Down Pipe
Condition
Discharge Chamber
Condition
Drain Down Media
Condition
Plant Condition
Media Filter
Condition
Long:

Project Address
Project Name
Cleaning and Maintenance Report
Modular Wetlands Linear ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
1655

SUPPORT
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM © 2023 CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC, A QUIKRETE COMPANY 800-338-1122
WWW.CONTECHES.COM
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PRINTED IN THE USA.

CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC PROVIDES SITE SOLUTIONS FOR THE CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY. CONTECH’S PORTFOLIO INCLUDES BRIDGES, DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWER, STORMWATER AND EARTH STABILIZATION PRODUCTS. FOR INFORMATION ON OTHER CONTECH DIVISION OFFERINGS, VISIT CONTECHES.COM OR CALL 800-338-1122.

Modular Wetlands Maintenance Guide 1/2023
NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS

SUGGESTED HEREIN ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS

AND DECISIONS, AND ARE NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION.

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
1656
Bio Clean CPS
A Stormwater Trash Capture Solution
A Forterra Company

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
MANUAL
5796 Armada Drive Suite 250 | Carlsbad, CA 92008 | 855.566.3938 [email protected] | biocleanenvironmental.com 1657 1 | Page

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
CPS devices should be maintained by individuals who are trained in proper disposal procedures, confined space entry and traffic safety regulations. When servicing a Bio Clean CPS device be sure to follow all safety and traffic control protocols as well as wearing all proper personal protection equipment such as gloves, safety glasses, hard-hat, safety vest and work boots.

Visual Inspection

1. Begin by inspecting the inflow of the catch basin where the Bio Clean CPS device is located.

Check for any obstructions to inflow of the CB unit. If any large obstructions are found, have them removed. Once the inflow inspection is completed, remove the man-hole cover for further inspection. (Note: Confined Space Entry Procedures may apply if trained personnel intend to enter the interior space of any Catch Basin. Please follow all applicable confined space entry procedures)

2. Remove the manhole cover and visually estimate the amount and types of debris found in the CB unit. Look for any visual signs of damage that may compromise the CB unit to function properly.

Inspect for any standing water in the CB unit as well as for large amounts of sediment and debris surrounding the CPS device. If standing water and high sediment volume is found, remove water, sediment and debris by vacuum truck or by other debris removal methods. 1658
2 | Page
Cleaning Procedures and Frequencies

1. Like all other storm water BMP’s, Bio Clean CPS devices require periodic maintenance.

Routine inspection and maintenance intervals for all CPS devices are typically twice per year for inspections and once per year for maintenance service. Bio Clean CPS devices may require more frequent maintenance service if the device is located in a high debris loading drainage area, such as certain downtown areas, retail/restaurant, or residential areas where a significant amount of vegetation/foliage is located. In such cases, Bio Clean CPS devices may require more frequent inspection and maintenance service, which could range from twice per year to monthly inspection and maintenance service, depending on pollutant load conditions.

2. To begin Bio Clean CPS cleaning procedures, conduct a visual inspection of the CPS device and the surrounding area to ensure a safe working environment. Setup appropriate barriers and signage as necessary to establish a work zone surrounding the catch basin. Once the work zone has been established, remove the manhole cover from the catch basin.

3. Once the manhole cover is removed from the basin the Bio Clean CPS is ready for servicing. All debris can be removed by either a vacuum truck or manually removing sediment and debris by hand.

4. Bio Clean CPS devices shall be cleaned using a pressure washer as may be necessary if any materials are found to cause occlusion or clogging of the screen.

Disposal

1. All trash and debris removed from the Bio Clean CPS unit shall be disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulation.

2. Solid waste disposal can be coordinated with local landfills. Liquids may need to be disposed of by wastewater treatment plant, municipal vacuum truck decant facility or approved facility.

For Maintenance Services or
Information Please Contact Us At:
760-433-7640
Or Email:
[email protected]
1659
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 38
Appendix E:

Geotechnical Report
1660

UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION EVALUATION

PROPOSED TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
2375 NORTH TUSTIN STREET

ORANGE, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

MELIA HOMES
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618

PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878
PROJECT NO. 4150-CR DECEMBER 30, 2024
1661
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
December 30, 2024
Project No. 4150-CR
Melia Homes
9860 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, California 92618
Attention: Mr. Chad Brown,
Vice President of Planning & Development
Subject: Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Townhome Residential Development
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Orange County, California
Dear Mr. Brown:

GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide the results of this Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for a Proposed Townhome Residential Development that will be constructed at 2375 North Tustin Street, in the City of Orange, Orange County, California.

This report presents a discussion of GeoTek’s evaluation and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, preliminary infiltration rates and construction of proposed site improvements.

Based upon review and evaluation, site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development.
1662
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 2
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact GeoTek.

Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.

Bruce A. Hick
GE 2284, Exp. 12/31/26
Geotechnical Engineer
Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/26
Principal Geologist
Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file)
"\\geotekfs1\Orange\Projects\4101 to 4150\4150CR Melia Homes 2375 North Tustin Street Orange\Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation\4150CR UPD INFIL ORANGE 12-17-24.docx" 1663
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................ 3 CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATION............................................................................................................................................3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION .............................................................................................................................................5 LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................................................................................................5

4. PREVIOUS REPORT REVIEW............................................................................................................ 6

5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS........................................................................................... 8 REGIONAL SETTING................................................................................................................................................................8 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................8

5.2.1 Artificial Fill........................................................................................................................................................................................8

5.2.2 Alluvium..............................................................................................................................................................................................9 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER...........................................................................................................................................9

5.3.1 Surface Water .................................................................................................................................................................................9

5.3.2 Groundwater..................................................................................................................................................................................10 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY..................................................................................................................................................10

5.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters.......................................................................................................................................................10 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT........................................................................................................................11 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................................................................................12

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 12 GENERAL.................................................................................................................................................................................12 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................................................13

6.2.1 Site Clearing and Demolition ...................................................................................................................................................13

6.2.2 Site Preparation............................................................................................................................................................................14

6.2.3 Pavement Areas............................................................................................................................................................................14

6.2.4 Hardscape Areas..........................................................................................................................................................................15

6.2.5 Preparation of Excavation Bottoms........................................................................................................................................15

6.2.6 Engineered Fills.............................................................................................................................................................................15

6.2.7 Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................15

6.2.8 Slot-Cut Excavations....................................................................................................................................................................16

6.2.9 Shrinkage and Subsidence ........................................................................................................................................................16

6.2.10 Import Soils.............................................................................................................................................................................16 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................................17

6.3.1 Foundation Design.......................................................................................................................................................................17

6.3.2 Moisture Vapor and Retarding System.................................................................................................................................19

6.3.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations....................................................................................................................20

6.3.4 Foundation Setbacks...................................................................................................................................................................20

6.3.5 Soil Corrosivity...............................................................................................................................................................................20

6.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content.....................................................................................................................................................................20 1664
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
RETAINING AND SCREEN WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................21

6.4.1 General Design Criteria..............................................................................................................................................................21

6.4.2 Cantilevered Walls.......................................................................................................................................................................21

6.4.3 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage ...................................................................................................................................22

6.4.4 Restrained Retaining Walls.......................................................................................................................................................23

6.4.5 Additional Retaining Wall Design Considerations .............................................................................................................23

6.5 CONCRETE FLATWORK.......................................................................................................................................................24

6.5.1 Exterior Concrete Slabs, Sidewalks and Driveways..........................................................................................................24

6.5.2 Concrete Performance................................................................................................................................................................24 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................25

6.6.1 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement ..................................................................................................................................................25

6.6.2 Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers..............................................................................................................................26

6.6.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement.......................................................................................................................27

6.6.4 Pavement Construction ..............................................................................................................................................................28 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................28

6.7.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ...................................................................................................................................28

6.7.2 Drainage ..........................................................................................................................................................................................29 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................29

7. INTENT ............................................................................................................................................... 30

8. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 30

9. SELECTED REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 31

ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map
Figure 3 – Project Plan
Appendix A – Logs of Exploratory Borings (GeoTek, 2024) Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results (GeoTek, 2024)
Appendix C – Boring Location Plan, Boring Logs and Laboratory Test Results (Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., 2005)
Appendix D – Infiltration Test Data
Appendix E – General Earthwork Grading Guidelines
1665
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 1

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the site geotechnical conditions for a proposed townhome residential development to be constructed at 2375 North Tustin Street, in the City of Orange, Orange County, California, as outlined in GeoTek’s proposal P-1105024r-CR dated November 14, 2024. Services provided for this study included the following:
▪ Research and review of available geologic and geotechnical data and general information pertinent to the site,
▪ Review of a Geotechnical Investigation previously prepared for this site by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCGI, 2005), as well as additional geotechnical reports issued by SCGI (SCGI, 2007) for the subject site. Select information contained in these reports was used in the preparation of this report,
▪ A site reconnaissance,
▪ Advancement of three (3) exploratory borings to depths ranging between about 10 to

25.2 feet below existing grades,
▪ Infiltration testing of two (2) test borings at depths of about ten (10) feet each within the area of the proposed project stormwater management facility (BMP) in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the site,
▪ Review and evaluation of site seismicity,
▪ Compilation of this Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation which presents GeoTek’s findings, preliminary recommendations and a general summary of pertinent geotechnical conditions relevant 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 review of the final site development plans. These plans should be provided to GeoTek, Inc. for review when available. 1666
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 2

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

SITE DESCRIPTION
The irregular-shaped project site is located at 2375 North Tustin Street in a mixed-use residential/commercial area of Orange, California. The project site is comprised of one (1) parcel of land totaling approximately 4.32-acres in size, located on the east side of Tustin Street, on the south side of East Heim Avenue, in the City of Orange, Orange County, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). California State Highway 55 (Costa Mesa freeway) is located adjacent to the eastern side of the project but does not provide direct access as it is separated from the site by a sound wall. The site is fenced/block walled along most of the site perimeter with access only available from Tustin Street, a paved and improved roadway adjacent to the western boundary of the site.

The site is bordered to the south by an existing mobile home park, a multi-family residential development and a commercial development. A munti-family residential development and commercial development border the proejct site to the north. The site is currently occupied by an existing approximate 45,000 square foot one-story retail building (Best Buy) and adjacent parking/drive lane/hardscape/landscape improvements. Numerous utility lines, light poles, loading docks, domestic trees, and associated improvements are present on the proejct site.

The site can be considered as having a relatively flat to gently sloping topography (see Figure 1).

Elevations range from approximately 271 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeastern corner to about 263 feet amsl in the southwest corner. Drainage is generally directed in a southwesterly direction by sheetflow.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based upon review of Site Plan - A, prepared by Summa Architecture and dated March 25, 2024 (see Figure 3, Project Plan), site development for the project will consist of 84 three-story row townhomes in multi-family structures (see Figure 3, Project Plan). The development will also include a recreation area, as well as stormwater disposal facilities, open space, perimeter/retaining walls, associated interior parking/driveways, underground utilities and other typical tract improvements.

It is anticipated that the residential structures will be of wood frame construction, supported by a post-tensioned (PT) slab foundation system. Although structural loading information was not 1667
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 3
provided, GeoTek has assumed the structures will exert relatively light to moderate foundation loads. Maximum column and wall loads on the order of 100 kips and 3.5 kips per lineal foot, respectively, are estimated for the proposed structures. Once actual loads are known, that information should be provided to GeoTek to determine if modifications to the recommendations presented in this report are warranted.

On-site storm water disposal is proposed by means of underground disposal systems to be located in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the site. Cut and fills of less than approximately 5 feet in height, not including any recommended remedial grading are anticipated for site development. Perimeter/retaining walls are anticipated. Sewage disposal is anticipated to be be provided by a public sewer system. If site development differs from the assumptions made herein, the recommendations included in this report should be subject to further review and evaluation.

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATION
The current field exploration by GeoTek for this evaluation was conducted on December 3, 2024. For the geotechnical portion of the investigation, one (1) exploratory boring (Boring B-1) was excavated with a hollow-stem auger drill rig to a depth of about 25.3 feet below the existing ground surface at the boring location. For the infiltration part of the study, two (2) test borings were excavated to a depth of approximately ten (10) feet each below the existing ground location within the proposed stormwater management chambers (BMP) in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the site.

A hollow-stem auger with an outside diameter of approximately 8.0 inches was utilized to conduct the borings. The inside diameter of the auger was approximately 4.5 inches. A geologist from GeoTek, Inc. logged the exploratory borings and obtained soil samples from within the borings. The boring and infiltration test locations are presented on Figure 2. The logs of the exploratory borings are included in Appendix A.

The exploration logs in Appendix A 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.
1668
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 4
In the geotechnical boring, relatively undisturbed soil samples were recovered at various intervals with a California sampler. The California sampler is a 2.9-inch outside diameter, 2.5-inch inside diameter, split barrel sampler lined with brass rings. The sampler is approximately 18 inches in length. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 3550. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was utilized, dropping approximately 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.

Infiltration Testing
Two (2) borings (Borings I-1 and I-2) were excavated on the project site to evaluate preliminary infiltration rates for the proposed stormwater management facilities to be located in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the site. The boring diameter was approximately eight inches. Percolation testing was performed within the lower approximately 24 inches in the borings by a representative of GeoTek, in general conformance with the Boring Percolation Test Procedure outlined in the Technical Guidance Document Appendix VII (Orange County, 2013).

As required, the percolation rates were corrected to account for discharge of water from both the sides and bottom of the borings. This correction was done using the Porchet Method, obtaining the infiltration rates tabulated below:

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Boring
Observed Infiltration Rate,
Kobserved
(inches per hour)
Measured Infiltration Rate,
Kmeasured
(inches per hour)
I-1 7.7 3.86
I-2 1.1 0.57
As recommended by the referenced Technical Guidance Document (Orange County, 2013), a factor of safety of 2.0 was applied to the observed (field) rates to estimate measured infiltration rates. As shown on the table above, poor to favorable infiltration rates (0.57 to 3.86 inches per hour) were encountered at the site. Detailed infiltration test data is included in Appendix D.

Stormwater BMP systems should be setback from foundations and improvements as required by the regulatory agency or jurisdiction.

It should be noted that the infiltration rates provided above were performed in relatively undisturbed on-site soil. Infiltration rates will vary and are mostly dependent on the underlying consistency of the site soils and relative density. Infiltration rates may be impacted by the weight of equipment travelling over the soils, placement of engineered fill and other various factors. 1669
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 5
GeoTek assumes no responsibility or liability for the ultimate design or performance of the storm water facility.

Representatives of GeoTek should observe the soils exposed at the bottom of the stormwater management basin during construction/earthwork operations to confirm suitability and that the conditions exposed are as anticipated for the proposed stormwater disposal basin.

PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION
Field explorations were previously performed at this site by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCGI) in February, 2005. The subsurface exploration program conducted by SCGI occurred on February 9 and 23, and included the excavation of five (5) exploratory borings (B-1 through B-5) to a maximum depth of 32 feet below existing grades. The approximate locations of the SCGI excavations for the project are presented on the Boring Location Plan (Plate 2) attached to the referenced SCGI report dated March 29, 2005, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCGI, 2005). This plan is included in Appendix C of this report. The logs of the exploratory borings performed by SCGI are also included in Appendix C of this report.

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was previously performed by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. as indicated in their report dated March 29, 2005 (SCGI, 2005). This laboratory testing included insitu dry density and moisture content, expansion index, direct shear, consolidation, and soluble sulfate testing. The results of this laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C of this report.

Laboratory testing was recently performed by GeoTek on selected relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples collected during the recent field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate the physical properties of the onsite soils for use in engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix B.
1670
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 6

4. PREVIOUS REPORT REVIEW
Geotechnical Investigation (Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., 2005) SCGI issued the referenced Geotechnical Investigation for the project on March 29, 2005. SCGI stated that detailed site plans for the proposed development had not been prepared at the time of their field exploration. SCGI understood that the proposed project would consist of the demolition of an existing site structure (Brunswick Orange Bowl) and construction of several two and three-story structures. Field exploration was conducted by drilling and sampling five (5) hollow stem auger borings to a maximum depth of approximately 32 below existing grades.

Boring B-1 was terminated at approximately 32 feet due to auger refusal on gravel and cobbles.

SCGI reported that artificial fill was encountered beneath existing pavement sections at Boring B-5 and extended to a depth of 3± feet below existing grade. SCGI stated that additional soils classified as possible fill were encountered in all of the borings and extended to depths of up to

5.5± feet. These fill soils consisted of stiff to very stiff clays with some fine to coarse gravel (CL soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System).

Native soils (alluvium) were reported by SCGI to underlie the artificial fills at the site. The alluvium encountered to depths of 5.5± to 12± feet generally consisted of very stiff to hard silty clays with tract to some fine gravel content (CL soil type). Beneath these materials, the borings generally encountered interbedded zones of dense to very dense silty sands and very stiff to hard silty clays (SM and CL soil types) with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel content, extending to depths of at least 32± feet (the deepest depth explored).

SCGI stated that the site soils possess a high expansion potential (EI = 108).

SCGI stated that remedial grading should be performed within the proposed building areas in order to remove the existing fill and possible fill soils and a portion of the near-surface native soils, as well as any soils disturbed by the demolition procedures. SCGI stated that that overexcavation was to extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade and to a 1671
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 7
depth of 3 feet below existing grade or to the fill/native content, or to a depth of 3 feet below the foundation bearing grade, whichever is greater, within the building areas.

SCGI provided seismic design parameters for the project structures based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC).

SCGI stated that shrinkage of reworked materials should be in the range of 8 to 10 percent.

SCGI estimated subsidence to be on the order of 0.1 feet.

SCGI provided geotechnical recommendations for shallow foundations and a conventional slab on grade system for the project structures, based on a “High” (90-120) expansion index laboratory testing. SCGI also reported the on-site soils as having a “negligible” water soluble sulfate content. No discussion regarding the potential corrosivity of the site soils and buried ferrous metals was provided.

SCGI provided geotechnical recommendations for site retaining walls for the project.

Preliminary pavement design recommendations for the project were also provided and were based on an assumed R-Value of 10.

No percolation testing was conducted for the referenced report dated March 29, 2005.

Geotechnical Update and Plan Review (Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., 2005) SCGI issued the referenced Geotechnical Update and Plan Review for the project on October 17, 2007. SCGI stated that the architectural site plan and conceptual grading plan indicated the proposed development will consist of a 45,750 square foot Best Buy store and a 1,7000 square foot retail outlot pad.

SCGI stated that based upon review of the submitted plans and a recent site reconnaissance, it was their opinion that the proposed development was suitable from a geotechnical standpoint, and the referenced report was still applicable.

SCGI provided additional recommendations for new asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement sections for the proposed Best Buy development. 1672
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 8

5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS

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. Basically, it extends roughly 975 miles from the north and extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the tip of Baja California, from north to south. 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 Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are found in the near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.

More specifically to the subject property, Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., (2006) map the site to be underlain by old alluvial fan deposits (late to middle Pleistocene age). Additionally, the nearest known active fault to the site is the Elsinore fault (Whittier Section) located approximately 6.4 miles to the northeast.

GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
A brief description of the soils encountered at the site as reported by SCGI is presented in the following sections and supplemented by the current GeoTek exploration findings. Based on the previous and current field explorations, the area investigated has artificial fill which transitions into deeper alluvium.

5.2.1 Artificial Fill
SCGI reported that artificial fill was encountered beneath existing pavement sections at Boring B-5 and extended to a depth of 3± feet below existing grade prior to development of the site.

SCGI stated that additional soils classified as possible fill were encountered in all of the borings and extended to depths of up to 5.5± feet. These fill soils consisted of stiff to very stiff clays with some fine to coarse gravel (CL soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System).

Compacted fill is anticipated to be present within the existing building area and pavement areas. 1673
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 9
Asphalt concrete pavement sections, consisting of asphalt concrete (AC) and crushed miscellaneous base (CBB), were encountered at all of the boring locations during GeoTek’s recent site exploration.

5.2.2 Alluvium
SCGI reported that mostly clayey alluvium was encountered to depths of 5.5± to 12± feet. This alluvium was stated by SCGI to generally consist of very stiff to hard silty clays with tract to some fine gravel content (CL soil type). Beneath these materials, SCGI state that the borings generally encountered interbedded zones of dense to very dense silty sands and very stiff to hard silty clays (SM and CL soil types) with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel content, extending to depths of at least 32± feet (the deepest depth explored). SCGI stated that the site soils possess a high expansion potential (EI = 108).

SCGI (2005) and GeoTek’s current laboratory testing indicated that the near surface soils exhibit a “Medium” (51≤EI≤90) to “High” (91≤EI≤120) Expansion Index when tested in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Based on the SCGI and current GeoTek laboratory test results, the near surface soils have a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent. The results of the recent testing performed by GeoTek indicate that the soil samples were considered “highly corrosive” to buried ferrous metals, based on the guidelines provided in Corrosion Basics: An Introduction (Roberge, 2005).

SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER

5.3.1 Surface Water
Surface water was not observed during the previous or current site explorations. If encountered during earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from surrounding areas. Overall site drainage is generally in a northerly direction, as directed by site topography. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.
1674
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 10

5.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the previous site borings conducted by SCGI to a maximum depth of about 32 feet (Boring B-1) at the time of drilling or the current GeoTek borings to a maximum depth of about 26.5 feet. The California Water Data Library shows that the depth to groundwater in the site region is in excess of 40 feet. The depth of historic groundwater at the site is estimated to be greater than 40 feet below existing grades.

Based on the above, groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor during the site grading.

However, seasonal perched groundwater may be encountered during grading within portions of the site.

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

No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within an “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007; CGS, 1986). The subject property is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake induced liquefaction (CGS, 1997). The subject property is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake induced landsliding. The nearest known active fault to the site is the Elsinore fault (Whittier Section) located approximately 6.4 miles to the north.

5.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 33.8279 degrees Latitude and -117.8340 degrees Longitude.

Based on the relatively dense soil conditions encountered across the site, a Site Class “D” is considered appropriate for this project. 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.

The following seismic design parameters, based on the 2015 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)/ASCE 7-16/2022 CBC, are presented below:
1675
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 11

SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.0508g Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.534g
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.766**
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS

1.508
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1

1.415g*
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration
Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS

1.005
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration
Parameter at 1 second, SD1

0.944
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.698g
Seismic Design Category D
*ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 Section 11.4.8 requires a ground motion hazard analysis for structures on Site Class “D” for values of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2g. However, a ground motion hazard analysis is not required where the values of SM1 and SD1 are increased by 50%.

The SM1 and SD1 values shown above already include the 50% increase, so that exception can be obtained. **ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 Section 11.4.8 indicates that the value of Fv should only be used for calculation of Ts, determination of Seismic Design Category, linear interpolation for intermediate values of S1, and when taking the exceptions under Items 1 and 2 of Section 11.4.8 for the calculation of SD1.

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.

LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT
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 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, 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 under low confining pressures. 1676
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 12
The project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California for liquefaction potential. Due to the lack of shallow groundwater, the liquefaction hazard at the site is nil.

Due to the relatively dense/clayey nature of the subsurface soils and anticipated site grading, the seismic settlement potential of the site soils is anticipated to be minimal.

OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instability at this site was not observed during the field investigation. Due to the relatively flat site topography and relatively low liquefaction hazard potential, the potential for seismic-induced lateral displacements (i.e., “lateral spread”) and slope instability hazards are considered negligible.

The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a seiche and tsunami is considered negligible due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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, grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by GeoTek, Inc. when they become available so the recommendations contained in this report can be confirmed.

The near-surface upper site soils are anticipated to contain undocumented fill. In addition, removal of the existing site improvements and utility lines is anticipated to disturb the upper soils.

Therefore, the upper site soils are not considered suitable for foundation loading in their current condition. Remedial grading, consisting of overexcavation and recompaction of the upper site soils, is recommended to provide a uniform bearing for any proposed structures.

The site soils were found to exhibit a “Medium” (51≤EI≤90) to “High” (91≤EI≤120) Expansion Index when tested in accordance with ASTM D 4829. As noted in the proposed development section of this report, a post-tensioned (PT) slab foundation system will be used to support the 1677
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 13
proposed structures. This foundation system should be designed to accommodate the site soil expansion potential and the total and differential settlement potentials provided in this report.

EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS
Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Orange, the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix E 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 E.

6.2.1 Site Clearing and Demolition
In areas of planned grading and improvements, the locations of existing utilities should be determined. Existing utilities should be relocated or abandoned. The site should be cleared of existing structures, foundations, abandoned utilities, pavements, slabs, trees, vegetation and other deleterious materials. Demolition of existing buildings/structures should include removal of all shallow foundations, floor slabs and any below-grade construction. Debris should be properly disposed of off-site. Voids resulting from site clearing should be backfilled with engineered fill.

Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) generated from the demolition of existing site improvements may be incorporated into site fills provided the following guidelines are implemented: 1) concrete should be free of rebar or other deleterious materials and should be broken down to a maximum dimension of six (6) inches; 2) concrete should not be placed within three (3) feet of finish grade in the building pad areas or within one (1) foot of subgrade elevations in the street/drive areas; 3) concrete should be distributed in the fill and should not be “nested” or placed in concentrated pockets.

Asphalt concrete (AC) should not be used in fill for building pads or landscape areas. This material may be used in pavement areas of the project or should be removed from the site.

Alternatively, existing PCC concrete, AC and aggregate base may be pulverized and reused as Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) in new pavement sections. These pulverized materials should not contain any detrimental or deleterious materials (reinforcing steel, nails, metal, glass, plastic rubber, wood, organic matter, friable materials, elongated or laminated pieces, etc.). Any materials to be used as CMB should be tested to confirm conformance with appropriate Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) specifications (Section 200-2.4). 1678
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 14

6.2.2 Site Preparation
Due to the non-uniform condition of the near-surface upper site soils, presence of undocumented fill/soils and expected disturbance form the removal of the existing site improvements, it is recommended that the soils be removed beneath the planned building footprints to a depth of at least five (5) feet below existing grades, or three (3) feet below the base of the proposed foundations, whichever is greater. It should be noted that the above recommendations are recommended throughout the majority of the site; however, deeper artificial fills may be present within the site. These artificial fills will require deeper removals accordingly. All undocumented fill soils shall be removed as part of remedial grading. The lateral extent of this recommended over-excavation should extend at least five (5) feet beyond the building limits, where obtainable.

Removal bottoms should be relatively uniform in soil type and not adversely porous and having an in-place density of at least 85 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. Deeper removals may be required and should be determined during site grading by a GeoTek representative.

Following site clearing operations, over-excavation and lowering of site grades, where necessary, it is recommended that the exposed subgrade soils beneath all surface improvements be proof rolled with a heavy rubber-tired piece of construction equipment approved by and in the presence of the geotechnical engineering representative. All soil that ruts or excessively deflects during proof rolling should be removed as recommended by the GeoTek representative.

Following proof rolling and removal of any unsuitable bearing soil, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, be moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content and then be compacted to at least 90 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 test procedures.

6.2.3 Pavement Areas
Undocumented fill should be removed below proposed pavement areas. If no undocumented fill is encountered or is relatively shallow, the natural soils should be overexcavated to a depth of 12 inches below existing grade or 12 inches below proposed finished grade, whichever is deeper.

Finished grade is defined as the top of the subgrade. The exposed soils in these areas and in cut areas should be scarified to a depth of approximately eight inches, moistened to at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.

Pavement subgrade should be firm and unyielding upon proof rolling with heavy construction equipment prior to placement of aggregate base material. 1679
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 15

6.2.4 Hardscape Areas
Undocumented fill should be removed below hardscape areas. The exposed soils in these areas and in cut areas should be scarified to a depth of approximately eight inches, moistened to at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. Due to the soil expansion potential, a minimum of four inches of gravel (1-inch minus) or crushed aggregate base should be placed below all exterior hardscape improvements.

6.2.5 Preparation of Excavation Bottoms
A representative of this firm should observe the bottom of all excavations. Upon approval, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of approximately eight inches, moistened to at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.

6.2.6 Engineered Fills
The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided 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 and moisture conditioned to at least two percent above the optimum moisture content.

Below and within the proposed building area, engineered fill should be moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures if a shallow foundation system is used.

Below other structural elements, such as hardscape areas and walls independent of the building, engineered fill should be moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.

6.2.7 Excavation Characteristics
Excavation of the on-site alluvial 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 CalOSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations within the on-site materials should be stable at 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) inclinations for cuts less than five feet in height. 1680
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 16

6.2.8 Slot-Cut Excavations
Assuming that any existing block walls along existing site boundaries are screen walls (imparting minimal loads), GeoTek evaluated the use of slot-cut excavations adjacent to these improvements in order to facilitate the required remedial grading for construction of proposed site walls. Preliminary analyses by GeoTek using a soil cohesion of about 250 psf along a friction angle of approximately 24 degrees, an assumed slot-cut height of about five feet, and an assumed footing surcharge of approximately 1,000 psf yielded an approximate slot-cut width of six feet.

Wider slot cuts may be feasible if favorable conditions (i.e. denser soils with significant cohesion) are exposed in the site excavations.

Slot-cut excavations should follow an A-B-C sequence. Each “A” section should be excavated to the required depth and then backfilled with compacted soil (or wall section constructed).

Following completion of the “A” sections, the “B” sections are then excavated and backfilled/constructed and then all “C” sections are completed in a similar manner. A GeoTek representative should observe that the slot-cuts are being performed in conformance with these recommendations.

6.2.9 Shrinkage and Subsidence
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including orchard tree removal, shrinkage, subsidence, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography. Shrinkage and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction. For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of 5 to 10 percent may be considered for the materials requiring removal and/or recompaction. 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 0.1 foot may be anticipated for the underlying soils.

6.2.10 Import Soils
Import soils should have a “Very Low” (0-20) to “Low” (21-50) Expansion Index. GeoTek, Inc. also recommends that the proposed import soils be tested for expansion and corrosivity potential. GeoTek, Inc. should be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed. 1681
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 17

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.3.1 Foundation Design
The soils are classified as having a “Medium” (51≤EI≤90) to “High” (91<EI<120) Expansion Index in accordance with ASTM D 4829. However, verification testing should be performed after site remedial grading.

The foundation elements for the proposed structures should bear entirely in engineered fill soils and should be designed in accordance with the 2022 CBC. Given the site soil expansion potential at the site, residential buildings should be supported by post-tension (PT) slab foundation systems. Geotechnical parameters for post-tension slab design, in general conformance with Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground, Third Edition with 2008 Supplement (PTI, 2008), are provided below. These recommendations are minimal recommendations and are not intended to supersede the design by the project structural engineer. *Required depth of perimeter beam/stiffening rib per structural calculations may govern.

The following assumptions were used to generate em and ym values: Thornthwaite Moisture Index = -20; constant suction value = 3.9pF; post-equilibrium case assumed with wet (swelling) cycle going from 3.9pF to 3.0pF and drying (shrinking) cycle going from 3.9pF to 4.5pF.

Based upon review, a modulus of subgrade reaction (E1) of 75 pci may be used in the design of the post-tensioned slab foundation system. It should be noted that this value is based upon standard one foot plate load tests. Depending upon the design methodology and foundation geometry this value may need to be modified.

DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR POST-TENSION SLABS
Foundation Design Parameter
Design Value
“High” Expansion Index
(LL≤46; PI≤26;
Passing #200 Sieve ≈ 60%;
Clay fines ≈ 20%)
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
-Edge Lift (swelling)
-Center Lift (shrinkage)

4.5 ft

8.7 ft
Soil Differential Movement, ym
-Edge Lift (swelling)
-Center Lift (shrinkage)
≈ 1.07 in
≈ 0.39 in
Exterior Perimeter Beam Embedment One- and Two-Story – 12 inches* Three-story – 18 inches*
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil
(Percent of Optimum)
Minimum 120% to
a depth of 18 inches
1682
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 18
It should be noted that the criteria provided are based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the slab and foundation 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 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous and perimeter footings 18 inches deep and 12 inches wide, and pad footings 24 inches square and 12 inches deep. This allowable soil bearing capacity may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of footing depth and 100 psf for each additional foot of footing width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering shortterm live loads (e.g., seismic and wind loads). These bearing values contain a minimum factor of safety of three (3).

The recommended allowable bearing capacity is based on an estimated maximum postconstruction static settlement of approximately 1-inch. Static differential settlement of about one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet could result. Estimated seismic settlements are anticipated to be minimal. The project structural engineer, foundation engineer, and earth retention structure designer should incorporate these settlement estimates into the design, as appropriate.

The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 280 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,800 psf for footings founded on engineered fill or competent native soil. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with dead load forces. Passive pressure and frictional resistance may be combined without reduction. The upper one foot of soil should be ignored in the passive pressure calculations unless the surface is covered with pavements.

A grade beam, a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep, should be utilized across large entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings.

It is recommended 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. 1683
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 19

6.3.2 Moisture Vapor and Retarding System
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 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2, the 2022 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.

The effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures. 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.

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 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 such as 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, PostTensioning 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 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 GeoTek’s services in general are not intended to address mold prevention, since GeoTek, along with geotechnical consultants in 1684
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 20
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.

6.3.3 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.

6.3.4 Foundation Setbacks
Minimum setbacks for all foundations should comply with the 2022 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.

6.3.5 Soil Corrosivity
Corrosivity test results recently performed by GeoTek are presented in Appendix B. These test results indicate that the on-site soils are “highly corrosive” (1,005 ohm-cm) to buried ferrous metal. This corrosion classification is obtained from “Corrosion Basics: An Introduction,” by Pierre R. Roberge, 2nd Edition, 2005. Recommendations for protection of buried ferrous metal should be provided by a corrosion engineer.

6.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content
Based on the chemical test results presented in the SCGI report (see Appendix C) and recent testing performed by GeoTek (Appendix B), the sulfate test results on soil samples obtained from the project site indicate a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1% by weight. Soluble sulfate contents of this level would be in the range of “negligible” (i.e., “S0” exposure classification) in accordance with ACI 318-19. Based on the test results and Table 19.3.1.1 of 1685
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 21
ACI 318-19, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure.

RETAINING AND SCREEN WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

6.4.1 General Design Criteria
Retaining wall foundations independent of the building should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into engineered fill. Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of this report. Structural requirements may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer. All earth retention structure plans should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization.

Site clearing and remedial earthwork for all earth retention structures should meet the requirements of this report, unless specifically provided otherwise, or more stringent requirements or recommendations are made by the wall designer. The soil used as backfill behind retaining walls should have a “Very Low” (0-20) Expansion Index and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557).

In general, cantilever retaining walls 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 the 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 structure, should be considered in the design of the retaining walls. Loads applied within a 1:1 (horizontal : vertical) projection from the surcharging structure on the stem of the retaining wall should be considered in the design.

Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the retaining wall designer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected structure response, and desired level of conservatism.

6.4.2 Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to six (6) feet high.

Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific 1686
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 22
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)
Level 50
2:1 85
*The design pressures assume the backfill materials have an expansion index less than or equal to 20. Backfill zone includes the area between the back of the wall to a plane (1:1, h:v) up from the bottom of the wall foundation to the adjacent ground surface.

For walls with a retained height greater than six (6) feet, an incremental seismic pressure should be included in the wall design. Where needed, it is recommended that an incremental seismic load for unrestrained walls with level backfill of 10H
2 [Units: pounds per lineal foot of wall] should
be included into the wall design to account for seismic loading conditions, where H is the retained height of the wall. For unrestrained walls with a retained height greater than six (6) feet with backfill of a 2:1 [horizontal: vertical] gradient, a dynamic load increment of 17H 2 should be
included in the wall design. These incremental seismic loads may be assumed to be applied at a point 1/3H above the base of the wall.

6.4.3 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
Wall backfill should include a minimum one-foot-wide section of ¾- to one-inch clean crushed rock or approved equivalent. The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a backdrain to within approximately 12 inches of finish grade. The portion of the rock opposite the back of the wall adjacent to the soil backfill should be covered with a layer of filter fabric comprised of Mirafi 140N or the equivalent. The upper 12 inches of backfill should consist of compacted on-site soil. Backfill placed within the active zone as defined by a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the back of the retaining wall footing up to the retained surface behind the wall should consist of very low expansive soil. The presence of other soils placed within the 1:1 projection will necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of wall designs.

The backfill soil should be placed in lifts no greater than eight inches in thickness, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. Water should not be allowed to pond behind retaining 1687
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 23
walls. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the walls is undesirable.

Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to develop. A 4-inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40 PVC or approved equivalent) in a minimum of one cubic foot per linear foot of ¾- inch or one-inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric should be placed near the bottom of the backfill and the water should be directed to an appropriate disposal area.

As an alternative to the drain, rock and fabric, a pre-manufactured wall drainage product (example: Mira Drain 6000 or approved equivalent) may be used behind the retaining wall. The wall drainage product should extend from the base of the wall to within two (2) feet of the ground surface. The subdrain should be placed in direct contact with the wall drainage product.

Walls less than two (2) feet in height do not require backdrains. Walls from two to four feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs (e.g., approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag) behind weep holes at 10 feet maximum spacing. Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface. However, nuisance water may still collect in front of the wall.

Drain outlets should be maintained over the life of the project and should not be obstructed or plugged by adjacent improvements.

6.4.4 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 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. 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.

6.4.5 Additional Retaining Wall Design Considerations
▪ Retaining and screen wall foundation elements should be designed in accordance with building code setback requirements. A minimum horizontal setback distance of five feet as measured from the top outside edge of the footing to an adjacent slope face is recommended.
▪ Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate.
1688
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 24
▪ No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders.
▪ The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts, and backfill materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. ▪ Positive separations should be provided in screen walls at horizontal distances not exceeding 20 feet.

6.5 CONCRETE FLATWORK

6.5.1 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 utilized in construction.

Due to the soil expansion potential, a minimum of four inches of gravel (1-inch minus) or crushed aggregate base should be placed below all exterior hardscape improvements. In addition, reinforcement of exterior slabs with at least 6” x 6” – W2.6 x W2.6 welded wire fabric placed at the middle of the slab should be considered.

Sidewalks may be under the jurisdiction of the governing agency. If so, jurisdictional design and construction criteria will 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 and sidewalks should be pre-saturated to a minimum of 100 percent 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.

6.5.2 Concrete Performance
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are hairline to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete, while unsightly, do not significantly impact longterm 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 1689
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 25
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 approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness. All concrete flatwork subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at least 120% of optimum moisture content down to a depth of 18” below subgrade prior to placing concrete.

PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN

6.6.1 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement
Preliminary pavement thickness design is based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2018).

The following preliminary pavement design recommendations are based on assumed Traffic Indexes of 5.0 for automobile parking and 5.5 for interior drives. An R-value of 10 was assumed for the determination of preliminary pavement sections for this report. Once the traffic loading information becomes more defined, revision to the pavement design recommendations may be warranted. It is recommended that the final pavement design be based on R-value testing of the as-graded subgrade soils within the pavement areas.
1690
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 26
Based on the assumptions noted above, the following preliminary pavement section recommendations are provided for the site:

PRELIMINARY MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTION
Traffic Index
Thickness of Asphalt
Concrete (inches)
Thickness of Aggregate Base
(inches)

5.0 (Local Street)

3.0 9.0

5.5 (Interior Drives)

4.0 5.0

9.0 7.0
Traffic Indices (TIs) used in the pavement design are considered reasonable values for the proposed residential street 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 design were selected based upon engineering judgment and not upon information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel load analysis or a traffic study.

Pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction and 2 percent over optimum, and be firm and unyielding to heavy construction equipment prior to placing aggregate base materials. All base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 test procedures. All materials and methods of construction should conform to the requirements of the City of Orange.

6.6.2 Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Interlocking concrete pavers can be used for this project. The pavers are assumed to be approximately 3.2 inches (80 millimeters) in thickness. Concrete pavers should be underlain by

1.0 inch to 1.5 inches of bedding sand overlying four inches of aggregate base founded on compacted subgrade soils (90 percent relative compaction, at least 2% over optimum moisture content). The aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures.

Where possible, the aggregate base should extend beyond the perimeter of the pavers a minimum distance of four inches.
1691
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 27
The bedding sand should be placed and lightly moistened and compacted. Since this compaction cannot be tested it should be observed by a representative of this firm.

Historically, paver systems have experienced failures in areas where water has degraded the support characteristics of the underlying base and/or subgrade soils. Since paver systems are permeable and allow transmission of water into the underlying materials, it may be prudent to discuss with the paver designer/manufacturer what methods may be employed to address the issue of potential water introduction into the underlying materials. Underdrain systems, local subgrade reinforcement, tilting the pavement subgrade to drain away from paver areas and not pond, or additional structural elements such as geotextiles can be considered, particularly in high traffic areas and/or low areas where water will tend to collect. The recommendations of the designer/manufacturer should then be implemented in the design and construction of the paver system.

6.6.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement
For the proposed vehicle parking areas, it is recommended that a minimum of six (6.0) inches of PCC pavement over 12 inches subgrade compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures and at least 2 percent over-optimum be utilized. For vehicle service and access lanes, it is recommended that a minimum of seven (7.0) inches of PCC pavement over 12 inches subgrade compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density be utilized. All pavement subgrade should be firm and unyielding to heavy construction equipment prior to base and PCC placement. This section should also be used in heavy truck traffic areas such as fire lanes, trash dumpster pads and approaches. Due to the soil expansion potential, a minimum of four inches of gravel (1-inch minus) or crushed aggregate base should be placed below all exterior pavement improvements. In addition, reinforcement of exterior slabs with at least 6” x 6” – W2.6 x W2.6 welded wire fabric placed at the middle of the slab should be considered.

Requirements of Section 90 of Caltrans Standard Specifications, and various ACI and ASTM standards regarding mixing and placing concrete should be followed. The PCC pavement should have a minimum modulus of rupture of 500 pounds per square inch, and a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch. Concrete should incorporate a 1-inch maximum size aggregate and should be proportioned to achieve a maximum slump of four inches.

Instead of increasing the water content, a plasticizing admixture may be utilized to increase the workability of the concrete. The concrete should be properly cured after placement. Concrete should not be placed during hot and windy weather.
1692
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 28
Crack control joints should be provided in the transverse direction spaced at horizontal intervals ranging from 24 to 36 times the thickness of the concrete.

6.6.4 Pavement Construction
All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade and base material, placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete and placement of concrete pavement, should be done in accordance with the City of Orange guidelines, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City inspector, where required.

Any aggregate base should consist of crushed rock with an R-Value and gradation in accordance with Crushed Aggregate Base (Section 400-2.4 of the “Greenbook” Regional Supplement Amendments). Any Crushed Miscellaneous Base shall conform to Section 200-2.4 of the Green Book.

Minimum compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures for aggregate base. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern. The upper 12 inches of subgrade should be moisture-conditioned to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture and be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The top of the subgrade and aggregate base should be graded to drain to the perimeter of the pavement.

POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

6.7.1 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.
1693
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 29
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.

6.7.2 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. Roof gutters should be installed that will direct the collected water at least 20 feet from the buildings.

PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
It is recommended that specifications and foundation and grading plans be reviewed by GeoTek prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. It is also recommended 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. 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. It is recommended that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. 1694
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 30

7. 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 this 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 site improvements is included. The scope of this evaluation is based on GeoTek’s understanding of the project and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this locality.

8. LIMITATIONS
GeoTek’s findings are based on site conditions observed and the stated sources. Thus, GeoTek’s 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 GeoTek’s recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, GeoTek’s 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. 1695
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 31

9. 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. _____, 2018, Publications 318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-16, Third Printing, Errata Incorporated through March 15.

Bray, J.D., Sancio, R.B., 2006, “Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 132, Issue 9, dated September 1.

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.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2022, “California Building Code,” 2 volumes.

California Department of Transportation, 2020, “Highway Design Manual,” 7th Edition.

California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 1977, “Geologic Map of California.”
____, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.
____, 2018, “Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42 (Revised), California Geological Survey (CGS), 1980, “State of California, Special Studies Zone, Elsinore Quadrangle,” dated January 1.

County of Orange, 2011, “Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook, Appendix A – Infiltration Testing.”
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
1696
Melia Homes Project No. 4150-CR
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation December 30, 2024 Orange, Orange County, California Page 32
Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K., 1981, “Geologic Map of the Orange County, California, showing mines and mineral deposits,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin B-204, scale 1:48,000.

Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K., 2006, “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California,” US Geological Survey OF 2006-1217, scale 1:100,000.

Orange County, 2013, “Technical Guidance Document Appendix VII”.

OSHPD Seismic Design Maps (https://seismic maps.org/).

Roberge, P. R., 2005, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering,” 2nd Edition.

Seismic Design Values for Buildings (http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php).

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.

Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., 2005, “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 2375 North Tustin Avenue, Orange, California,” Project No. 05G124-1, dated March 29.
_____, 2007, “Geotechnical Update and Plan Review, Proposed Best Buy Store and Outlot Pad, 2355 N. Tustin Avenue, Orange, California,” Project No. 05G124-1, dated October 17.

Summa Architecture, 2024, “Site Plan - A, 2375 N. Tustin St. – 3 Story Row Townhomes, Orange,” dated March 25.
1697
Melia Homes
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 4150-CR
Figure 1
Site Location
Map
Site Location
Modified from USGS
Orange 7.5-minute
Topographic Map Sheet
1698
Figure 2
Boring Location
Map
Rexco Development
APNs 257-030-012, -014, and -050
Technology Center Project
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Project No. 3757-CR
Figure 2
Exploration
Location
Map
Melia Homes
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 4150-CR
LEGEND
(Locations are Approximate)
Site Boundary B-1 Geotechnical
Boring
B-1
I-2 Infiltration
Test
I-2
I-1
1699
REC
AREA
84 UNITS

4.35 AC - 19.3 DU/AC
3 STORY TOWNHOMES
168 GARAGE STALLS (2 CAR)
44 GUEST STALLS
212 TOTAL STALLS (2.52 ST/U)
39 PL 1 1,302 SF 2BD
12 PL 2 1,334 SF 2BD + DEN
30 PL 3 1,920 SF 3BD + DEN
3 PL 4 1,920 SF 3BD + WORK
LW
LW
LW12.1

25.0 NORTH

SITE PLAN - A
MAR 25, 2024
5256 S. Mission Road, Ste. 404
Bonsall, CA 92003
www.summarch.com p.760.724.1198

ARCHITECTURE
ORANGE 2375 N. TUSTIN ST. - 3 STORY ROW TOWNHOMES

MELIA HOMES
8951 Research Dr, # 100
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 759-4367
0 30 60 90
SP
Figure 3
Project Plan
1700

APPENDIX A

LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Townhome Residential Development
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 4150-CR
1701

A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring)
The Ring sampler is driven into the ground at various depths in accordance with ASTM D 3550 test procedures. 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) 1702
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
7 MD, EI, SH, SR, AL, SA
11 CL 16.4 107.7 Expansion Index = 88
11 Liquid Limit = 46
Plastic Limit = 20
6 PI = 26
10 21.3 101.6 60% Passing #200 Sieve
15 11
20 SC 19.4 111.4
27 9
15 9.8 125.1
30 12
14 10.3 117.3
16 11 GP
17 30
50/3
50/3
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
AL = Atterberg Limits
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
Silty clayey f SAND, yellow-brown, slightly moist, dense Silty CLAY, gray, slightly moist, very stiff
CLIENT: Melia Homes DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY:

PROJECT NO.: 4150-CR
KLP
PROJECT NAME: 2375 N Tustin St DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Jaime HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: Truck rig (CME 75)
LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 12/3/2024

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: B-1
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
3" Asphaltic Concrete over 8" CMB
5 Alluvium:

Fine sandy silty CLAY, gray, slightly moist, trace asphalt pieces, stiff Olive-brown, trace rootlets, hard
10 Silty f SAND, yellow-brown, slightly moist, trace clay, trace m-c sand, dense Silty f SAND, light olive-brown, slightly moist, trace clay, medium dense 15 F-c GRAVEL, gray, slightly moist, little f-c sand, dense 20 Very dense
25 BORING TERMINATED AT 25.25 FEET
30LEGEND
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
SM
RV = R-Value Test
SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with excavated materials
1703
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CL
GP
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
AL = Atterberg Limits
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
CLIENT: Melia Homes DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: KLP PROJECT NAME: 2375 N Tustin St DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Jaime PROJECT NO.: 4150-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: Truck rig (CME 75) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 12/3/2024

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: I-1
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
3" Asphaltic Concrete over 7" CMB
Alluvium:

Silty CLAY, gray-brown, slightly moist
5 10
BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with excavated materials
15 20
25 30LEGEND
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis
F-c GRAVEL, gray, slightly moist, trace f-c sand, trace clay RV = R-Value Test
SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
1704
GeoTek, Inc.

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CL
GP
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
AL = Atterberg Limits
SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test
CLIENT: Melia Homes DRILLER: 2R Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: KLP PROJECT NAME: 2375 N Tustin St DRILL METHOD: Hollw stem Auger OPERATOR: Adrian PROJECT NO.: 4150-CR HAMMER: 140lbs/30in. RIG TYPE: Truck rig (Simco 2800) LOCATION: See Boring Location Map DATE: 12/3/2024

SAMPLES
USCS Symbol
BORING NO.: I-2
Laboratory Testing
Depth (ft)
Sample Type
Blows/ 6 in
Sample Number
Water Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Others

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

5.5" Asphaltic Concrete over 12" CMB
Alluvium:

Silty CLAY, gray-brown, slightly moist
5 F-c GRAVEL, gray, slightly moist, trace f-c sand, little clay 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with excavated materials
15 20
25 30LEGEND
Sample type: ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:

EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density
1705

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Townhome Residential Development
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Orange County, California
1706

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were classified visually in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D 2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A.

Direct Shear
Direct shear testing was performed on remolded samples of the surficial soils according to ASTM Test Method D 3080. The results of these tests are presented in Appendix B.

Expansion Index
The expansion potential of the soils was determined by performing expansion index tests on two representative soil samples from the site in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The results of these tests are presented in Appendix B.

In Situ Moisture Content and Unit Weight
The field moisture content was measured in the laboratory on selected samples collected during the field investigation. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The dry density was measured in the laboratory on selected ring samples. The results are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A.

Moisture-Density Relationship
Laboratory testing was performed on two representative soil samples collected during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the soil type was determined in general accordance with test method ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. The results are included 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 are included in Appendix B.
1707
Sample Location:

Date Tested:

Shear Strength: F = 24 O
, C = 291 psf
Notes:
12/12/2024

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
4150-CR
B-1 @ 0-5 Feet
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: 2375 N. Tustin St.

Project Number:
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.

0.0 500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 SHEAR STRESS (psf)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
1708
Sample Details
Sample ID: 24-00241-S01 Date Sampled: 12/3/2024
Sampled By:

Material: CLAY
Location: B-1 @ 0-5 Feet
Test Results
ASTM D 1557
Maximum Dry Unit Weight
(lbf/ft³): 116.4
Optimum Water Content (%): 13.1
Method: A
Preparation Method: Moist
Retained Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 5
Passing Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 95
Tested By: Eduardo Cuevas
Date Tested: 12/9/2024
ASTM D 4718
Corrected Maximum Dry Unit
Weight (lbf/ft³): 116.4
Corrected Optimum Water
Content (%): 13.1
Sieve Size (Oversize): No 4
Oversize Particles (%): 5
Dry Unit Weight - Water Content Relationship
Proctor Report
Report No: PTR:24-00241-S01
Client:

Project: 4150-CR
Multi-Family Residential Development -
Updated Geotechnical & Infiltration Eval
Phone: (951) 710-1160
GeoTek - Corona
Corona, CA 92880
Fax: (951) 710-1167
1548 N. Maple St.

Melia Homes
Irvine CA 92618
9860 Irvine Center Drive

THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL
CC:

Form No: 110031, Report No: PTR:24-00241-S01 © 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Page 1 of 1 Comments
1709
Ring #: Ring Dia. : Ring Ht.:1"
Weight of compacted sample & ring (gm)
Weight of ring (gm)
Net weight of sample (gm)
Moisture Content, %
Specific Gravity, assumed
Unit Wt. of Water @ 20 °C, (pcf)
% Saturation
EXPANSION INDEX = 88
785.6 23.0

62.4 49.5 FINAL MOISTURE
Final Weight of wet
sample & tare % Moisture

2.70 12/11/2024 0.9780 Final

12.0 SATURATION DETERMINATION
Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F) 101.8
Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016) 114.0 12/10/2024 0.8900 10 min/Dry 378.0 12/10/2024 891.0000 Initial

DENSITY DETERMINATION
744.2 READINGS
366.2 DATE TIME READING
Sample Description:

4.01"
Project Number: 4150-CR Date Tested: 12/10/2024
Project Location: 2375 N. Tustin St. Sample Source: B-1 @ 0-5 Feet

EXPANSION INDEX TEST
(ASTM D4829)
Client: Melia Homes Tested/ Checked By: JZ Lab No Corona 1710
Project X REPORT S241205B
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
2375 N. Tustin Street
December 6, 2024
Prepared for:

Eddy Cuevas
GeoTek USA
1548 N. Maple Avenue
Corona, CA 92878
[email protected], [email protected]
Project X Job#: S241205B
Client Job or PO#: 4150-CR
Prepared by:

D. Bobrova
Respectfully Submitted,
Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E.

Sr. Corrosion Consultant
NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592
Professional Engineer
California No. M37102
[email protected]
1711
Project X REPORT S241205B
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 USA
Job Name: 2375 N. Tustin Street
Client Job Number: 4150-CR
Project X Job Number: S241205B
December 6, 2024
Method ASTM
G51
ASTM
G200
SM
4500-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+ SodiumNa+ PotassiumK
+ Magnesium
Mg2+ CalciumCa2+ FluorideF2
2- Phosphate
PO4
3-
(ft) (mg/kg) (wt%) (mg/kg) (wt%) (Ω-cm) (Ω-cm) (mV) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) B1 0-5 144.8 0.0145 18.6 0.0019 1,072 1,005 8.2 123 4.0 6.0 22.1 ND 257.7 49.3 117.7 637.0 8.1 0.5 ASTM
G187
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Resistivity
As Rec'd | Minimum
Sulfates
SO4
2- Chlorides
ClCations 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 PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid)
Note: Sometimes a bad sulfate hit is a contaminated spot. Typical fertilizers are Potassium chloride, ammonium sulfate or ammonium sulfate nitrate (ASN). So this is another reason why testing full corrosion series is good because we then have the data to see if those other ingredients are present meaning the soil sample is just fertilizercontaminated soil. This can happen often when the soil samples collected are simply surface scoops. This is why it's best to dig in a foot, throw away the top and test the deeper stuff. Dairy farms are also notorious for these items.

If one sample pops up much more corrosive than all others, we would recommend collecting more samples surrounding the problem sample location to determine if the peak is isolated to it. This allows us to conclude it was a contaminated sample and able to declare it an outlier.

Try out our new online forms: SOIL CORROSIVITY & THERMAL RESISTIVITY LAB REQUEST FORM & IN-SITU WENNER 4 PIN QUOTE REQUEST FORM 1712

APPENDIX C

EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP, LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (SCGI, 2005)
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Townhome Residential Development
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 4150-CR
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733

APPENDIX D

INFILTRATION TEST DATA
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Townhome Residential Development
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 4150-CR
1734
Project: 4150-CR
Test Hole No.: 12/4/2024
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 120" 120"
Reading
No.

Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth
of Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
Δ in Water
Level
(Inches)
Rate
(Minutes
per Inch)
9:00 AM 120 24
9:25 AM 25 7 4/5 16 1/5
9:26 AM 120 24
9:51 AM 25 8 2/5 15 3/5
9:52 AM 120 24
10:02 AM 10 15 3/5 8 2/5
10:03 AM 120 24
10:13 AM 10 15 3/5 8 2/5
10:14 AM 120 24
10:24 AM 10 16 1/5 7 4/5
10:25 AM 120 24
10:35 AM 10 16 1/5 7 4/5
10:36 AM 120 24
10:46 AM 10 16 4/5 7 1/5
10:47 AM 120 24
10:57 AM 10 16 4/5 7 1/5
Before Test: 120" After Test:

PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
2375 N Tustin St Job No.:

I-1 Tested By: KLP Date:
1 1.5
presoaked
Comments
2 1.6
1 1.2
2 1.2
3 1.3
4 1.3
5 1.4
6 1.4
1735
Project: 4150-CR
Test Hole No.: 12/4/2024
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 120" 120"
Reading
No.

Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth
of Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
Δ in Water
Level
(Inches)
Rate
(Minutes
per Inch)
7:00 AM 120 24
7:25 AM 25 18 6
7:26 AM 120 24
7:51 AM 25 18 6
7:52 AM 120 24
8:02 AM 10 21 3/5 2 2/5
8:03 AM 120 24
8:13 AM 10 22 2
8:14 AM 120 24
8:24 AM 10 22 1/5 1 4/5
8:25 AM 120 24
8:35 AM 10 22 1/5 1 4/5
8:36 AM 120 24
8:46 AM 10 22 4/5 1 1/5
8:47 AM 120 24
8:57 AM 10 22 4/5 1 1/5
6 8.3
4 5.6
5 8.3
2 5.0
3 5.6
2 4.2
1 4.2
1 4.2
presoaked
Comments

PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
2375 N Tustin St Job No.:

I-2 Tested By: KLP Date:

Before Test: 120" After Test:
1736
Equation - I
t =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
Time Interval, Δt = 10
Client: Melia Homes
Project: 2375 N Tustin St
Project No: 4150-CR
Date: 12/4/2024
Boring No. I-1
Percolation to Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Final Depth to Water, DF = 103.2
Test Hole Radius, r = 4
Initial Depth to Water, DO = 96

3.86 Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 120
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 24
HF = DT - DF = 16.8
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 7.2

20.4 1737
Equation - I
t =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = 0.57 Inches per Hour
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 120
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 24
HF = DT - DF = 22.8
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 1.2

23.4 Final Depth to Water, DF = 97.2
Test Hole Radius, r = 4
Initial Depth to Water, DO = 96
Time Interval, Δt = 10
Client: Melia Homes
Project: 2375 N Tustin St
Project No: 4150-CR
Date: 12/4/2024
Boring No. I-2
Percolation to Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
1738

APPENDIX E

GENERAL EARTHWORK GRADING GUIDELINES
Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation
Proposed Townhome Residential Development
2375 North Tustin Street
Orange, Orange County, California
Project No. 4150-CR
1739

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
2375 North Tustin Street Page E-1
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 4150-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 (2022) 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 aspects 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. 1740

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
2375 North Tustin Street Page E-2
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 4150-CR

4. Density tests may be done 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 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. 1741

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
2375 North Tustin Street Page E-3
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 4150-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 backhoe 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) The 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. 1742

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
2375 North Tustin Street Page E-4
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 4150-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 contractor’s 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. 1743

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
2375 North Tustin Street Page E-5
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 4150-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 should be brought to the contractor’s 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 the 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. 1744

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
2375 North Tustin Street Page E-6
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 4150-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.
1745

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
2375 North Tustin Street Page E-7
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 4150-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
1746

GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E
2375 North Tustin Street Page E-8
Orange, Orange County, California Project No. 4150-CR

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

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 contractor’s 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 affect 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 the technician’s 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.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1747
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
June 19, 2025
Project No. 4150-CR
Melia Homes
9860 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, California 92618
Attention: Mr. Chad Brown
Subject: Review – Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility
Proposed Townhome Residential Development – Tract 19392 2375 North Tustin Street
City of Orange, Orange County, California
References: See Page 3
Dear Mr. Brown:

Two percolation tests were conducted for the referenced Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation dated December 30, 2024 (GeoTek, 2024) at depths of approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface (see Exploration Location Map, Figure 2, of the referenced report for the test locations). The results of the infiltration testing indicated poor to favorable rates (0.57 to 3.86 inches per hour). Both percolation tests appear to have been conducted within a fineto coarse-gravel with sand and trace clay (GP soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System), indicating highly variable percolation characteristics within the on-site soils.

As discussed in various site documents (GeoTek, 2024 and C&V, 2025), the site soils are also considered to possess up to a high expansion potential. Mounding soils and a non-functional stormwater disposal system will eventually exacerbate problems caused by expansive soil on site improvements (structures and infrastructure).
1748
MELIA HOMES June 19, 2025
Review – Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Project No. 4150-CR 901 E. Katella Avenue, Orange, California Page 2
Based upon review of the referenced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated February 6, 2024, prepared by EDI Consultants, leaking underground gasoline tanks from a former car wash also dispensing gasoline fuel facility resulted in subsurface soil contamination of the property (2355 North Tustin Street) located adjacent to the southwest corner of the project site. While soil vapor extraction (SVE) well operations conducted on this property resulted in the reduction of soil contamination to levels which allowed “Case Closure” of this site, some soil contamination remained in these site soils. Mounding and migration of water from the project site (2375 North Tustin Street) may also lead to migration of contaminated soil from this adjacent site.

Based on the highly variable infiltration rates obtained from the on-site percolation testing, the presence of expansive clay and very dense soil layers acting as downward water migration barriers leading to “mounding” of subsurface water, along with the possible negative effects of “mounding” subsurface waters on proposed site and off-site improvements, it is GeoTek’s opinion that stormwater infiltration is not considered suitable for the project development.

Should you have any questions after reviewing this letter, please feel free to contact GeoTek, Inc. at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.

Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 7/31/26
Principal Geologist
Bruce A. Hick
GE 2284, Exp. 12/31/26
Geotechnical Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee via email
G:\Projects\4100 to 4199\4150CR Tract 19392 2375 North Tustin Street Orange\4150-CR Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Tract 19392 Orange.docx
1749
MELIA HOMES June 19, 2025
Review – Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Project No. 4150-CR 901 E. Katella Avenue, Orange, California Page 3

REFERENCES
C&V Consulting, Inc., 2025, “[Preliminary} Priority Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), TTM 19392, 2375 North Tustin Street, Orange, Ca 92865”, dated April, with City of Orange comments.

EDI Consultants, 2024, “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Commercial Retail Building, 2375 North Tustin Street, Orange, California 92865”, EDI Project No. 224-0059, dated February 6.

GeoTek, Inc., 2024, “Updated Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, Proposed Townhome Residential Development, 2375 North Tustin Street, Orange, Orange County, California”, Project No. 4150-CR, dated December 30.

Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., 2005, “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 2375 North Tustin Avenue, Orange, California,” Project No. 05G124-1, dated March 29.
1750
WQMP for
2375 N. Tustin Street
Revised September 2025 39
Appendix F:

References
1751

PROJECT SITE
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
Appendix I: Noise Impact Analysis
1762
Reference Number
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ
Agency
City of Orange
Date
November ͭʹ, ͮͬͮͱ

NORTH TUSTIN STREET PROJECT

NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Prepared By:

Bill Maddux, INCE | [email protected]
Noah Johnson | [email protected]
1763
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ii North Tustin Street Project
1764
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA iii North Tustin Street Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... ͳ ͭ INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... ͭͭ ͭ.ͭ Site Location ........................................................................................................................................ ͭͭ ͭ.ͮ Project Description ............................................................................................................................... ͭͭ ͮ FUNDAMENTALS ........................................................................................................................ ͭͱ ͮ.ͭ Range of Noise ..................................................................................................................................... ͭͱ ͮ.ͮ Noise Descriptors ................................................................................................................................. ͭͲ ͮ.ͯ Sound Propagation ............................................................................................................................... ͭͲ ͮ.Ͱ Noise Control ........................................................................................................................................ ͭͳ ͮ.ͱ Noise Barrier Attenuation ..................................................................................................................... ͭͳ ͮ.Ͳ Land Use Compatibility With Noise ....................................................................................................... ͭʹ ͮ.ͳ Community Response to Noise ............................................................................................................. ͭʹ ͮ.ʹ Vibration .............................................................................................................................................. ͭ͵ ͯ REGULATORY SETTING ................................................................................................................ ͮͯ ͯ.ͭ State of California Noise Requirements ................................................................................................ ͮͯ ͯ.ͮ State of California Building Code .......................................................................................................... ͮͯ ͯ.ͯ City of Orange General Plan Noise Element .......................................................................................... ͮͰ ͯ.Ͱ City of Orange Municipal Code Standards ............................................................................................. ͮͲ ͯ.ͱ Construction Vibration Standards ......................................................................................................... ͮͳ ͯ.Ͳ Airport Land Use Compatibility ............................................................................................................. ͮʹ Ͱ SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... ͯͭ Ͱ.ͭ Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) ...................................................................................................... ͯͭ Ͱ.ͮ Vibration (Threshold B) ......................................................................................................................... ͯͯ Ͱ.ͯ CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed (Threshold C) .......................................................................... ͯͯ Ͱ.Ͱ Significance Criteria Summary .............................................................................................................. ͯͯ ͱ EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ..........................................................................................ͯͱ ͱ.ͭ Measurement Procedure and Criteria ................................................................................................... ͯͱ ͱ.ͮ Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................................................. ͯͱ ͱ.ͯ Noise Measurement Results ................................................................................................................. ͯͳ Ͳ METHODS AND PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................ ͯ͵ Ͳ.ͭ FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................... ͯ͵ Ͳ.ͮ On‐Site Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs ....................................................................................... ͯ͵ ͳ ON‐SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS .................................................................................................. Ͱͯ ͳ.ͭ On‐Site Exterior Noise Analysis ............................................................................................................ Ͱͯ ͳ.ͮ On‐Site Interior Noise Analysis ............................................................................................................. Ͱͯ ʹ OFF‐SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS .................................................................................... Ͱ͵ ͵ RECEIVER LOCATIONS .................................................................................................................. ͱͭ ͭͬ OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... ͱͯ ͭͬ.ͭ Operational Noise Sources ................................................................................................................... ͱͯ ͭͬ.ͮ Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... ͱͯ ͭͬ.ͯ CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................................... ͱͱ ͭͬ.Ͱ Project Operational Noise Levels .......................................................................................................... ͱͲ ͭͬ.ͱ Project Operational Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ ͱͳ 1765
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA iv North Tustin Street Project
ͭͬ.Ͳ Project Operational Noise Level Increases ............................................................................................ ͱͳ ͭͭ CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ............................................................................................................. ͱ͵ ͭͭ.ͭ Construction Noise Levels .................................................................................................................... ͱ͵ ͭͭ.ͮ Construction Reference Noise Levels .................................................................................................... ͱ͵ ͭͭ.ͯ Construction Noise Analysis.................................................................................................................. Ͳͭ ͭͭ.Ͱ Project Site Construction Noise Level Compliance ................................................................................ Ͳͮ ͭͭ.ͱ Temporary Construction Noise Level Increases ..................................................................................... Ͳͮ ͭͭ.Ͳ Construction Vibration Analysis ............................................................................................................ Ͳͯ ͭͭ.ͳ Construction Vibration Impacts Mitigation ........................................................................................... Ͳͱ ͭͭ.ʹ Concrete Crushing Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................. Ͳͱ ͭͭ REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. Ͳ͵ ͭͮ CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... ͳͭ

APPENDICES
APPENDIX ͯ.ͭ: CITY OF ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX ͱ.ͭ: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX ͱ.ͮ: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX Ͳ.ͭ: SITE PLAN
APPENDIX ͳ.ͭ: ON‐SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX ͳ.ͮ: INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION CALCULATIONS APPENDIX ͵.ͭ: HVAC
APPENDIX ͵.ͮ: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX ͭͬ.ͭ: CONSTRUCTION NOISE CALCULATIONS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT ES‐ͭ: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... ͵ EXHIBIT ͭ‐ͭ: PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................ ͭͮ EXHIBIT ͭ‐ͮ: SITE PLAN .................................................................................................................... ͭͯ EXHIBIT ͮ‐ͭ: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................... ͭͱ EXHIBIT ͮ‐ͮ: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION .................................................................................. ͭʹ EXHIBIT ͮ‐ͯ: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND‐BORNE VIBRATION .................................................................. ͮͭ EXHIBIT ͯ‐ͭ: INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS ........................................................................ ͮͱ EXHIBIT ͯ‐ͯ: AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY NOISE LEVELS BY LAND USE ............................................................. ͮ͵ EXHIBIT ͯ‐Ͱ: FULLERTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOISE LEVEL CONTOUR BOUNDARIES ..................................... ͯͬ EXHIBIT ͱ‐ͭ: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ..................................................................................... ͯͲ EXHIBIT ͵‐ͭ: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ..................................................................................................... ͱͮ EXHIBIT ͭͬ‐ͭ: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ......................................................................... ͱͰ EXHIBIT ͭͭ‐ͭ: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ....................................................................... Ͳͬ EXHIBIT ͭͭ‐ͮ: CONCRETE CRUSHING ACTIVITIES AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS .................................................. Ͳͳ 1766
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA v North Tustin Street Project

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES‐ͭ: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................................. ͳ TABLE Ͱ‐ͭ: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY ....................................................................................... ͯͯ TABLE ͱ‐ͭ: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................ ͯͳ TABLE Ͳ‐ͭ: ON‐SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS ........................................................................................ Ͱͬ TABLE Ͳ‐ͮ: TUSTIN STREET TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS ........................................................................ Ͱͬ TABLE Ͳ‐ͯ: SR‐ͱͱ TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS .................................................................................... Ͱͬ TABLE ͳ‐ͭ: FUTURE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ......................................................................................... Ͱͯ TABLE ͳ‐ͮ: NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS (CNEL) ............................................................................ ͰͰ TABLE ͳ‐ͯ: FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................. ͰͲ TABLE ͳ‐Ͱ: SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS ............................................................................. ͰͲ TABLE ͳ‐ͱ: THIRD FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................ Ͱͳ TABLE ͭͬ‐ͭ: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .......................................................................... ͱͱ TABLE ͭͬ‐ͮ:DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... ͱͲ TABLE ͭͬ‐ͯ: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ................................................................. ͱͲ TABLE ͭͬ‐Ͱ: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ............................................................................ ͱͳ TABLE ͭͬ‐ͱ: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ...................................................... ͱʹ TABLE ͭͬ‐Ͳ: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ............................................................... ͱʹ TABLE ͭͭ‐ͭ: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS .......................................................................... Ͳͭ TABLE ͭͭ‐ͮ: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ............................................................. Ͳͮ TABLE ͭͭ‐ͯ: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE .......................................................................... Ͳͮ TABLE ͭͭ‐Ͱ: DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ................................................................ Ͳͯ TABLE ͭͭ‐ͱ: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT .................................................. ͲͰ TABLE ͭͭ‐Ͳ: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS – UNMITIGATED .................................................. ͲͰ TABLE ͭͭ‐ͳ: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS – MITIGATED ...................................................... Ͳͱ TABLE ͭͭ‐ʹ: CONCRETE CRUSHING CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ............................................. ͲͲ TABLE ͭͭ‐͵: CONCRETE CRUSHING EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS ............................................................ Ͳʹ 1767
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA vi North Tustin Street Project

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(ͭ) Reference
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Calveno California Vehicle Noise
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A‐weighted decibels
EIR Environmental Impact Report
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 North Tustin Street Project
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root‐mean‐square
VdB Vibration Decibels
1768
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͳ North Tustin Street Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed North Tustin Street Project (Project) in the City of Orange. The Project consists of ͳͭ residences, a recreation area, and utility improvements.

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. (ͭ)
The results of this Noise and Vibration Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section Ͱ of this report, consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (ͭ) Table ES‐ͭ shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact before and after any required mitigation measures.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Airport Noise 4 Less Than Significant -
On-Site Traffic Noise1 7 - -
Off-Site Traffic Noise 8 Less Than Significant -
Operational Noise 10 Less Than Significant -
Project Construction Noise 11 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration 11 Significant Less Than Significant Concrete Crushing Noise 11 Less Than Significant -
Concrete Crushing Vibration 11 Less Than Significant -
1 The effects of the environment on a Project are not an impact under CEQA and are provided for informational purposes.

Exterior Noise Abatement
The exterior analysis shows that the common outdoor use areas (e.g., Recreation Area) will experience exterior noise levels up to ͱͱ.ʹ dBA CNEL and will not exceed the City of Orange Ͳͱ dBA CNEL exterior noise standards. This exterior noise analysis shows that the Project will satisfy the City of Orange Ͳͱ dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for common outdoor use areas, and no further abatement measures are needed.

Interior Noise Abatement
The interior noise level assessment demonstrates that the project can satisfy the City of Orange Ͱͱ dBA CNEL interior noise standard, with upgraded construction using windows with a minimum sound transmission class STC rating of ͯͭ, and a “windows closed” condition for Building ͱͰ third‐ floor locations. For all other locations and residences, standard construction using windows with a minimum STC rating of ͮͳ, and a “windows closed” condition, can satisfy the City of Orange Ͱͱ dBA 1769
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ʹ North Tustin Street Project
CNEL interior noise standard. Therefore, the following best practices are recommended to meet the City of Orange Ͱͱ dBA CNEL interior noise standards for residential land uses:
• Windows/Sliding Glass Doors: All windows and sliding glass doors should be well‐fitted and weather‐stripped assemblies with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of ͯͭ for the building ͱͰ third‐floor locations and windows with an STC rating of ͮͳ for all other locations and residences on the site.
• Doors (Non‐Glass): All doors for all residences should be well‐fitted and weather‐stripped and have minimum STC ratings of ͮͲ. Well‐sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. (ͮ)
• Walls: At any penetrations of all exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal.
• Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction for all residences shall be per the manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one‐half inch thick. Ceilings shall be per the manufacturer’s specification or well‐sealed gypsum board of at least one‐half inch thick.

Insulation with at least a rating of R‐ͭ͵ shall be used in the attic space.

As shown in Section ͱ, the Project is expected to satisfy the City of Orange Ͱͱ dBA CNEL interior noise level standards for residential development. Construction Vibration Mitigation Construction Vibration Mitigation
NOI‐ͭ: To reduce the significant vibration‐related impact, a ͮͬ‐foot heavy‐equipment buffer zone shall be implemented to restrict the use of heavy construction equipment (i.e., greater than ʹͬ,ͬͬͬ pounds), vibratory rollers, large loaded trucks, and dozers within ͮͬ feet of off‐site sensitive receiver locations. Instead, smaller, rubber‐tired bulldozers (less than ʹͬ,ͬͬͬ pounds) shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration levels. With the recommended vibration measure identified in this analysis and shown in ES‐ͭ, the vibration‐related impacts will be reduced to less than significant.
1770
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͵ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT ES-1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1771
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭͬ North Tustin Street Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
1772
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭͭ North Tustin Street Project
1 INTRODUCTION
This Noise and Vibration Analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed North Tustin Street Project(“Project”). This noise and vibration analysis briefly describes the Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures for noise analysis, evaluates the future exterior noise environment, potential off‐site traffic impacts, the Project‐ related long‐term stationary‐source operational noise, and Project‐related short‐term construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The Project site is located at ͮͯͳͱ North Tustin Street in the northern portion of the City of Orange.

The Project is bound by residential uses to the north and south, CA ͱͱ to the east, and commercial uses to the west, as shown in Exhibit ͭ‐ͭ. The nearest existing noise‐sensitive residential uses are located south of the Project site.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant for the Project is requesting approval from the City of Orange to demolish the existing structure and improvements on the Project site and construct ͳͭ paired and detached residences, along with open space/recreation and parking. The residential structures would be three stories high.

Each residential unit would have three or four bedrooms, ranging in size from approximately ͮ,ͬͬʹ to ͮ,ͭͭͳ SF, and would be developed above two‐car garages. The ͳͭ residences on the Ͱ.ͮͯͱ‐acre site would result in a density of ͭͲ.ͳͲ units per acre. The Project would include parking, open space, ornamental landscaping, and associated infrastructure. Along the northern edge of the site, there is an approximately Ͳ‐foot‐high barrier, and along the southern edge of the site is a Ͳ‐ to ʹ‐foot‐high barrier. A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit ͭ‐ͮ. The Project site currently contains Best Buy.

The Project requests the approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from General Commercial (GC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), which allows residential densities between ͭͱ and ͮͰ dwelling units per acre. The Project also includes a zone change to change the site zoning from Limited Business Tustin Redevelopment Project Area (C‐TR) to Multiple‐Family Residential (Rͯ).
1773
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭͮ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 1-1: PROJECT LOCATION
1774
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭͯ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 1-2: SITE PLAN
1775
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭͰ North Tustin Street Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
1776
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭͱ North Tustin Street Project
2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as “unwanted sound.” Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health.

Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A‐ weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum.

They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit ͮ‐ͭ presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

EXHIBIT 2-1: 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 ͱͱͬ/͵‐ͳͰ‐ͬͬͰ) March ͭ͵ͳͰ.

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 ͭͬ, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of ͭͬ decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (ͯ) The most common sounds vary between Ͱͬ dBA (very quiet) and ͭͬͬ dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at Ͳͬ dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to ͭͭͬ dBA at approximately 1777
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭͲ North Tustin Street Project
ͭ,ͬͬͬ feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (Ͱ) 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 on 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 A‐weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period 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 ͮͰ‐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 ͮͰ hours. The time‐of‐day corrections require the addition of ͱ decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from ͳ:ͬͬ p.m. to ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m., and the addition of ͭͬ decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m. and ͳ:ͬͬ 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 ͮͰ‐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 Ͳ 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 ͯ dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (ͯ)

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 1778
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭͳ North Tustin Street Project
in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than ͮͬͬ 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 ͭ.ͱ 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 Ͱ.ͱ dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (ͱ)

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 ͱͬͬ 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. (ͯ)

2.3.4 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 ͭͱ feet in height, ͭͬͬ 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 ͱ dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (Ͳ)

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 ͭͬ to ͭͱ 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 line‐of‐sight path of sound from the noise source.
1779
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭʹ North Tustin Street Project

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 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 governments 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. (ͳ)

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. (ʹ pp. ʹ‐Ͳ) 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 ͭͬ dB below existing to ͮͱ dB above existing. (͵) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (ʹ), the percentage of high annoyance ranges from approximately ͬ percent at Ͱͱ dB or less, ͭͬ percent are highly annoyed around Ͳͬ dB, and increases rapidly to approximately ͳͬ percent being highly annoyed at approximately ʹͱ dB or greater. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels, as shown in Exhibit ͮ‐ͮ. A change of ͯ dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of ͱ dBA are considered readily perceptible. (ͱ)
EXHIBIT 2-2: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION
1780
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͭ͵ North Tustin Street Project

2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 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.

Additionally, in contrast to airborne noise, ground‐borne vibration outdoors is not a common environmental problem, and annoyance from ground‐borne vibration is almost exclusively an indoor phenomenon (͵). Therefore, the effects of vibrations should only be evaluated at a structure, and the effects of the building structure on the vibration should be considered. Wood‐frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by ground vibration than heavier buildings. In contrast, large masonry buildings with spread footings have a low response to ground vibration (͵). In general, the heavier a building is, the lower the response will be to the incident vibration energy. However, all structures reduce vibration levels due to the coupling of the building to the soil.

There are several methods used to quantify vibration levels. Peak Particle Velocity (PPV (in/sec)) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of a vibration signal and is most commonly used to evaluate the impact of vibration on buildings (ͭͬ) (͵). However, PPV (in/sec) is not always suitable for assessing human response (e.g., annoyance), as the human body does not respond instantly to vibration signals. Instead, it responds to the average amplitude, more accurately represented by the Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the vibration (͵).

RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared signal amplitude and is commonly used to evaluate human exposure to vibration. RMS and PPV (in/sec) are mathematically related— RMS is typically about ͳͬ% of the PPV (in/sec) for certain waveforms (ͭͭ) (ͭͮ). However, deriving RMS from PPV (in/sec) requires knowing the full waveform or making assumptions (e.g., sinusoidal or steady‐state signals). Without this information, converting PPV (in/sec) to RMS introduces uncertainty and provides limited insight, especially in cases involving transient or impact vibrations (ͭͯ).

This distinction is important because human annoyance to vibration is often triggered by abrupt, intermittent events, rather than sustained energy levels. Construction‐related vibrations are typically impulsive and broadband, in contrast to the continuous, tonal vibrations associated with transit systems. The FTA’s RMS‐based criteria were developed with train activity in mind and are not well‐suited for construction vibration, where perception is driven by factors like suddenness, impact, and repetition (͵).

In essence, RMS tends to average out short‐duration, high‐intensity events—the very events that people find most disturbing. Therefore, for construction activities, PPV (in/sec)‐based thresholds, 1781
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮͬ North Tustin Street Project
such as those recommended by Caltrans, are more appropriate for assessing potential human annoyance and structural impact (ͭͮ).

While not universally accepted, vibration decibel notation (VdB) is another RMS‐based vibration notation developed and used by the FTA in their guidance manual to describe vibration levels and provide a background of common vibration levels and set vibration limits (͵). Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe vibration levels and is used in this report to describe vibration levels.

As stated in the FTA guidance manual, the background vibration‐velocity level in residential areas is generally ͱͬ VdB. Ground‐borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately Ͳͱ VdB. For most people, a vibration‐velocity level of ͳͱ 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 ͱͬ VdB, which is the typical background vibration‐velocity level, to ͭͬͬ VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit ͮ‐C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground‐borne vibration ͭͬͬ VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit ͮ‐ͯ illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground‐borne vibration.
1782
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮͭ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 2-3: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 1783
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮͮ North Tustin Street Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
1784
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮͯ North Tustin Street Project
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). (ͭͰ) 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
Residential Building Code
California’s noise insulation standards for all residential units are codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title ͮͰ, Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter ͭͮ, Section ͭͮͬͲ.Ͱ, Allowable interior noise level. These noise standards are applied to new construction that contains dwelling units or sleeping units, such as residential and hotel or motel uses, in California, to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. For new buildings, the acceptable interior noise limit is Ͱͱ dBA CNEL in habitable rooms. (ͭͱ)
1785
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮͰ North Tustin Street Project

3.3 CITY OF ORANGE GENERAL 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. (ͭͲ) 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 ͭ.ͯ: Incorporate design features into residential and mixed‐use projects that can be used to shield residents from excessive noise.

Policy ͭ.Ͱ: Ensure that acceptable noise level are maintained near noise‐sensitive uses.

Policy ͯ.ͭ: Encourage noise‐compatible land uses and incorporate noise‐reducing design features within transit oriented, mixed‐use development near rail corridors.

Policy ͳ.ͮ: Require developers and contractors to employ noise minimizing techniques during construction and maintenance operations.

Policy ͳ.ͯ: Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise‐ sensitive land uses.

3.3.1 Land Use Compatibility
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).

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 Ͳͱ dBA CNEL for a majority of 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. These standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to Ͱͱ dBA CNEL.

3.3.2 Noise Standards
To control transportation‐related noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports, and railroads, the City of Orange has established the standards provided in Exhibit ͯ‐ͭ (Table N‐ͯ of the 1786
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮͱ North Tustin Street Project
Noise Element) for acceptable community noise levels. The City of Orange Noise Element provides specific noise level standards for all land use categories that are used to regulate traffic‐related noise level impacts for noise‐sensitive uses; both exterior and interior noise level standards are defined.

Within the Medium Density Residential Land Use designation, as proposed by the Project, the exterior noise standards of Ͳͱ dBA CNEL only apply to common outdoor recreation areas, as detailed in footnote Ͱ of the Noise Element Table N‐ͯ, included below as Table ͯ‐ͭ. Additionally, interior noise levels are not to exceed Ͱͱ dBA CNEL. Based on the City of Orange land use compatibility guidelines and state interior noise standards, this noise study has been prepared to satisfy an exterior noise level of Ͳͱ dBA CNEL in common outdoor recreation areas and an interior noise level of less than Ͱͱ dBA CNEL. This approach is consistent with Table N‐ͯ of the General Plan Noise Element.

EXHIBIT 3-1: INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
Source: City of Orange General Plan Noise Element, Table N‐ͯ. 1787
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮͲ North Tustin Street Project

3.3.3 Stationary Noise Standards
The City of Orange has set stationary‐source hourly average Leq exterior limits to control operational stationary source noise levels associated with the development of the proposed North Tustin Street Project. These hourly and maximum performance standards (expressed in Leq) for non‐ transportation or stationary noise sources are designed to protect noise‐sensitive land uses adjacent to stationary sources from excessive noise. According to Table N‐Ͱ of the City of Orange General Plan Noise Element, acceptable exterior noise levels at the sensitive receiver are ͱͱ dBA Leq during daytime (ͳ:ͬͬ a.m. to ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m.) hours and Ͱͱ dBA Leq during nighttime (ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m. to ͳ:ͬͬ a.m.) hours.

3.4 CITY OF ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property, such as the North Tustin Street Project Project, stationary‐source (operational) noise levels and noise from construction activities are typically evaluated against standards established under the City’s Municipal Code.

3.4.1 Operational Noise Standards
For noise‐sensitive residential property, the City of Orange Municipal Code, Section ʹ.ͮͰ.ͬͰͬ, identifies exterior noise levels standards of ͱͱ dBA Leq for the daytime hours (ͳ:ͬͬ a.m. to ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m.) and ͱͬ dBA Leq during the nighttime (ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m. to ͳ:ͬͬ a.m.) hours. The City of Orange Municipal Code Noise Standards are included in Appendix ͯ.ͭ. The daytime Municipal Code requirements are consistent with the noise levels identified in the City of Orange General Plan Noise Element, however, the ͱͬ dBA Leq nighttime noise levels are ͱ dBA higher than the Ͱͱ dBA Leq thresholds identified in the Noise Element. For the purpose of this analysis, the more restrictive Ͱͱ dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards identified in the Noise Element are relied upon.

Per Section ʹ.ͮͰ.ͬͰͬ(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).

3.4.2 Construction Noise Standards
The City of Orange has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project. Section ʹ.ͮͰ.ͱͬ 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 ͳ:ͬͬ a.m. and ʹ:ͬͬ p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of ͵:ͬͬ a.m. and ʹ:ͬͬ p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. (ͭͳ) However, neither the City of Orange General Plan nor the Municipal Code establishes numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified 1788
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮͳ North Tustin Street Project
determination of what CEQA constitutes a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels.

According to Caltrans guidance, construction noise impacts shall not exceed ʹͲ dBA Lmax at ͱͬ feet from the job site activities between the hours of ͵:ͬͬ p.m. and Ͳ:ͬͬ a.m. (ͭʹ) Equipment and operations are usually at or less than that level, except for blasting, pile drivers (impact or vibratory), hoe rams, pavement breakers for crack‐and‐seat operations, and other impact equipment. (ͯ) The Caltrans guidance also suggests that detailed discussions of typical construction equipment noise levels are probably not necessary unless the project involves unusually sensitive receptors or nighttime work or if the project is controversial. (ͯ) Since this limitation is only associated with nighttime activities and does not address the noise level at the point of concern, e.g., a residence, Caltrans construction criteria were similarly not considered as the appropriate threshold for environmental review.

Further research indicated the U.S. Department of Transportation guidance for construction published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is appropriate and based on well‐documented studies of the effects of construction noise. According to the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise impacts. 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. (͵ p. ͭͳͮ)
Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessments. The FTA identifies two types of construction noise assessment criteria: general and detailed. For general construction noise assessments, the analysis is limited to the two noisiest pieces of equipment with an hourly daytime exterior noise level threshold for residential land use of ͵ͬ dBA Leq(ͭhr). (͵ p. ͭͳ͵) However, for long‐ term construction projects that would expose sensitive receivers to noise for extended periods of time, the FTA considers a daytime ʹ‐hour average exterior construction noise level of ʹͬ dBA Leq(ʹhr).

The absolute FTA thresholds are intended to account for reasonable expectations regarding construction noise during the daytime hours and are intended to protect human health.

Therefore, to evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short‐term noise levels at nearby noise‐sensitive residential receiver locations, a daytime exterior construction noise level of ʹͬ dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess construction noise level impacts based on the FTA detailed analysis of construction noise criteria with a nighttime exterior construction noise level of ͳͬ dBA Leq. (͵ p. ͭͳ͵).

3.5 CONSTRUCTION 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 1789
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮʹ North Tustin Street Project
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. (͵) To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of the North Tustin Street Project, vibration‐generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under the Municipal Code if such standards exist. However, the City of Orange does not identify specific construction vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (ͭͮ p. ͯʹ) Table ͭ͵, vibration damage is 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 ͬ.ͯ PPV (in/sec).

3.6 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Fullerton Municipal Airport (FMA) is located approximately ʹ.ͱ miles northwest of the Project site.

The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for FMA (ͭ͵) prepared by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), identifies noise compatibility policies to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operation of the airport. Specifically, the AELUP plan seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace.

The basic function of the AELUP is to promote compatibility between the airport and the land uses that surround it. As required by State law, the AELUP provides guidance to affected local jurisdictions regarding airport land use compatibility. The main objective of the AELUP is to avoid future compatibility conflicts rather than to remedy existing incompatibilities. Also, the AELUP is aimed at addressing future land uses and development, not airport activity. The AELUP does not place any restrictions on the present and future role, configuration, or use of the airport. The AELUP establishes aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility thresholds for new developments by land use category. According to the exterior noise thresholds outlined in Exhibit ͯ‐ ͯ, Residential development is considered normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than Ͳͱ dBA CNEL, and conditionally consistent with exterior noise levels greater than Ͳͱ dBA CNEL and less than ͳͬ dBA CNEL. As shown in Exhibit ͯ‐Ͱ, the Project Site is located beyond the Ͳͬ dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contours. Thus, the Project site is exposed to Normally Consistent noise levels from airport operations.
1790
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͮ͵ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 3-3: AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY NOISE LEVELS BY LAND USE 1791
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯͬ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 3-4: FULLERTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOISE LEVEL CONTOUR BOUNDARIES 1792
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯͭ North Tustin Street Project
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (ͭ) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

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

4.1 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (ͮͬ) 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.

4.1.1 Noise Sensitive Receivers (Substantial Permanent Noise Level Increase) The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (ͮͭ) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project‐generated increases in noise levels that considers the ambient noise level.

The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average‐daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq). In general, the more a new noise level exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise level will typically be judged.

As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders a noise impact significant, based on a ͮͬͬʹ California Court of Appeals ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (ͮͬ) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<Ͳͬ dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, a readily perceptible ͱ dBA or greater project‐related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the without‐project noise levels are 1793
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯͮ North Tustin Street Project
below Ͳͬ dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without‐project noise levels range from Ͳͬ to Ͳͱ dBA, a ͯ dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people.

When the without‐project noise levels already exceed Ͳͱ dBA, any increase in community noise louder than ͭ.ͱ dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.

The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in baseline ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the baseline (without‐project) noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land‐use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of ͱ dBA or readily perceptible, ͯ dBA or barely perceptible, and ͭ.ͱ dBA, depending on the underlying noise levels for noise‐sensitive uses. These levels of increase and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (ͱ p. ͵) and Caltrans (ͮͮ p. ͮ_Ͱʹ).

4.1.2 Construction Noise (Substantial Temporary Noise Level Increase) To control the noise‐generating construction activities, the temporary noise level increases over the existing ambient conditions must be considered under CEQA Significance Threshold A. Although noise ordinances vary across jurisdictions, many cities and counties in California, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, set construction noise limits between ͳͱ and ʹͬ dBA Leq and typically restrict construction activities to the daytime hours. In contrast, everyday operational noise regulations are more stringent because they apply to continuous, long‐term noise sources that can significantly impact the quality of life. As a result, many jurisdictions establish daytime residential noise limits around ͱͬ‐ͱͱ dBA Leq [County of Los Angeles (ͱͬ dBA Leq), Glendora (ͱͱ dBA Leq), Covina (ͱͬ dBA Leq), and Azusa (ͱͬ dBA Leq)). This suggests that ͮͬ to ͯͬ dBA increase over the daytime noise limit can be reasonably tolerated without significant adverse effects. This is also illustrated in the adoption of many CEQA documents statewide that use the FTA’s construction noise threshold of ʹͬ dBA Leq for assessing construction impacts while using everyday noise level limits of local noise ordinances in assessing on‐site operational impacts.

While this analysis relies on the ͮͬ dBA Leq substantial noise increase threshold, it is important to recognize that jurisdictions within the State, such as the City of Los Angeles, have adopted thresholds that state any daytime noise increase is acceptable during construction as long as they stay below ʹͬ dBA Leq. While the updated City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide no longer maintains a numerical threshold above ambient noise levels for daytime construction activities, they do identify a ͱ dBA Leq nighttime construction noise increase threshold. Therefore, if the Project‐ related construction noise levels generate a temporary noise level increase over the existing daytime ambient noise levels more than ͮͬ dBA Leq or ͱ dBA Leq over the existing nighttime ambient noise levels, then the Project construction noise increases will be considered a significant impact. 1794
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯͯ North Tustin Street Project

4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section ͯ.Ͱ, vibration impacts originating from the construction of the Project are appropriately evaluated using the standards established by the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table ͭ͵. The Caltrans’ vibration thresholds for building damage are used in this noise study to assess potential operational and temporary construction‐ related impacts at adjacent building locations. A maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of ͬ.ͯͬ PPV (in/sec) is used to describe the nearest residential buildings adjacent to the Project site.

4.3 CEQAGUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED (THRESHOLD C)
CEQA Noise Threshold C applies when there are nearby public and private airports and/or airstrips and focuses on land use compatibility of the Project to nearby airports and airstrips. The closest major airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, located over ʹ.ͱ miles northwest of the Project site.

As discussed in Section ͯ.Ͳ, 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 Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, Noise Threshold 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 Ͱ‐ͭ shows the significance criteria summary matrix that includes the allowable criteria used to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
On-Site Noise Sensitive
Common Outdoor Recreation Area 4 65 dBA CNEL
Interior Noise Level Standard3 45 dBA CNEL
Operational Noise-Sensitive
Residential Exterior Noise Level4 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is 60 – 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction Noise-Sensitive
Noise Level Threshold5 80 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq
Exterior Noise Level Increase6 20 dBA Leq 5 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold7 0.30 PPV (in/sec) (in/sec)
1 FICON, 1992.
2 OPR Land use/noise compatibility standards
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2 4 City of Orange Municipal Code, Section 8.24.040. 5 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 6 Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, April 2020. 7 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. 1795
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯͰ North Tustin Street Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
1796
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯͱ North Tustin Street Project
5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, ͮͰ‐hour noise level measurements were taken at four 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 ͱ‐ͭ provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, long‐term noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Wednesday, March ͭ͵, ͮͬͮͱ. Appendix ͱ.ͭ 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 ͮͰ‐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 ͮ integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson‐Davis calibrator, Model CAL ͭͱͬ. 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 Sͭ.Ͱ‐ͮͬͭͰ/IEC ͲͭͲͳͮ‐ͭ:ͮͬͭͯ. (ͮͯ)

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 equivalent 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. (ͯ) 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. (͵)
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. (͵) 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. 1797
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯͲ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 5-1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
1798
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯͳ North Tustin Street Project
Collecting noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels and is necessary to assess potential noise increase due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels. This approach is necessary to calculate the temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels as required by the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist.

5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the equivalent or the hourly energy average sound levels (Leq) to describe the existing ambient conditions. Table ͱ‐ͭ provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the hourly daytime (ͳ:ͬͬ a.m. to ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m.) and nighttime (ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m. to ͳ:ͬͬ a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time‐ varying signal over a given sample period. The daytime and nighttime equivalent noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods, expressed as a single number.

TABLE 5-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located at the site’s northern boundary near the
residence at 1800 E Heim Ave. 58.2 56.3
L2 Located at the site’s eastern boundary near the
residence at 2025 E. Denise Ave. 63.4 65.3
L3 Located at the site’s southern boundary near the
residence at 1931 E. Meats Ave. 57.5 58.6
L4 Located at the site’s southern boundary near the
residence at 2295 N. Tustin St. 55.3 57.1
1 See Exhibit 5-1 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 ͱ‐ͭ provides the equivalent noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions for each of the measurements. Appendix ͱ.ͮ provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, Lͭ, Lͮ, Lͱ, Lʹ, Lͮͱ, Lͱͬ, L͵ͬ, L͵ͱ, and L͵͵ percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods. 1799
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯʹ North Tustin Street Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
1800
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͯ͵ North Tustin Street Project
6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future traffic noise environment.

6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The estimated roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic were calculated using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model – FHWA‐RD‐ͳͳ‐ͭͬʹ. (ͮͰ) 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. (ͮͱ) 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 ͮͰ‐hour period.

6.2 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
The on‐site roadway parameters, including the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes used for this study, presented in Table Ͱ‐ͭ, are based on the City of Orange General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element, (ͮͲ) and data from Caltrans Truck Traffic Counts, Traffic Census. To predict the future on‐ site noise environment at the Project site, parameters including roadway classification and vehicle speeds were obtained from the City of Orange Circulation and Mobility Element, Figure CM‐ͮ (ͮͲ) , and from posted speed limits for each roadway. The traffic volumes shown in Table Ͱ‐ͭ reflect future long‐range traffic conditions used to assess the on‐site traffic noise environment and to identify the appropriate noise mitigation measures that address the worst‐case future conditions. Soft site conditions were used to analyze the traffic noise impacts within the Project study area, which account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. Research conducted by Caltrans shows that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (ͮͳ) 1801
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͱͬ North Tustin Street Project
TABLE 6-1: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
Roadway Lanes Classification1 ADT2
Design
Speed
(MPH)3
Site
Conditions
Tustin St. 6 Major Arterial 39,400 40 Soft
SR-55 11 Freeway 211,000 60 Soft
1 Source: City of Orange, General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element, Figure CM-2 2 Source: City of Orange, General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element/Caltrans Truck Traffic Counts, Traffic Census 3 Source: Posted speed limits.

Tables Ͳ‐ͮ and Ͳ‐ͯ present the time‐of‐day vehicle splits by vehicle type, and the total traffic flow distributions (vehicle mixes) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA Model based on roadway types.

TABLE 6-2: TUSTIN STREET TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Time of Day
Vehicle Mix1 Time of Day
Split1 Autos2 Medium Trucks3 Heavy Trucks4
Daytime 72.75% 1.50% 0.75% 75.00%
Evening 7.76% 0.16% 0.08% 8.00%
Nighttime 16.49% 0.34% 0.17% 17.00%
Daily 97.00% 2.00% 1.00% 100.00%
1 Typical Southern California Mix
2 All vehicles with two axles and four wheels designed primarily for the transportation of nine or fewer passengers (automobiles) or the transportation of cargo (light trucks).
3 All vehicles with two axles and six wheels are designed for the transportation of cargo. 4 All vehicles with three or more axles designed for the transportation of cargo.

TABLE 6-3: SR-55 TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Time of Day
Vehicle Mix1 Time of Day
Split1 Autos2 Medium Trucks3 Heavy Trucks4
Daytime 31.78% 29.82% 20.61% 82.21%
Evening 5.29% 1.72% 0.64% 7.66%
Nighttime 3.94% 3.62% 2.57% 10.13%
Daily 41.00% 35.17% 23.83% 100.00%
1 Based on the Caltrans Truck Traffic Counts, Traffic Census; Typical Southern California Mix 2 All vehicles with two axles and four wheels designed primarily for the transportation of nine or fewer passengers (automobiles) or the transportation of cargo (light trucks).
3 All vehicles with two axles and six wheels are designed for the transportation of cargo. 4 All vehicles with three or more axles designed for the transportation of cargo.

To predict the future noise environment at the Project site, coordinate information was collected to identify the noise transmission path between the noise source and receiver. The coordinate information is based on the Project site plan and its relationship to the adjacent roadways, as shown in Appendix Ͳ.ͭ. The site plan is used to identify the relationship between the roadway centerline 1802
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͱͭ North Tustin Street Project
elevation, the pad elevation, the centerline distance to potential noise barriers, and the building façade. The backyard locations use a receiver height of five feet above the pad elevation, located ten feet away from potential barrier locations. First‐floor receivers are similarly modeled ͱ feet above the pad elevation. Second‐floor receivers are modeled at a receiver height of ͭͰ feet above pad elevation. Third‐floor receivers were located at ͮͯ feet above pad elevation. The rooftop receivers were located ͯͮ feet above the pad elevation. All first‐, second‐, and third‐floor receivers were located at the building façade.
1803
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͱͮ North Tustin Street Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
1804
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͱͯ North Tustin Street Project
7 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
An on‐site exterior noise impact analysis has been completed to determine the traffic noise exposure and to identify potentially necessary noise abatement measures for the Project. It is expected that the primary source of noise impacts on the Project site will be traffic noise from Tustin Street and SR‐55. The Project will also experience some background traffic noise impacts from other local roads; however, due to low traffic volume/speeds, traffic noise from these roads will not make a significant contribution to the noise environment.

7.1 ON-SITE EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model and the parameters outlined in Tables Ͳ‐ͭ through Ͳ‐ ͯ, the expected future exterior noise levels at the Project site were calculated. According to the City of Orange Noise Element and Municipal Code, noise‐sensitive exterior areas within the Project are limited to the common outdoor use areas for medium‐density residential land uses. As shown in Table ͳ‐ͭ, the unabated exterior noise levels are estimated to range from ͱͱ.ʹ to ͳͯ.͵ dBA CNEL throughout the Project site, including the private roof decks.

The common outdoor use areas (e.g., Recreation Area) will experience exterior noise levels up to ͱͱ.ʹ dBA CNEL and will not exceed the City of Orange Ͳͱ dBA CNEL exterior noise standards for medium‐ density residential land uses. All other common outdoor use areas are shielded by buildings on‐site and are expected to experience lower exterior noise levels. The future long‐range exterior traffic noise analysis calculations are included in Appendix ͳ.ͭ.

This noise analysis shows that the Project will satisfy the City of Orange Ͳͱ dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for common outdoor use areas, and no further abatement measures are needed.

TABLE 7-1: FUTURE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Building Roadway
Unabated Exterior Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)1
1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor Rooftop
Bldg. 1-2 Tustin St. 57.5 60.5 60.5 -
Bldg. 20, 50-51 SR-55 68.1 69.7 71.8 73.8
Bldg. 21 SR-55 67.4 68.9 70.7 -
Bldg. 46, 52-53 SR-55 69.1 71.3 73.9 72.0
Bldg. 54 SR-55 70.3 73.2 77.0 -
Bldg. 71 Tustin St. 55.8 58.7 58.7 -
Rec. Area Tustin St. 55.8 - - -
1 Outdoor environment is limited to the common outdoor use areas (Rec. Area)

7.2 ON-SITE INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
To verify that the interior noise levels will comply with the City of Orange Ͱͱ dBA CNEL interior noise standard, future exterior noise levels were calculated at the first‐, second‐, and third‐floor building 1805
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͰͰ North Tustin Street Project
façade locations. Based on the site plans provided, the Project will provide air conditioning, so a “windows closed” condition was assumed for the purposes of this analysis.

7.2.1 Noise Reduction Methodology
The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building façade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a noise reduction of approximately ͭͮ dBA with “windows open” and a minimum ͮͱ dBA noise reduction with “windows closed.” However, sound leaks, cracks, and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise. Several methods are used to improve interior noise reduction, including (ͭ) weather‐stripped solid core exterior doors; (ͮ) upgraded dual‐ glazed windows; (ͯ) mechanical ventilation/air conditioning; and (Ͱ) exterior wall/roof assemblies free of cutouts or openings.

7.2.2 Interior Noise Reduction Calculations
Noise reduction calculations are based on a sample of the interior rooms detailed in the architectural floor plans for the Project. The floor plans for the Project were used to estimate the "windows closed" interior noise levels. The calculations were completed using standard windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of ͮͳ and identify a noise reduction that ranges from ͯͬ.Ͱ to ͯͯ.ͬ dBA CNEL. In addition, due to exceedance of Ͱͱ dBA, the interior third‐floor of the proposed Building ͱͰ was evaluated with upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of ͯͭ. The floor plan for Building ͱͰ is based on Plan ͮ; therefore, only Plan ͮ was evaluated with upgraded windows. The calculations completed for Plan ͮ with upgraded windows will range from ͯͮ.ͬ to ͯͮ.ͳ.

The interior noise reduction calculations are included in Appendix ͳ.ͮ for each floor plan.

TABLE 7-2: NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS (CNEL)
Plan Sample
Rooms1
Calculated Floor Plan Noise
Reduction2
STC 27 STC 313
Plan 2
Den 31.5 32.1
Living 32.1 32.7
Bdrm. 1 31.3 32.0
Plan 3
Bdrm. 4 30.9 -
Kitchen 33.0 -
Bdrm. 3 31.9 -
Plan 4
Den 30.4 -
Kitchen 31.8 -
Bdrm. 2 31.0 -
Plan 5
Den 32.2 -
Living 31.3 -
Bdrm. 1 31.7 -
Minimum Noise
Reduction: 30.4 32.0
1806
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͱͱ North Tustin Street Project
1 Sample is based on the floor plans of lots adjacent to the roadways and interior habitable room(s) with a high number of exterior walls and openings (windows, doors, etc.). 2 Interior noise reduction calculations are included in Appendix 5.2. 3 Only Plan 2 was evaluated with upgraded windows as Building 54, which uses floorplan 2, is the only building with recommended upgraded windows.

7.2.3 Interior Noise Level Assessment
Table ͳ‐ͯ shows the estimated interior noise levels using windows with a minimum STC rating of ͮͳ.

Table ͳ‐ͯ shows that the future noise levels at the first‐floor building façade locations are expected to range from ͱͱ.ʹ to ͳͬ.ͯ dBA CNEL. The interior noise level analysis shows that the interior noise levels will range from ͮͱ.Ͱ to ͯ͵.͵ dBA CNEL with standard construction and windows in the closed position.

Table ͳ‐Ͱ shows the estimated interior noise levels using windows with a minimum STC rating of ͮͳ.

Table ͳ‐Ͱ shows that the future noise levels at the second‐floor building façade locations are expected to range from ͱʹ.ͳ to ͳͯ.ͮ dBA CNEL. The interior noise level analysis shows that the interior noise levels will range from ͮʹ.ͯ to Ͱͮ.ʹ dBA CNEL with standard construction and windows in the closed position.

Table ͳ‐ͱ shows that the future noise levels at the third‐floor building façade locations are expected to range from ͱʹ.ͳ to ͳͳ.ͬ dBA CNEL. The interior noise level analysis shows that the interior noise levels will range up to Ͱͱ.ͬ dBA CNEL for Building ͱͰ with upgraded construction using windows with a minimum STC rating of ͯͭ, and windows in the closed position. The interior noise level analysis shows that the interior noise levels for all other interior locations will range from ͮʹ.ͯ to Ͱͯ.ͱ dBA with standard construction and windows in the closed position. .
1807
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͰͲ North Tustin Street Project
TABLE 7-3: FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS
Building Roadway
Noise
Level
at Façade
Required
Interior Noise
Reduction1
Calculated
Noise
Reduction2
Upgraded Windows3
Recommended
STC
Interior
Noise
Level4
Threshold Threshold Exceeded?
Bldg. 1-2 Tustin St. 57.5 12.5 30.4 No 27 27.1 45 No
Bldg. 20, 50-51 SR-55 68.1 23.1 30.4 No 27 37.7 45 No
Bldg. 21 SR-55 67.4 22.4 30.4 No 27 37.0 45 No
Bldg. 46, 52-53 SR-55 69.1 24.1 30.4 No 27 38.7 45 No
Bldg. 54 SR-55 70.3 25.3 30.4 No 27 39.9 45 No Bldg. 71 Tustin St. 55.8 10.8 30.4 No 27 25.4 45 No 1 Noise level reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 2 Calculated exterior to interior noise level reduction as shown in Table 5-2 and “windows closed”. 3 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 4 Estimated interior noise level with standard building construction with a windows closed condition and an STC rating of 27 for all windows.

TABLE 7-4: SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS
Lot Roadway
Noise
Level
at Façade
Required
Interior Noise
Reduction1
Calculated
Noise
Reduction2
Upgraded Windows3
Recommended
STC
Interior
Noise
Level4
Threshold Threshold Exceeded?
Bldg. 1-2 Tustin St. 60.5 15.5 30.4 No 27 30.1 45 No
Bldg. 20, 50-51 SR-55 69.7 24.7 30.4 No 27 39.3 45 No
Bldg. 21 SR-55 68.9 23.9 30.4 No 27 38.5 45 No
Bldg. 46, 52-53 SR-55 71.3 26.3 30.4 No 27 40.9 45 No
Bldg. 54 SR-55 73.2 28.2 30.4 No 27 42.8 45 No Bldg. 71 Tustin St. 58.7 13.7 30.4 No 27 28.3 45 No 1 Noise level reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 2 Calculated exterior to interior noise level reduction as shown in Table 5-2 and “windows closed”. 3 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 4 Estimated interior noise level with standard building construction with a windows closed condition and an STC rating of 27 for all windows. 1808
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͱͳ North Tustin Street Project
TABLE 7-5: THIRD FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS
Lot Roadway
Noise
Level
at Façade
Required
Interior Noise
Reduction1
Calculated
Noise
Reduction2
Upgraded Windows3
Recommended
STC
Interior
Noise
Level4
Threshold Threshold Exceeded?
Bldg. 1-2 Tustin St. 60.5 15.5 30.4 No 27 30.1 45 No
Bldg. 20, 50-51 SR-55 71.8 26.8 30.4 No 27 41.4 45 No
Bldg. 21 SR-55 70.7 25.7 30.4 No 27 40.3 45 No
Bldg. 46, 52-53 SR-55 73.9 28.9 30.4 No 27 43.5 45 No
Bldg. 54 SR-55 77.0 32.0 32.0 Yes 31 45.0 45 No Bldg. 71 Tustin St. 58.7 13.7 30.4 No 27 28.3 45 No 1 Noise level reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 2 Calculated exterior to interior noise level reduction as shown in Table 5-2 and “windows closed”. 3 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 4 Estimated interior noise level with standard building construction with a windows closed condition and an STC rating of 27 for all windows. 1809
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͱʹ North Tustin Street Project
The interior noise level assessment demonstrates that with upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of ͯͭ for third‐floor building façade locations of Building ͱͰ and windows in the closed position, the City of Orange Ͱͱ dBA CNEL interior noise standard can be satisfied. For all other building façade locations, standard construction using windows with a minimum STC rating of ͮͳ can satisfy the City of Orange Ͱͱ dBA CNEL interior noise standard 1810
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͱ͵ North Tustin Street Project
8 OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS
The Project is anticipated to generate a maximum of ͱͭͭ trips per day. The existing volumes on North Tustin Street are ͯͯ,Ͳͬͬ trips per day. (ͮʹ) This represents a ͭ.ͱ percent increase in existing traffic volumes and a ͬ.ͭ dBA CNEL noise level increase at sensitive receivers along North Tustin Street. Therefore, it is not expected to generate a perceptible noise level increase (i.e., less than ͯ dBA CNEL) at sensitive land uses adjacent to study area roadways. Due to low traffic volumes caused by the Project, the off‐site traffic noise levels generated by the Project are considered less than significant.
1811
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱͬ North Tustin Street Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
1812
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱͭ North Tustin Street Project
9 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long‐term operational and short‐term construction noise impacts, the following receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit ͵‐ͭ, were identified as representative locations for analysis. 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 ͱ.ͮ.

Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise‐sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single‐family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noise‐sensitive land uses typically include multi‐family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, out‐patient 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. 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.

Rͭ: Location Rͭ represents the existing residence at ͭʹͬͬ E Heim Avenue, approximately ͱͮ feet north of the Project site. Receiver Rͭ is placed at the building façade facing the Project site. A ͮͰ‐hour noise measurement was taken near this location, Lͭ, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

Rͮ: Location Rͮ represents the existing residence at ͮͬͮͱ East Denise Avenue, approximately ͮͯͲ feet east of the Project site. Receiver Rͯ is placed in the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site.

A ͮͰ‐hour noise measurement was taken near this location, Lͮ, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

Rͯ: Location RͰ represents the existing residence at ͭ͵ͯͭ East Meats Avenue, approximately ͱ feet south of the Project site. Receiver Rͯ is placed at the building façade facing the Project site. A ͮͰ‐hour noise measurement was taken near this location, Lͯ, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

RͰ: Location RͰ represents the existing residence at ͮͮ͵ͱ North Tustin Street, approximately ͱͲ feet south of the Project site. Receiver RͰ is placed at the building façade facing the Project site. A ͮͰ‐hour noise measurement was taken near this location, LͰ, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. 1813
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱͮ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 9-1: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
1814
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱͯ North Tustin Street Project
10 OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS
The Project is considered a noise‐sensitive receiving land use and is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise levels beyond those typically associated with residential land uses in the Project study area. Section ͮͭͬʹͱ of the California Public Resources Code states in part, “…for residential projects, the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment.” (ͮ͵) A review of the legislative record indicates the author’s intent for Section ͮͭͬʹͱ was to “remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish the existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. Consequently, activities solely associated with occupants and quests, such as the swimming pool/spa activities, dog park activities, and outdoor activities in common spaces, are not considered part of this operational noise analysis for CEQA.” Based on the intent of the author of Section ͮͭͬʹͱ, the operational noise sources are limited to the mechanical and non‐verbal noise sources that occur onsite.

Therefore, this section analyzes the potential operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations, identified in Section ͵, resulting from the operation of air conditioning units, and parking lot vehicle movements. Exhibit ͭͬ‐ͭ identifies the noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels.

10.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with typical daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. To present the potential worst‐case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the Project would be operational ͮͰ hours per day, seven days per week. Consistent with similar residential uses, the on‐site Project‐related noise sources are expected to include: air conditioning units, and parking lot vehicle movements.

10.2 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 in Table ͭͬ‐ͭ used to estimate the Project's operational noise impacts. 1815
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱͰ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 10-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
1816
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱͱ North Tustin Street Project
TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Reference
Noise Source
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./
Hour1
Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA) Day Night 2
Air Conditioning Units 5' 45 30 44.4 76.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 5' 60 30 31.4 63.0
1 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. 2 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.

10.2.1 Air Conditioning Units
To assess the noise levels created by the air conditioning units, reference noise levels were taken from equipment specifications for a ͭ.ͱ‐to ͱ‐ton residential packaged air conditioning unit (Carrier ͮͰSCAͰ). The manufacturer’s specifications are included in Appendix ͭͬ.ͭ. At a uniform reference distance of ͱͬ feet, the units would generate a reference noise level of ͰͰ.Ͱ dBA Leq. The air conditioning units were modeled ͯ feet above the ground level and ͱ feet above the roof top, operating Ͱͱ minutes per hour during the daytime and ͯͬ minutes at nighttime, which represents the typical maximum operating time for properly sized AC systems.

10.2.2 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements
Parking activities are based on the area of the parking spaces. The Project includes approximately ͮͯ new spaces, which are assumed to have up to ͮ movements per hour for a total of ͰͲ events in an hour. Based on studies conducted in Europe and Australia, the average parking procedure, which included movement associated with either entering or exiting the parking area, parking the vehicles, and opening and closing doors, resulted in a sound power level of approximately Ͳͯ dBA Lw/square meter per event (ͮ͵) (ͯͬ).

10.3 CADNAANOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels. Using the ISO ͵Ͳͭͯ‐ͮ 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 with the ISO ͵Ͳͭͯ‐ͮ 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 1817
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱͲ North Tustin Street Project
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 ͬ.ͱ was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces. Appendix ͭͬ.ͭ includes the detailed noise dBA Leq model inputs used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section.

10.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the Project operations that include air conditioning units, and parking lot vehicle 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 ͭͬ‐ͮ shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of ͳ:ͬͬ a.m. to ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off‐site receiver locations are expected to range from ͯͯ.Ͳ to Ͱͳ.Ͳ dBA Leq.

TABLE 10-2:DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by
Receiver Location (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4
Air Conditioning Units 41.2 47.6 43.3 33.4
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 7.7 15.7 25.9 20.6
Total (All Noise Sources) 41.2 47.6 43.4 33.6
1 See Exhibit 10-1 for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.2.

Table ͭͬ‐ͯ shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of ͭͬ:ͬͬ p.m. to ͳ:ͬͬ a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the existing off‐site receiver locations are expected to range from ͯͬ.͵ to ͰͰ.͵ 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 ͭͬ‐ͭ. Appendix ͭͬ.ͭ includes the detailed noise model inputs.

TABLE 10-3:NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by
Receiver Location (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4
Air Conditioning Units 38.5 44.9 40.6 30.7
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 3.8 11.7 21.9 16.6
Total (All Noise Sources) 38.5 44.9 40.7 30.9
1818
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱͳ North Tustin Street Project
1 See Exhibit 10-1 for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.2.

10.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the unmitigated Project‐only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Orange exterior noise level standards at nearby receiver locations. Table ͭͬ‐Ͱ shows that the operational noise levels associated with the Project will not exceed the City of Orange daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards at the existing nearby noise‐sensitive receiver locations.

TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 41.2 38.5 55.0 45.0 No No
R2 47.6 44.9 55.0 45.0 No No
R3 43.4 40.7 55.0 45.0 No No
R4 33.6 30.9 55.0 45.0 No No
1 See Exhibit 9-1 for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project unmitigated operational noise levels as shown in Tables 10-2 and 10-3. 3 Exterior noise level standards, as shown in Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

10.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations that may be 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. (ͯ) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = ͭͬlogͭͬ[ͭͬSPLͭ/ͭͬ + ͭͬSPLͮ/ͭͬ + … ͭͬSPLn/ͭͬ] where “SPLͭ,” “SPLͮ,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project‐operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project‐ source noise is added to the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions are presented in Tables ͭͬ‐ͱ and ͭͬ‐Ͳ, respectively. As indicated in Table ͭͬ‐ͱ, the Project will generate daytime operational noise increases ranging from less than ͬ.ͭ to ͬ.ͮ dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Table ͭͬ‐ Ͳ shows that the Project will generate nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from less than ͬ.ͭ to ͬ.ͭ dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project‐related operational noise level 1819
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱʹ North Tustin Street Project
increases would not exceed the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table Ͱ‐ͭ. Therefore, Project‐related operational noise level increases at the sensitive receiver locations will be less than significant.

TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 41.2 L1 58.2 58.3 0.1 5.0 No
R2 47.6 L2 63.4 63.5 0.1 5.0 No
R3 43.4 L3 57.5 57.7 0.2 5.0 No
R4 33.6 L4 55.3 55.3 0.0 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 9-1 for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-1. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown in Table 4-1.

TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 38.5 L1 56.3 56.4 0.1 5.0 No
R2 44.9 L2 65.3 65.3 0.0 1.5 No
R3 40.7 L3 58.6 58.7 0.1 5.0 No
R4 30.9 L4 57.1 57.1 0.0 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 9-1 for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-1. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown in Table 4-1. 1820
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͱ͵ North Tustin Street Project
11 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short‐term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit ͭͭ‐ͭ shows the on‐site construction noise source activity, including the off‐site roadway and utility improvements in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section ʹ. As part of the construction noise analysis, the preexisting Ͳ‐ to ʹ‐foot‐high barrier along the southern site boundary was modeled.

The City of Orange has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project. Section ʹ.ͮͰ.ͱͬ 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 ͳ:ͬͬ a.m. and ʹ:ͬͬ p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of ͵:ͬͬ a.m. and ʹ:ͬͬ p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. (ͭͳ)

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

11.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (ͯͭ) The RCNM equipment database provides a comprehensive list of the noise‐generating characteristics of 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. According to the EPA, FTA, and FHWA, the overall construction noise level is governed primarily by the noisiest pieces of equipment. The quieter pieces do not affect the overall level, but they do reduce the magnitude of the fluctuations in the noise level.

Therefore, a rough estimate of the noise level need only include the noisiest pieces of equipment expected at the site. (ͯͮ) (͵) (ͯͯ) Consistent with FHWA and FTA guidance for detailed construction 1821
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͳͬ North Tustin Street Project
noise assessment, Table ͭͭ‐ͭ presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction activities expected for each stage, assuming all equipment operates simultaneously.

EXHIBIT 11-1: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
1822
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͳͭ North Tustin Street Project
TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Equipment1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Composite
Reference Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Reference
Power Level
(dBA Lw)
3 Demolition
Concrete Saw 83
Excavator 77 86.1 117.7
Jack Hammer 82
Site
Preparation
Tractor 80
Front End Loader 75 82.9 114.5
Dozer 78
Grading
Tractor 80
Grader 81 84.2 115.9
Compactor (ground) 76
Building
Construction
Crane 73
Generator 78 82.1 113.7
Gradall 79
Paving
Paver 74
Dump Truck 72 77.8 109.5
Roller 73
Architectural
Coating
Man Lift 68
Compressor (air) 74 76.2 107.8
Generator (<25kVA) 70 1
FHWA Road Construction Noise Model.
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.

11.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Construction projects involve various stages, and activities frequently shift from one location to another. For example, during site preparation and grading, noise‐generating activities may concentrate in an area for a short period to remove an obstruction, while the majority of the grading involves the equipment moving back and forth in a predictable pattern throughout the site; building construction and foundation work generally concentrate near the building footprint, while paving generally involves a predictable pattern of movement throughout the site. Therefore, construction activities are best evaluated as multiple moving point sources within the construction area since the speed and power of the equipment vary and the equipment constantly changes position in terms of distance and direction relative to the receivers. (͵) (ͯͰ) Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts by phase at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To account for the dynamic nature of construction activities, the CadnaA construction noise analysis evaluates the noise source activities as multiple moving point sources, or construction crews, within the limits of construction. Construction impacts are based on the loudest activity and the highest noise level 1823
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͳͮ North Tustin Street Project
calculated at each receiver location. As shown in Table ͭͭ‐ͮ, the construction noise levels are expected to range from Ͳͳ.ͱ to ͳͱ.ͮ dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Appendix ͭͭ.ͭ includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest
Levels2
R1 75.2 72.0 73.3 71.2 66.9 65.3 75.2
R2 67.5 64.3 65.6 63.5 59.2 57.6 67.5
R3 71.9 68.7 70.0 67.9 63.6 62.0 71.9
R4 71.3 68.1 69.4 67.3 63.0 61.4 71.3 1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-1. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 11.1.

11.4 PROJECT SITE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short‐term noise levels at the nearest receiver locations, a construction‐related daytime noise level threshold of ʹͬ 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 ʹͬ dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities, as shown in Table ͭͭ‐ͯ. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 75.2 80 No
R2 67.5 80 No
R3 71.9 80 No
R4 71.3 80 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-1. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown in Table 11-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown in Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?

11.5 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the temporary Project construction noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements at the nearest off‐site receiver locations. The difference between the 1824
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͳͯ North Tustin Street Project
combined Project‐construction and ambient noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level contributions. Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when the Project construction‐source noise is added to the ambient daytime conditions are presented in Table ͭͭ‐Ͱ. A temporary noise level increase of ͮͬ dBA is considered a potentially significant impact based on the Caltrans substantial noise level increase criteria, which is used to assess the Project‐construction noise level increases. (ͯͱ) As indicated in Table ͭͭ‐Ͱ, the Project will contribute to construction noise increases ranging from ͱ.ͱ to ͭͳ.ͭ dBA Leq during the daytime hours at the nearest receiver locations. The unmitigated construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will not exceed the ͮͬ dBA Leq substantial noise level increase significance threshold during Project construction activities. The temporary construction noise level increase analysis shows that the noise impacts due to the Project construction noise are considered less than significant.

TABLE 11-4: DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Receiver
Location1
Typical
Project
Construction
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 75.2 L1 58.2 75.3 17.1 20 No
R2 67.5 L2 63.4 68.9 5.5 20 No
R3 71.9 L3 57.5 72.1 14.6 20 No
R4 71.3 L4 55.3 71.4 16.1 20 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-1. 2 Typical Project daytime construction noise levels as shown in Table 11-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-1. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project construction activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project construction activities. 7 Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

11.6 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. The operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table ͭͬ‐Ͳ. 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 Caltrans. To describe the vibration impacts, Caltrans provides the following equation: PPV (in/sec)equip = PPV (in/sec)ref x (ͮͱ/D)ͭ.ͭ 1825
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͲͰ North Tustin Street Project
TABLE 11-5: 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
Hoe Ram 0.089
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided in Table ͭͭ‐ͱ and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA and Caltrans, it is possible to estimate the Project vibration impacts. Table ͭͭ‐Ͳ presents the expected Project‐related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from ͱ to ͮͯͲ feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from ͬ.ͬͭ to ͮ.ͯͱ PPV (in/sec). Based on the maximum acceptable vibration threshold of ͬ.ͯͬ PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will exceed the vibration thresholds at sensitive uses represented by receiver Rͯ. Therefore, the Project‐related vibration impacts are considered significant during typical construction activities at the Project site and will require mitigation.

It should be noted that vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period, but will occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Moreover, construction at the Project site will be restricted to the daytime hours, consistent with City of Orange requirements, eliminating potential vibration impacts during the sensitive evening and nighttime hours.

TABLE 11-6: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS –UNMITIGATED Location1
Distance
to Const.

11.7 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS MITIGATION
A ͮͬ‐foot equipment buffer zone is required to restrict the use of heavy construction equipment (greater than ʹͬ,ͬͬͬ pounds), vibratory rollers, large loaded trucks, and large bulldozers within ͮͬ feet of sensitive receivers. With the mitigation measure identified in this analysis and shown in Exhibit ES‐ͭ, and as demonstrated in Table ͭͭ‐ͳ, the mitigated vibration levels with the ͮͬ‐foot equipment buffer zone will be reduced to ͬ.ͮ͵ PPV (in/sec) and will satisfy the ͬ.ͯͬ PPV (in/sec) threshold. Therefore, with the construction vibration mitigation measure identified in this study, vibration impacts will be less than significant.

NOI‐ͭ Vibratory rollers, large loaded trucks, and dozers (equipment weighing ʹͬ,ͬͬͬ pounds or more) shall not be allowed within ͮͬ feet of any off‐site receiver location at the time of Project construction. Instead, smaller, rubber‐tired bulldozers (less than ʹͬ,ͬͬͬ pounds) shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration levels.

TABLE 11-7: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS –MITIGATED Location1
Distance
to Const.

11.8 CONCRETE CRUSHING NOISE AND VIBRATION
Concrete crushing would be used during demolition to breakdown building material. There are various phases in concrete crushing, also known as stations. These various stages exist because passing material through one stage alone may not be enough to crush the rock down to a desired shape and size.

It is common to use multiple crusher types within a project and set them up as stations in a circuit format to perform the necessary material reduction work. In many cases, primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary stations are installed to reduce the rock to the desired size, shape, and 1827
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͲͲ North Tustin Street Project
consistency. Unlike typical construction activity, the concrete crushing activity is assessed using the stationary source construction noise level limit.

11.8.1 Concrete Crushing Construction Reference Noise Levels This analysis was completed to assess potential noise level impacts due to concrete crushing activities. Exhibit ͭͭ‐ͮ shows the anticipated location of the crushing activity area in relation to the nearest receiver locations. Table ͭͭ‐ʹ provides a summary of the reference average Leq noise levels used to describe concrete crushing construction activities. The reference noise level summary describes construction activity noise levels with multiple pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously, and includes source noise levels for a hoe‐ram or pavement breaker, which is a percussion hammer fitted to an excavator for breaking rock, and a concrete crushing activity including an impact hammer (hoe ram), front‐end loader, and dump truck. (ͯͲ).

TABLE 11-8: CONCRETE CRUSHING CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Concrete
Crushing
Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 83
Front End Loader 75 84
Dump Truck 72 1
FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model
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 for general construction noise assessment.

11.8.2 Concrete Crushing Construction Noise Analysis and Compliance Using the reference crushing construction equipment noise levels, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess the worst‐case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when multiple pieces of equipment with the highest reference noise level are operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (as shown on Exhibit ͭͭ‐ͮ) to each receiver location.

The concrete crushing construction noise levels are estimated to range from Ͳͯ.ͬ to ͳͯ.ͮ dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. The Concrete crushing construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime ʹͬ dBA Leq significance threshold.

Therefore, the noise impacts due to the Project Concrete crushing noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
1828
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͳͳ North Tustin Street Project
EXHIBIT 11-2: CONCRETE CRUSHING ACTIVITIES AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS 1829
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͳʹ North Tustin Street Project

11.8.3 Concrete Crushing Construction Vibration Analysis and Compliance Using the vibration source level of the construction equipment list provided in Table ͭͭ‐ͱ, which includes source levels for a hoe ram or breaker representing a percussion hammer fitted to an excavator for breaking rock. Table ͭͭ‐͵ presents the expected concrete crushing construction equipment vibration levels when the equipment with the highest reference vibration activity is operating at the closest point from the edge of the concrete crushing activity to each receiver location.

At distances ranging from ͭʹͳ to ͱͲͯ feet from the concrete crushing activities, as shown on Exhibit ͭͭ‐ͮ, construction vibration levels are estimated to be less than ͬ.ͬͭ PPV (in/sec) and will remain below the City of Orange ͬ.ͯͬ PPV (in/sec) threshold for vibration at all receiver locations. Therefore, the Project‐related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during the Project concrete crushing construction activities at the Project site.

TABLE 11-9: CONCRETE CRUSHING EQUIPMENT 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
Hoe
Ram
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 187' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 No
R2 563' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 No
R3 292' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 No
R4 174' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 No 1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-1. 2 Distance from receiver building facade to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 11-5). 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
1830
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA Ͳ͵ North Tustin Street Project
11 REFERENCES
ͭ. Association of Environmental Professionals. California Environmental Quality Act Statute & Guidelines. ͮͬͮͯ.
ͮ. Harris, Cyril M. Noise Control in Buildings. s.l. : McGraw‐Hill, Inc., ͭ͵͵Ͱ. ͯ. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement ‐ A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September ͮͬͭͯ.

Ͱ. 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 ͭ͵ͳͰ. EPA/ONAC ͱͱͬ/͵/ͳͰ‐ͬͬͰ.
ͱ. 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 ͮͬͭͭ.

Ͳ. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. ͮͬͬͭ.
ͳ. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April ͮͬͬͬ. p. ͯ.
ʹ. 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 ͭ͵ͳ͵ (revised July ͭ͵ʹͭ). EPA ͱͱͬ/͵/ʹͮ/ͭͬͲ.
͵. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. ͬͭͮͯ. September ͮͬͭʹ. ͭͬ. Dowding, C. H. Construction Vibrations. s.l. : Prentice Hall, ͭ͵͵Ͳ. ͭͭ. DIN Ͱͭͱͬ‐ͯ. Structural Vibration ‐ Effects of Vibration on Structures. s.l. : German Institute for Standardization., ͭ͵͵͵.
ͭͮ. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

April ͮͬͮͬ.
ͭͯ. Amick, H., & Randall, M. Environmental Vibration—A Review of ISO and ANSI Standards and Their Application in Critical Environments. s.l. : Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. ͱ͵ͯͯ, ͮͬͬͱ. ͭͰ. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October ͮͬͭͳ. ͭͱ. State of California. California Code of Regulations, Title ͮͰ, Part ͮ, Volume ͭ, Chapter ͭͮ, Section ͭͮͬͲ.Ͱ, Allowable Interior Noise Level. ICC Digital Coes. [Online] ͮͬͮͮ. [Cited: January ͮͯ, ͮͬͮͯ.] https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CABCͮͬͮͮPͭ/chapter‐ͭͮ‐interior‐ environment#CABCͮͬͮͮPͭ_Chͭͮ_SecͭͮͬͲ.
ͭͲ. City of Orange. General Plan Noise Element. March ͮͬͭͬ. ͭͳ. —. City of Orange Municipal Code, Section ʹ.ͮͰ.ͬͰͬ. ͭʹ. Caltrans. Standard Specifications in Section ͭͰ‐ʹ.ͬͮ Noise Control. ͭ͵. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport. ͮͬͭ͵.
ͮͬ. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, FͬͱͯͲͲͭ. ͭͲͳ Cal.App.Ͱth ͭͬ͵͵; ‐ Cal.Rptr.ͯd, October ͮͬͬʹ.
ͮͭ. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues.

August ͭ͵͵ͮ.
1831
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͳͬ North Tustin Street Project
ͮͮ. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November ͮͬͬ͵. ͮͯ. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI Sͭ.Ͱ‐ͮͬͭͰ/IEC ͲͭͲͳͮ‐ͭ:ͮͬͭͯ.
ͮͰ. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December ͭ͵ͳʹ. FHWA‐RD‐ͳͳ‐ͭͬʹ.
ͮͱ. 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 ͭ͵͵ͱ. TAN ͵ͱ‐ͬͯ. ͮͲ. City of Orange. City of Orange, General Plan, Circulation and Mobility Element. ͮͳ. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June ͭ͵͵ͱ. FHWA/CA/TL‐͵ͱ/ͮͯ.
ͮʹ. City of Orange. Program Environmental Impact Report, Orange General Plan, Appendix E, Table ͯ‐ͯ. ͮͬͭͬ. ͮ͵. Bayerisches Landesamt fur Umwelt. Parking Area Noise, Ͳ. Revised Edition. ͮͬͬͳ. ISBN ͯ‐͵ͯͲͯʹͱ‐ͮͲ‐ͮ, ISSN ͬͳͮͯ‐ͬͬͮʹ.
ͯͬ. Prediction of parking area noise in Australian conditions. Johnson, Laurence Nicol and Paul. Paper Number ͯ͵, s.l. : Gold Coast, Australia, ͮ‐Ͱ November ͮͬͭͭ, Vol. Proceedings of ACOUSTICS ͮͬͭͭ. ͯͭ. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, ͮͬͬͲ. ͯͮ. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. ͭ͵ͳͭ. NTIDͯͬͬ.ͭ.
ͯͯ. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Special Report ‐ Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation. Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty ‐ Environment ‐ Noise. [Online] ͮͬͭͳ. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcnͬͬ.cfm. ͯͰ. —. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Final Report August ͮͬͬͲ. ͯͱ. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. May ͮͬͭͭ. ͯͲ. Ldn Consulting. University District Rock Crusher Conditional Use Permit, San Marcos. San Marcos : Ldn Consulting, ͮͬͭͭ.
ͯͳ. County of Riverside. General Plan Noise Element. December ͮͬͭͱ. ͯʹ. State of California. ͮͬͮͮ California Green Building Standards Code. [Online] ͮͬͮͭ. [Cited: January ͮͯ, ͮͬͮͯ.] https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBCͮͬͮͮPͭ/chapter‐ͱ‐nonresidential‐mandatory‐ measures#CAGBCͮͬͮͮPͭ_Chͬͱ_SubChͱ.ͱ.
ͯ͵. EPD Solutions Inc. Level of Service (LOS) Screening Analysis ‐ North TUstin Street Residential Project ‐ EPD #ͮͱ‐ͬͯͮ.
1832
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͱ NA ͳͭ North Tustin Street Project
12 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the North Tustin Street Project 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 (Ͳͭ͵) ͳʹʹ‐ͭ͵ͳͭ.

William Maddux, INCE
Senior Associate
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
(Ͳͭ͵) ͳʹʹ‐ͭ͵ͳͭ
[email protected]

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

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

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Approved Acoustical Consultant • County of San Diego
FHWA Traffic Noise Model of Training • November ͮͬͬͰ
CadnaA Basic and Advanced Training Certificate • October ͮͬͬʹ 1833
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE
72 1834
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
73 1835
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.
74 1836
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.
75 1837
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;
76 1838
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)
77 1839

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)
78 1840
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
79 1841
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS
80 1842
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
81 1843
16438 - Best Buy Orange
16438_L1_B_East
33, 49' 42.160000",117, 50' 4.020000"
16438_L1_B_North
33, 49' 42.180000",117, 50' 4.020000"
16438_L1_B_South
33, 49' 42.160000",117, 50' 4.050000"
16438_L1_B_West
33, 49' 42.140000",117, 50' 4.050000"
82 1844
16438 - Best Buy Orange
16438_L2_V_East
33, 49' 42.290000",117, 50' 0.860000"
16438_L2_V_North
33, 49' 42.310000",117, 50' 0.810000"
16438_L2_V_South
33, 49' 42.290000",117, 50' 0.780000"
16438_L2_V_West
33, 49' 42.270000",117, 50' 0.810000"
83 1845
16438 - Best Buy Orange
16438_L3_C_East
33, 49' 39.180000",117, 50' 2.210000"
16438_L3_C_North
33, 49' 39.010000",117, 50' 2.150000"
16438_L3_C_South
33, 49' 39.220000",117, 50' 2.180000"
16438_L3_C_West
33, 49' 39.230000",117, 50' 2.210000"
84 1846
16438 - Best Buy Orange
16438_L4_D_East
33, 49' 39.160000",117, 50' 5.610000"
16438_L4_D_North
33, 49' 39.310000",117, 50' 5.750000"
16438_L4_D_South
33, 49' 39.190000",117, 50' 5.640000"
16438_L4_D_West
33, 49' 39.160000",117, 50' 5.640000"
85 1847
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
86 1848
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
87 1849
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
88 1850
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 16438
Project: Best Buy Orange Source: Analyst: N. Johnson
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 53.7 57.4 50.8 57.2 56.9 56.2 55.7 54.3 53.4 51.7 51.3 50.9 53.7 10.0 63.71 52.0 56.5 48.6 56.2 56.0 55.1 54.5 52.7 51.4 49.5 49.1 48.7 52.0 10.0 62.02 52.5 56.2 49.6 56.0 55.7 55.0 54.5 53.2 52.1 50.4 50.1 49.7 52.5 10.0 62.53 53.7 56.8 51.2 56.6 56.3 55.7 55.4 54.3 53.4 51.9 51.5 51.2 53.7 10.0 63.74 57.2 59.5 55.2 59.3 59.1 58.8 58.5 57.8 57.1 55.8 55.6 55.3 57.2 10.0 67.25 59.2 61.2 57.7 61.0 60.8 60.3 60.1 59.5 59.0 58.2 58.0 57.8 59.2 10.0 69.26 59.6 62.2 58.3 61.9 61.6 60.9 60.6 60.0 59.5 58.7 58.6 58.4 59.6 10.0 69.67 59.5 64.7 57.6 64.4 64.0 62.4 61.1 59.4 58.9 58.1 57.9 57.7 59.5 0.0 59.58 58.6 61.1 57.2 60.9 60.6 60.0 59.7 58.9 58.4 57.7 57.5 57.3 58.6 0.0 58.69 56.9 62.4 54.3 61.9 61.4 60.2 59.4 57.1 56.0 55.0 54.7 54.4 56.9 0.0 56.9 10 66.2 70.9 56.8 70.6 70.4 69.7 69.2 67.5 65.3 62.0 59.1 57.1 66.2 0.0 66.211 57.1 62.6 53.4 62.0 61.6 60.7 60.1 57.9 55.9 54.3 53.9 53.6 57.1 0.0 57.112 54.8 59.5 52.4 58.6 58.1 57.2 56.7 55.3 54.2 53.1 52.8 52.5 54.8 0.0 54.813 56.3 62.2 52.6 61.6 61.1 59.6 58.9 56.9 55.3 53.5 53.2 52.8 56.3 0.0 56.314 53.9 59.9 50.8 59.4 58.9 57.6 56.4 54.2 52.9 51.6 51.3 50.9 53.9 0.0 53.915 55.1 60.8 51.6 60.2 59.7 58.7 57.9 55.6 54.0 52.5 52.1 51.7 55.1 0.0 55.116 55.4 60.5 52.6 60.1 59.6 58.6 57.7 55.9 54.5 53.3 53.0 52.7 55.4 0.0 55.417 54.3 57.9 52.3 57.6 57.2 56.3 55.8 54.6 53.9 52.9 52.7 52.4 54.3 0.0 54.318 54.6 58.5 52.4 58.2 57.8 56.9 56.3 55.1 54.3 53.1 52.8 52.5 54.6 0.0 54.619 54.4 58.7 51.4 58.4 58.1 57.3 56.7 55.4 53.3 52.1 51.8 51.5 54.4 5.0 59.420 54.4 60.2 51.8 59.7 59.2 57.4 56.2 54.6 53.8 52.5 52.2 51.9 54.4 5.0 59.421 55.8 60.7 53.2 60.4 60.0 58.7 57.8 56.3 55.2 53.9 53.6 53.3 55.8 5.0 60.822 56.7 60.3 54.5 60.0 59.6 59.0 58.5 57.2 56.2 55.1 54.9 54.6 56.7 10.0 66.723 54.8 58.8 52.4 58.5 58.2 57.2 56.6 55.2 54.3 53.0 52.8 52.5 54.8 10.0 64.8 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 53.9 57.9 50.8 57.6 57.2 56.3 55.8 54.2 52.9 51.6 51.3 50.9 Max 66.2 70.9 57.6 70.6 70.4 69.7 69.2 67.5 65.3 62.0 59.1 57.7

58.2 60.9 60.5 59.4 58.7 57.0 55.7 54.4 53.9 53.5
Min 52.0 56.2 48.6 56.0 55.7 55.0 54.5 52.7 51.4 49.5 49.1 48.7 Max 59.6 62.2 58.3 61.9 61.6 60.9 60.6 60.0 59.5 58.7 58.6 58.4

56.3 58.5 58.3 57.6 57.2 56.0 55.2 53.8 53.5 53.2
24‐Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 L1 ‐ Located at the site's northern boundary near the residence at 1800 E Heim Ave.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24‐Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

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

63.2 58.2 56.3

53.7 52.0

52.5 53.7

57.2 59.2

59.6 59.5

58.6 56.9

66.2 57.1

54.8 56.3

53.9 55.1

55.4 54.3

54.6 54.4

54.4 55.8

56.7 54.8

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 HourlyLeq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_16100‐16500\_16400\16438\04_Noise\fieldwork\measurements\16438_L1_B 89 1851
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 16438
Project: Best Buy Orange Source: Analyst: N. Johnson
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 62.8 65.9 59.9 65.7 65.5 65.2 64.8 63.5 62.5 60.8 60.4 60.0 62.8 10.0 72.81 60.6 64.1 56.7 63.9 63.7 63.2 62.8 61.5 60.2 57.9 57.4 56.8 60.6 10.0 70.62 61.2 64.4 57.3 64.3 64.1 63.7 63.4 62.1 60.9 58.4 57.8 57.4 61.2 10.0 71.23 62.8 65.6 59.7 65.4 65.3 64.9 64.6 63.5 62.5 60.7 60.3 59.8 62.8 10.0 72.84 66.8 69.1 64.4 68.9 68.8 68.5 68.3 67.4 66.7 65.2 64.9 64.6 66.8 10.0 76.85 68.1 69.7 66.7 69.6 69.5 69.3 69.1 68.6 68.0 67.2 67.0 66.8 68.1 10.0 78.16 68.2 70.0 66.8 69.8 69.7 69.5 69.3 68.6 68.1 67.3 67.1 66.8 68.2 10.0 78.27 68.2 70.2 66.8 70.0 69.9 69.5 69.2 68.5 68.1 67.3 67.1 66.9 68.2 0.0 68.28 67.9 70.0 66.5 69.9 69.7 69.3 69.0 68.2 67.7 67.0 66.8 66.6 67.9 0.0 67.99 64.6 66.4 63.1 66.3 66.2 65.9 65.7 65.0 64.5 63.6 63.4 63.2 64.6 0.0 64.6 10 63.1 65.5 61.5 65.3 65.2 64.7 64.3 63.5 63.0 62.0 61.8 61.6 63.1 0.0 63.111 61.1 63.8 59.1 63.6 63.5 63.1 62.7 61.7 60.8 59.8 59.5 59.2 61.1 0.0 61.112 60.7 63.4 58.9 63.2 63.0 62.5 62.2 61.2 60.5 59.5 59.2 58.9 60.7 0.0 60.713 60.9 63.9 58.9 63.6 63.4 62.7 62.3 61.4 60.7 59.5 59.3 59.0 60.9 0.0 60.914 59.1 63.0 57.1 62.7 62.3 61.3 60.7 59.5 58.8 57.7 57.4 57.1 59.1 0.0 59.115 58.8 62.5 56.7 62.1 61.8 60.7 60.3 59.3 58.4 57.3 57.0 56.8 58.8 0.0 58.816 58.9 62.6 56.9 62.3 61.9 61.1 60.4 59.4 58.6 57.5 57.3 57.0 58.9 0.0 58.917 59.0 61.3 57.2 61.1 60.9 60.4 60.1 59.4 58.9 57.9 57.6 57.3 59.0 0.0 59.018 61.6 63.6 59.9 63.4 63.3 62.9 62.7 62.0 61.4 60.4 60.2 60.0 61.6 0.0 61.619 61.6 64.7 59.5 64.5 64.2 63.7 63.2 62.3 61.3 60.1 59.9 59.6 61.6 5.0 66.620 62.6 65.8 60.6 65.5 65.3 64.7 64.2 63.0 62.3 61.2 60.9 60.7 62.6 5.0 67.621 65.4 68.3 63.2 68.1 67.9 67.4 67.1 65.8 65.2 63.9 63.6 63.3 65.4 5.0 70.422 66.0 68.5 63.9 68.2 68.0 67.7 67.4 66.5 65.8 64.6 64.3 64.0 66.0 10.0 76.023 64.1 68.0 61.1 67.8 67.6 67.0 66.4 64.6 63.6 61.9 61.5 61.2 64.1 10.0 74.1 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 58.8 61.3 56.7 61.1 60.9 60.4 60.1 59.3 58.4 57.3 57.0 56.8 Max 68.2 70.2 66.8 70.0 69.9 69.5 69.2 68.5 68.1 67.3 67.1 66.9

63.4 64.8 64.6 64.0 63.6 62.7 62.0 61.0 60.7 60.5
Min 60.6 64.1 56.7 63.9 63.7 63.2 62.8 61.5 60.2 57.9 57.4 56.8 Max 68.2 70.0 66.8 69.8 69.7 69.5 69.3 68.6 68.1 67.3 67.1 66.8

65.3 67.1 66.9 66.5 66.2 65.2 64.3 62.7 62.3 61.9
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24‐Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

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

71.7 63.4 65.3
24‐Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 L2 ‐ Located at the site's eastern boundary near the residence at 2025 E. Denise Ave.

62.8 60.6

61.2 62.8

66.8 68.1

68.2 68.2

67.9 64.6

63.1 61.1

60.7 60.9

59.1 58.8

58.9 59.0

61.6 61.6

62.6 65.4

66.0 64.1

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 HourlyLeq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_16100‐16500\_16400\16438\04_Noise\fieldwork\measurements\16438_L2_V 90 1852
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 16438
Project: Best Buy Orange Source: Analyst: N. Johnson
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 56.0 59.2 53.2 59.0 58.6 58.0 57.6 56.6 55.7 54.2 53.8 53.4 56.0 10.0 66.01 52.5 56.9 49.2 56.7 56.3 55.4 54.9 53.3 51.9 50.1 49.7 49.3 52.5 10.0 62.52 53.0 56.7 49.9 56.4 56.1 55.5 55.0 53.7 52.6 50.8 50.5 50.0 53.0 10.0 63.03 56.5 59.9 53.4 59.6 59.3 58.6 58.3 57.2 56.2 54.4 53.9 53.5 56.5 10.0 66.54 61.0 63.1 59.0 62.9 62.7 62.4 62.2 61.5 60.8 59.7 59.4 59.1 61.0 10.0 71.05 61.7 63.5 60.3 63.3 63.2 62.9 62.7 62.1 61.6 60.8 60.6 60.4 61.7 10.0 71.76 60.9 62.9 59.4 62.7 62.5 62.2 62.0 61.3 60.7 59.9 59.7 59.5 60.9 10.0 70.97 60.4 63.6 58.9 63.2 63.0 62.2 61.8 60.6 60.1 59.4 59.2 59.0 60.4 0.0 60.48 60.0 62.5 58.6 62.3 62.0 61.4 61.1 60.3 59.8 59.1 58.9 58.7 60.0 0.0 60.09 56.1 59.1 54.5 58.8 58.5 57.9 57.6 56.5 55.8 54.9 54.8 54.5 56.1 0.0 56.1 10 64.1 71.0 56.3 70.7 70.3 69.5 68.3 65.1 62.2 57.6 57.2 56.5 64.1 0.0 64.111 55.3 61.5 51.6 60.9 60.3 58.9 58.3 55.9 53.9 52.4 52.1 51.7 55.3 0.0 55.312 54.0 59.4 51.1 58.7 58.3 57.2 56.5 54.5 53.2 51.8 51.5 51.2 54.0 0.0 54.013 54.2 60.8 50.7 60.2 59.3 57.6 56.7 54.8 53.1 51.5 51.2 50.8 54.2 0.0 54.214 52.6 58.1 49.7 57.7 57.2 55.6 54.5 52.9 52.0 50.5 50.2 49.9 52.6 0.0 52.615 54.4 61.0 51.0 60.5 60.0 58.8 57.3 54.5 53.2 51.8 51.5 51.1 54.4 0.0 54.416 55.4 61.7 51.8 61.2 60.6 59.2 58.4 55.8 54.2 52.6 52.3 51.9 55.4 0.0 55.417 53.8 58.1 51.4 57.7 57.3 56.3 55.7 54.2 53.3 52.1 51.9 51.5 53.8 0.0 53.818 55.6 58.6 53.8 58.4 58.1 57.3 56.9 55.9 55.3 54.3 54.1 53.9 55.6 0.0 55.619 54.7 59.3 52.2 58.9 58.5 57.3 56.9 55.3 53.9 52.8 52.6 52.3 54.7 5.0 59.720 52.9 59.1 49.9 58.2 57.7 56.3 55.2 53.3 52.2 50.7 50.4 50.0 52.9 5.0 57.921 57.1 61.2 54.6 60.8 60.4 59.5 59.0 57.6 56.6 55.3 55.1 54.8 57.1 5.0 62.122 59.1 62.1 57.1 61.8 61.5 60.9 60.6 59.7 58.8 57.7 57.5 57.2 59.1 10.0 69.123 57.4 60.9 55.0 60.6 60.2 59.4 59.0 58.0 57.1 55.8 55.5 55.1 57.4 10.0 67.4 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 52.6 58.1 49.7 57.7 57.2 55.6 54.5 52.9 52.0 50.5 50.2 49.9 Max 64.1 71.0 58.9 70.7 70.3 69.5 68.3 65.1 62.2 59.4 59.2 59.0

57.5 60.6 60.1 59.0 58.3 56.5 55.3 53.8 53.5 53.2
Min 52.5 56.7 49.2 56.4 56.1 55.4 54.9 53.3 51.9 50.1 49.7 49.3 Max 61.7 63.5 60.3 63.3 63.2 62.9 62.7 62.1 61.6 60.8 60.6 60.4

58.6 60.3 60.1 59.5 59.1 58.2 57.3 55.9 55.6 55.3
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24‐Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

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

65.0 57.5 58.6
24‐Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 L3 ‐ Located at the site's southern boundary near the residence at 1931 E. Meats Ave.

56.0 52.5

53.0 56.5

61.0 61.7

60.9 60.4

60.0 56.1

64.1 55.3

54.0 54.2

52.6 54.4

55.4 53.8

55.6 54.7

52.9 57.1

59.1 57.4

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 HourlyLeq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_16100‐16500\_16400\16438\04_Noise\fieldwork\measurements\16438_L3_C 91 1853
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 16438
Project: Best Buy Orange Source: Analyst: N. Johnson
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 55.7 59.4 52.8 59.2 59.0 58.2 57.8 56.3 55.3 53.7 53.4 52.9 55.7 10.0 65.71 53.1 57.1 49.9 56.8 56.5 55.8 55.3 53.8 52.5 50.8 50.4 50.0 53.1 10.0 63.12 53.3 57.2 50.4 57.1 56.8 56.2 55.5 53.8 52.8 51.3 51.0 50.5 53.3 10.0 63.33 55.4 58.8 53.1 58.5 58.2 57.5 57.2 56.0 55.1 53.9 53.6 53.2 55.4 10.0 65.44 58.2 60.1 56.5 60.0 59.8 59.5 59.3 58.6 58.1 57.2 56.9 56.7 58.2 10.0 68.25 59.9 61.7 58.6 61.6 61.4 61.1 60.9 60.2 59.8 59.1 58.9 58.7 59.9 10.0 69.96 59.1 61.6 57.7 61.3 61.1 60.7 60.4 59.5 58.9 58.1 57.9 57.7 59.1 10.0 69.17 58.6 62.6 56.8 62.1 61.7 60.9 60.3 59.0 58.2 57.2 57.0 56.8 58.6 0.0 58.68 57.0 60.0 55.3 59.7 59.5 58.8 58.4 57.4 56.8 55.8 55.6 55.3 57.0 0.0 57.09 55.3 61.8 51.0 61.4 60.9 59.6 58.8 55.9 53.7 51.7 51.4 51.1 55.3 0.0 55.3 10 56.4 62.8 51.1 62.4 62.1 60.9 60.1 57.1 54.9 52.3 51.7 51.2 56.4 0.0 56.411 54.7 62.1 49.7 61.3 60.4 58.9 58.2 55.3 53.2 50.7 50.2 49.8 54.7 0.0 54.712 53.5 60.1 49.0 59.6 59.0 57.8 56.7 54.2 52.2 49.9 49.5 49.1 53.5 0.0 53.513 54.9 63.2 50.1 62.6 62.2 59.6 57.9 55.3 53.0 51.0 50.6 50.2 54.9 0.0 54.914 52.9 60.2 48.9 59.6 59.3 57.1 55.5 53.1 51.8 49.8 49.4 49.0 52.9 0.0 52.915 54.5 64.0 49.0 63.4 62.8 60.3 58.1 53.7 52.3 50.1 49.6 49.2 54.5 0.0 54.516 55.2 63.2 50.1 62.7 62.1 60.7 58.3 55.5 53.3 51.0 50.6 50.3 55.2 0.0 55.217 54.0 60.7 49.6 60.2 59.6 58.0 57.0 54.5 53.0 50.5 50.1 49.7 54.0 0.0 54.018 54.3 60.3 50.6 59.8 59.2 57.9 57.0 54.9 53.5 51.5 51.1 50.8 54.3 0.0 54.319 54.5 61.5 49.5 61.0 60.5 59.1 57.9 55.3 53.2 50.4 50.0 49.6 54.5 5.0 59.520 54.6 63.7 50.6 63.1 62.3 59.1 57.1 54.2 53.0 51.3 51.0 50.7 54.6 5.0 59.621 55.8 62.7 52.9 62.3 61.6 59.7 58.2 55.9 54.7 53.5 53.3 53.0 55.8 5.0 60.822 58.0 63.2 55.7 62.7 62.3 61.1 60.0 58.3 57.4 56.3 56.1 55.8 58.0 10.0 68.023 56.1 60.1 53.8 59.7 59.3 58.5 57.9 56.5 55.7 54.5 54.2 53.9 56.1 10.0 66.1 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 52.9 60.0 48.9 59.6 59.0 57.1 55.5 53.1 51.8 49.8 49.4 49.0 Max 58.6 64.0 56.8 63.4 62.8 60.9 60.3 59.0 58.2 57.2 57.0 56.8

55.3 61.4 60.9 59.2 58.0 55.4 53.8 51.8 51.4 51.1
Min 53.1 57.1 49.9 56.8 56.5 55.8 55.3 53.8 52.5 50.8 50.4 50.0 Max 59.9 63.2 58.6 62.7 62.3 61.1 60.9 60.2 59.8 59.1 58.9 58.7

57.1 59.7 59.4 58.7 58.2 57.0 56.2 55.0 54.7 54.4
24‐Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 L4 ‐ Located at the site's southern boundary near the residence at 2295 N. Tustin St.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24‐Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:

Average:

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

63.5 55.3 57.1

55.7 53.1

53.3 55.4

58.2 59.9

59.1 58.6

57.0 55.3

56.4 54.7

53.5 54.9

52.9 54.5

55.2 54.0

54.3 54.5

54.6 55.8

58.0 56.1

35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 HourlyLeq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_16100‐16500\_16400\16438\04_Noise\fieldwork\measurements\16438_L4_D 92 1854
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
93 1855
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
APPENDIX 6.1:

SITE PLAN
94 1856
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
95 1857

STOP STOP
DRIVE
THRU
DRIVE
THRU PL 3A 1 STORY GARAGES 1 STORY GARAGES 1 STORY GARAGES 1 STORY MULTI-FAMILY 1 STORY MULTI-FAMILY 1 STORY MULTI-FAMILY 1 STORY RETAIL 1 STORY RETAIL 1 STORY GARAGES 1 STORY GARAGES 1 STORY MULTI-FAMILY 1 STORY MULTI-FAMILY 1 STORY MULTI-FAMILY 1 STORY RESID.
1 STORY RESID.
1 STORY RESID.
1 STORY RESID.
1 STORY RESID.
55 FREEWAY

TUSTIN STREET
1 STORY

MULTI-FAMILY
1 STORY RETAIL PROPOSED COMMERCIAL 1 STORY RETAIL NOT A PART 5 6
6 6
R50.0 R55.0
R55.0
R50.0
R50.0
R55.0
R50.0
R55.0 PL 5B PL 2 PL 4 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 5B PL 2 PL 5A PL 2 PL 5A PL 3B PL 3B PL 1
PL 1
PL 1
PL 1
PL 1 PL 3B
PL 3B
PL 3B
PL 3B
PL 4
PL 4
PL 4
PL 4
PL 4
PL 3B
PL 3B
PL 3B
PL 3B
PL 3C PL 3C PL 4 PL 1 PL 4 PL 1 PL 4 PL 1 PL 4 PL 1 PL 4 PL 1 PL 4 PL 3C PL 4

12.5'
9' 9' 9' 9' 18' 18'

3.5' 18' 10' 1'
8' 3.5' 9'
4'

6.7'

3.7' 7' 9.4'

5.3' 3' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7'
9'
24'
10'
10' 10'
122.6' 30.6' EX. ESMT (TO REMAIN) 18' 8.7'
9' 3' 8' 4.5' 9.2' 4' 4' 2.8' 4'
24' 4.9' 4.9' 4.2' 4.2'
10' 10'
10' 10'
10' 10' 7' 9.4'
7'
7'

10.2'

10.1'

3.1'
10'
10'

10.2'

10.4'

10.5'

10.8'
11'

11.2'

11.4'

11.6'

10.5'

10.4'

11.1'

10.7'

10.8'

10.9'
11'

11.1'

11.3'

11.4'

11.5' 15.2'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'

2.2'

3.3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3'
3' 10.1'

10.1'

10.6'

10.7'

10.1'

10.8'

10.1'

10.8'

10.1'

10.7'

10.2'

10.6'
10' 21.5

11.0 12.0 25.0 25.0

25.0 25.0 25.0

1.1' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.2' 5.3' 5.3' 5.3' 5.3' 5.3' 5.3' 5.3' 8.8' 3.3'

5.3' 10.7'
1' 16.8' 16.6' 16.7' 16.9' 16.6'

29.0 11.5

3.6 9.8

28.9 F.H. F.H. F.H.

R17.5 W/ ANTI-GRAFFITI PAINT W/ ANTI-GRAFFITI PAINT 470.25' 192.60'
140.00' 8.24' 537.45'
170.60' 222.51'275.01'

60.00'
//
//
//
// // // // // // // //
//
//
// // // // // // // //
//
//
//
|| || ||
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
1 1
1 4
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
1 2
3 4
7 7
8 9
9 9 10 10 10
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 10
4 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 15 PRODUCT TYPE: 71 UNITS PROJECT SUMMARY 3 STORY DETACHED/DUPLEXES A.P.N.: 372-642-31 SITE AREA: 4.235 AC DENSITY: 16.76 DU/AC PRODUCT SUMMARY (ALL 3 STORY HOMES) REAR SETBACK: 10.1' (10' ALLOWED) SIDE SETBACK: 10.1' (5' ALLOWED) FRONT SETBACK: 15.1' (15' ALLOWED) BLDG HEIGHT: 35' (35' ALLOWED) BLDG. STORIES: 3 STORY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (OMC 17.14.270) (R-3) W/ APPLICATION OF SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED ZONING: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA EXISTING ZONING: C-TR LIMITED BUSINESS PROPOSED LAND USE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESID. (MDR) EXISTING LAND USE: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) PLAN LIVABLE ROOF GARAGE # OF # TYPE AREA DECK AREA BD/BA 71 U X 0.25 ST/U GUEST 4BD = 3.0 ST/U X 14 42 STALLS 3BD = 2.0 ST/U X 57 114 STALLS REQUIRED: PARKING SUMMARY 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STDS (CEES) 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BLD'G STDS CODE (CGBSC) 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC) 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) FIRE SPRINKLER: NFPA 13D (CRC R313.1) CONST. TYPE: TYPE VB OCCUP. TYPE: R3/U (CRC) BUILDING CODE SUMMARY RACK OR SHELVING NOTE: ALL PLANS PROVIDE 120 C.F. STORAGE IN OVERHEAD 18 PL 5A/5B 2,117 S.F. 0 S.F. 446 S.F. 3BD/DEN/2BA/2PWD 13 PL 4 2,086 S.F. 235 S.F. 473 S.F. 3BD/DEN/2BA/2PWD 13 PL 3B/3C 2,026 S.F. 269 S.F. 477 S.F. 4 BD/3BA/1PWD 1 PL 3A 2,026 S.F. 0 S.F. 477 S.F. 4 BD/3BA/1PWD 16 PL 2 2,014 S.F. 0 S.F. 446 S.F. 3BD/DEN/2BA/2PWD 10 PL 1 2,008 S.F. 300 S.F. 472 S.F. 3BD/DEN/2BA/2PWD 174 STALLS 18 STALLS ON-LOT GARAGES (2 CAR) 142 STALLS PROVIDED: 14 STALLS GUEST 179 STALLS 23 STALLS ROOF DECK AREA (UNITS 1-20, 54-68) (240 S.F. MIN., 10'X24') PRIVATE YARD AREA 10,360 S.F. PROVIDED REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PER UNIT = 150 S.F. OPEN SPACE SUMMARY (SEE SHT. OS FOR LOCATIONS) USPS PARKING 1 STALL 9,552 S.F. PROVIDED COMMON OPEN SPACE 12,472 S.F. (175 S.F./UNIT) TOTAL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 19,912 S.F. (280 S.F./UNIT) (UNITS 21-53, 69-71) 235 S.F. MIN., 13'3" X 18'8" (20' MIN. DIMENSION) NOTE: REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AT PLANS 1, 3B, 3C AND 4 (LOTS 21-53 AND 69-71) SCREENED FROM VIEW BY SOLID PARAPET WALLS CONDENSERS LOCATED ON ROOF DECKS AND SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS A2 & A5-A7 FOR AC (SEWER/WATER/STORM DRAIN/FIRE LINE) 2 1 PROPERTY LINE
8 7
6 5
4 3 C.M.U. PERIMETER WALL -SEE WALL PLAN
9 FIRE LANE AMENITY AREA -SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 3-STORY DWELLING, TYP.

STANDARD PARKING STALL - 9' X 18' SITE PLAN KEYNOTES CONCRETE WALKWAY ENHANCED PAVING (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) OPEN STALL W/IN PRIVATE LOT (4 BDRM) PARALLEL PARKING STALL - 9' X 24' 10 FIRE LADDER PAD (TYPICAL) 11 ENTRY MONUMENT - SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 12 PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL FROM TUSTIN ST. 13 CITY STANDARD, SEE DETAIL SHEET SL DOUBLE STRIPING AT PARKING STALLS PER ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER OR SWITCH 1514 SETBACK LINE NORTH SITE PLAN 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste. 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www.summarch.com p.760.724.1198 ARCHITECTURE 2375 N. TUSTIN ST. - DETACHED/DUPLEX HOMES MELIA HOMES ORANGE 9860 Irvine Center Dr. Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 759-4367 VESTING TTM 19392 0 30 60 90 SP SEPT. 2, 2025 96 1858
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
97 1859
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
APPENDIX 7.1:

ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
98 1860
ͭͲͰͯʹ‐ͬͰ NA redlines North Tustin Avenue Project
This page was intentionally left blank.
99 1861
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: Tustin Ave.

Scenario: Backyard
39,400

10.00%
268.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,940 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 278.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 258.0
Barrier Elevation: 262.0
Pad Elevation: 262.0
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: 66 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.50 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 97.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 2.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 1.00%
-12.99
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-9.460 -12.460
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-12.36 -10.40 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.37 -10.40 -1.20 0.000 0.000

0.74 -1.07
-1.19
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
260.30
266.00
361.580
242.860
242.769
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

57.7 55.6 51.9 50.4 57.9 58.2

52.4 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.9

52.2 48.5 47.0 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.1 58.0 54.3 52.8 60.3 60.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

48.2 46.2 42.5 41.0 48.4 48.7

52.4 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.9

52.2 48.5 47.0 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 57.0 55.0 51.3 49.8 57.2 57.5

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
100
1862
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: Tustin Ave.

Scenario: Backyard With Wall
39,400

10.00%
268.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,940 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

4.50 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 97.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 2.00%

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-12.36 -10.40 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.37 -10.40 -1.20 0.000 0.000

0.74 -1.07
-1.19
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
260.30
266.00
361.580
242.860
242.769
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

57.7 55.6 51.9 50.4 57.9 58.2

52.4 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.9

52.2 48.5 47.0 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.1 58.0 54.3 52.8 60.3 60.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

48.2 46.2 42.5 41.0 48.4 48.7

52.4 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.9

52.2 48.5 47.0 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 57.0 55.0 51.3 49.8 57.2 57.5

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
101
1863
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: Tustin Ave.

Scenario: First Floor With Wall
39,400

10.00%
268.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,940 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

4.50 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 97.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 2.00%

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-12.36 -10.40 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.37 -10.40 -1.20 0.000 0.000

0.74 -1.07
-1.19
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
260.30
266.00
361.580
242.860
242.769
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

57.7 55.6 51.9 50.4 57.9 58.2

52.4 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.9

52.2 48.5 47.0 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.1 58.0 54.3 52.8 60.3 60.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

48.2 46.2 42.5 41.0 48.4 48.7

52.4 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.9

52.2 48.5 47.0 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 57.0 55.0 51.3 49.8 57.2 57.5

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
102
1864
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: Tustin Ave.

Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
39,400

10.00%
268.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,940 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 278.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 258.0
Barrier Elevation: 262.0
Pad Elevation: 262.0
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): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 66 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.50 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 97.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 2.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 1.00%
-13.10
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-12.36 -10.41 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.37 -10.40 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.10
-6.56
-6.88
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
260.30
266.00
367.576
243.275
242.973
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

57.6 55.5 51.8 50.3 57.8 58.1

52.3 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.9

52.1 48.4 46.9 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.0 58.0 54.3 52.8 60.2 60.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.6 55.5 51.8 50.3 57.8 58.1

52.3 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.9

52.1 48.4 46.9 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.0 58.0 54.3 52.8 60.2 60.5

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
103
1865
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: Tustin Ave.

Scenario: Third Floor With Wall
39,400

10.00%
268.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,940 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 278.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 258.0
Barrier Elevation: 262.0
Pad Elevation: 262.0
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): 23.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 66 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.50 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 97.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 2.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 1.00%
-13.22
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-12.36 -10.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.37 -10.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.17
-13.54
-14.07
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
260.30
266.00
374.381
244.021
243.509
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

57.4 55.4 51.7 50.2 57.7 58.0

52.3 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.8

52.1 48.4 46.9 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 59.9 57.9 54.2 52.7 60.2 60.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.4 55.4 51.7 50.2 57.7 58.0

52.3 54.2

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.6 52.8

52.1 48.4 46.9 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 59.9 57.9 54.2 52.7 60.2 60.5

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
104
1866
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: Tustin Ave.

Scenario: Rooftop Balconies
39,400

10.00%
268.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,940 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 278.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 258.0
Barrier Elevation: 262.0
Pad Elevation: 262.0
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): 32.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 66 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.50 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 97.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 2.00%

75.0% 8.0% 17.0% 1.00%
-13.34
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-12.36 -10.46 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.37 -10.44 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-2.71
-20.77
-21.49
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
260.30
266.00
381.277
245.096
244.376
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

57.3 55.3 51.6 50.1 57.5 57.8

52.3 54.1

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.5 52.8

52.1 48.4 46.9 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 59.9 57.8 54.1 52.6 60.1 60.4
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.3 55.3 51.6 50.1 57.5 57.8

52.3 54.1

50.3 46.6 45.1 52.5 52.8

52.1 48.4 46.9 54.4 54.7
Vehicle Noise: 59.9 57.8 54.1 52.6 60.1 60.4

76.31 81.16

67.36 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
105
1867
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Backyard
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 208.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 266.4
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: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.44
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 113.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-19.300 -22.300
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -7.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000

3.93 -7.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000

74.01 -0.01
-0.34
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
387.203
154.065
154.352
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

65.8 63.9 62.2 56.1 64.7 65.3

77.8 79.8

76.3 69.9 68.4 76.9 77.1

78.4 69.4 70.6 79.0 79.1
Vehicle Noise: 82.0 80.6 73.0 72.7 81.1 81.3
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

46.5 44.6 42.9 36.8 45.4 46.0

77.8 79.8

76.3 69.9 68.4 76.9 77.1

78.4 69.4 70.6 79.0 79.1
Vehicle Noise: 81.9 80.5 72.7 72.7 81.0 81.2

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
106
1868
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 208.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 266.4
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.69
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 113.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 14.0
-19.400 -22.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -6.30 -1.20 -12.937 -15.937

3.93 -6.11 -1.20 -10.720 -13.720

88.67 2.49

1.21 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
402.378
129.443
125.656
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

78.9 81.2

77.4 71.1 69.5 78.0 78.2

79.7 70.7 72.0 80.3 80.4
Vehicle Noise: 83.3 81.8 74.2 74.0 82.4 82.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

43.2 41.3 39.5 33.5 42.1 42.7

63.0 67.4

61.5 55.1 53.6 62.0 62.3

66.0 57.0 58.2 66.6 66.7
Vehicle Noise: 68.8 67.3 59.2 59.5 67.9 68.1

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
107
1869
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 208.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 266.4
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -6.30 -1.20 -12.937 -15.937

3.93 -6.11 -1.20 -10.720 -13.720

88.67 2.49

1.21 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
402.378
129.443
125.656
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

78.9 81.2

77.4 71.1 69.5 78.0 78.2

79.7 70.7 72.0 80.3 80.4
Vehicle Noise: 83.3 81.8 74.2 74.0 82.4 82.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

43.2 41.3 39.5 33.5 42.1 42.7

63.0 67.4

61.5 55.1 53.6 62.0 62.3

66.0 57.0 58.2 66.6 66.7
Vehicle Noise: 68.8 67.3 59.2 59.5 67.9 68.1

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
108
1870
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 208.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 266.4
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.67
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 113.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 14.0
-19.400 -22.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -6.25 -1.20 -11.440 -14.440

3.93 -6.06 -1.20 -9.030 -12.030

80.13 1.57

0.61 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
401.420
128.486
124.699
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

79.0 81.2

77.5 71.1 69.6 78.0 78.3

79.8 70.8 72.0 80.4 80.5
Vehicle Noise: 83.3 81.9 74.2 74.0 82.4 82.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

43.2 41.3 39.5 33.5 42.1 42.7

64.5 69.2

63.0 56.7 55.1 63.6 63.8

67.8 58.7 60.0 68.3 68.5
Vehicle Noise: 70.5 69.0 60.9 61.2 69.6 69.7

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
109
1871
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Third Floor With Wall
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 208.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 266.4
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 23.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.67
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 113.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 14.0
-19.300 -22.300
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -6.24 -1.20 -9.880 -12.880

3.93 -6.04 -1.20 -6.870 -9.870

72.22 0.86

0.21 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
401.174
128.239
124.452
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

79.0 81.2

77.5 71.1 69.6 78.0 78.3

79.8 70.8 72.0 80.4 80.5
Vehicle Noise: 83.3 81.9 74.2 74.0 82.4 82.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

43.3 41.4 39.6 33.6 42.2 42.8

66.1 71.4

64.6 58.2 56.7 65.2 65.4

69.9 60.9 62.1 70.5 70.6
Vehicle Noise: 72.5 71.1 62.8 63.2 71.6 71.8

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
110
1872
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Rooftop Balconies
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 208.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 266.4
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 32.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.68
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 113.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 14.0
-19.249 -22.249
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -6.26 -1.20 -7.850 -10.850

3.93 -6.07 -1.20 -5.200 -8.200

64.95 0.37

0.02 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
401.642
128.708
124.921
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

79.0 81.2

77.5 71.1 69.6 78.0 78.3

79.8 70.7 72.0 80.3 80.5
Vehicle Noise: 83.3 81.9 74.2 74.0 82.4 82.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

43.4 41.5 39.7 33.6 42.3 42.9

68.1 73.0

66.6 60.3 58.7 67.2 67.4

71.6 62.5 63.8 72.1 72.3
Vehicle Noise: 74.2 72.8 64.6 65.0 73.3 73.5

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
111
1873
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Backyard
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 226.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 265.7
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: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.73
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 131.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-19.400 -22.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -8.18 -1.20 0.000 0.000

3.93 -8.19 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.86 -0.01
-0.34
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
405.215
172.810
173.089
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

65.5 63.6 61.9 55.8 64.4 65.0

77.1 79.1

75.5 69.2 67.6 76.1 76.3

77.7 68.6 69.9 78.2 78.3
Vehicle Noise: 81.3 79.8 72.3 72.0 80.4 80.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

46.1 44.2 42.5 36.4 45.0 45.6

77.1 79.1

75.5 69.2 67.6 76.1 76.3

77.7 68.6 69.9 78.2 78.3
Vehicle Noise: 81.2 79.7 71.9 71.9 80.3 80.5

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
112
1874
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 226.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 265.7
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.97
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 131.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 14.0
-19.400 -22.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -7.14 -1.20 -12.820 -15.820

3.93 -6.98 -1.20 -10.560 -13.560

97.43 2.40

1.13 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
420.302
147.368
143.581
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 63.4 61.6 55.6 64.2 64.8

78.1 80.3

76.6 70.2 68.7 77.1 77.4

78.9 69.8 71.1 79.4 79.6
Vehicle Noise: 82.4 81.0 73.3 73.1 81.5 81.7
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

42.9 41.0 39.2 33.2 41.8 42.4

62.3 66.7

60.8 54.4 52.9 61.3 61.6

65.3 56.3 57.5 65.9 66.0
Vehicle Noise: 68.1 66.6 58.5 58.8 67.2 67.4

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
113
1875
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 226.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 265.7
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -7.14 -1.20 -12.820 -15.820

3.93 -6.98 -1.20 -10.560 -13.560

97.43 2.40

1.13 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
420.302
147.368
143.581
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 63.4 61.6 55.6 64.2 64.8

78.1 80.3

76.6 70.2 68.7 77.1 77.4

78.9 69.8 71.1 79.4 79.6
Vehicle Noise: 82.4 81.0 73.3 73.1 81.5 81.7
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

42.9 41.0 39.2 33.2 41.8 42.4

62.3 66.7

60.8 54.4 52.9 61.3 61.6

65.3 56.3 57.5 65.9 66.0
Vehicle Noise: 68.1 66.6 58.5 58.8 67.2 67.4

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
114
1876
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 226.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 265.7
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.96
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 131.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 14.0
-19.400 -22.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -7.11 -1.20 -11.500 -14.500

3.93 -6.94 -1.20 -9.030 -12.030

89.19 1.60

0.61 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
419.428
146.493
142.706
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 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8

78.1 80.3

76.6 70.3 68.7 77.2 77.4

78.9 69.9 71.1 79.5 79.6
Vehicle Noise: 82.5 81.0 73.4 73.2 81.6 81.7
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

42.9 41.0 39.3 33.2 41.8 42.4

63.6 68.3

62.1 55.8 54.2 62.7 62.9

66.9 57.8 59.1 67.4 67.6
Vehicle Noise: 69.6 68.1 60.0 60.3 68.7 68.9

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
115
1877
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Third Floor With Wall
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 226.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 265.7
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 23.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.95
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 131.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 14.0
-19.400 -22.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -7.09 -1.20 -10.180 -13.180

3.93 -6.92 -1.20 -7.080 -10.080

81.49 0.96

0.24 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
419.167
146.232
142.445
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 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8

78.1 80.3

76.6 70.3 68.7 77.2 77.4

78.9 69.9 71.1 79.5 79.6
Vehicle Noise: 82.5 81.0 73.4 73.2 81.6 81.8
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

42.9 41.0 39.3 33.2 41.8 42.4

65.0 70.3

63.5 57.1 55.5 64.0 64.2

68.8 59.8 61.1 69.4 69.5
Vehicle Noise: 71.4 70.0 61.7 62.1 70.5 70.7

80.82 84.54

74.19 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, October 10, 2025
116
1878
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - v5/13/24

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Best Buy Orange
Job Number: 16438
Analyst: N. Johnson
Road Name: SR-55
Scenario: Rooftop Balconies
211,000

10.00%

95.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 21,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 226.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 274.0
Barrier Elevation: 274.0
Pad Elevation: 265.7
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: 14.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 32.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 60 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 94 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

6.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 41.00%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 35.17%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 23.83%
-13.96
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 131.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 14.0
-19.300 -22.300
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

5.62 -7.11 -1.20 -8.400 -11.400

3.93 -6.94 -1.20 -5.400 -8.400

74.32 0.48

0.04 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.00
276.30
282.00
419.524
146.589
142.802
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Orange City CouncilMay 26, 2026

Orange City Council
May 26, 2026