Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 27 - Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 - Central Pointe Mixed-Use DevelopmentPlanning and Building Agency www.santa-ana.org/pb Item # 23 or City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Staff Report January 19, 2021 TOPIC: Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing — Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 to allow construction of the Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project located at 1801 East Fourth Street (Property Owner: Park Center Santa Ana Associates L.P. and Applicant: Waterford Property Company) RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2020-04. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION & BACKGROUND At its regular meeting on November 9, 2020, and after receiving public testimony on the item, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (6:0:1 Phan abstained) to adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 (SPR) as conditioned. At the meeting, the Planning Commission added Condition No. 9 requiring green rooftops to the extent feasible. On November 16, 2020, Rebecca Davis with Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), submitted an appeal application pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 based on the failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to prepare a supplemental or tiered environmental impact report (EIR) (Exhibit 1). On November 19, 2020, John Hanna, on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC), also submitted an appeal application appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 based on (1) failure to address affordable housing, (2) failure to include qualified Santa Ana residents, veterans and Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 2 graduates or certificate holders of the Santa Ana Unified School District and Rancho Santiago Community College District in the project's construction workforce, and (3) failure to ensure the maximum amount of viable commercial development square footage is provided (Exhibit 2).. DISCUSSION On November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 as conditioned for Central Pointe, a mixed -use development consisting of two buildings with a total of 644 multi -family residential units, 15,130 square feet of commercial space, 1,318 parking spaces, and associated amenities and open space at 1801 East Fourth Street (Exhibit 3). Table 1: Project and Location Information Item Information Project Address 1801 East Fourth Street Nearest Intersection Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive General Plan Designation District Center DC Zoning Designation Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone (MEMU), Active Urban AU district Surrounding Land Uses Commercial North Commercial East Commercial South Santa Ana 1-5 Freeway and Commercial West Site Size 8.03 net acres Existing Site Development Vacant Use Permissions Mixed -use projects permitted by MEMU Overlay Section 4.1 Land Uses, Table 3, Section 4.1.3 Code Sections Affected Development Standards MEMU Overlay, Sections 4.1 through 4.8 Site Plan Review MEMU Overlay, Sections 8 Project Description The proposed project contains two buildings that surround an outdoor lawn in the center of the development. Each building includes five stories of residential units and ground - floor commercial space wrapped around seven levels of parking (one subterranean level and six above -grade levels) with a rooftop amenity deck. The total height of the project is approximately 86 feet. The project has a density of 81 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio of approximately 2.2. The unit mix varies from studio units, one -bedroom units, two -bedroom units, and three -bedroom units, with 12 different floor plans proposed. Residential common open space includes private balconies or patios, the great lawn, nine courtyards, fitness rooms, clubrooms, and a rooftop amenity deck with a pool and spa. Commercial spaces will line Fourth Street and provide opportunities for new eating establishments, service uses, and/or retail businesses. Publicly accessible open space Appeal Application Nos January 19, 2021 Page 3 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development includes the linear park along the east side of the development, a plaza at the corner of Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive, and internal paseos. The outdoor areas will be programmed with picnic tables, benches, umbrellas, lawn games, decorative hardscape, a pedestrian trail, and landscaping. Vehicular access to the site is provided from both Parkcourt Place and Fourth Street. Onsite parking includes 18 surface level parking spaces off of Fourth Street for the retail spaces and a multi -level parking structure for each residential building. A total of 1,318 parking spaces are proposed which is a ratio of 2.04 spaces per unit. Offsite improvements include a new signalized intersection and crosswalks at Cabrillo Park Drive and Parkcourt Place. The existing median on Parkcourt Place will be reconstructed to provide a 100-foot left turn pocket to allow for vehicles to turn into the site as well as a dedicated left turn lane from Parkcourt Place to northbound Cabrillo Park Drive. The project will construct an additional westbound right -turn lane at Fourth Street onto the northbound 1-5 ramp and a dedicated right -turn lane on Cabrillo Park Drive. In addition, the project will also pay its fair share in modifying the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free -right turn lane at the Fourth Street and southbound SR-55 ramp. The building has been designed with contemporary architectural elements comprised of high quality, long lasting materials such as metal siding, stone veneer, simulated wood siding, fiber cement lap siding, fiber cement panels, stucco, metal and glass railings, and aluminum storefronts. Table 2: Project Summary Building A Building B Units 325 units 319 units Commercial 9,568 SF 5,562 SF Square Footage SF Building SF 286,655 SF 274,145 SF Unit Mix/Room 19 studios (6%) 20 studios (6%) 162 one -bedrooms (50%) 164 one -bedrooms (51 %) 121 two -bedrooms (37%) 127 two -bedrooms (40%) 23 three -bedrooms 7% 8 three -bedrooms 3% Unit SF 518 to 543 SF studios 518 to 543 SF studios 683 to 778 SF one -bedrooms 683 to 778 SF one -bedrooms 1,066 to 1,148 SF two -bedrooms 1,066 to 1,148 SF two- 1,274 to 1,339 SF three -bedrooms bedrooms 1,274 to 1,339 SF three - bedrooms Height & 8-stories, 85'5" 8-stories, 85'5" Stories Appeal Application Nos January 19, 2021 Page 4 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Building A Building B Parking 650 spaces (2.00 spaces per unit) 650 spaces (2.03 space per unit Open Space/ Ground Level Courtyards 12,650 SF Ground Level Courtyards Amenities Roof Deck 15,961 SF 10,271 SF Fitness and Club Room Roof Deck 15,961 SF Fitness and Club Room California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The 2007 Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2006-01 (SCH No. 2006031041) and 2018 Subsequent EIR (SEIR) (collectively, MEMU EIR) anticipated potential development of 5,551 residential units, 963,000 square feet of commercial development, and 690,000 of office development. To date and including the Central Pointe development a total of 2,097 residential units and 38,924 square feet of commercial space has been entitled within the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay. This leaves capacity for an additional 3,454 residential units, 924,076 square feet of commercial space, and 690,000 square feet of office space. The MEMU EIR analyzed impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture/forestry, air quality, biology, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities. The MEMU EIR concluded that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, noise, and transportation/traffic. Along with the approval of the Site Plan Review application the Planning Commission found that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168, no subsequent EIR would be required as the project is within the scope covered by the program EIR or SEIR and no new environmental document is required. The Central Pointe development is within the allowable land uses, overall planned density and building intensity, and geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts within the MEMU EIR. A traffic impact analysis was prepared for this project by Linscott Law and Greenspan which analyzed the projects impacts on 25 intersections. Of the 25 intersections studied, the intersections of (1) Fourth Street and the 1-5 northbound ramp and (2) Fourth Street and the SR-55 southbound ramp are expected to have a significant impact under 2025 cumulative plus project conditions and 2040 buildout plus project conditions. As such, the off -site improvements listed in the project description above apply to the project to reduce impacts below a level of significance. In addition, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared by Urban Crossroads to identify any impacts from developing a residential community near a major freeway. The HRA concluded that a less than significant impact to project residents would occur due to the project's proximity to a major freeway. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the MEMU EIR applies to the project Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 5 and will mitigate impacts below the level of significance. Analysis of Appeals Pursuant to Section 41-645 an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission can be made by an interested party, individual or group. Two appeal applications were received appealing the Planning Commission's decision to approve Site Plan Review No. 2020-04, as conditioned. Appeal No. 2020-03 - The Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) The SAFER appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision based on failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to prepare a supplemental or tiered EIR for the project for the following reasons: a. The SAFER appellant contends that City improperly relied on the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Program EIR in approving the Central Pointe Project. Staff Response — In approving the Central Pointe Project, the Planning Commission found that it was adequately evaluated in the previously certified MEMU EIR prepared for the MEMU Overlay. SAFER contends that this was an error, because the MEMU EIR "was a programmatic EIR, not a project -level EIR," asserting that the project has never been analyzed under CEQA. SAFER is incorrect. A Program EIR is a type of EIR allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act that is used to evaluate a plan or program having multiple components or actions that are related either geographically, through application of rules or regulations, or as logical parts of a long-term plan. Subsequent activities called for by the Program EIR are compared against the Program EIR and, when consistent with the Program EIR, may be approved without the need for further environmental review. Once a project is approved, CEQA does not require that it be analyzed anew every time another discretionary action is required to implement the project. Quite the opposite, where an EIR has previously been prepared for a project, CEQA expressly prohibits agencies from requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR, except in specified circumstances provided in Public Resource Code 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Specifically, an agency may not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 6 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows that the project will have new or more significant impacts or that the project's significant impacts could be reduced by mitigation measures or alternatives that have not been adopted. As explained by the California Court of Appeal, "Section 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process." (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 796.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly authorize use of a "program EIR" to evaluate "a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project," and make clear that program EIRs can be used to approve later activities within the scope of the program: If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Where environmental review has been conducted through a program EIR, CEQA requires further review only in limited circumstances which are specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.AppAth 788, 802. Moreover, contrary to SAFER's assertions, "substantial evidence is the proper standard where, an agency determines that a project consistent with a prior program EIR presents no significant, unstudied adverse effect." Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 7 The MEMU EIR studied the impacts of developing up to 5,551 residential units and 963,000 square feet of commercial development, and 690,000 of office development in the Overlay Zone. The Central Pointe Project, which consists of 644 residential units and 15,130 square feet of commercial space, is entirely consistent with the previously established development standards for the MEMU Overlay Zone, and thus, does nothing more than implement a relatively small portion of the larger project previously analyzed in MEMU EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the project covered by the MEMU EIR. Moreover, Central Pointe will not have new or more severe environmental impacts than those disclosed in the MEMU EIR and this is supported by substantial evidence. As described in the 2007 EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, the Active Urban zone was described as a highly urbanized environment with residential and commercial opportunities; the site was shown and designated with the Active Urban overlay in Figure 3-4; Table 3-1 listed the development standards for the Active Urban overlay; and Chapter 2 of the SEIR described modification to the MEMU development standards. As described in the Planning Commission staff report and Attachment 10 to the Planning Commission staff report the Project is consistent with the MEMU overlay zone and the development standards for the Active Urban subzone. Accordingly, SAFER's assertions that Central Pointe "has never been analyzed under CEQA" and that the City is required to prepare a tiered EIR for the Project are incorrect. b. SAFER states an EIR is required to analyze the Health Risk Impacts and GHG Impacts alleged by SAFER. Staff Response — Health Risk Impacts: SAFER argues that an EIR is required to study alleged health risks to future residents of the Central Pointe Project. However, as explained by the California Supreme Court, "CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project's future users or residents." Thus, impacts to future residents of the project caused solely by existing environmental conditions are not required to be evaluated in a CEQA document. The City nonetheless required the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment to identify any impacts from developing a residential community near a major freeway. As noted in the Health Risk Assessment the Project applicant has agreed to install and maintain MERV (minimum efficiency reporting value) 13 air filtration systems in the proposed multi -family residential dwelling units. Contrary to SAFER's assertion, the Health Risk Assessment looked at both potential cancer risks and non -cancer risks and concluded that a less than significant impact to Project residents would occur. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts: SAFER takes issue with the methodology utilized in the MEMU EIR to evaluate GHG impacts, but SAFER failed to raise such issues before the MEMU EIR was certified, and it is too late to do so now. Further, Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 8 while SAFER suggests that the MEMU EIR's analysis should only be applied to projects that will become operational through 2020, the Subsequent MEMU EIR was not prepared until 2018, and clearly indicated it was analyzing GHG impacts based on a 2040 buildout year. Because GHG impacts from the entire buildout of the entire MEMU Overlay, including the Central Pointe Project site, were already quantified and analyzed in the MEMU EIR, SAFER's assertion that a new CEQA document is required to analyze such impacts is incorrect. c. SAFER alleges an EIR is required due to the existence of "new information" that could not have been known when the MEMU EIR was certified. Staff Response — As discussed above, when a project is within the scope of a previously certified EIR (including a program EIR), a lead agency may require a subsequent EIR only in one of the three situations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. As none of the three situations are met, including no new information that could not have been known when the MEMU EIR was certified, this comment is incorrect. Air Quality: SAFER alleges that the City is required to prepare a new CEQA document to evaluate alleged "impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer -causing chemical formaldehyde," and submits a report from Francis J. Offerman PE, CIH discussing such emissions. SAFER claims that because Mr. Offerman relies, in part, on a 2020 study, that such alleged impacts constitute new information which "could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2007 MEMU EIR or the 2018 MEMU SEIR were certified." But Mr. Offerman's own CV (which was attached to the comments) shows numerous papers and presentations on the alleged risk of formaldehyde emissions from wood products that date prior to the MEMU SEIR, as early as 2010. In addition, Mr. Offerman's assertions regarding the alleged impacts of formaldehyde emissions from building materials do not rise to the level of substantial evidence, given that such emissions are already the subject of extensive regulation at both the state and federal level, including stringent emission limits that the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board have determined are protective of human health. Furthermore, Mr. Offerman's analysis appears to assume the same level of emissions will be present, year after year, notwithstanding the fact that formaldehyde is readily biodegradable and complete degradation of formaldehyde can be accomplished in less than 30 days. Bird Collisions: SAFER argues that the potential for birds to be harmed by flying into windows constitutes "significant new information" requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, merely because new studies related to that issue and the extent of bird decline in general have come out in recent years. SAFER submits comments from ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph. D. The information submitted by Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 9 SAFER contradicts its assertion that this is a new issue that could not have been raised prior to the certification of the MEMU EIR. Dr. Smallwood's own letter indicates that window collisions have been known to be one of the largest sources of human -caused bird mortality for years, and cites numerous studies attempting to quantity such fatalities going back to 1976. Thus, this alleged impact could have been raised prior to the certification of the MEMU EIR, and clearly does not trigger the need for further analysis under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. d. SAFER asserts potential impacts related to hazardous materials are not mitigated. Staff Response — SAFER notes that the MEMU EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) requires that the Project site be investigated for evidence of hazardous materials contamination "prior to issuance of grading permits," and argues that such measure improperly defers mitigation. But again, it is too late to challenge the adequacy of the analysis done in the MEMU EIR or the sufficiency of the mitigation measures adopted when the Overlay was approved. Moreover, SAFER has not identified any evidence that hazardous materials are present on the site, and even when contamination is known to exist, there is nothing improper about a mitigation measure that requires such contamination be investigated and remediated after project approval. e. SAFER attests that a VMT analysis is required for the Project. Staff Response — CEQA Guidelines Section 15007, states that "amendments to the guidelines apply prospectively only," and that "if a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is set out for public review, the document does not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved." Thus, under the Guidelines, any EIR that was publicly circulated prior the City's adoption of VMT analysis in 2019 — like the MEMU EIR — is not required to include the VMT analysis now mandated by Section 15064.3. Moreover, this determination is consistent with longstanding case law where the court said a responsible agency was not required to prepare a supplemental EIR to comply with a new statute requiring additional traffic analysis, noting "fairness and the need for finality" require that the adequacy of an EIR "be measured against those regulations in effect" when the EIR was presented for public review. (Long Beach Savings & Loan Assn v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 250, 261 n.12.) As discussed above, the MEMU EIR was not only publicly circulated, but certified long before the VMT requirements took effect. Accordingly, the VMT requirements are inapplicable. Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 10 f. Further review is required because the Central Pointe Project will have effects not examined in the MEMU EIR. Staff Response — As explained above, where a project is within the scope of a previously certified program EIR, "no new environmental document is required" unless the project will have "new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects" than were disclosed in the program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168(c)(2). SAFER nonetheless argues that a subsequent EIR must be prepared because the MEMU EIR disclosed certain unavoidable impacts. SAFER is incorrect. As explained by the Court of Appeal: To hold that a project -specific EIR must be prepared for all activities proposed after the certification of the program EIR, even where the subsequent activity is 'within the scope of the project described in the program EIR' ... would be directly contrary to one of the essential purposes of program EIR's, i.e., to streamline environmental review of projects within the scope of a previously completed program EIR. And as also demonstrated in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.AppAth 214, 239 explaining, a case involving a program EIR that disclosed significant and unavoidable impacts, "CEQA does not require the Department to engage in a public process when it determines whether the impacts from a site -specific project were addressed and adequately mitigated in the program EIR. And if the Department finds the impacts were addressed, it need not prepare a new environmental document at all." Since, the Central Pointe Project is within the scope of the MEMU EIR and will not have any new or more severe impacts than those disclosed, the City is not required to prepare a new CEQA document. Appeal No. 2020-04 - Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC) The SWRCC appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision based on (1) failure to address affordable housing, (2) failure to include qualified Santa Ana residents, veterans and graduates or certificate holders of the Santa Ana Unified School District and Rancho Santiago Community College District in the Project's construction workforce, and (3) failure to ensure the maximum amount of viable commercial development square footage is provided. The SWRCC represents 55,000 carpenters in six states and hundreds of Santa Ana residents. a. The SWRCC appellant states that, "the Planning Commission failed to adequately address affordable housing. The City's municipal code requires that the proposed Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development January 19, 2021 Page 11 development materially assist in accomplishing the goal of providing affordable housing opportunities throughout the City. The Commission failed to address this issue and the Project may not qualify to come under the Santa Ana Housing Opportunity Ordinance, Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-1607 and Public Resources Code Section 15162." Staff Response — The Project does not include on site affordable housing units and is not required to pay an in lieu fee. The Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) Chapter 41, Article XVIII.I was amended by the City Council on September 1, 2020. As amended, Section 1902(a) and (b) the HOO now only applies when a residential project which proposes a residential density above the General Plan permitted density. The Central Pointe Mixed -Use Project is consistent with the General Plan District Center land use designation. No General Plan Amendment is required for the Project. Therefore, the HOO (on site units or in lieu fee) does not apply. Furthermore, Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-1607, entitled "Deviations from density bonus and affordable housing provisions," applies to projects seeking a density bonus or waivers and modifications from development standards. The Project does not seek a density bonus and complies with the development standards of the Metro East Mixed -Use overlay zone. b. SWRCC attests that, "The Planning Commission failed to adequately address the well being of the community in ensuring that qualified Santa Ana residents, veterans and graduates or certificate holders of the Santa Ana Unified School District and Rancho Santiago Community College District are provided a process to be included as part of the workforce constructing the Project." Staff Response — The Planning Commission's responsibilities include decisions regarding land use and zoning as prescribed by ordinance. There is no City ordinance requiring workforce agreements for private development projects. c. SWRCC states, "Failure of the Planning Commission to ensure the maximum amount of viable commercial development on the project ... The failure to require the maximum viable square footage of commercial space will lead to greater vehicle trips from the residents to commercial areas both within Santa Ana ... areas that are already inundated with traffic, and also Tustin, sending sales tax revenue out of Santa Ana. This traffic increase is due to inadequate commercial sites that will exist to serve these new residents was not adequately studied by the commission, something required under California environmental laws." Staff Response — The Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay, Active Urban subzone permits mixed -use development. The Project proposes 644 residential units and 15,130 square feet of commercial space. The Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay does not require a minimum amount of commercial square footage for a mixed -use development. As presented to the Planning Commission the applicant retained the Appeal Application Nos January 19, 2021 Page 12 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development services of two economic consultants, The Concord Group and RSG, to prepare a market and fiscal impact analysis for the Project. To validate the findings of the analysis, the City retained AECOM to peer review the applicant's study. The applicant's study noted that the proposed 15,130 square feet would be sufficient to serve the Project and MEMU area. The City's peer review estimates that the Project could support between 10,000 and 21,000 square feet of commercial space; therefore, the proposed 15,130 square feet is within this range. Additionally, the proportion of commercial space to the overall size of the development is similar to the proportions approved for nearby mixed -use projects. The Project proposes 2.6 percent of the total building square footage as commercial space. The three mixed -use projects within a half -mile of the Project site either under construction or in the pipeline (The Madison, AMG First Point, and Elan) provide a similar proportion of commercial space at 1.4 to 3.5 percent of the total building square footage, while the Nineteen01 project provided a lower ratio. This site is approximately '/2 mile from Seventeenth Street, a main commercial corridor which contains a mixture of commercial uses, such as restaurants, dry cleaners, service stations and supermarkets. Additionally, a retail center located south of the site on East Fourth Street, although partially vacant, also provides retail opportunities in the MEMU zone. Finally, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed Project and reviewed by the City's Public Works Agency. The recommendations of the study will be implemented with the construction of the Project. Table 3: Public Notification & Community Outreach Public Notification and Community Outreach each Required A community meeting was held on August 15, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at Measures Creekside Plaza, 505 N. Tustin Ave., Suite 243 in accordance with the provisions of the City's Sunshine Ordinance. Invitations/notices were mailed to property owners and occupants/tenants in a 500-foot radius from the project site. Approximately 15 members of the public attended, as well as two City staff. The applicant provided all the required information to the City after the meeting. Details from the community meeting were posted to the project's webpage at https://www.santa- ana.org/pb/planning-division/major-planning-projects-and-monthly- d eve I op ment- ro'ect-re orts/central- ointe On January 8, 2021 notification by mail was mailed to all property owners, occupants, and other interested parties within 500 feet of the project site in accordance with SAMC requirements. Newspaper posting was published in the Orange County Reporter in accordance with SAMC requirements. Appeal Application Nos January 19, 2021 Page 13 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Additional On October 22, 2020, the applicant provided an email update on Measures the project to the members of the public that attended the Sunshine meeting. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04, upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2020-04. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with approval of this action. EXHIBIT(S) 1. Appeal Application No. 2020-03 — Supporters' Alliance for Environmental Responsibility 2. Appeal Application No. 2020-04 — Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters 3. Planning Commission Staff Report 4. Resolution Denying Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 5. Plan Set Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Kristine Ridge, City Manager EXHIBIT 1 Planning and Building Agency Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 647-5804 I. OWNERIAPPLICANT APPEAL APPLICATION AmAcant Rebecca Davis on behalf of Supporters' Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation 1939 Harrison St, Suite 150 Oakland CA W12 Mailing Address Legal Owner Name: Park Center Santa Ana Associates L.P. Legal Owner Address: (510 ) 836-4200 Area Code Phone No. 949 South Coast Drive, Suite 600 Costa Mesa CA 92626 Phone No.: (714 ) 481-5145 1I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Land Use Vacant Location Fax: ( AtIWe Urlmn(AU) district District Center (DC} Metro Pan Mixcdd wOft&a 7 e (MEMV) U 1Existing Land Use of Property andlor Building Zoning District General Plan Designation 1801 East Fou liA .St, Fourth Street & Cabrillo Park Dnve Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Ill. REASON FOR REQUEST In the following provided space, please clearly specify and explain the errors) of decision or requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (if additional space is needed, please attach additional comments to the back of this application.) The Citv failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to pregare a supplemental or tiered EIR for the Project. Please see attached for details and additional information. Applicant's Signature: APPEAL APPLICATION NO. crnWrtr-frmlappeai 5100 Date: tb -,Iql DRURYLLP T 510.836.4200 F 510.836.4205 DII_\:111 AI_\I I November 9, 2020 Chair Mark McLoughlin and Commissioners Planning Commission c/o Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 eComments(a)-santa-ana.orq Selena Kelaher, Associate Planner Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 SKelaher(ab,santa-ana.orq 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com Oakland, CA 94612 1 paige@lozeaudrury.com Minh Thai, Executive Director City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency I M20 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 mthai@santa-ana.org Re: Comment on Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project Chair McLoughlin and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of the Supporters' Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER"), a California non-profit organization with members living in and around the City of Santa Ana, regarding the Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project, proposed to be located at 1801 East Fourth Street in the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay ("MEMU") Active Urban zoning district ("Project"). The City of Santa Ana ("City") has received an application for the development of and permit for the Project. SAFER is concerned that the City is proposing to approve the Project without any environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., based on the assertion that the Project was analyzed in the Metro East Use Overlay Zone environmental impact report certified in 2007 and subsequent environmental impact report certified in 2018 (collectively, "MEMU EIR"). The City contends that under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168, no further environmental review is required. A Supplemental EIR (SEIR) or tiered EIR (TEIR) is required for several reasons: Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 2 of 14 the MEMU EIR was a programmatic EIR, not a project -level EIR. No project -level EIR has been prepared for this Project but one is required; 2. the proposed Project is an entirely different project than what was analyzed in the MEMU EIR ("MEMU Project"); 3. the proposed Project will have new and different environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the MEMU EIR; 4. there is substantial evidence of new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MEMU EIR was certified as complete showing the Project will have a significant impacts not discussed in the MEMU EIR; 5. the City's traffic and hazard and hazardous materials conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence; and 6. the MEMU EIR recognized that the MEMU Project would have several significant and unmitigated environmental impacts. As such, a draft EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project. By opting not to proceed with the required SEIR or TEIR, the City has deprived the members of the public of the public review and circulation requirement available for EIRs. SAFER urges the Commission not to approve the Project, and instead to direct staff to prepare a Draft SEIR or TEIR for the Project, and to circulate the EIR for public review and comment prior to Project approval. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project involves a residential and commercial development that would consist of two buildings comprised of 644 residential units and 15,130 square feet of commercial space, 1,300 parking spaces and associated amenities and open space. The Project would be located at 1801 East Fourth Street, within the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Active Urban zoning district. II. CEQA REQUIRES THE CITY TO PREPARE A TIERED EIR FOR THE PROJECT. CEQA permits agencies to `tier' EIRs, in which general matters and environmental effects are considered in an EIR "prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower or site -specific [EIRs] which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior [EIR] and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior [EIR]." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code ("PRC") § 21068.5.) "[T]iering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon the issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of environmental effects examined in previous [EIRs]." (PRC § 21093.) The initial general Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 3 of 14 policy -oriented EIR is called a programmatic EIR ("PEIR") and offers the advantage of allowing "the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts." (14 CCR ("CEQA Guidelines") §15168.) CEQA regulations strongly promote tiering of EIRs, stating that "[EIRs] shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency." (PRC § 21093.) Once a program EIR has been prepared, "[s]ubsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." (CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c).) The first consideration is whether the activity proposed is covered by the PER. (ld.) If a later project is outside the scope of the program, then it is treated as a separate project and the PER may not be relied upon in further review. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1307.) The second consideration is whether the "later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(1).) A PER may only serve "to the extent that it contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project." (Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado ("El Dorado") (2012) 202 Cal.AppAth 1156.) If the PER does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the project, a tiered EIR must be completed before the project is approved. (Id.) For these inquiries, the "fair argument test" applies. (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.AppAth 1307, 1318; see also Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.AppAth 1152, 1164 ("when a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program or plan, the question for a court reviewing an agency's decision not to use a tiered EIR for a later project 'is one of law, i.e., the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument."').) Under the fair argument test, a new EIR must be prepared "whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact. (ld. at 1316 (quotations omitted).) When applying the fair argument test, "deference to the agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." (Sierra Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th at 1312.) "[I]f there is substantial evidence in the record that the later project may arguably have a significant adverse effect on the environment which was not examined in the prior program EIR, doubts must be resolved in favor of environmental review and the agency must prepare a new tiered EIR, notwithstanding the existence of contrary evidence." (Id. at 1319.) In Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens the California Supreme Court explained the differing analyses that apply when a project EIR was originally approved and changes are being made to the project, and when a tiered program EIR was originally prepared and a subsequent project is proposed consistent with the program or plan: For project EIRs, of course, a subsequent or supplemental impact report is required in the event there are substantial changes to the project or its circumstances, or in the event of material new and previously unavailable information. (Friends of Mammoth, citing § 21166.) In contrast, when a tiered EIR has been prepared, review of a subsequent project proposal is more searching. If the subsequent project is consistent with the program or plan for which the Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 4 of 14 EIR was certified, then `CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare an initial study to determine if the later project may cause significant environmental effects not examined in the first tier EIR.' (Ibid. citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21094, subds. (a), (c).) `If the subsequent project is not consistent with the program or plan, it is treated as a new project and must be fully analyzed in a project —or another tiered EIR if it may have a significant effect on the environment.' (Friends of Mammoth, at pp. 528-529, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 334.) (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist. ("San Mateo Gardens") (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 960.) The MEMU EIR is explicit that it was prepared in accordance with CEQA's Program EIR provisions, and that subsequent projects must undergo the tiered review process just described. The MEMU EIR states "[e]ach development proposal undertaken during the planning horizon of the Overlay Zone must be approved individually by the City in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the MEMU Overlay Zone is analyzed at a program level, which evaluates the effects of the implementation of the entire Overlay Zone." (Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects Subsequent EIR, p. 1-4 (emphasis added).) As a result, CEQA requires the City to prepare an initial study to determine if the Project may cause significant environmental effects not examined in the MEMU EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21094.) There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed in the MEMU EIR. Accordingly, an EIR must be prepared for the Project. III. THE CITY CANNOT BYPASS CEQA REVIEW FOR THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE PROGRAM EIR. The Project has never been analyzed under CEQA. The City incorrectly states that the Project has already been analyzed under CEQA in the MEMU EIR. Those documents analyze the City's mixed -use overlay zone, and the expansion of the Metro East mixed - use overlay zone and the Elan Project. (See City of Santa Ana Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone EIR, p. 1-1; see also Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects Subsequent EIR, p. 1-1.) Neither of those documents analyzed this Project, which is also made clear by the City's analysis of the Elan Project in the MEMU EIR and exclusion of such an analysis for the proposed Project. Since the Project has not undergone CEQA review, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project. As the California Supreme Court explained in San Mateo Gardens, subsequent CEQA review provisions "can apply only if the project has been subject to initial review; they can have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject to review." (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist. ("San Mateo Gardens") (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950.) If the proposed Project had already been addressed in the MEMU EIR, the standard for determining whether further review is required would be governed by CEQA Guidelines 15162 and Public Resources Code section 21166, and an addendum could potentially be allowed under CEQA Guidelines section 15164. These sections are inapplicable here, Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 5 of 14 however, because the proposed Project has never undergone CEQA review. Neither an EIR nor a negative declaration was prepared for the Project, and the Project was never mentioned or discussed in the MEMU EIR. As a result, the City cannot rely on the subsequent review provisions of CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 or 15164, and must instead prepare a tiered EIR under CEQA Guidelines 15168. IV. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. A. Health Risk Impacts. Exhibit 11 of the Staff Report includes a Health Risk Assessment ("HRA") for the Project. See October 26, 2020 Staff Report, p. 1-40. The HRA calculates the excess cancer risk from exposure to vehicle exhaust to be 3.58 in one million, which would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") significance threshold of 10 in one million. See id, p. 1-46. However, environmental consulting firm SWAPE concludes that this evaluation of the Project's health risk impacts is insufficient for two reasons. See Air Quality Comments (November 6, 2020) (Exhibit A). First, the Staff Report's cancer risk estimate of 3.58 in one million should not be considered in isolation. Id., p. 5. Additional impacts related to non -cancer health risks have been documented by people living near congested roadways. See id., pp. 5-6. The 1-5 adjacent to the Project has 14 lanes of traffic, and in the area of the Project, the 1-5 freeway has been ranked to be one of the busiest in California. Id., p. 6. People living within the Project will be located 70 to 750 feet downwind from the 1-5 and as close as 2,500 feet southwest of the 55 Freeway. Therefore, many of the Project's residents will be subjected to additional non -cancer health risks as a result of close proximity to the 1-5 and 55 Freeways. Id. Despite CARB recommendations to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway and avoiding exposing children to elevated air pollution levels immediately downwind of freeways, asthma and other non -cancer, freeway -related health risks were not assessed in the HRA prepared for the Project. Id., pp. 6-7. An EIR should be prepared to include an assessment of all health risks faced by residents at the Project, not just cancer. Id., p. 7. Second, while the Staff Report estimates the cancer risk posed to people that will be housed on the Project site as a result of proximity to nearby roadways, it fails to quantify the risk posed to people living nearby the Project suite as a result of the Project's construction and operation. Id., p. 8. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), a human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and by failing to prepare an HRA for the Project's construction, the City's air quality analysis is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. Id. The omission of a quantified operational HRA is also inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by OEHHA. Id. Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 6 of 14 SWAPE prepared its own screening -level HRA to estimate the emissions associated with the Project's construction and operation using Project -specific information provided in the Staff Report. See id., pp. 8-12. SWAPE found that the excess cancer risk for adults, children, and infants at a sensitive receptor located approximately 125 meters away over the course of the Project construction and operation are approximately 91, 820, and 430 in one million, respectively. Id., pp. 11-12. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of the Project's operation of 30 years is approximately 1,300 in one million. Id., p. 12. These all exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the MEMU EIR or the Staff Report. Id. SWAPE's analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health risk impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions, and a revised HRA must be prepared disclosing these impacts. B. Greenhouse Gas Impacts. The 2018 MEMU SEIR states that "the City's CAP is consistent with AB 32 and considered to be a qualifying plan through 2020 under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5," and the 2018 MEMU SEIR therefore utilized the City's Climate Action Plan ("CAP") to evaluate the Project's GHG impact and conclude that the emissions would be less than significant. See Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects Subsequent EIR, p. 4-59; see also Ex. A, p. 13. However, the City's reliance on the 2018 MEMU SEIR and the subsequent less -than -significant impact conclusion is incorrect for several reasons. See Ex. A, p. 13. First, as stated in the 2018 MEMU SEIR, the City's CAP is consistent with AB 32 and only qualified up to 2020. Id. projects that will become operational beyond 2020 should not tier from CAPs only qualified up to 2020, and since it is already November 2020 and the Project has yet to be approved, it will not be operational by 2020. Id., pp. 13-14. Thus, the City's CAP is now outdated and inapplicable to the Project, and should therefore not be relied upon to determine the significance of GHG impacts beyond 2020. Id., p. 14. Second, the Project's GHG emissions indicate a potentially significant GHG impact when applying the SCAQMD efficiency threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year for the year 2035. Id. The CalEEMod output files modeled by SWAPE with Project -specific information disclose the Project's GHG emissions, which include approximately 1,553 MT Co2e/year of construction related emissions and 7,915 MT CO2e/year of annual operational emissions. Id. Additionally, the Staff Report indicates that the Project would generate a service population of 1,399 people. See October 26, 2020 Staff Report, p. 1-258. Dividing the Project's GHG emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, by a service population value of 1,399 people results in the Project emitting approximately 5.7 MT CO2e/SP/year. Ex. A, pp. 14-15. Compared to the SCAQMD efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, the Project would result in a significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the MEMU EIR. SWAPE's analysis provides substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental effects and must therefore be analyzed in a project -level EIR. Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 7 of 14 V. EVEN IF THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM EIR, A SUBSEQUENT EIR IS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162. CEQA Guidelines section 15168 provides that a program EIR may be used for later activities and the agency is not required to prepare a new environmental document if the later activity is within the scope of the program covered by the program EIR and "[i]f the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required." CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(2). Additionally, the lead agency's determination of whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is one that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Id. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that if an EIR has been certified for a project, a subsequent EIR should not be prepared unless one of the following occurs: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Id. § 15162(a). Here, there is substantial evidence of new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MEMU EIR was certified as complete, including that the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIRs, and Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 8 of 14 mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIRs would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. VI. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE, WHICH WAS NOT KNOWN AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN WITH THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE AT THE TIME THE MEMU EIR WAS CERTIFIED AS COMPLETE SHOWING THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT HEALTH RISK IMPACT FROM ITS INDOOR AIR QUALITY NOT DISCUSSED IN THE MEMU EIR. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (November 3, 2020) (Exhibit B). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents and employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer -causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann's calculations are based on new information from a study published in 2019 on formaldehyde emissions. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. See attached CV. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in modern hotel construction contain formaldehyde -based glues which off -gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, "The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." Ex. B, pp. 2-3. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that the residents and employees of the Project are expected to experience significant exposures. Id., p. 4. This exposure would result in "significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels." Id. Mr. Offermann calculates that the residents of the Project will likely be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 in one million, 12 times the SCAQMD significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 in one million. Id., p. 5. Mr. Offermann also calculates that employees of the Project will likely be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 17.7 per million, which also exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Id., p. 4. Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project's indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project's location in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non -attainment area for PM2.5. Id., p. 11. The City should conduct an air quality analysis to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day, and the analysis needs to consider the cumulative impacts of Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 9 of 14 the Project -related emissions, existing, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. Id. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to residents and employees at the Project. Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id., p. 4. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins in the buildings' interiors. Id., p. 12. Mr. Offermann relies in part on the study by Singer et al. published in 2020 to calculate of the Projects emissions. This study analyzed the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde for homes built between 2011 and 2015, and since only Phase 2 composite wood products were permitted for sale after July 2012, most of the homes in the Singer study were constructed with CARB Phase 2 compliant materials. See id., p. 3. The Singer study shows that homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations of 22.4 pg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 pg/m3 found in the 2007 California New Home Study. See id. While these buildings had a lower median formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk for homes built with CARB Phase 2 compliant composite wood products still greatly exceeded the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold. Id. Mr. Offermann relies in part on the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in the 2020 Singer study to conclude that the Project will have similar indoor concentrations of formaldehyde as observed in the Singer study and exceed the CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk because the building materials and furnishings commonly found in homes that release formaldehyde are also found in multi -family residential buildings and commercial buildings. The 2020 Singer study and resulting finding that a project's compliance with CARB Phase 2 compliant materials is not enough to get a project below the cancer risk threshold is new information that was not previously available of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2007 MEMU EIR or the 2018 MEMU SEIR were certified as complete, showing that the Project will have a significant health risk impact from its indoor air quality not discussed in the MEMU EIR. Therefore, the City must prepare a subsequent EIR for the Project. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert's comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1544, 1597-98 ("under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts"). In addition to assessing the Project's potential health impacts to residents and workers, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects' future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 10 of 14 SCAQMD level. Ex. B, pp. 6-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review. The failure to address the project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Assn v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 CalAth 369, 386 ("CBIA'). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment's effects on a project. CBIA, 62 CalAth at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 ("CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present"). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA's statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." Id. at 800 (emphasis added). The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a 11project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process. The Supreme Court's reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA's statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project's effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. "Section 21083(b)(3)'s express language, for example, requires a finding of a `significant effect on the environment' (§ 21083(b)) whenever the `environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly."' CBIA, 62 CalAth at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, "the Legislature has made clear —in declarations accompanying CEQA's enactment —that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme." Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the hundreds of future residents and employees of the project are human beings and the health and safety of those people is as important to CEQA's safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site. Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 11 of 14 VII. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE, WHICH WAS NOT KNOWN AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN WITH THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE AT THE TIME THE MEMU EIR WAS CERTIFIED AS COMPLETE SHOWING THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE MEMU EIR. Ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's impacts on biological resources. Shawn Smallwood Comments (November 5, 2020) (Exhibit C). The MEMU EIR explicitly did not analyze impacts to birds from collisions with windows. As Dr. Smallwood notes, the only window issue addressed was potential glare, to which the 2007 MEMU EIR specified "[p]roposed new structures shall be designed to maximize the use of textured or other nonreflective exterior surfaces and non -reflective glass. See 2007 MEMU EIR, p. i-5. The only mitigation measures formulated to minimize bird impacts included preconstruction surveys for nesting birds, timing of tree removals to avoid the nesting season, and carefu use of construction vehicles. See MM-OZ 4.3-1. However, as Dr. Smallwood explains, substantial evidence of new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2007 MEMU EIR and 2018 MEMU SEIR were certified as complete shows the Project may have a significant impact on biological resources that was not discussed in the MEMU EIR. Since the 2007 MEMU EIR and 2019 MEMU SEIR, ornithologists learned that North American bird abundance declined 29% over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Ex. C, p. 2. In response to this new circumstance — whether directly or indirectly, Governor Newsom signed AB 454 into law on September 27, 2019. Id. This new law amended California Fish and Game Code section 3513 to further protect birds addressed by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and carries particular significance for the impacts of window collisions that the Project would have on birds. Id. Not only do all native migratory birds now have additional protections of California's Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but at least 44 special -status species of birds are known to the Project area. Id. Thanks to a study released this year, we know also know that 21 of these special -status species have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations. Id; see also Basilio et al. 2020. Many more species newly protected by AB 454 have also been documented as window collision victims. Id. Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building facades, which is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and is represented by a worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016. Ex C., p. 5. As Dr. Smallwood observes, glass is also a prominent feature of the Project, and Dr. Smallwood estimates that greater than 70% of facades could be composed of glass, including glass railings and Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 12 of 14 glass walls. Id. "The depictions in the Staff Report include additional contributing collision hazards such as large transparent glass panels, interior lighting, nearby trees, and entrapment spaces interior to the building structures." Id. Since the 2007 MEMU EIR and 2018 MEMU SEIR failed to analyze the Project's impacts to birds due to collisions with windows, Dr. Smallwood reviewed numerous studies, several published after the certification of both EIRs, that averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year to calculate the Project's impacts to birds. See id., p. 8. Dr. Smallwood estimated the Project would include at least 17,991 m2 of glass panels, which would result in approximately 1,315 bird deaths per year. Id. As Dr. Smallwood states, reports of scientific investigations published since the 2007 MEMU EIR and 2018 MEMU SEIR have informed the scientific community of the magnitude of impacts on North American birds, of the factors contributing to bird -window collisions, and how to mitigate collision risk. Id., p. 9. Further, guidance on how to design buildings and reduce the collision hazards of glass were also produced since the 2007 MEMU EIR. Id. These new reports and guidance documents provide new information of substantial importance. Based on this information, Dr. Smallwood's analysis provides substantial evidence of a new significant impact that was not known and could not have been known at the time the 2007 MEMU EIR and 2018 MEMU SEIR were certified, and therefore a project -level EIR is required. VIII. THE CITY'S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT'S HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. The MEMU EIR MMRP requires that, prior to issuance of grading permits on any project site, the developer shall "[i]nvestigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous materials contamination via the preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment (ESA)." MM-OZ 4.6-2. However, not only is this analysis improperly deferred under CEQA, but the MEMU EIR nor the Staff Report prepared for the Project contained a Phase 1 ESA for the Project site. Therefore, an EIR needs to be prepared to include a Phase 1 ESA for the Project site. See Ex. A, pp. 1-2. Additionally, without a Phase 1 ESA prepared for the Project, the City's assertion that the Project's environmental effects were already analyzed in the MEMU EIR are therefore not supported by substantial evidence. IX. THE CITY'S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT'S TRAFFIC IMPACTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. The MEMU EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") requires that separate traffic studies specific to individual proposed projects must be prepared. See MM-OZ 4.12-2. On July 30, 2020, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers prepared a traffic analysis report for the Project, using the Level of Service ("LOS") methodology. See October 26, 2020 Staff Report, p. 1-121. However, Senate Bill 743 ("SB-743") amended CEQA to require calculation and estimates of vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") for all development projects approved in California after July 1, 2020. Since the Project has not Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 13 of 14 yet been approved, the traffic analysis prepared for the Project was required to use the VMT methodology, and therefore, the City's conclusions about the Project's traffic impacts are not supported by substantial evidence. X. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN EIR BECAUSE THE MEMU EIR ADMITS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. An EIR must be prepared for the Project because the MEMU EIR determined that the MEMU Project would cause significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and cultural resources. In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 122-125 (disapproved on other grounds by Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 CalAth 1086), the court of appeal held that when a "first tier" EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare second tier EIRs for later projects to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are "mitigated or avoided." (ld. citing CEQA Guidelines §15152(f).) The court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts was not "adequately addressed" in the first tier EIR since it was not "mitigated or avoided." (ld.) Thus, significant effects disclosed in first tier EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been "adequately addressed," in a way that ensures the effects will be "mitigated or avoided." (Id.) Such a second tier EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, "The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA's role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support." (ld. at 124-125.) The court specifically rejected a prior version of the CEQA guidelines regarding tiering that would have allowed a statement of overriding considerations for a program -level project to be used for a later specific project within that program. (Id. at 124.) Even though "a prior EIR's analysis of environmental effects may be subject to being incorporated in a later EIR for a later, more specific project, the responsible public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (Id. at 124-25.) Since the MEMU EIR admitted numerous significant, unmitigated impacts, a second tier EIR is now required to determine if mitigation measures can now be imposed to reduce or eliminate those impacts. If the impacts still remain significant and unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations will be required. XI. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, SAFER respectfully requests the Planning Commission decline to approve the Project, and instead direct Planning Staff to prepare and circulate an Project -level EIR for public review. SAFER preserves its right to make additional comments on the Project. Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project November 9, 2020 Page 14 of 14 Sincerely, Paige Fennie LOZEAU DRURY LLP Exhibit A S� PE Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29`" Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com November 6, 2020 Paige Fennie Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Comments on the Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Dear Ms. Fennie, We have reviewed the October 2020 Staff Report ("Staff Report") for the Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project ("Project"), as well as the June 2018 Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("2018 DSEIR"), for the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects ("Approved Project"), located in the City of Santa Ana ("City"). The Project proposes to construct 644 multi -family residential units, including associated amenities and open space, 15,130-SF of commercial land use space, as well as 1,318 parking spaces on the 8.03-acre Project site. Our review concludes that the Staff Report fails to adequately evaluate the Project's hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. A subsequent EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment. Hazards and Hazardous Materials No Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has been prepared for the Project site, located at 1801 E. Fourth Street. In the October 26, 2020 Staff Report, the City relies upon the 2007 City of Santa Ana Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone EIR to evaluate Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The City also relies upon the 2018 Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects Subsequent EIR. Neither EIR contained a site -specific analysis of the potential environmental hazards of the Project site. An EIR needs to be prepared to include a Phase I ESA for the Project site. The 2018 EIR does include mitigation (MM-OZ 4.6-2) to require, prior to grading, the preparation of a Phase I ESA; however, this constitutes deferred mitigation. Instead, a Phase II ESA should be prepared and included in an EIR to provide proper disclosure of any contaminants at the Project site that may pose a risk to construction workers or future residents. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Incorrect Reliance on the 2018 DSEIR The Staff Report relies upon the DSEIR for project -level environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168, stating: "In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2006-01 (SCH No. 2006031041) and Subsequent EIR SEIR No. 2018-15 as per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines. All mitigation measures in EIR No. 2006-01 and SEIR No. 2018-15 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be enforced and apply to the proposed project" (emphasis added) (p. 1-14). However, the Staff Report's claim that the Project was adequately evaluated in the Approved Project DSEIR is incorrect for four reasons. (1) Additional, feasible mitigation measures exist that would substantially reduce the Project's criteria air pollutant emissions; (2) The Staff Report fails to adequately evaluate the Project's health risk impacts; (3) SWAPE's screening -level health risk assessment indicates potentially significant health risk impacts; and (4) SWAPE's updated analysis indicates potentially significant GHG emissions. 1) Additional Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions As previously stated, the Staff Report relies upon the DSEIR for project -level environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162 and 15168. Regarding the Approved Project's construction - related emissions, the 2018 DSEIR states: "[W]hen the MEMU Overlay Zone project is evaluated in its entirety, taking into consideration construction emissions generated from all development proposed in the Overlay Zone, impacts from construction emissions, even with implementation of mitigation measures MM-OZ 4.2-2 through MM-OZ 4.2-16 from the MEMU EIR, would also be significant and unavoidable" (p. 4- 10). As you can see in the excerpt above, after the implementation of MM-OZ 4.2-2 through MM-OZ 4.2-16, the 2018 DSEIR concludes that the Approved Project's construction -related criteria air pollutant 2 emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, regarding the Approved Project's operational criteria air pollutant emissions, the 2018 DSEIR states: "[S]imilar to the conclusion in the MEMU EIR, operational sources under the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact associated with VOCs, NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.1 Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation is available" (emphasis added) (p. 4-12). As you can see in the excerpt above, the 2018 DSEIR concludes no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the Project's operational criteria air pollutant emissions, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. However, the Staff Report's reliance on the 2018 DSEIR's air quality impact significance determination is incorrect, as additional, feasible mitigation measures exist that were not considered that would substantially reduce the Project's criteria pollutant emissions. According to CEQA Guidelines section 15162: "(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proiect, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative" (emphasis added). As the above excerpt demonstrates, if additional mitigation measures are found to be feasible for the proposed Project that were not incorporated in the 2018 DSEIR, a subsequent EIR should be prepared. Here, there are numerous additional mitigation measures available that would reduce the Project's construction -related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions. Namely, while the 2018 DSEIR includes MM-AQ-1, which requires off -road construction equipment to meet Tier 4 standards, the 2018 DSEIR fails to acknowledge the possibility of requiring off -road construction equipment to meet the more efficient Tier 4 Final standards (p. ES-15, Table ES-2). Furthermore, additional mitigation measures that would reduce the Project's construction -related criteria air pollutant emissions can be found in from NEDC's Diesel Emission Controls in Construction 3 Projects.' Therefore, the following mitigation measures should be considered to reduce the Project's operational criteria pollutant emissions: ■ Diesel Emission Control Technology o Ensure that all diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days have either (1) engines that meet EPA onroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. o Ensure that all diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days are equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. ■ Upon confirming that the diesel vehicle, construction equipment, or generator has either an engine meeting Tier 4 non road emission standards or emission control technology, as specified above, installed and functioning, the developer will issue a compliance sticker. All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall display the compliance sticker in a visible, external location as designated by the developer. o Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer. o All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra -low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less. ■ Reporting o For each on -road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator, the contractor shall submit to the developer's representative a report prior to bringing said equipment on site that includes: ■ Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. ■ The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, and EPA/CARB verification number/level. ■ The Certification Statement signed and printed on the contractor's letterhead. o The contractor shall submit to the developer's representative a monthly report that, for each on -road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: ■ Hour -meter readings on arrival on -site, the first and last day of every month, and on off -site date. ' "Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects." Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC), December 2010, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract- sepcification.pdf. z Biodiesel blends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/reg/biodieselcompliance.pdf. 4 ■ Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. ■ Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: • Source of supply • Quantity of fuel • Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) Furthermore, the following mitigation measures should be considered to reduce the Project's operational criteria pollutant emissions: • Site Design o Incorporate urban infill, higher density, mixed use and walkable, bikeable, and transit - oriented designs to significantly reduce vehicle activity and associated air quality impacts. • Energy Efficiency o Orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling to reduce building energy demand and reduce emissions at the power plant source and natural gas combustion in homes and commercial buildings. • Transportation o Reduce the demand for single -occupancy vehicle trips to reduce vehicle emissions. o Use cleaner fueled vehicles or retrofitting equipment with emission control devices to reduce the overall emissions without impacting operations. These measures offer cost-effective, feasible ways to reduce the Project's construction -related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions. As additional mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project's emissions, the proposed Project's reliance on the 2018 DSEIR and the subsequent significant -and -unavoidable air quality impact conclusion is incorrect. A subsequent EIR should be prepared and recirculated to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality impacts and implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project's emissions to a less -than -significant levels. 2) Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated Exhibit 11 calculates the excess cancer risk from exposure to vehicle exhaust to be 3.58 in a million, which would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") significance threshold of 10 in one million (p. 1-46). However, the Staff Report's evaluation of the Project's health risk impacts in insufficient for two reasons. First, the Staff Report's cancer risk estimate of 3.58 in one million should not be considered in isolation. Additional impacts related to non -cancer health risks have been documented for those people living near congested roadways. Key findings from a 2005 California Air Resources Board ("CARB") report3 on health risk impacts from nearby freeways include: 3 "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective." CARB, April 2005, available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. 5 • Reduced lung function in children was associated with traffic density, especially trucks, within 1,000 feet and the association was strongest within 300 feet. • Increased asthma hospitalizations were associated with living within 650 feet of heavy traffic and heavy truck volume. (Lin, 2000) • Asthma symptoms increased with proximity to roadways and the risk was greatest within 300 feet. (Venn, 2001) • A San Diego study found increased medical visits in children living within 550 feet of heavy traffic. (English, 1999) The 1-5 adjacent to the Project has 14 lanes of traffic, including two northbound onramp lanes. In the area of the project, the 1-5 Freeway has been ranked to be one of the busiest in California, if not the busiest.' People living within the Project will be located 70 to 750 feet downwind of the 1-5 Freeway and as close as 2,500 feet southwest of the 55 Freeway. Therefore, many of the Project's residents will be subjected to additional non -cancer health risks as a result of close proximity to the 1-5 and 55 Freeways. CARB concludes: "The combination of the children's health studies and the distance related findings suggests that it is important to avoid exposing children to elevated air pollution levels immediately downwind of freeways and high traffic roadways. These studies suggest a substantial benefit to a 500-foot separation."' As a result, CARB recommends that projects: "[a]void siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day."' Again, the closest people living on the Project site will be within 70 feet of the 1-5. A 300-foot radius from the freeway will encompass approximately a third of the Project. ' "Highway Statistics." California Highways, Last modified July 2020, available at: https://www.cahighways.org/stats3.htmi. S "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective." CARB, April 2005, available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf, p. 10. 6 "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective." CARB, April 2005, available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf, p. 15. [1 Despite these recommendations, asthma and other non -cancer, freeway -related health risks were not assessed in Exhibit 11 to the Staff Report. No mention of additional health risks, including asthma, are made in the Staff Report or in the 2018 EIR. Rather, Exhibit 11, in a section entitled "Potential Cancer and Non -Cancer Risks" relies on a single health impact outcome, cancer, to conclude that health impacts would be less than significant: "For carcinogenic exposures resulting from exposure to toxics from the freeway, the summation of risk for the maximum exposed residential receptor totaled 3.58 in one million and will not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million" (p. 1-46). An EIR should be prepared to include an assessment of all risks faced by residents at the Project not only cancer, especially to sensitive groups, such as newborns and the elderly. Because of the proximity to the 1-5 and the 55 freeways, all feasible mitigation should be considered in the EIR to reduce health impacts to people living at the project. Feasible mitigation, implemented at other Southern California projects adjacent to freeways include: • Disclose to residents the potential health impacts from living in proximity to the 1-5 and 55 freeways; • Installation, use, and maintenance of filtration systems with at least a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 15; • Lead Agency verification and certification of the implementation the filtration systems; • Lead Agency verification of maintenance to include manufacturer's recommended filter replacement schedule; • Disclosure to residents that opening windows will reduce the health -protectiveness of the filter systems. 7 Second, while the Staff Report estimates the cancer risk posed to people that will be housed on the Project site as a result of proximity to nearby roadways, the Staff Report fails to quantify the risk posed to people living nearby the Project site as a result of Project construction and operation. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), a human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment. By failing to prepare a health risk assessment ("HRA") for Project construction, the Staff Report is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.' This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.' While we were not provided the length of the Project's construction period, based on the size of the Project, we can reasonably assume that it would exceed the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, thus requiring a quantified HRA per OEHHA guidance (p. 2-11). Furthermore, the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report ("TIA") indicates that Project operation would generate 4,121 daily vehicle trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 1-146). The omission of a quantified operational HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by OEHHA. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR").' Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an EIR be prepared, including an assessment of health risk impacts posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors from Project construction and operation. 3) Screening -Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Health Risk Impacts In an effort to estimate the emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project, we prepared a CalEEMod model, using the Project -specific information provided by the Staff Report. In our model, we included 644 residential units as "Apartments Mid Rise," 11,700-SF of "Regional Shopping Center," 3,500-SF of "High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)," and 1,318 parking spaces as "Enclosed ' "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/hotspots2015.html 8 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-18 ' "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15 N Parking with Elevator." We adjusted the default CalEEMod trip rates to reflect the average number of daily trips estimated by the TIA and left all other values as default. In order to conduct our screening -level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.10 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA11 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("CAPCOA")12 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs"). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site -specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary HRA to quantify the Project's construction -related and operational health risk impacts posed to nearby residential receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the SWAPE CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. SWAPE's CaIEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 263 pounds of DPM over the default 447-day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: grams 263.4 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate (second) = x x x = 0.003094 g/s second 447 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.003094 grams per second ("g/s"). Subtracting the 447-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM for an additional 28.78 years, approximately. SWAPE's operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 1,443 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation: grams 1,365 days lbs 443 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate (second ) = x 24 hours 3,600 seconds x x = 0.02075 g/s Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.02075 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as an 8.03-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with 10 U.S. EPA (April 2011) AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model, htto://www.eoa.eov/ttn/scram/euidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.odf 11 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 12 CAPCOA (July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf. p] dimensions of 194.5 by 167 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model -default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single -hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single -hour concentration by 10%.13 Review of the AERSCREEN output files and Google Earth demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 125 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 3.357 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 125 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.3357 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single - hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 22.52 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 125 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 2.252 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR. We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. Consistent with the default CalEEMod construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for Project construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.97 years of the infantile stage of life (0 - 2 years). The annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remaining 1.03 years of the infantile stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 -16 years), and the entire the adult stage of life (16 - 30 years). Consistent with OEHHA, as recommended by the SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASF") to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.",1s,16 According to this guidance, the quantified cancer risk should 13 "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." EPA, 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 CCR.pdf; see also "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." CEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 4-36. 14 "Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed The Exchange (SCH No. 2018071058)." SCAQMD, March 2019, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/comment- letters/2019/march/RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 4. 11 "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017, available at: http://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/cega guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56; see also "Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards." BAAQMD, May 2011, available at: http://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling%20Approac h.ashx, p. 65, 86. 16 "Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address CEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document." SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf, p. 8, 20, 24. 10 be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant) as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 -16 years). We also included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from 2003. This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD, the air quality district with jurisdiction over the City, and several other air districts in the state. Furthermore, in accordance with the guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95t" percentile breathing rates for infants.17 Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH") Value of 1 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors.18 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below. The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR) Duration Concentration Breathing Cancer Risk Cancer Activity (years) (ug/m3) Rate (L/kg- without ASF Risk with day) ASFs* ASFs* Construction 0.25 0.3357 361 4.6E-07 10 4.6E-06 3rd Trimester 3rd Duration 0.25 4.6E-07 Trimester 4.6E-06 Exposure Construction 0.97 0.3357 1090 5.4E-06 10 5.4E-05 Operation 1.03 2.252 1090 3.8E-05 10 3.8E-04 Infant Exposure 2.00 4.3E-05 Infant 4.3E-04 Duration Exposure Operation 14.00 2.252 572 2.7E-04 3 8.2E-04 Child Exposure Child 14.00 2.7E-04 8.2E-04 Duration Exposure Operation 14.00 2.252 261 9.1E-05 1 9.1E-05 Adult Exposure 14.00 9.1E-05 Adult 9,1E-05 Duration Exposure Lifetime Exposure 30.00 4.1E-04 Lifetime 1.3E-03 Duration Exposure * We, along with CARB and SCAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs. As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy at the MEIR located approximately 125 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately 91, 820, 430, and 4.6 in 1' "Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act," July 2018, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588supplementalguidelines.pdf, p. 16. "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 18 "Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212." SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-sou rce/ru le-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p. 7. 11 one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing age sensitivity factors, is approximately 1,300 in one million. The infant, child, adult, and lifetime cancer risks all exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the Staff Report or 2018 DSEIR. Utilizing age sensitivity factors is the most conservative, health -protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and reflects recommendations from the air district. Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy at the MEIR located approximately 125 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, without age sensitivity factors, are approximately 91, 270, 43, and 0.46 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), without age sensitivity factors, is approximately 410 in one million. The infant, child, adult, and lifetime cancer risks, without age sensitivity factors, all exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the Staff Report or 2018 DSEIR. While we recommend the use of age sensitivity factors, health risk impacts exceed the SCAQMD threshold regardless. Furthermore, according to CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a): (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration" (emphasis added). As you can see in the excerpt above, if a significant impact is found that was not previously discussed in the EIR, a subsequent EIR should be prepared. Here, as SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously discussed in the 2018 DSEIR, a subsequent EIR should be prepared for the Project. Our analysis represents a screening -level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.19 The purpose of the screening -level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening -level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, 19 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5 12 applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening -level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, the City should prepare a Project -specific EIR with an HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. 4) Updated Analysis Indicates Potentially Significant GHG Impact As previously stated, the Staff Report relies upon the 2018 DSEIR for project -level environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162 and 15168. Regarding the Approved Project's greenhouse gas ("GHG") impact, the 2018 DSEIR states: "[C]onsistency with the City's CAP is the most relevant approach for analyzing the project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect of GHG emissions because the City's CAP is consistent with AB 32 and considered to be a qualifying plan through 2020 under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5" (p. 4-59). Thus, the 2018 DSEIR utilized the City's Climate Action Plan ("CAP") to evaluate the Approved Project's GHG impact and conclude that emissions would be less than significant. Based on this analysis, the proposed Project's GHG emissions are presumed to be insignificant. However, the Project's reliance on the 2018 DSEIR, as well as the subsequent less -than -significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for two reasons. First, according to CEQA Guidelines section 15162: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects" (emphasis added). As you can see in the excerpt above, if substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, a subsequent EIR should be prepared. Here, as previously stated, the 2018 DSEIR relied upon the City's CAP. However, as stated in the 2018 DSEIR, the City's CAP is consistent with AB 32 and only qualified up to 2020 (p. 4-69). Regarding the use of CAPs and GHG reduction plans ("GGRPs") qualified up to 2020, AEP's Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California states: 13 "Projects with a horizon year (e.g. the year in which the proiect is fully realized) beyond 2020 should not tier from a GHG reduction plan that may be qualified up to 2020 but is not yet qualified for a post-2020 period" (emphasis added).20 As you can see in the excerpt above, projects that will become operational beyond 2020 should not tier from CAPS only qualified up to 2020. Given that it is already November 2020 and the Project has yet to be approved, we know that the Project will not become operational by 2020. Thus, the City's CAP is now outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Proiect, as it should not be relied upon to determine the significance of GHG impacts beyond 2020. Thus, the Project's reliance on the 2018 DSEIR, as well as the subsequent less -than -significant impaction conclusion, is incorrect, as the Project's post-2020 GHG emissions require updated analysis. Second, the Project's GHG emissions indicate a potentially significant GHG impact when applying the SCAQMD efficiency threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/year for the year 2035, which was calculated based on a 40% reduction from the 2020 GHG efficient target .21 The CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE with Project -specific information, disclose the Project's GHG emissions, which include approximately 1,553 MT CO2e/year of construction -related emissions (sum of 2020, 2021, and 2022) and 7,915 MT CO2e/year of annual operational emissions (sum of area, energy, mobile, waste, and water -related emissions). Furthermore, the Staff Report indicates that the Project would generate a service population of 1,399 people (p. 1-258). Dividing the Project's GHG emissions, as estimated by the SWAPE, by a service population value of 1,399 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 5.7 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).zz 21 "Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California." Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016 Final White Paper.pdf, p. 38. u "Minutes for the GHG CECA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15." SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 22 Calculated: (7,966 MT CO2e/year) / (1,399 service population) = (5.7 MT CO2e/SP/year). 14 SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Proposed Project Phase Project (MT CO2e/year) Construction (amortized over 30 years) 52 Area 217 Energy 2335 Mobile 4847 Waste 176 Water 339 Total 7,966 Service Population 1,399 Service Population Efficiency 5.7 Threshold 3.0 Exceed? Yes When we compare the Project's GHG emissions per service population to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, we find that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the 2018 DSEIR or Staff Report. Furthermore, according to CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a): (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration" (emphasis added). As you can see in the excerpt above, if a significant impact is found that was not previously discussed in the EIR, a subsequent EIR should be prepared. Here, as SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact that was not previously discussed in the 2018 DSEIR, a subsequent EIR should be prepared for the Project. Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of 15 care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. (a�'- I C", t�e—o Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. 16 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Orange County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,318.00 + Space ; 0.00 527,200.00 i 0 •----------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- - h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)3.50 + High = — — ;------------- 1000sgft ; 0.00 3,500.00 -+ 0 •-----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------=------------------------i------------------+--------------- Apartments Mid Rise 644.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 8.03 545,600.00 i 1842 ------------------------------- _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------ --------------- Regional Shopping Center 11.70 1000sgft 0.00 11,700.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Project Characteristics - Land Use - Consistent with information provided in Staff Report. Construction Phase - Defaults assumed. Off -road Equipment - Defaults assumed. Trips and VMT - Defaults assumed. Architectural Coating - Vehicle Trips - Consistent with TIA. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 644,000.00 545,600.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ t-----------------------------t-------------------------- LotAcreage 11.86 0.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 0.08 0.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 16.95 8.03 ----------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 0.27 0.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 6.39 5.17 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 158.37 106.57 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 49.97 35.86 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 5.86 5.17 ----------------------------_---------------------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- SU_TR r 131.84 106.57 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 25.24 35.86 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- WD_TR r 6.65 5.17 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- WD_TR r 127.15 106.57 --------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- WD_TR 42.70 35.86 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 •i 0.0681 i 0.6901 0.4234 i 7.8000e- 0.1323 0.0346 i 0.1669 0.0694 i 0.0320 0.1014 0.0000 i 68.1105 68.1105 i 0.0197 � 0.0000 68.6033 004 2021 •i 0.7684 i 4.1741 � 4.9009 i 0.0160 � 1.0218 � 0.1317 i 1.1535 � 0.2808 i 0.1235 0.4044 � 0.0000 i 1,467.930 � 1,467.930 i 0.1257 0.0000 1 1,471.072 '� i i i i i i i i • 1 i 1 i i i 7 2022 •i 1.6718 0.0155 0.0496 1.5000e- 0.0136 8.2000e- 0.0145 3.6200e- 8.2000e- 4.4400e- • 0.0000 i 13.2677 13.2677 3.7000e- 0.0000 13.2770 i i i i i 004 004 003 004 003 004 Maximum 1.6718 4.1741 4.9009 0.0160 1.0218 0.1317 1.1535 0.2808 0.1235 0.4044 0.0000 1,467.930 1,467.930 0.1257 0.0000 1,471.072 11 1 1 7 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0681 i 0.6901 0.4234 i 7.8000e- 0.1323 0.0346 i 0.1669 0.0694 i 0.0320 0.1014 0.0000 i 68.1105 68.1105 i 0.0197 0.0000 i 68.6032 004 i i i i i ■ i i i 2021 •i 0.7684 i 4.1741 4.9009 i 0.0160 1.0218 0.1317 i 1.1535 0.2808 i 0.1235 0.4044 0.0000 i 1,467.929 1,467.929 i 0.1257 0.0000 i 1,471.072 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 8 i 8 i i i 3 2022 •i 1.6718 0.0155 0.0496 1.5000e- 0.0136 8.2000e- 0.0145 3.6200e- 8.2000e- 4.4400e- 0.0000 i 13.2677 13.2677 3.7000e- 0.0000 i 13.2770 i i i i i 004 004 003 004 003 004 i ■ Maximum 1.6718 4.1741 4.9009 0.0160 1.0218 0.1317 1.1535 0.2808 0.1235 0.4044 0.0000 1,467.929 1,467.929 0.1257 0.0000 1,471.072 8 8 3 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 11-5-2020 2-4-2021 1.1869 1.1869 2 2-5-2021 5-4-2021 1.2352 1.2352 3 5-5-2021 8-4-2021 1.2675 1.2675 4 8-5-2021 11-4-2021 1.2733 1.2733 5 11-5-2021 2-4-2022 2.3945 2.3945 Highest 2.3945 2.3945 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I I Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 Area 4.5574 1 0.2439 1 10.7594 1 0.0108 1 I 0.6517 I 0.6517 I 1 0.6517 � 0.6517 � 68.4051 i 142.3327 1210.7378 I 0.2146 1 4.6400e- i 217.4851 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 003 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Energy 0.0447 I 0.3847 I 0.1826 1 2.4400e- 1 I 0.0309 1 0.0309 I 1 0.0309 0.0309 � 0.0000 i 2,325.777 12,325.777 I 0.0862 1 0.0242 2,335.144 I 1 I 003 1 1 I 1 I . 7 1 7 I 1 I 5 ;� I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 ........ - - - -I- - - - - - - J- - - - - - - J- - - - - - - J - - - - - - - J- - - - - - - J- - - - - - - J- - - - - - - J- - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J- - - - - - - J- - - - - - - J- - - - - - - T - - - - - - . I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 Mobile .1 1.0183 I 4.3998 I 13.5995 I 0.0525 1 4.8522 I 0.0388 I 4.8911 I 1.2995 1 0.0361 1.3356 � 0.0000 i 4,842.416 14,842.416 I 0.1989 1 0.0000 4,847.389 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 8 1 8 I 1 I 6 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Waste •1 I I I 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 71.0834 1 0.0000 I 71.0834 I 4.2009 1 0.0000 1 176.1061 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 •1 , 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Water •1 1 I I 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 13.9237 1 277.8413 1291.7650 I 1.4416 1 0.0361 338.5742 Total 5.6203 5.0284 24.5415 0.0658 4.8522 0.7214 5.5737 1.2 995 0.7187 2.0182 153.4122 7,588.368 7,741.780 6.1422 0.0650 7,914.699 11 4 6 5 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 4.5574 i 0.2439 10.7594 i 0.0108 0.6517 i 0.6517 � i 0.6517 0.6517 68.4051 i 142.3327 � 210.7378 i 0.2146 4.6400e- 217.4851 003 i Energy •i 0.0447 i 0.3847 0.1826 i 2.4400e- 0.0309 i 0.0309 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 i 2,325.777 2,325.777 i 0.0862 0.0242 2,335.144 003 i i i i i • 7 i 7 i i i 5 Mobile •i 1.0183 i 4.3998 13.5995 i 0.0525 4.8522 0.0388 i 4.8911 1.2995 i 0.0361 1.3356 0.0000 i 4,842.416 4,842.416 i 0.1989 0.0000 4,847.389 8 i 8 i i i 6 Waste •i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 71.0834 i 0.0000 71.0834 i 4.2009 0.0000 176.1061 Water •1 i � i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 • 13.9237 i 277.8413 � 291.7650 i 1.4416 � 0.0361 � 338.5742 Total 5.6203 5.0284 24.5415 0.0658 4.8522 0.7214 5.5737 1.2995 0.7187 2.0182 153.4122 7,588.368 7,741.780 6.1422 0.0650 7,914.699 4 6 5 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 ;Demolition +Demolition 111/5/2020 :12/2/2020 5: 20: + i 2 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 112/3/2020 :12/16/2020 5: 10: + i 3 •Grading +Grading 112/17/2020 :1/13/2021 5: 20: + i 4 -Building Construction +Building Construction 11/14/2021 :12/1/2021 5: 230: + i 5 -Paving +Paving 112/2/2021 :12/29/2021 5: 20: + i 6 -Architectural Coating -Architectural Coating 12/30/2021 1/26/2022 5. 20, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,104,840; Residential Outdoor: 368,280; Non -Residential Indoor: 22,800; Non -Residential Outdoor: 7,600; Striped Parking Area: 31,632 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 37 Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 : 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158, 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247, 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 1 8.001 158, 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187, 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89, 0.20 1 �- ------------------- ------------------ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 84, 0.74 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 7.001 _ 97, 0.37 a i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 __ 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 21 8.001 130, 0.42 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 2 8.001 132, 0.36 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80, 0.38 Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00" 0.001 0.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_--, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------r--------_ ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT --------------- ° �- Grading -------------; 6; i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction v -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i----------i- 690.00- I --------i 158.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 14.70: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ---° Paving Paving -------------- 6; - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix ------- EHHDT i f ; Architectural Coating ; 1; 138.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0331 , 0.3320 , 0.2175 , 3.9000e- , , 0.0166 , 0.0166 , , 0.0154 ; 0.0154 0.0000 i 33.9986 , 33.9986 , 9.6000e- , 0.0000 34.2386 i •� � � � 004 003 Total 0.0331 0.3320 0.2175 3.9000e- 0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e- 0.0000 34.2386 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 5.8000e- 4.1000e- 4.6500e- 2.000Oe- 1.6500e- 1.000Oe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 i 1.4252 1.4252 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.4261 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.8000e- 4.1000e- 4.6500e- 2.000Oe- 1.6500e- 1.000Oe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.4252 1.4252 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1.4261 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0331 i 0.3320 i 0.2175 3.9000e- 0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 i 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e- i 0.0000 i 34.2385 004 003 Total 0.0331 0.3320 0.2175 3.9000e- 0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e- 0.0000 34.2385 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 5.8000e- 4.1000e- 4.6500e- 2.00OOe- 1.6500e- 1.00OOe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.00OOe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 i 1.4252 1.4252 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.4261 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.8000e- 4.1000e- 4.6500e- 2.00OOe- 1.6500e- 1.00OOe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.00OOe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.4252 1.4252 3.00OOe- 0.0000 1.4261 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 i 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0204 0.2121 0.1076 1.9000e- 0.0110 0.0110 0.0101 0.0101 0.0000 i 16.7153 16.7153 5.4100e- 0.0000 i 16.8505 i i i 004 003 Total 0.0204 0.2121 0.1076 1.9000e- 0.0903 0.0110 0.1013 0.0497 0.0101 0.0598 0.0000 16.7153 16.7153 5.4100e- 0.0000 16.8505 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.7900e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 i 0.8551 0.8551 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.8556 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 3.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.7900e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8551 0.8551 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.8556 11 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 i 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0204 0.2121 0.1076 1.9000e- 0.0110 0.0110 0.0101 0.0101 0.0000 i 16.7153 16.7153 5.4100e- 0.0000 i 16.8505 i i i 004 003 Total 0.0204 0.2121 0.1076 1.9000e- 0.0903 0.0110 0.1013 0.0497 0.0101 0.0598 0.0000 16.7153 16.7153 5.4100e- 0.0000 004 003 in CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.7900e- 1.00OOe- 9.9000e- 1.00OOe- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.00OOe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 i 0.8551 0.8551 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.8556 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 3.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.7900e- 1.00OOe- 9.9000e- 1.00OOe- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.00OOe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8551 0.8551 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.8556 11 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0384 0.0000 0.0384 i 0.0188 0.0000 0.0188 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e- 7.00OOe- 7.00OOe- 6.4400e- 6.4400e- 0.0000 i 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 0.0000 i 14.4482 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e- 0.0384 7.00OOe- 0.0454 0.0188 6.4400e- 0.0252 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 0.0000 14.4482 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 -----------------------'---------------------'------------------------ --+ ----� -------------'----00- ----00 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 000 Worker •i 3.2000e- 2.3000e- 2.5600e- 1.000Oe- 9.1000e- 1.000Oe- 9.1000e- 2.4000e- 1.000Oe- 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 0.7839 0.7839 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.7843 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 3.2000e- 2.3000e- 2.5600e- 1.000Oe- 9.1000e- 1.000Oe- 9.1000e- 2.4000e- 1.000Oe- 2.5000e- 0.0000 0.7839 0.7839 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.7843 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0384 0.0000 0.0384 0.0188 i 0.0000 0.0188 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e- 7.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 6.4400e- 6.4400e- 0.0000 i 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 0.0000 i 14.4482 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e- 0.0384 7.000Oe- 0.0454 0.0188 6.4400e- 0.0252 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 0.0000 14.4482 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 -----------------------'---------------------'------------------------ --+ ----� -------------'----00- ----00 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 000 Worker •i 3.2000e- 2.3000e- 2.5600e- 1.00OOe- 9.1000e- 1.00OOe- 9.1000e- 2.4000e- 1.00OOe- 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 0.7839 0.7839 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.7843 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 3.2000e- 2.3000e- 2.5600e- 1.00OOe- 9.1000e- 1.00OOe- 9.1000e- 2.4000e- 1.00OOe- 2.5000e- 0.0000 0.7839 0.7839 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.7843 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0324 0.0000 0.0324 i 0.0155 i 0.0000 0.0155 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0103 0.1113 0.0714 1.3000e- 5.2200e- 5.2200e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 0.0000 i 11.7242 11.7242 3.7900e- 0.0000 i 11.8190 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0103 0.1113 0.0714 1.3000e- 0.0324 5.2200e- 0.0376 0.0155 4.8000e- 0.0203 0.0000 11.7242 11.7242 3.7900e- 0.0000 11.8190 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.5000e- i 1.7000e- i 1.9400e- 1.000Oe- i 7.4000e- 0.0000 7.5000e- i 2.000Oe- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.6191 0.6191 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.6194 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Total 2.5000e- 1.7000e- 1.9400e- 1.0000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6191 0.6191 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6194 11 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0324 0.0000 0.0324 i 0.0155 i 0.0000 0.0155 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0103 0.1113 0.0714 1.3000e- 5.2200e- 5.2200e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 0.0000 i 11.7242 11.7242 3.7900e- 0.0000 i 11.8190 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0103 0.1113 0.0714 1.3000e- 0.0324 5.2200e- 0.0376 0.0155 4.8000e- 0.0203 0.0000 11.7242 11.7242 3.7900e- 0.0000 11.8190 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.5000e- i 1.7000e- i 1.9400e- 1.00OOe- i 7.4000e- 0.0000 7.5000e- i 2.00OOe- 0.0000 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.6191 0.6191 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 i 0.6194 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Total 2.5000e- 1.7000e- 1.9400e- 1.00OOe- 7.4000e- 0.0000 7.5000e- 2.00OOe- 0.0000 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.6191 0.6191 1.00OOe- 0.0000 0.6194 11 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2186 i 2.0047 i 1.9062 3.1000e- 0.1102 0.1102 i i 0.1037 0.1037 0.0000 i 266.3829 i 266.3829 0.0643 i 0.0000 i 267.9895 003 Total 0.2186 2.0047 1.9062 3.1000e- 0.1102 0.1102 0.1037 0.1037 0.0000 266.3829 266.3829 0.0643 0.0000 267.9895 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ----------------- Vendor •i 0.0496 i 1.7311 i 0.4853 4.4400e- i 0.1144 3.6000e- 0.1180 i 0.0330 3.4400e- 0.0364 0.0000 i 438.4938 438.4938 0.0355 i 0.0000 i 439.3812 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2907 i 0.1954 i 2.2796 8.0400e- i 0.8711 � 5.7400e- 0.8768 i 0.2313 5.2900e- 0.2366 0.0000 i 727.7899 727.7899 0.0156 i 0.0000 i 728.1795 003 003 003 i Total 0.3403 1.9265 2.7648 0.0125 0.9855 9.3400e- 0.9948 0.2643 8.7300e- 0.2731 0.0000 1,166.283 1,166.283 0.0511 0.0000 1,167.560 003 003 7 7 7 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2186 i 2.0047 i 1.9062 3.1000e- 0.1102 0.1102 0.1037 0.1037 0.0000 i 266.3826 266.3826 0.0643 i 0.0000 i 267.9892 003 i i i i i • i i i i Total 0.2186 2.0047 1.9062 3.1000e- 0.1102 0.1102 0.1037 0.1037 0.0000 266.3826 266.3826 0.0643 0.0000 267.9892 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ----------------- Vendor •i 0.0496 i 1.7311 i 0.4853 4.4400e- i 0.1144 3.6000e- 0.1180 i 0.0330 3.4400e- 0.0364 0.0000 i 438.4938 438.4938 0.0355 i 0.0000 i 439.3812 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2907 i 0.1954 i 2.2796 8.0400e- i 0.8711 � 5.7400e- 0.8768 i 0.2313 5.2900e- 0.2366 0.0000 i 727.7899 727.7899 0.0156 i 0.0000 i 728.1795 003 003 003 i Total 0.3403 1.9265 2.7648 0.0125 0.9855 9.3400e- 0.9948 0.2643 8.7300e- 0.2731 0.0000 1,166.283 1,166.283 0.0511 0.0000 1,167.560 003 003 7 7 7 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0126 0.1292 0.1465 2.3000e- 6.7800e- 6.7800e- 6.2400e- 6.2400e- 0.0000 i 20.0235 20.0235 6.4800e- 0.0000 i 20.1854 i i i •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0126 0.1292 0.1465 2.3000e- 6.7800e- 6.7800e- 6.2400e- 6.2400e- 0.0000 20.0235 20.0235 6.4800e- 0.0000 11 004 003 003 003 003 1 003 j M CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.5000e- 3.7000e- 4.3100e- 2.000Oe- 1.6500e- 1.000Oe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 i 1.3758 1.3758 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.3765 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.5000e- 3.7000e- 4.3100e- 2.000Oe- 1.6500e- 1.000Oe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.3758 1.3758 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1.3765 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0126 0.1292 0.1465 2.3000e- 6.7800e- 6.7800e- 6.2400e- 6.2400e- 0.0000 i 20.0235 20.0235 6.4800e- 0.0000 i 20.1854 i i i •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0126 0.1292 0.1465 2.3000e- 6.7800e- 6.7800e- 6.2400e- 6.2400e- 0.0000 20.0235 20.0235 6.4800e- 0.0000 11 004 003 003 003 003 1 003 j M CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.5000e- 3.7000e- 4.3100e- 2.00OOe- 1.6500e- 1.00OOe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.00OOe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 i 1.3758 1.3758 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.3765 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.5000e- 3.7000e- 4.3100e- 2.00OOe- 1.6500e- 1.00OOe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.00OOe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.3758 1.3758 3.00OOe- 0.0000 1.3765 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 0.1851 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.2000e- 1.5300e- 1.8200e- 0.0000 9.00OOe- 9.00OOe- 9.00OOe- 9.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.2553 0.2553 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.2558 i i i 004 003 003 005 005 005 005 . 005 i Total 0.1853 1.5300e- 1.8200e- 0.0000 9.00OOe- 9.00OOe- 9.00OOe- 9.00OOe- 0.0000 0.2553 0.2553 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.2558 003 003 005 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.1000e- 3.4000e- 3.9600e- 1.000Oe- 1.5100e- 1.000Oe- 1.5200e- 4.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 4.1000e- 0.0000 i 1.2657 1.2657 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2664 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.1000e- 3.4000e- 3.9600e- 1.0000e- 1.5100e- 1.000Oe- 1.5200e- 4.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 4.1000e- 0.0000 1.2657 1.2657 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1.2664 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 0.1851 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.2000e- 1.5300e- 1.8200e- 0.0000 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.2553 0.2553 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.2558 i i i 004 003 003 005 005 005 005 . 005 i Total 0.1853 1.5300e- 1.8200e- 0.0000 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 0.2553 0.2553 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.2558 003 003 005 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 - ------------------------------------------'------------------------ --+-------------'---------------------- Worker •i 5.1000e- 3.4000e- 3.9600e- 1.00OOe- 1.5100e- 1.00OOe- 1.5200e- 4.00OOe- 1.00OOe- 4.1000e- 0.0000 i 1.2657 1.2657 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2664 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.1000e- 3.4000e- 3.9600e- 1.00OOe- 1.5100e- 1.00OOe- 1.5200e- 4.00OOe- 1.00OOe- 4.1000e- 0.0000 1.2657 1.2657 3.00O7 0.0000 1.2664 11 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •i 1.6657 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 1.8400e- 0.0127 0.0163 3.00OOe- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 i 2.2979 2.2979 1.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.3017 i i i 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 004 i Total 1.6675 0.0127 0.0163 3.00OOe- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.5000e- 0.0000 2.3017 005 004 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.3100e- 2.7700e- 0.0333 1.2000e- 0.0136 9.000Oe- 0.0137 3.6200e- 8.000Oe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 i 10.9698 10.9698 2.2000e- 0.0000 i 10.9753 i i i i i 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 i Total 4.3100e- 2.7700e- 0.0333 1.2000e- 0.0136 9.000Oe- 0.0137 3.6200e- 8.000Oe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 10.9698 10.9698 2.2000e- 0.0000 10.9753 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 1.6657 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 1.8400e- 0.0127 0.0163 3.000Oe- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 i 2.2979 2.2979 1.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.3017 i i i 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 004 i Total 1.6675 0.0127 0.0163 3.000Oe- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.5000e- 0.0000 2.3017 005 004 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.3100e- 2.7700e- 0.0333 1.2000e- 0.0136 9.00OOe- 0.0137 3.6200e- 8.00OOe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 i 10.9698 10.9698 2.2000e- 0.0000 i 10.9753 i i i i i 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 i Total 4.3100e- 2.7700e- 0.0333 1.2000e- 0.0136 9.00OOe- 0.0137 3.6200e- 8.00OOe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 10.9698 10.9698 2.2000e- 0.0000 10.9753 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 37 Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.0183 4.3998 13.5995 0.0525 4.8522 0.0388 4.8911 1.2995 0.0361 1.3356 0.0000 i 4,842.416 4,842.416 0.1989 0.0000 i 4,847.389 i i i i i i i 8 i 8 i i i 6 Unmitigated 1.0183 4.3998 13.5995 0.0525 4.8522 0.0388 4.8911 1.2995 0.0361 1.3356 0.0000 - 4,842.416 • 4,842.416 • 0.1989 - 0.0000 • 4,847.389 8 8 6 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 3,329.48 ; 3,329.48 3329.48 11,377,339 11,377,339 ........ ...............................------------------------------- -----------------------:------------------------ Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 ................................................... ------------T-----------Y--------------------------------------------------- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 373.00 ; 373.00 373.00 508,329 508,329 .................................................. ---------- ---------- ---------------------- ----------------------- T Regional Shopping Center ; 419.56 ; 419.56 419.56 907,447 907,447 Total 4,122.04 4,122.04 4,122.04 12,793,115 12,793,115 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................---------- Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 16.60 ------- 8.40 -+--------- 6.90 0.00 - 1 0.00 '_ -------- 0.00 -------- 0 ---- 0 -------------- 0 .......................• High Turnover (Sit Down - - - - - - - - - - - 16.60 - - - - - - - - - -r 8.40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T 1 72.50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 37 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 43 _ __ __ Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.561378+ 0.043284; 0.209473; 0.111826; 0.015545; 0.005795; 0.025829; 0.017125; 0.001747; 0.001542; 0.004926; 0.000594 - 0.000934 r Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.5613781 0.0432841 0.2094731 0.1118261 0.0155451 0.0057951 0.0258291 0.0171251 0.0017471 0.0015421 0.0049261 0.000594, 0.000934 r High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5613781 0.043284: 0.209473: 0.111826: 0.015545: 0.005795: 0.025829: 0.017125: 0.001747: 0.001542: 0.004926: 0.000594: 0.000934 Restaurant) -------- --------------+--------F------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regional Shopping Center 0.561378. 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826- 0.015545- 0.005795- 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747- 0.001542- 0.004926- 0.000594- 0.000934 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1,883.375 11,883.375 1 0.0778 i 0.0161 i 1,890.113 Mitigated 5 5 i 3 J-------J-------J-------t------- -----------•-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J----- Electricity .1 i i i 0.0000 0.000-0 i -- --------------- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1,883.375 1,883.375 0.0778 i 0.0161 i 1,890.113 Unmitigated ,� . i 5 5 i 3 NaturalGas -1 0.0447 i 0.3847 i 0.1826 2.4400e- i 0.0309 0.0309 i 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 442.4022 442.4022 8.4800e- i 8.1100e- i 445.0312 Mitigated ,� 003 . i i 003 003 i + } + + } + } + - - - - - - - ---------------+--------------}--------------+------ + NaturalGas 0.0447 0.3847 0.1826 2.4400e- - 0.0309 0.0309 - 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 442.4022 442.4022 8.4800e- - 8.1100e- 445.0312 Unmitigated 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid 7.35928e •i 0.0397 i 0.3391 0.1443 2.1600e- 0.0274 i 0.0274 � � 0.0274 0.0274 0.0000 i 392.7194 � 392.7194 i 7.5300e- i 7.2000e- 395.0532 Rise +006 003 i 003 003 Enclosed Parking i i i i i ------ ---------------------'-----------------------------------'-----------+-------- - - ---------- -------- --------*----- - � 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator --- - --- -- High Turnover (Sit ��--------------'-------.j----------------------------'-- - - - - ------ - - - - ------------------------ 1 907620 •1 4.8900e- i 0.0445 0.0374 2.7000e- i 3.3800e- i 3.3800e- 3.3800e- 3.3800e- 0.0000 1 48.4341 48.4341 i 9.3000e- i 8.9000e- i 48.7219 Down Restaurant) i 003 004 003 003 003 003 i � 004 004 i Regional 23400 -1 1.3000e- i 1.1500e- 9.6000e- 1.000Oe- i 9.000Oe- i 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2487 1.2487 i 2.000Oe- i 2.000Oe- i 1.2561 Shopping Center i 005 005 004 003 004 005 005 005 i � 005 005 � i i � i i i � � Total 0.0447 0.3847 0.1826 2.4400e- 0.0309 0.0309 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 442.4022 442.4022 8.4800e- 8.1100e- 445.0312 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid 7.35928e •i 0.0397 i 0.3391 0.1443 2.1600e- 0.0274 i 0.0274 � � 0.0274 0.0274 0.0000 i 392.7194 � 392.7194 i 7.5300e- i 7.2000e- 395.0532 Rise +006 003 i i i 003 003 Enclosed Parking i i i ------ ---------------------'-----------------------------------'-----------+-------- - - ---------- ----------------*----- - � 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator --- - --- -- High Turnover (Sit ��--------------'-----------------------------------'-------- ------------------------------- 1 907620 •1 4.8900e- i 0.0445 0.0374 2.7000e- i 3.3800e- i 3.3800e- 3.3800e- 3.3800e- 0.0000 1 48.4341 48.4341 i 9.3000e- i 8.9000e- i 48.7219 Down Restaurant) � i � � i 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 i i i i i i i i . Regional 23400 •i 1.3000e- i 1.1500e- 9.6000e- 1.000Oe- 9.000Oe- i 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2487 1.2487 i 2.000Oe- i 2.000Oe- i 1.2561 Shopping Center 005 005 004 003 004 005 005 005 i � 005 i 005 � i i � i i i � � Total 0.0447 0.3847 0.1826 2.4400e- 0.0309 0.0309 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 442.4022 442.4022 8.4800e- 8.1100e- 445.0312 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use I Land Use kWh/yr I MT/yr Apartments Mid 2.56009e •i 815.7005 i 0.0337 6.9700e- 818.6187 Rise +006 003 Enclosed Parking •------- -- - - - - - - 3.08939e •1 984.3465 i 0.0406 8.4100e- 987.8680 with Elevator i +006 003 High Turnover (Sit i i 1 127680 •1 40.6816 i 1.6800e- 3.5000e- 40.8271 Down Restaurant) ;� 003 004 Regional i ------ii------ *------- 133848 •1 42.6468 i 1.7600e- 3.6000e- 42.7994 Shopping Center 003 i 004 Total 1,883.375 0.0778 0.0161 1:890.113 4 3 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use I Land Use kWh/yr I MT/yr Apartments Mid 2.56009e •i 815.7005 i 0.0337 6.9700e- 818.6187 Rise +006 003 Enclosed Parking •------- -- - - - - - - 3.08939e •1 984.3465 i 0.0406 8.4100e- 987.8680 with Elevator i +006 003 High Turnover (Sit i i 1 127680 •1 40.6816 i 1.6800e- 3.5000e- 40.8271 Down Restaurant) ;� i 003 004 Regional i ------�r------ *------- 133848 •1 42.6468 i 1.7600e- 3.6000e- 42.7994 Shopping Center 003 i 004 Total 1,883.375 0.0778 0.0161 1:890.113 11 4 3 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 4.5574 i 0.2439 i 10.7594 0.0108 0.6517 i 0.6517 i i 0.6517 0.6517 68.4051 i 142.3327 210.7378 i 0.2146 i 4.6400e- i 217.4851 '� i i i i i i i i • i i i 003 i Unmitigated •• 4.5574 0.2439 10.7594 0.0108 0.6517 0.6517 0.6517 0.6517 68.4051 142.3327 210.7378 0.2146 • 4.6400e- 217.4851 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.1851 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating % ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- *------- Consumer •i 2.0605 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 2.1094 i 0.1670 4.0938 i 0.0104 i 0.6149 i 0.6149 i 0.6149 0.6149 68.4051 i 131.4511 199.8562 i 0.2040 4.6400e- i 206.3397 003 i Landscaping •i 0.2024 i 0.0768 6.6655 i 3.5000e- i 0.0368 i 0.0368 i 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 i 10.8816 10.8816 i 0.0106 0.0000 i 11.1455 004 i i i i i i i i i • Total 4.5574 0.2439 10.7594 0.0108 0.6517 0.6517 0.6517 0.6517 68.4051 142.3327 210.7378 0.2146 4.6400e- 217.4851 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.1851 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 2.0605 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 2.1094 i 0.1670 4.0938 i 0.0104 0.6149 i 0.6149 0.6149 0.6149 68.4051 i 131.4511 199.8562 i 0.2040 4.6400e- 206.3397 003 i ----------- -i----------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - - - -+ i----------------------- - - - - -* Landscaping •i 0.2024 i 0.0768 6.6655 i 3.5000e- 0.0368 i 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 i 10.8816 10.8816 i 0.0106 0.0000 11.1455 004 Total 4.5574 0.2439 10.7594 0.0108 0.6517 0.6517 0.6517 0.6517 68.4051 142.3327 210.7378 0.2146 4.6400e- 217.4851 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •1 291.7650 i 1.4416 0.0361 i 338.5742 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------4------------------------------- - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 291.7650 1.4416 0.0361 338.5742 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use I Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 41.9592 / •1 281.0296 1.3783 0.0346 325.7889 Rise i 26.4525 ; •i------- ----- -------------- - Enclosed Parking 0/0 -i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator ; ------- ------- ------- High Turnover (Sit 1.06237 / •i 4.9846 0.0348 8.6000e- 6.1102 Down Restaurant) �0.0678107:1 004 t_;I_______ T_______ ----------- •I-------'------- Regional 13.866649 / ■i 5.7508 0.0285 7.1000e- 6.6751 Shopping Center 0.531172 ;i 004 Total 291.7650 1.4416 j 0.0361 1 338.5742 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use I Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 41.9592 / •1 281.0296 1.3783 0.0346 325.7889 Rise i 26.4525 : i . i Enclosed Parking 0/0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator •� --r i ------ 4i -------- ------- -------*------- High Turnover (Sit 1.06237 / •i 4.9846 0.0348 8.6000e- 6.1102 Down Restaurant)�0.0678107:i 004 • -------- ------- Regional 13.866649 / •i 5.7508 0.0285 7.1000e- 6.6751 Shopping Center i 0.531172 :i i 004 Total 291.7650 1.4416 0.0361 338.5742 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual CategoryNear Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 71.0834 i 4.2009 i 0.0000 i 176.1061 - - - - - - - - - - -% --------------+--------------} ------ * - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 71.0834 4.2009 0.0000 176.1061 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed I I I Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid 296.24 •i 60.1340 3.5538 0.0000 148.9796 Rise ---------- ------- ------- Enclosed Parking 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator ; ------- ------- High Turnover (Sit 1 41.65 •1 8.4546 0.4997 0.0000 20.9459 Down Restaurant) i ; •�--------------------- Regional 12.29 •i 2.4948 0.1474 0.0000 6.1807 Shopping Center ; Total 71.0834 4.2009 0.0000 176.1061 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid 296.24 •i 60.1340 3.5538 0.0000 i 148.9796 Rise i •� •-------------- Enclosed Parking 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator i -------- ------- High Turnover (Sit 1 41.65 •1 8.4546 0.4997 0.0000 20.9459 Down Restaurant) •� i 41 --------- --- - - - - -- Regional 12.29 •i 2.4948 1 0.1474 0.0000 6.1807 Shopping Center77 i •� Total 71.0834 4.2009 0.0000 176.1061 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 37 Date: 11/5/2020 1:05 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Annual Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Orange County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,318.00 + Space ; 0.00 527,200.00 i 0 •----------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- - h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)3.50 + High = — — ;------------- 1000sgft ; 0.00 3,500.00 -+ 0 •-----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------=------------------------i------------------+--------------- Apartments Mid Rise 644.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 8.03 545,600.00 i 1842 ------------------------------- _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------ --------------- Regional Shopping Center 11.70 1000sgft 0.00 11,700.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer Project Characteristics - Land Use - Consistent with information provided in Staff Report. Construction Phase - Defaults assumed. Off -road Equipment - Defaults assumed. Trips and VMT - Defaults assumed. Architectural Coating - Vehicle Trips - Consistent with TIA. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 644,000.00 545,600.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ t-----------------------------t-------------------------- LotAcreage 11.86 0.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 0.08 0.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 16.95 8.03 ----------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 0.27 0.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 6.39 5.17 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 158.37 106.57 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 49.97 35.86 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 5.86 5.17 ----------------------------_---------------------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- SU_TR r 131.84 106.57 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 25.24 35.86 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- WD_TR r 6.65 5.17 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- WD_TR r 127.15 106.57 --------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- WD_TR 42.70 35.86 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2020 •i 4.1456 i 42.4609 22.2442 i 0.0405 18.2675 2.1987 i 20.4662 9.9840 i 2.0228 12.0069 0.0000 i 3,911.211 � 3,911.211 i 1.1963 0.0000 3,937.753 5 i 5 i i 3 2021 •i 185.7907 i 33.7616 41.5525 i 0.1387 8.7221 1.1610 i 9.7614 3.4120 i 1.0681 4.4801 0.0000 i 14,060.42 � 14,060.42 i 1.1045 � 0.0000 � 14,088.03 51 51 76 2022 •i 185.7490 i 1.6815 5.7256 i 0.0170 � 1.5425 0.0915 i 1.6340 0.4091 i 0.0907 0.4998 0.0000 i 1,679.665 1,679.665 i 0.0466 0.0000 1,680.829 8 i 8 i i i 9 Maximum 185.7907 42.4609 41.5525 0.1387 18.2675 2.1987 20.4662 9.9840 2.0228 12.0069 0.0000 14,060.42 14,060.42 1.1963 0.0000 14,088.03 51 51 76 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2020 •i 4.1456 42.4609 22.2442 0.0405 18.2675 2.1987 20.4662 9.9840 2.0228 12.0069 0.0000 i 3,911.211 3,911.211 1.1963 0.0000 i 3,937.753 i i i i i '� i i i i i i i i 5 i 5 i i i 3 ■ 2021 •i 185.7907 i 33.7616 41.5525 i 0.1387 8.7221 1.1610 i 9.7614 3.4120 i 1.0681 4.4801 0.0000 i 14,060.42 14,060.42 i 1.1045 0.0000 i 14,088.03 51 51 76 2022 •i 185.7490 i 1.6815 5.7256 i 0.0170 1.5425 0.0915 i 1.6340 0.4091 i 0.0907 0.4998 0.0000 i 1,679.665 1,679.665 i 0.0466 0.0000 i 1,680.829 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 8 i 8 i i i 9 Maximum 185.7907 42.4609 41.5525 0.1387 18.2675 2.1987 20.4662 9.9840 2.0228 12.0069 0.0000 14,060.42 14,060.42 1.1963 0.0000 14,088.03 51 51 1 76 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 182.6750 i 13.9766 380.8317 i 0.8383 49.4884 i 49.4884 � i 49.4884 49.4884 • 6,032.295 i 11,687.95 17,720.25 i 18.0825 � 0.4094 18,294.32 5 95 50 i 83 Energy •i 0.2450 i 2.1082 � 1.0007 i 0.0134 � � 0.1692 i 0.1692 � i 0.1692 0.1692 i 2,672.136 2,672.136 i 0.0512 0.0490 1 2,688.015 7 i 7 i i i 9 Mobile •i 5.8652 i 23.1474 77.0622 i 0.2984 27.1381 0.2131 i 27.3512 7.2571 i 0.1982 7.4553 i 30,312.82 30,312.82 i 1.2114 30,343.11 Total 188.7852 39.2322 458.8947 1.1501 27.1381 49.8708 77.0089 7.2571 49.8559 44,672.92 19.3452 0.4584 51,325.45 f-;7772.295 5 58 1'50,705.22 13 1 98 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 182.6750 i 13.9766 380.8317 i 0.8383 49.4884 i 49.4884 i i 49.4884 49.4884 6,032.295 i 11,687.95 i 17,720.25 i 18.0825 i 0.4094 i 18,294.32 �� ■ 5 95 50 i 83 Energy •i 0.2450 i 2.1082 1.0007 i 0.0134 0.1692 i 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 i 2,672.136 2,672.136 i 0.0512 0.0490 i 2,688.015 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 7 i 7 i i i 9 Mobile •i 5.8652 i 23.1474 77.0622 i 0.2984 27.1381 0.2131 i 27.3512 7.2571 i 0.1982 7.4553 30,312.82 30,312.82 i 1.2114 30,343.11 Total 188.7852 39.2322 458.8947 1.1501 27.1381 49.8708 77.0089 7.2571 49.8559 57.1130 6,032.295 44,672.92 50,705.22 19.3452 0.4584 51,325.45 5 58 13 98 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !11/5/2020 :12/2/2020 5 20: i i 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation ! 12/3/2020 i 12/16/2020 5 10 i i 3 •Grading +Grading ! 12/17/2020 i 1/13/2021 5: 20: i i 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction ! 1/14/2021 i 12/1/2021 5: 230: i i 5 :Paving +Paving ! 12/2/2021 i 12/29/2021 5 20 + I i 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -12/30/2021 -1/26/2022 5, 20- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,104,840; Residential Outdoor: 368,280; Non -Residential Indoor: 22,800; Non -Residential Outdoor: 7,600; Striped Parking Area: 31,632 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 31 Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 : 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158, 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247, 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 1 8.001 158, 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187, 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89, 0.20 1 �- ------------------- ------------------ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 84, 0.74 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 7.001 _ 97, 0.37 a i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 __ 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 21 8.001 130, 0.42 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 2 8.001 132, 0.36 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80, 0.38 Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00" 0.001 0.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_--, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------r--------_ ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 6; i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT I- ----------------A-------------- Construction v 9; i----------i- 690.00- I --------i 158.001 0.00: :Building ---------' --------- 14.70: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ---° f- Paving -------------- - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix ------- EHHDT --------------6; i f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 138.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 3.3121 , 33.2010 , 21.7532 , 0.0388 , , 1.6587 , 1.6587 , , 1.5419 ; 1.5419 3,747.704 , 3,747.704 , 1.0580 , i 3,774.153 9 i 9 6 Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 9 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0576 i 0.0363 i 0.4910 1.6400e- i 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 163.5065 163.5065 3.7300e- i i 163.5997 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0576 0.0363 0.4910 1.6400e- 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 163.5065 163.5065 3.7300e- 163.5997 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 3.3121 i 33.2010 i 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 i 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 i 9 i 6 Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 9 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0576 i 0.0363 i 0.4910 1.6400e- i 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 163.5065 163.5065 3.7300e- i i 163.5997 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0576 0.0363 0.4910 1.6400e- 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 163.5065 163.5065 3.7300e- 163.5997 003 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.0765 i 42.4173 i 21.5136 0.0380 i 2.1974 2.1974 i 2.0216 2.0216 i 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.19............. i 3,714.897 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 6 6 i 5 Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 3,685.101 7685.101 1.1918 3,714.897 6 6 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0692 i 0.0436 i 0.5892 1.9700e- i 0.2012 1.3300e- 0.2025 i 0.0534 1.2300e- 0.0546 196.2079 196.2079 4.4700e- i i 196.3197 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0692 0.0436 0.5892 1.9700e- 0.2012 1.3300e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.2300e- 0.0546 196.2079 196.2079 4.4700e- 196.3197 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.0765 i 42.4173 i 21.5136 0.0380 2.1974 2.1974 2.0216 2.0216 0.0000 i 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 i i 3,714.897 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 6 6 i 5 Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 0.0000 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 3,714.897 6 6 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0692 i 0.0436 i 0.5892 1.9700e- i 0.2012 1.3300e- 0.2025 i 0.0534 1.2300e- 0.0546 196.2079 196.2079 4.4700e- i i 196.3197 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0692 0.0436 0.5892 1.9700e- 0.2012 1.3300e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.2300e- 0.0546 196.2079 196.2079 4.4700e- 196.3197 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 i 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.4288 i 26.3859 i 16.0530 � 0.0297 i � 1.2734 � 1.2734 i � 1.1716 � 1.1716 � i 2,872.485 � 2,872.485 � 0.9290 i i 2,895.710 i i i 1 1 i 6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 1 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0576 i 0.0363 i 0.4910 1.6400e- i 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 i 163.5065 163.5065 3.7300e- 163.5997 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0576 0.0363 0.4910 1.6400e- 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 163.5065 163.5065 3.7300e- 163.5997 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 i 3.3675 i 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.4288 i 26.3859 i 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 0.0000 i 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 i i 2,895.710 '� i i i i i i i i i • 1 1 i 6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 0.0000 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0576 i 0.0363 i 0.4910 1.6400e- i 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 163.5065 163.5065 3.7300e- i i 163.5997 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0576 0.0363 0.4910 1.6400e- 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 163.5065 163.5065 3.7300e- 163.5997 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 i 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.2903 i 24.7367 i 15.8575 � 0.0296 i � 1.1599 � 1.1599 i � 1.0671 1.0671 � i 2,871.928 � 2,871.928 � 0.9288 i i 2,895.149 i i i 5 5 i 5 Total 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 6.5523 1.1599 7.7123 3.3675 1.0671 4.4346 2,871.928 2,871.928 0.9288 2,895.149 5 5 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0541 i 0.0328 i 0.4556 � 1.5800e- i 0.1677 � 1.0900e- � 0.1688 i 0.0445 � 1.000Oe- 0.0455 � i 157.8291 � 157.8291 � 3.3800e- i i 157.9136 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0541 0.0328 0.4556 1.5800e- 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.000Oe- 0.0455 157.8291 157.8291 3.3800e- 157.9136 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 i 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.2903 i 24.7367 i 15.8575 0.0296 1.1599 1.1599 1.0671 1.0671 0.0000 i 2,871.928 2,871.928 0.9288 i i 2,895.149 i i i 5 5 i 5 Total 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 6.5523 1.1599 7.7123 3.3675 1.0671 4.4346 0.0000 2,871.928 2,871.928 0.9288 2,895.149 5 5 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0541 i 0.0328 i 0.4556 � 1.5800e- i 0.1677 � 1.0900e- � 0.1688 i 0.0445 � 1.00OOe- 0.0455 � i 157.8291 � 157.8291 � 3.3800e- i i 157.9136 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0541 0.0328 0.4556 1.5800e- 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.00OOe- 0.0455 157.8291 157.8291 3.3800e- 157.9136 003 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 i i 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 i i 2,568.764 9 i 9 i 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4216 i 14.8226 i 4.0200 � 0.0390 i 1.0095 � 0.0308 1.0403 i 0.2905 0.0294 0.3199 4,246.921 4,246.921 0.3330 i i 4,255.246 6 i 6 i i i 9 Worker •i 2.4905 i 1.5069 i 20.9573 0.0728 i 7.7126 0.0499 7.7625 i 2.0454 0.0460 2.0914 i 7,260.139 7,260.139 0.1555 7,264.026 6 i 6 i i i 4 Total 2.9121 16.3295 24.9773 0.1118 8.7221 0.0807 8.8028 2.3359 0.0754 11,507.06 0.4885 11,519.27 [77711,507.06 12 12 34 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 i 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 i i 2,568.764 9 i 9 i 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4216 i 14.8226 i 4.0200 � 0.0390 i 1.0095 � 0.0308 1.0403 i 0.2905 0.0294 0.3199 4,246.921 4,246.921 0.3330 i i 4,255.246 6 i 6 i i i 9 Worker •i 2.4905 i 1.5069 i 20.9573 0.0728 i 7.7126 0.0499 7.7625 i 2.0454 0.0460 2.0914 i 7,260.139 7,260.139 0.1555 7,264.026 6 i 6 i i i 4 Total 2.9121 16.3295 24.9773 0.1118 8.7221 0.0807 8.8028 2.3359 0.0754 11,507.06 0.4885 11,519.27 [77711,507.06 12 12 34 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.2556 i 12.9191 i 14.6532 0.0228 0.6777 0.6777 0.6235 0.6235 2,207.210 2,207.210 0.7139 i i 2,225.057 9 i 9 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.2556 12.9191 14.6532 0.0228 0.6777 0.6777 0.6235 0.6235 2,207.210 2,207.210 0.7139 2,225.057 11 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0541 i 0.0328 i 0.4556 � 1.5800e- i 0.1677 � 1.0900e- � 0.1688 i 0.0445 � 1.000Oe- 0.0455 � i 157.8291 � 157.8291 � 3.3800e- i i 157.9136 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0541 0.0328 0.4556 1.5800e- 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.000Oe- 0.0455 157.8291 157.8291 3.3800e- 157.9136 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.2556 i 12.9191 i 14.6532 0.0228 0.6777 0.6777 0.6235 0.6235 0.0000 i 2,207.210 2,207.210 0.7139 i i 2,225.057 9 i 9 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.2556 12.9191 14.6532 0.0228 0.6777 0.6777 0.6235 0.6235 0.0000 2,207.210 2,207.210 0.7139 2,225.057 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0541 i 0.0328 i 0.4556 � 1.5800e- i 0.1677 � 1.0900e- � 0.1688 i 0.0445 � 1.00OOe- 0.0455 � i 157.8291 � 157.8291 � 3.3800e- i i 157.9136 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0541 0.0328 0.4556 1.5800e- 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.00OOe- 0.0455 157.8291 157.8291 3.3800e- 157.9136 003 003 003 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 185.0737 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2189 i 1.5268 i 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 i i 281.9309 003 Total 185.2926 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4981 i 0.3014 i 4.1915 0.0146 i 1.5425 9.9800e- 1.5525 i 0.4091 9.1900e- 0.4183 1,452.027 1,452.027 0.0311 i i 1,452.805 003 003 9 9 i 3 0.4981 0.3014 4.1915 0.0146 1.5425 9.9800e- 1.5525 0.4091 9.1900e- 0.4183 1,452.027 1,452.027 0.0311 1,452.805 =.I., 003 003 9 9 3 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 185.0737 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2189 i 1.5268 i 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 i i 281.9309 003 Total 185.2926 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4981 i 0.3014 i 4.1915 0.0146 i 1.5425 9.9800e- 1.5525 i 0.4091 9.1900e- 0.4183 1,452.027 1,452.027 0.0311 i i 1,452.805 003 003 9 9 i 3 0.4981 0.3014 4.1915 0.0146 1.5425 9.9800e- 1.5525 0.4091 9.1900e- 0.4183 1,452.027 1,452.027 0.0311 1,452.805 =.t.l 003 003 9 9 3 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 185.0737 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2045 i 1.4085 i 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 i i 281.9062 003 Total 185.2782 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4707 i 0.2730 i 3.9120 0.0140 i 1.5425 9.7900e- 1.5523 i 0.4091 9.0100e- 0.4181 i 1,398.217 1,398.217 0.0282 i i 1,398.923 003 003 7 7 i 7 Total 0.4707 0.2730 3.9120 0.0140 1.5425 9.7900e- 1.5523 0.4091 9.0100e- 0.4181 1,398.217 1,398.217 0.0282 7398.923 003 003 7 7 7 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 185.0737 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2045 i 1.4085 i 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 i i 281.9062 003 Total 185.2782 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4707 i 0.2730 i 3.9120 0.0140 i 1.5425 9.7900e- 1.5523 i 0.4091 9.0100e- 0.4181 i 1,398.217 1,398.217 0.0282 i i 1,398.923 003 003 7 7 i 7 Total 0.4707 0.2730 3.9120 0.0140 1.5425 9.7900e- 1.5523 0.4091 9.0100e- 0.4181 1,398.217 1,398.217 0.0282 7398.923 003 003 7 7 7 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 31 Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 5.8652 23.1474 77.0622 0.2984 27.1381 0.2131 27.3512 7.2571 0.1982 7.4553 30,312.82 30,312.82 1.2114 i 30,343.11 i i i i i i � i 96 96 56 Unmitigated 5.8652 23.1474 77.0622 0.2984 27.1381 0.2131 27.3512 7.2571 0.1982 7.4553 30,312.82 • 30,312.82 • 1.2114 30,343.11 96 96 56 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 3,329.48 ; 3,329.48 3329.48 11,377,339 11,377,339 ........ ...............................------------------------------- -----------------------:------------------------ Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 ................................................... ------------T-----------Y--------------------------------------------------- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 373.00 ; 373.00 373.00 508,329 508,329 .................................................. ---------- ---------- ---------------------- ----------------------- T Regional Shopping Center ; 419.56 ; 419.56 419.56 907,447 907,447 Total 4,122.04 4,122.04 4,122.04 12,793,115 12,793,115 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................---------- Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 16.60 ------- 8.40 1 -+--------- 6.90 0.00 - 0.00 , , '_ -------- 0.00 -------- 0 ---- 0 -------------- 0 .......................• High Turnover (Sit Down - - - - - - - - - - - 16.60 - - - - - - - - - -r 8.40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T 1 72.50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 37 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 43 _ __ __ Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.5613781 0.043284; 0.209473; 0.111826; 0.015545; 0.005795; 0.025829; 0.017125; 0.001747; 0.001542; 0.004926; 0.0005941 0.000934 r Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.5613781 0.0432841 0.2094731 0.1118261 0.0155451 0.0057951 0.0258291 0.0171251 0.0017471 0.0015421 0.0049261 0.000594, 0.000934 r High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5613781 0.043284: 0.209473: 0.111826: 0.015545: 0.005795: 0.025829: 0.017125: 0.001747: 0.001542: 0.004926: 0.000594: 0.000934 Restaurant) ' •--------- --------------+- -------F------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------� ------- RegionalShopping Center 0.561378. 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826- 0.015545- 0.005795- 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747- 0.001542- 0.004926- 0.000594: 0.000934 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day Ib/day NaturalGas •i 0.2450 i 2.1082 i 1.0007 0.0134 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 2,672.136 2,672.136 0.0512 i 0.0490 i 2,688.015 Mitigated 7 7 i 9 NaturalGas 0.2450 2.1082 1.0007 0.0134 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 2,672.136 • 2,672.136 0.0512 0.0490 • 2,688.015 Unmitigated 7 7 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Mid 20162.4 •i 0.2174 i 1.8581 0.7907 � 0.0119 i � 0.1502 i 0.1502 � � 0.1502 0.1502 i 2,372.049 � 2,372.049 i 0.0455 i 0.0435 2,386.145 Rise 7 7 i 6 Enclosed Parking � 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator High Turnover (Sit ��--------------'-----------------------------------'---------- ------------------------------ 2486.63 •i 0.0268 i 0.2438 0.2048 1.4600e- i 0.0185 i 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 i 292.5447 292.5447 i 5.61 OOe- i 5.3600e- i 294.2832 Down Restaurant) i 003 i 003 003 i ---------- Regional --------------'-----------------------------------'----------------------------- ---------------------------- 64.1096 •i 6.9000e- i 6.2900e- 5.2800e- 4.000Oe- i 4.8000e- i 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- i 7.5423 7.5423 i 1.4000e- i 1.4000e- i 7.5871 Shopping Center 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i 004 � � � � i i i i � � i i Total 0.2450 2.1082 1.0007 0.0134 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 2,672.136 2,672.136 0.0512 0.0490 2,688.015 11 7 7 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Mid 20.1624 •i 0.2174 i 1.8581 0.7907 � 0.0119 i � 0.1502 i 0.1502 � � 0.1502 0.1502 i 2,372.049 � 2,372.049 i 0.0455 i 0.0435 2,386.145 Rise 7 7 i 6 Enclosed Parking � 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator High Turnover (Sit ��--------------'-----------------------------------'---------- ------------------------------ 1 2.48663 -1 0.0268 i 0.2438 0.2048 1.4600e- i 0.0185 i 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 i 292.5447 292.5447 i 5.61 OOe- i 5.3600e- i 294.2832 Down Restaurant) i 003 i 003 003 i ---------- Regional --------------'-----------------------------------'------------------------------ ---------------------------- 10.0641096-i 6.9000e- i 6.2900e- 5.2800e- 4.000Oe- i 4.8000e- i 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- i 7.5423 7.5423 i 1.4000e- i 1.4000e- i 7.5871 Shopping Center 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i 004 � � � � i i i i � � i i Total 0.2450 2.1082 1.0007 0.0134 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 2,672.136 2,672.136 0.0512 0.0490 2,688.015 7 7 9 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 182.6750 � 13.9766 � 380.8317 0.8383 49.4884 i 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 6,032.295 i 11,687.95 � 17,720.25 18.0825 � 0.4094 i 18,294.32 •� . 5 95 50 i 83 Unmitigated •• 182.6750 13.9766 380.8317 0.8383 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 • 6,032.295 - 11,687.95 • 17,720.25 - 18.0825 • 0.4094 18,294.32 5 95 50 83 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1 1.0141 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer �� 11.2906 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 168.7512 i 13.3619 327.5074 i 0.8355 i 49.1941 i 49.1941 i 49.1941 49.1941 6,032.295 i 11,592.00 17,624.29 i 17.9895 0.4094 i 18,196.04 5 00 55 i 22 Landscaping •i 1.6192 i 0.6147 53.3244 i 2.8200e- i 0.2944 i 0.2944 i 0.2944 0.2944 F 95.9595 95.9595 i 0.0931 i 98.2861 003 Total 182.6750 13.9766 380.8317 0.8383 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 6,032.295 11,687.95 17,720.25 18.0825 0.4094 18,294.32 5 95 50 83 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 1.0141 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i � 0.0000 0.0000 • Coating Consumer •i 11.2906 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 168.7512 i 13.3619 327.5074 i 0.8355 49.1941 i 49.1941 49.1941 49.1941 6,032.295 i 11,592.00 � 17,624.29 i 17.9895 0.4094 1 18,196.04 . 5 00 55 i 22 ------------- - - - - ---- - - - --------- j--------j------- j------- -j------- j- - - - - ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - -- Landscaping •i 1.6192 i 0.6147 53.3244 i 2.8200e- i 0.2944 i 0.2944 i 0.2944 0.2944 i 95.9595 95.9595 i 0.0931 98.2861 003 Total 182.6750 13.9766 380.8317 0.8383 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 6,032.295 11,687.95 17,720.25 18.0825 0.4094 18,294.32 5 95 50 83 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:06 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Summer Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Orange County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,318.00 + Space ; 0.00 527,200.00 i 0 •----------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- - h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)3.50 + High = — — ;------------- 1000sgft ; 0.00 3,500.00 -+ 0 •-----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------=------------------------i------------------+--------------- Apartments Mid Rise 644.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 8.03 545,600.00 i 1842 ------------------------------- _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------ --------------- Regional Shopping Center 11.70 1000sgft 0.00 11,700.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter Project Characteristics - Land Use - Consistent with information provided in Staff Report. Construction Phase - Defaults assumed. Off -road Equipment - Defaults assumed. Trips and VMT - Defaults assumed. Architectural Coating - Vehicle Trips - Consistent with TIA. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 644,000.00 545,600.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ t-----------------------------t-------------------------- LotAcreage 11.86 0.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 0.08 0.00 ---------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 16.95 8.03 ----------------------------- tblLandUse ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- LotAcreage 0.27 0.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 6.39 5.17 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 158.37 106.57 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 49.97 35.86 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 5.86 5.17 ----------------------------_---------------------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- SU_TR r 131.84 106.57 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 25.24 35.86 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- WD_TR r 6.65 5.17 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- WD_TR r 127.15 106.57 --------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- WD_TR 42.70 35.86 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year lb/day lb/day 2020 •i 4.1546 i 42.4652 � 22.2070 i 0.0404 18.2675 2.1987 i 20.4662 9.9840 i 2.0228 12.0069 0.0000 i 3,902.448 3,902.448 i 1.1961 0.0000 3,928.985 2021 •i 185.8565 i 33.8757 40.3239 i 0.1338 8.7221 1.1610 i 9.7625 3.4120 i 1.0681 4.4801 0.0000 Ti 13,567.19 i 1.1125 0.0000 13,595.00 22 22 i 35 2022 •i 185.8126 i 1.7085 � 5.4179 i 0.0162 � 1.5425 � 0.0915 i 1.6340 � 0.4091 i 0.0907 0.4998 � 0.0000 i 1,604.838 � 1,604.838 i 0.0450 � 0.0000 1,605.964 g i g 5 Maximum 185.8565 42.4652 40.3239 0.1338 18.2675 2.1987 20.4662 9.9840 2.0228 12.0069 0.0000 13,567.19 13,567.19 1.1961 0.0000 13,595.00 22 22 35 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2020 •i 4.1546 42.4652 22.2070 0.0404 18.2675 2.1987 20.4662 9.9840 2.0228 12.0069 0.0000 i 3,902.448 3,902.448 1.1961 0.0000 i 3,928.985 i i i i i '� i i i i i i i i 1 1 i 1 i 0 ■ 2021 •i 185.8565 i 33.8757 40.3239 i 0.1338 8.7221 1.1610 i 9.7625 3.4120 i 1.0681 4.4801 0.0000 i 13,567.19 13,567.19 i 1.1125 0.0000 i 13,595.00 '� ■ 22 22 i 35 2022 •i 185.8126 i 1.7085 5.4179 i 0.0162 1.5425 0.0915 i 1.6340 0.4091 i 0.0907 0.4998 0.0000 i 1,604.838 1,604.838 i 0.0450 0.0000 i 1,605.964 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 8 i 8 i i i 5 Maximum 185.8565 42.4652 40.3239 0.1338 18.2675 2.1987 20.4662 9.9840 2.0228 12.0069 0.0000 13,567.19 13,567.19 1.1961 0.0000 13,595.00 22 22 35 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 182.6750 i 13.9766 380.8317 i 0.8383 49.4884 i 49.4884 � i 49.4884 49.4884 • 6,032.295 i 11,687.95 17,720.25 i 18.0825 � 0.4094 18,294.32 5 95 50 i 83 Energy •i 0.2450 i 2.1082 � 1.0007 i 0.0134 � � 0.1692 i 0.1692 � i 0.1692 0.1692 i 2,672.136 2,672.136 i 0.0512 0.0490 1 2,688.015 7 i 7 i i i 9 Mobile •i 5.7647 i 23.7714 73.7489 i 0.2850 27.1381 0.2141 i 27.3522 7.2571 i 0.1991 7.4562 i 28,973.04 28,973.04 i 1.2086 29,003.26 87 87 39 i i � i Total 188.6847 39.8562 455.5814 1.1367 27.1381 49.8718 77.0099 7.2571 49.8568 43,333.14 19.3424 0.4584 f-772.295 5 49 179,365.44 04 1 179,985.60 81 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 182.6750 i 13.9766 380.8317 i 0.8383 49.4884 i 49.4884 i i 49.4884 49.4884 6,032.295 i 11,687.95 i 17,720.25 i 18.0825 i 0.4094 i 18,294.32 �� ■ 5 95 50 i 83 Energy •i 0.2450 i 2.1082 1.0007 i 0.0134 0.1692 i 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 i 2,672.136 2,672.136 i 0.0512 0.0490 i 2,688.015 '� i i i i i i i i ■ 7 i 7 i i i 9 Mobile 5.7647 i 23.7714 73.7489 i 0.2850 27.1381 0.2141 i 27.3522 7.2571 i 0.1991 7.4562 � i 28,973.04 28,973.04 i 1.2086 29,003.26 ■ 87 87 i 39 Total 188.6847 39.8562 455.5814 1.1367 27.1381 49.8718 77.0099 7.2571 49.8568 57.1139 6,032.295 43,333.14 49,365.44 19.3424 0.4584 49,985.60 5 49 04 81 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !11/5/2020 :12/2/2020 5 20: i i 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation ! 12/3/2020 i 12/16/2020 5 10 i i 3 •Grading +Grading ! 12/17/2020 i 1/13/2021 5: 20: i i 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction ! 1/14/2021 i 12/1/2021 5: 230: i i 5 :Paving +Paving ! 12/2/2021 i 12/29/2021 5 20 + I i 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -12/30/2021 -1/26/2022 5, 20- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,104,840; Residential Outdoor: 368,280; Non -Residential Indoor: 22,800; Non -Residential Outdoor: 7,600; Striped Parking Area: 31,632 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 31 Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 : 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158, 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247, 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 1 8.001 158, 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187, 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247, 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 8.001 97, 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 31 8.001 89, 0.20 1 �- ------------------- ------------------ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 84, 0.74 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 7.001 _ 97, 0.37 a i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 __ 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 21 8.001 130, 0.42 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 2 8.001 132, 0.36 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80, 0.38 Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00" 0.001 0.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_--, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------r--------_ ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 6; i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT I- ----------------A-------------- Construction v 9; i----------i- 690.00- I --------i 158.001 0.00: :Building ---------' --------- 14.70: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ---° f- Paving -------------- - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix ------- EHHDT --------------6; i f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 138.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 3.3121 , 33.2010 , 21.7532 , 0.0388 , , 1.6587 , 1.6587 , , 1.5419 ; 1.5419 3,747.704 , 3,747.704 , 1.0580 , i 3,774.153 9 i 9 6 Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 9 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0651 i 0.0399 i 0.4538 1.5500e- i 0.1677 � 1.1100e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 154.7432 154.7432 3.5300e- i i 154.8314 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0651 0.0399 0.4538 1.5500e- 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 154.7432 154.7432 3.5300e- 154.8314 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 3.3121 i 33.2010 i 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 i 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 i 9 i 6 Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 3,747.704 3,747.704 1.0580 3,774.153 9 9 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0651 i 0.0399 i 0.4538 1.5500e- i 0.1677 � 1.1100e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 154.7432 154.7432 3.5300e- i i 154.8314 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0651 0.0399 0.4538 1.5500e- 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 154.7432 154.7432 3.5300e- 154.8314 003 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.0765 i 42.4173 i 21.5136 0.0380 i 2.1974 2.1974 i 2.0216 2.0216 i 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.19............. i 3,714.897 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 6 6 i 5 Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 3,685.101 7685.101 1.1918 3,714.897 6 6 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0782 i 0.0479 i 0.5446 1.8600e- i 0.2012 1.3300e- 0.2025 i 0.0534 1.2300e- 0.0546 185.6918 185.6918 4.2400e- i i 185.7977 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0782 0.0479 0.5446 1.8600e- 0.2012 1.3300e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.2300e- 0.0546 185.6918 185.6918 4.2400e- 185.7977 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.0765 i 42.4173 i 21.5136 0.0380 2.1974 2.1974 2.0216 2.0216 0.0000 i 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 i i 3,714.897 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 6 6 i 5 Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 0.0000 3,685.101 3,685.101 1.1918 3,714.897 6 6 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0782 i 0.0479 i 0.5446 1.8600e- i 0.2012 1.3300e- 0.2025 i 0.0534 1.2300e- 0.0546 185.6918 185.6918 4.2400e- i i 185.7977 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0782 0.0479 0.5446 1.8600e- 0.2012 1.3300e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.2300e- 0.0546 185.6918 185.6918 4.2400e- 185.7977 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 i 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.4288 i 26.3859 i 16.0530 � 0.0297 i � 1.2734 � 1.2734 i � 1.1716 � 1.1716 � i 2,872.485 � 2,872.485 � 0.9290 i i 2,895.710 i i i 1 1 i 6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 1 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0651 i 0.0399 i 0.4538 1.5500e- i 0.1677 � 1.1100e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 154.7432 154.7432 3.5300e- i i 154.8314 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0651 0.0399 0.4538 1.5500e- 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 154.7432 154.7432 3.5300e- 154.8314 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 i 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.4288 i 26.3859 i 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 0.0000 i 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 i i 2,895.710 i 1 1 i 6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 0.0000 2,872.485 2,872.485 0.9290 2,895.710 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0651 i 0.0399 i 0.4538 1.5500e- i 0.1677 � 1.1100e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 154.7432 154.7432 3.5300e- i i 154.8314 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0651 0.0399 0.4538 1.5500e- 0.1677 1.1100e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0200e- 0.0455 154.7432 154.7432 3.5300e- 154.8314 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 i 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.2903 i 24.7367 i 15.8575 � 0.0296 i � 1.1599 � 1.1599 i � 1.0671 1.0671 � i 2,871.928 � 2,871.928 � 0.9288 i i 2,895.149 i i i 5 5 i 5 Total 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 6.5523 1.1599 7.7123 3.3675 1.0671 4.4346 2,871.928 2,871.928 0.9288 2,895.149 5 5 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0613 i 0.0360 i 0.4204 1.5000e- i 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.000Oe- 0.0455 149.3748 149.3748 3.2000e- i i 149.4548 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0613 0.0360 0.4204 1.5000e- 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.000Oe- 0.0455 149.3748 149.3748 3.2000e- 149.4548 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 i 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.2903 i 24.7367 i 15.8575 0.0296 1.1599 1.1599 1.0671 1.0671 0.0000 i 2,871.928 2,871.928 0.9288 i i 2,895.149 i i i 5 5 i 5 Total 2.2903 24.7367 15.8575 0.0296 6.5523 1.1599 7.7123 3.3675 1.0671 4.4346 0.0000 2,871.928 2,871.928 0.9288 2,895.149 5 5 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0613 i 0.0360 i 0.4204 1.5000e- i 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.00OOe- 0.0455 149.3748 149.3748 3.2000e- i i 149.4548 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0613 0.0360 0.4204 1.5000e- 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.00OOe- 0.0455 149.3748 149.3748 3.2000e- 149.4548 003 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 i i 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 i i 2,568.764 9 i 9 i 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4425 i 14.7877 i 4.4102 � 0.0380 i 1.0095 � 0.0320 1.0414 i 0.2905 0.0306 0.3211 4,142.586 4,142.586 0.3493 i i 4,151.318 2 i 2 i i i 7 Worker •i 2.8197 i 1.6558 i 19.3385 0.0689 i 7.7126 0.0499 7.7625 i 2.0454 0.0460 2.0914 i 6,871.242 6,871.242 0.1471 6,874.920 6 Total 3.2622 16.4436 23.7487 0.1069 8.7221 0.0819 8.8039 2.3359 0.0765 11,013.82 0.4964 11,026.23 [77711,013.82 83 83 92 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 i 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 i i 2,568.764 9 i 9 i 3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.4425 i 14.7877 i 4.4102 0.0380 i 1.0095 0.0320 1.0414 i 0.2905 0.0306 0.3211 4,142.586 4,142.586 0.3493 i i 4,151.318 2 i 2 i i i 7 Worker •i 2.8197 i 1.6558 i 19.3385 0.0689 i 7.7126 0.0499 7.7625 i 2.0454 0.0460 2.0914 i 6,871.242 6,871.242 0.1471 6,874.920 6 Total 3.2622 16.4436 23.7487 0.1069 8.7221 0.0819 8.8039 2.3359 0.0765 11,013.82 0.4964 11,026.23 [77711,013.82 83 83 92 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.2556 i 12.9191 i 14.6532 0.0228 0.6777 0.6777 0.6235 0.6235 2,207.210 2,207.210 0.7139 i i 2,225.057 9 i 9 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 1.2556 12.9191 14.6532 0.0228 0.6777 0.6777 0.6235 0.6235 2,207.210 2,207.210 0.7139 2,225.057 j j j j 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0613 i 0.0360 i 0.4204 1.5000e- i 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.000Oe- 0.0455 149.3748 149.3748 3.2000e- i i 149.4548 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0613 0.0360 0.4204 1.5000e- 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.000Oe- 0.0455 149.3748 149.3748 3.2000e- 149.4548 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.2556 i 12.9191 i 14.6532 0.0228 0.6777 0.6777 0.6235 0.6235 0.0000 i 2,207.210 2,207.210 0.7139 i i 2,225.057 9 i 9 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.2556 12.9191 14.6532 0.0228 0.6777 0.6777 0.6235 0.6235 0.0000 2,207.210 2,207.210 0.7139 2,225.057 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0613 i 0.0360 i 0.4204 1.5000e- i 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 i 0.0445 1.00OOe- 0.0455 149.3748 149.3748 3.2000e- i i 149.4548 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0613 0.0360 0.4204 1.5000e- 0.1677 1.0900e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.00OOe- 0.0455 149.3748 149.3748 3.2000e- 149.4548 003 003 003 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 185.0737 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2189 i 1.5268 i 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 i i 281.9309 003 Total 185.2926 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ��--------------------------------------------'----------------------- -+ ------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.5639 i 0.3312 i 3.8677 0.0138 i 1.5425 9.9800e- 1.5525 i 0.4091 9.1900e- 0.4183 i 1,374.248 1,374.248 0.0294 i i 1,374.984 003 003 4 4 i 1 Total 0.5639 0.3312 3.8677 0.0138 1.5425 9.9800e- 1.5525 0.4091 9.1900e- 0.4183 1,374.248 1,374.248 0.0294 1,374.984 003 003 4 4 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 185.0737 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2189 i 1.5268 i 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 i i 281.9309 003 Total 185.2926 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.5639 i 0.3312 i 3.8677 0.0138 i 1.5425 9.9800e- 1.5525 i 0.4091 9.1900e- 0.4183 1,374.248 1,374.248 0.0294 i i 1,374.984 003 003 4 4 i 1 0.5639 0.3312 3.8677 0.0138 1.5425 9.9800e- 1.5525 0.4091 9.1900e- 0.4183 1,374.248 1,374.248 0.0294 1,374.984 =.t.l 003 003 4 4 1 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 185.0737 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2045 i 1.4085 i 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 i i 281.9062 003 Total 185.2782 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.5343 i 0.3000 i 3.6043 0.0133 i 1.5425 9.7900e- 1.5523 i 0.4091 9.0100e- 0.4181 i 1,323.390 1,323.390 0.0267 i i 1,324.058 003 003 7 7 i 3 Total 0.5343 0.3000 3.6043 0.0133 1.5425 9.7900e- 1.5523 0.4091 9.0100e- 0.4181 1,323.390 1,323.390 0.0267 7324.058 003 003 7 7 3 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 185.0737 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2045 i 1.4085 i 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 i i 281.9062 003 Total 185.2782 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.5343 i 0.3000 i 3.6043 0.0133 i 1.5425 9.7900e- 1.5523 i 0.4091 9.0100e- 0.4181 i 1,323.390 1,323.390 0.0267 i i 1,324.058 003 003 7 7 i 3 Total 0.5343 0.3000 3.6043 0.0133 1.5425 9.7900e- 1.5523 0.4091 9.0100e- 0.4181 1,323.390 1,323.390 0.0267 7324.058 003 003 7 7 3 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 31 Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 5.7647 i 23.7714 i 73.7489 � 0.2850 i 27.1381 i 0.2141 i 27.3522 i 7.2571 i 0.1991 7.4562 28,973.04 28,973.04 i 1.2086 29,003.26 •� . 87 87 i 39 Unmitigated 5.7647 23.7714 73.7489 0.2850 27.1381 0.2141 27.3522 7.2571 0.1991 7.4562 28,973.04 • 28,973.04 • 1.2086 29,003.26 87 87 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 3,329.48 ; 3,329.48 3329.48 11,377,339 11,377,339 -: ........ ...............................--------------------- --- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------- Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 .................................................. ------------T-----------Y------------------------:-------------------------- High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 373.00 ; 373.00 373.00 508,329 508,329 ..................................................---------- - ------- ---------------------- --------------- - - - - - - - - T Regional Shopping Center ; 419.56 ; 419.56 419.56 907,447 907,447 Total 4,122.04 4,122.04 4,122.04 12,793,115 12,793,115 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------ Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 16.60 8.40 6.90 �---------,- 0.00 0.00 '_ 0.00 -------- 0 ---- 0 -------------- 0 .......................• High Turnover (Sit Down - - - - - - - - - - - 16.60 - - - - - - - - - T 8.40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T I 72.50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 37 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 43 _ __ __ Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.5613781 0.043284; 0.209473; 0.111826; 0.015545; 0.005795; 0.025829; 0.017125; 0.001747; 0.001542; 0.004926; 0.0005941 0.000934 r Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.5613781 0.0432841 0.2094731 0.1118261 0.0155451 0.0057951 0.0258291 0.0171251 0.0017471 0.0015421 0.0049261 0.000594, 0.000934 r High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5613781 0.043284: 0.209473: 0.111826: 0.015545: 0.005795: 0.025829: 0.017125: 0.001747: 0.001542: 0.004926: 0.000594: 0.000934 Restaurant) ' •--------- --------------+- -------F------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------� ------- RegionalShopping Center 0.561378. 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826- 0.015545- 0.005795- 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747- 0.001542- 0.004926- 0.000594: 0.000934 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day Ib/day NaturalGas •i 0.2450 i 2.1082 i 1.0007 0.0134 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 2,672.136 2,672.136 0.0512 i 0.0490 i 2,688.015 Mitigated 7 7 i 9 NaturalGas 0.2450 2.1082 1.0007 0.0134 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 2,672.136 • 2,672.136 0.0512 0.0490 • 2,688.015 Unmitigated 7 7 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Mid 20162.4 •i 0.2174 i 1.8581 0.7907 � 0.0119 i � 0.1502 i 0.1502 � � 0.1502 0.1502 i 2,372.049 � 2,372.049 i 0.0455 i 0.0435 2,386.145 Rise 7 7 i 6 Enclosed Parking � 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator High Turnover (Sit ��--------------'-----------------------------------'---------- ------------------------------ 2486.63 •i 0.0268 i 0.2438 0.2048 1.4600e- i 0.0185 i 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 i 292.5447 292.5447 i 5.61 OOe- i 5.3600e- i 294.2832 Down Restaurant) i 003 i 003 003 i ---------- Regional --------------'-----------------------------------'----------------------------- ---------------------------- 64.1096 •i 6.9000e- i 6.2900e- 5.2800e- 4.000Oe- i 4.8000e- i 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- i 7.5423 7.5423 i 1.4000e- i 1.4000e- i 7.5871 Shopping Center 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i 004 � � � � i i i i � � i i Total 0.2450 2.1082 1.0007 0.0134 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 2,672.136 2,672.136 0.0512 0.0490 2,688.015 11 7 7 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Mid 20.1624 •i 0.2174 i 1.8581 0.7907 � 0.0119 i � 0.1502 i 0.1502 � � 0.1502 0.1502 i 2,372.049 � 2,372.049 i 0.0455 i 0.0435 2,386.145 Rise 7 7 i 6 Enclosed Parking � 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator High Turnover (Sit ��--------------'-----------------------------------'---------- ------------------------------ 1 2.48663 -1 0.0268 i 0.2438 0.2048 1.4600e- i 0.0185 i 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 i 292.5447 292.5447 i 5.61 OOe- i 5.3600e- i 294.2832 Down Restaurant) i 003 i 003 003 i ---------- Regional --------------'-----------------------------------'------------------------------ ---------------------------- 10.0641096-i 6.9000e- i 6.2900e- 5.2800e- 4.000Oe- i 4.8000e- i 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- i 7.5423 7.5423 i 1.4000e- i 1.4000e- i 7.5871 Shopping Center 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i 004 � � � � i i i i � � i i Total 0.2450 2.1082 1.0007 0.0134 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 0.1692 2,672.136 2,672.136 0.0512 0.0490 2,688.015 7 7 9 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 182.6750 � 13.9766 � 380.8317 0.8383 49.4884 i 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 6,032.295 i 11,687.95 � 17,720.25 18.0825 � 0.4094 i 18,294.32 •� . 5 95 50 i 83 Unmitigated •• 182.6750 13.9766 380.8317 0.8383 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 • 6,032.295 - 11,687.95 • 17,720.25 - 18.0825 • 0.4094 18,294.32 5 95 50 83 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1 1.0141 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer �� 11.2906 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 168.7512 i 13.3619 327.5074 i 0.8355 i 49.1941 i 49.1941 i 49.1941 49.1941 6,032.295 i 11,592.00 17,624.29 i 17.9895 0.4094 i 18,196.04 5 00 55 i 22 Landscaping •i 1.6192 i 0.6147 53.3244 i 2.8200e- i 0.2944 i 0.2944 i 0.2944 0.2944 F 95.9595 95.9595 i 0.0931 i 98.2861 003 Total 182.6750 13.9766 380.8317 0.8383 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 6,032.295 11,687.95 17,720.25 18.0825 0.4094 18,294.32 5 95 50 83 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 1.0141 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i � 0.0000 0.0000 • Coating Consumer •i 11.2906 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 168.7512 i 13.3619 327.5074 i 0.8355 49.1941 i 49.1941 49.1941 49.1941 6,032.295 i 11,592.00 � 17,624.29 i 17.9895 0.4094 1 18,196.04 . 5 00 55 i 22 ------------- - - - - ---- - - - --------- j--------j------- j------- -j------- j- - - - - ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - -- Landscaping •i 1.6192 i 0.6147 53.3244 i 2.8200e- i 0.2944 i 0.2944 i 0.2944 0.2944 i 95.9595 95.9595 i 0.0931 98.2861 003 Total 182.6750 13.9766 380.8317 0.8383 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 49.4884 6,032.295 11,687.95 17,720.25 18.0825 0.4094 18,294.32 5 95 50 83 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 31 Date: 11/5/2020 1:04 PM Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development - Orange County, Winter Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Start date and time 11/06/20 13:38:57 AERSCREEN 16216 Central Pointe Mixed Use Construction Central Pointe Mixed Use Construction ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** --------------- Emission Rate: 0.309E-02 g/s Area Height: 3.00 meters Area Source Length: 194.50 meters Area Source Width: Vertical Dimension: Model Mode: Population: Dist to Ambient Air: ** BUILDING DATA ** 167.00 meters 1.50 meters URBAN 332725 0.246E-01 lb/hr 9.84 feet 638.12 feet 547.90 feet 4.92 feet 1.0 meters 3. feet No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2020.11.06 CentralPointe Construction.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 11/06/20 13:39:48 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 9 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 40 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 10 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 45 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 9 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 40 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 10 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 45 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 9 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 40 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 10 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 45 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 9 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 40 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 10 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 45 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 11/06/20 13:40:12 REFINE started 11/06/20 13:40:12 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** REFINE ended 11/06/20 13:40:14 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 11/06/20 13:40:16 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.24414E+01 1.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26642E+01 25.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28721E+01 50.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30648E+01 75.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32410E+01 100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.33572E+01 125.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23141E+01 150.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18184E+01 175.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14906E+01 200.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12708E+01 225.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11121E+01 250.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98887E+00 275.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88922E+00 300.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80745E+00 325.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73849E+00 350.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67972E+00 375.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.62893E+00 400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58468E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54542E+00 450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51042E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47912E+00 500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45099E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42566E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40244E+00 575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38148E+00 600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36215E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34470E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32835E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31341E+00 700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29963E+00 725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28678E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27497E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26387E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25357E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24389E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23485E+00 875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22637E+00 900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21844E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21098E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20387E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19723E+00 1000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19091E+00 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18494E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17932E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17399E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16889E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16406E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15946E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15509E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15090E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14688E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14307E+00 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13943E+00 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13593E+00 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13260E+00 1350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12940E+00 1375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12633E+00 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12338E+00 1425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12055E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11785E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11525E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11275E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11033E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10800E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10575E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10358E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.10148E+00 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99438E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97468E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95566E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93735E-01 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91963E-01 1775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90256E-01 1800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88604E-01 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87003E-01 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85448E-01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83934E-01 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82466E-01 1924.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81041E-01 1950.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79660E-01 1975.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78319E-01 2000.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77018E-01 2025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75750E-01 2050.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74521E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73331E-01 2100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72173E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71044E-01 2150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69946E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68877E-01 2200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67839E-01 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66829E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65845E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64886E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63951E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63037E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62143E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61271E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60420E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59589E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58773E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57976E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57198E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56438E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55695E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54972E-01 2600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54265E-01 2625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53571E-01 2650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52893E-01 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52233E-01 2700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51586E-01 2725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50954E-01 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50335E-01 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49729E-01 2800.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49137E-01 2825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48558E-01 2850.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47989E-01 2875.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.47964E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47404E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46855E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46317E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45789E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45272E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44765E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44267E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43779E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43301E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42831E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42370E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41918E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41473E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41037E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40609E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40189E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39776E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39370E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38972E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38580E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38195E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37817E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37445E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37079E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36720E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36367E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36019E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35677E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35341E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35010E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34685E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34364E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34049E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33739E-01 3750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33434E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33133E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32837E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32546E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32259E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31976E-01 3900.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31698E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31423E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31153E-01 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30887E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30625E-01 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30367E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30112E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29861E-01 4100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29614E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.29370E-01 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29130E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28893E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28659E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28429E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28201E-01 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27977E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27756E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27538E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27323E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27111E-01 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26902E-01 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26695E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26492E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26290E-01 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26092E-01 4525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25896E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25703E-01 4575.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25512E-01 4599.99 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25323E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25137E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24953E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24772E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24593E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24416E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24241E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24069E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23898E-01 4825.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23730E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23564E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23399E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23237E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23077E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22918E-01 4975.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 310.0 2.0 0.22762E-01 5000.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 310.0 2.0 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 Start date and time 11/06/20 13:40:20 AERSCREEN 16216 Central Pointe Mixed Use Operation Central Pointe Mixed Use Operation ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** --------------- Emission Rate: Area Height: Area Source Length: Area Source Width: Vertical Dimension: Model Mode: Population: Dist to Ambient Air: ** BUILDING DATA ** 0.0208 g/s 3.00 meters 194.50 meters 167.00 meters 1.50 meters URBAN 332725 1.0 meters 0.165 lb/hr 9.84 feet 638.12 feet 547.90 feet 4.92 feet 3. feet No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2020.11.06_CentralPointe_Operation.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 11/06/20 13:41:06 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 9 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 40 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 10 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 45 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 9 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 40 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 10 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 45 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 9 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 40 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 10 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 45 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 8 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 35 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 9 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 40 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 10 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 45 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 11/06/20 13:41:29 REFINE started 11/06/20 13:41:29 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** REFINE ended 11/06/20 13:41:31 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 11/06/20 13:41:33 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.16378E+02 1.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17872E+02 25.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19267E+02 50.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20560E+02 75.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21742E+02 100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.22521E+02 125.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15524E+02 150.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12198E+02 175.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99993E+01 200.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85252E+01 225.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74601E+01 250.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66337E+01 275.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59652E+01 300.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54166E+01 325.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49540E+01 350.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45598E+01 375.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.42191E+01 400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39222E+01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36589E+01 450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34241E+01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32141E+01 500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30254E+01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28554E+01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26997E+01 575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25591E+01 600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24294E+01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23124E+01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22027E+01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21024E+01 700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20100E+01 725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19238E+01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18446E+01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17701E+01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17010E+01 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16361E+01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15754E+01 875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15186E+01 900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14654E+01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14153E+01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13676E+01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13231E+01 1000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12807E+01 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12406E+01 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12029E+01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11672E+01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11330E+01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11005E+01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10697E+01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10404E+01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10123E+01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98532E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95974E+00 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93533E+00 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91190E+00 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88955E+00 1350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86805E+00 1375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84743E+00 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82765E+00 1425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80871E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79057E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77314E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75639E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74014E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72447E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70938E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69483E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.68075E+00 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66706E+00 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65385E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64109E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62880E+00 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61692E+00 1775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60547E+00 1800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59438E+00 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58365E+00 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57321E+00 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56306E+00 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55321E+00 1924.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54365E+00 1950.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53438E+00 1975.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52539E+00 2000.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51666E+00 2025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50815E+00 2050.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49991E+00 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49193E+00 2100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48416E+00 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47659E+00 2150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46922E+00 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46205E+00 2200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45509E+00 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44831E+00 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44171E+00 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43527E+00 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42901E+00 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42287E+00 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41687E+00 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41102E+00 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40532E+00 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39974E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39427E+00 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38892E+00 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38370E+00 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37860E+00 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37362E+00 2575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36877E+00 2600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36403E+00 2625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35937E+00 2650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35482E+00 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35039E+00 2700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34606E+00 2725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34181E+00 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33766E+00 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33360E+00 2800.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32963E+00 2825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32574E+00 2850.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32193E+00 2875.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.32176E+00 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31800E+00 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31432E+00 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31071E+00 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30717E+00 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30370E+00 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30029E+00 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29696E+00 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29368E+00 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29047E+00 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28732E+00 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28423E+00 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28120E+00 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27822E+00 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27529E+00 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27242E+00 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26960E+00 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26683E+00 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26411E+00 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26143E+00 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25881E+00 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25622E+00 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25369E+00 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25119E+00 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24874E+00 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24633E+00 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24396E+00 3550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24163E+00 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23933E+00 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23708E+00 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23486E+00 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23268E+00 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23053E+00 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22841E+00 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22633E+00 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22428E+00 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22227E+00 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22028E+00 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21833E+00 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21640E+00 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21451E+00 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21264E+00 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21080E+00 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20899E+00 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20720E+00 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20544E+00 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20371E+00 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20200E+00 4075.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20032E+00 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19866E+00 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.19702E+00 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19541E+00 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19382E+00 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19225E+00 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19071E+00 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18918E+00 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18768E+00 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18620E+00 4325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18474E+00 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18329E+00 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18187E+00 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18047E+00 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17908E+00 4449.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17771E+00 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17636E+00 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17503E+00 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17372E+00 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17242E+00 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17114E+00 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16988E+00 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16863E+00 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16740E+00 4674.99 0.00 45.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16618E+00 4700.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16498E+00 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16379E+00 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16262E+00 4774.99 0.00 45.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16146E+00 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16032E+00 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15919E+00 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15807E+00 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15697E+00 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15588E+00 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15481E+00 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15374E+00 4975.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 310.0 2.0 0.15269E+00 5000.00 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 310.0 2.0 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 IS p C Technical ConsuRation. DataAnalysis and G LiligakionSupportfor the Enxiroment Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemannCswape.com Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA,1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 — 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 - 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990-1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986-1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy -making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. Conducted aquifer tests. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 0 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. E SWA P E Technical Consultation, data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Principal Environmental Chemist Education: SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld&swape.com Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on VOC filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience: Dr. Rosenfeld is the Co -Founder and Principal Environmental Chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE). His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling, oil spills, boilers, incinerators and other industrial and agricultural sources relating to nuisance and personal injury. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing petroleum, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile organics, semi -volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, MtBE, fuel oxygenates and odor. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated greenhouse gas emissions using various modeling programs recommended by California Air Quality Management Districts. Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex HZO Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist October 2015 1 Rosenfeld CV Publications: Chen, J. A., Zapata, A R., Sutherland, A. J., Molmen, D. R,. Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. It 3-125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing, Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). Anatomy of an Odor Wheel. Water Science and Technology. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities. Water Science And Technology. October 2015 2 Rosenfeld CV Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS-6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(l). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. October 2015 3 Rosenfeld CV Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23Yd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23"d Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23'd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 — 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. October 2015 4 Rosenfeld CV Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. October 2015 5 Rosenfeld CV Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society ofAmerica. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. October 2015 6 Rosenfeld CV Teaching Exuerience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Same Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round -up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993. October 2015 7 Rosenfeld CV Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September, 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA 105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action NO. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17"' Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc- 11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio October 2015 8 Rosenfeld CV John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010 In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants. Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008 In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case Number 2:07CV 1052 Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009 In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants. Case Number 1:05 CV 227 Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2008 In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Craig Steven Arabic, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case Number 07-2738 G In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants. Case Number 2004-6941 Division A In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153`d Judicial District Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants. Case Number 153-212928-05 Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2006, October 2007 Rosenfeld Trial: January 2008 In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case Number VCVVSO44671 Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2009 Rosenfeld Trial: March 2010 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011 October 2015 9 Rosenfeld CV In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust; Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delaware corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. Case Number SC094173 Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008, October 2008 In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants. Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299) Rosenfeld Deposition: January 2008 In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil Chemical Co., Defendants. Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM) Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010 In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. Civil Action Number 07-4037 Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2010 Rosenfeld Trial: October 2010 In the District Court of Texas 215t Judicial District of Burleson County Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant. Case Number 25,151 Rosenfeld Trial: May 2009 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3: 1 0-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 October 2015 10 Rosenfeld CV Exhibit B HEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING HEE 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermannOIEE-SF.com hLtp://www.iee-sf com Date: November 3, 2020 To: Paige Fenney Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Central Point Mixed Use Development Project - Santa, Ana, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4397) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well -recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high- performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non -cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2of19 particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under -measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to Central Point Mixed Use Development Project - Santa, Ana, CA, the buildings consist of multi -family residential buildings. 3of19 The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because these commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the commercial spaces employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work -day at the offices is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("BIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. 4of19 Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATOM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no -added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to 5of19 identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non -cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 1.) Define Indoor Air Qualily Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well -mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., in of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, MOM adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea - formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area -specific emission rates determined 7of19 from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area -specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area - specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (in 3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Etotal Cin = (Equation 1) Qoa where: Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Q. = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non -Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non -cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehydeposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non -Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non -cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as 9of19 mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. Further, we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre - Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. 10 of 19 The Central Point Mixed Use Development Project - Santa, Ana, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-5, CA-55, lst Street, 41h Street, etc.). As a result of the outdoor vehicle traffic noise, the Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site. According to the Final Environmental Impact Report - Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone, (EIP, 2007) the existing (as of 2007) roadway noise level in Table 4.9-4 ranges from 54.7 to 73.8 dBA CNEL. As these noise levels were calculated more than 13 years ago in 2007, the existing (as of 2020) roadway noise levels are likely higher. As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Final Environmental Impact Report - Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone, (EIP, 2007) the Project is located in South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non -attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. 11 of 19 It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Miti-ag tion. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to 12 of 19 insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Miti ag tion. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. References BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental 13 of 19 Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. hqps://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/coMpwoodO7/fro-final.pd California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. httl)s://www.arb.ca.L,ov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.izov/research/anr/east/03-326.ndf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. hqp://www.energy ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version I.I. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. EIP Associates. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Report - Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone. SCH No. 2006031041. 14 of 19 EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 — Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: hltp://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/Tdf/safeharborO8l5l3.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: htlp:Hoehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy -Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.aov/research/gpL/past/04-310.pd Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (121h International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code -Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. 15 of 19 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/cega/air- quality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.us _bg c or z/credits/homes/v4 16 of 19 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California ". In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products". Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality" when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single -Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 17 of 19 Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/PagesNOC. aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) — 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board — 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood — 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF — 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) — 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board — 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood — 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF — 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 18 of 19 could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no -added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 19 of 19 Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH Indoor Environmental Engineering 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone: 415-567-7700 Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com http://www.iee-sf.com Education M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985) Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA. B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. Professional Experience President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present. Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing. Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment. Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building. Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index. Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment. Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California. Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers. Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987. Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations. Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984. Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control). Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross -stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting. Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny. Co -designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations. Designed hardware and software for a multi -channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment. Assistant Chief En ig neer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980. Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers. Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979. 2 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director. Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977. Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97) - Member of Drafting Committee • Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee - Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee - Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee - Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee • Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000) - Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) • D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres - Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee • E-06 Performance of Building Constructions American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013) American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Cal -OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co -Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) - Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON) PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993. Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 61h International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998. Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000. El Co -Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003. Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi -Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008. Co -Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Chair, ETS in Multi -Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016. SPECIAL CONSULTATION Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1. Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters. Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive. Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993. Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff's Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death. Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke. Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation. Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997. Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA. Selected by the State of California Attorney General's Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: "Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators", Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004. Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General's Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e- cigarettes. PEER -REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS: F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low -Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982. W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window -Mounted Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAEAnnual Transactions, 91- IB, 1984. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-IB, 1984. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985. R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986. W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987). F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988. F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International, Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989. F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IA '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989. R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990. S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991. F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991. F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IA '91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991). F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992). F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992. F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air -Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IA '92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992. S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L. Chang, L. Webber, "Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings," Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. 7 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake -out," IA '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IA '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K. Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IA '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994. L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., "Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage", Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996. F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IA '96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IA '96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, "Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness," Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, "Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, "A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings", Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001. F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, "Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile", Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, "The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems", Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M. Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, "Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators", submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005. F.J. Offermann, "Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. F.J. Offermann, "ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What's It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ", IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010. F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, "Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, "Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive", Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012. F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, "The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, "Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes", HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012. R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, "Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, "Area -Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S. Single -Family Homes", Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014. F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, "Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. F. J. Offermann, "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures", Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015. F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China", Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes", Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. I OTHER REPORTS: W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air -Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983. R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984. W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984. 10 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984. A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984. R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984. K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi - Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990. 11 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air'90, July 29-August 1990. A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990. F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, "Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi -Room Buildings", Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. F.J.Offermann, M. T. O'Flaherty, and M. A. Waz "Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997. S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., "Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry", U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998. F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, "A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings", Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue. F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, "Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, "The IAQ Top 10", Engineered Systems, November, 2008. L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, "Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010. F.J. Offermann, " IAQ in Air Tight Homes", ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010. F.J. Offermann, "The Hazards of E-Cigarettes", ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014. PRESENTATIONS: "Low -Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981. 12 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window -Mounted Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. "Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986. "Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987. "Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988. "Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988. "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989. 13 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989. "Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989. "How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992. "Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990. "Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990. "Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990. "Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991. "Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991. "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas, 14 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs T' What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991. "Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991. "Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi -Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992. "Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992. "International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995. "Techniques for Airborne Disease Control", EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994. 15 "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems", CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994. "Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools," an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998. ASHRAE 62 Standard "Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ", ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995. "New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems", AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995. "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995. "Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: `Indoor Air Quality — The Next Door'; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997. "Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995. "Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems", CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995. "Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements", AIHA; October 25, 1995. "IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport", EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996. "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", Room Vent `96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. "IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development", CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. "The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments", California Industrial Hygiene Conference `96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996. 16 "ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments", Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996. "Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings", April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA. "IAQ Primer", Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund's Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates", ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997. "How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems"; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997. "Environmental Engineer: What Is It?", Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997. "Indoor Environment Controls: What's Hot and What's Not", Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997. "Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study", Healthy Buildings/IAQ'97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. "Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments", PASMA; October 7, 1997. "Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments", Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. "Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ", University of Tulsa loth Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998. "The Building Shell", Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998. "Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings", The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998. "Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble", CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998. "Indoor Air Quality", CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. "Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration", ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998. 17 "Building Air Quality Facts and Myths", The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998. "Building Engineering and Moisture", Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999. "Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings", Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001. "Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication", Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. "Ventilation," Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 215t Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000. "Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. "Closing Session Summary: `Building Investigations' and `Building Design & Construction', Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. "Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care", BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23ra, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000. "Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad," University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001. "Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do", Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. "Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade", Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002. "Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations", AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002. "Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings", Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003. In "Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation", Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003. Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005. "Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium", Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003. "Mold and Moisture Control", Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. "Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium", Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004. "Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings", American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. "Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design", University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005. "Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints", Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007. "Defining Safe Building Air", Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008. "Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration", Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008. "Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes", National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008. "Indoor Air Quality in New Homes", California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008. "Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes", ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. "Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. 19 "Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality", Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009. "New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings", Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010. "Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ", ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010. "Measured IAQ in Homes", ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010. "Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation", AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010. "IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)", Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. "Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings", Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011. "What Pollutants are Really There ?", ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011. "Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. "Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences", US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011. "Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been", Westcon, May 21, 2014. "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. "Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes", IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015. "Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes", Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014. "Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM", Harris Martin's Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015. 20 "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure", FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015. "Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces", Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015. "Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings", University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015. "Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings", BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. "A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products", AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016. "Admissibility of Scientific Testimony", Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. "Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation", ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016. 21 Exhibit C Shawn Smallwood, PhD 31o8 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Selena Kelaher, Associate Planner City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Central Pointe Mixed -Use Dear Ms. Kelaher, 5 November 2020 I write to comment on the 26 October 2020 Staff Report prepared for the proposed Central Pointe Mixed -Use project, which I understand would convert 8.03 acres of open space to 644 residential units and 15,130 sf of commercial floor space at 18oi East Fourth Street. In support of my comments, I reviewed the 2007 Programmatic EIR (City of Santa Ana 2007) and the 2018 Supplemental EIR (City of Santa Ana 2018), upon both of which the Staff Report relies. The two 8-story buildings would protrude 86 feet into the aerohabitat of many birds. Given the recent trend of increasing use of structural glass on the fagades of new buildings, given the Staff Report's depictions of abundant glass in the proposed buildings, and given the emerging scientific understanding of the magnitude and implications of bird -window collision mortality, the impacts analysis and mitigation measures upon which the Staff Report relies are inadequate. I write to comment on potential project impacts to birds, and particularly to special -status species of birds, that would be caused by the abundant use of glass in the project. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post -graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I perform research on wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic, among other human activities and structures. I authored numerous papers on special -status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society — Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I've been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology's premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-three years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Very little open space remains within the City of Santa Ana, after the vast majority of land in the City was converted to residential, commercial and industrial uses. The little open space that remains is therefore of critical habitat value to resident and migratory wildlife. The site composes a diminishing patch of open space within an expanse of anthropogenic land uses, forcing more birds to use the site as stopover and staging habitat during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 201o, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). Should the project go forward, the lost stopover value of the site would expose birds moving through the area to even greater energetic challenges than they already experience. Many of these birds would be less capable of negotiating collision hazards. That many birds fly through the aerohabitat of the greater Los Angeles megacity has long been known. The project site is on the Pacific Flyway and near the coast, where millions of birds annually fly through on migration. Just this past spring, on 22 April 2020, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's Birdcast project documented 66,044 birds/km flying nocturnally within detection range of radar at the KVTX Los Angeles station (https: //birdeast.info/scientific-discussion/migration-update-morning-flight-madness- in-southern-california-22-april-2o20/). Because of this migration and for other reasons, the Los Angeles Basin is a biodiversity hot spot. Often unseen by human eyes, migrating birds fly day and night, often stopping over in whatever open space is available and in trees. Each time migrants take off again for the next leg of their migration, they will do what they must to conserve energy. Too often, these birds will attempt to fly the shortest distance along falsely perceived pathways through the structural glass panels of buildings. And too often, they will attempt to fly to the next tree, or to the image of the tree that is reflected on the glass panel of a building. This is the type of impact my comment letter addresses. Since the 2007 EIR and 2o18 SEIR, ornithologists learned that North American bird abundance declined 29% over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Although the ecological and economic consequences of this decline have yet to be understood, they are likely to be severe. In response to this new circumstance — whether directly or indirectly, Governor Newsome signed AB 454 into law on 27 September 2019. This new law amended California Fish and Game Code section 3513 to further protect birds addressed by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This new law carries particular significance for the impacts of window collisions that the proposed project would have on birds, as I will discuss shortly. Not only do all native migratory birds now have the additional protection of California's Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but at least 44 special -status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 1). With the release of a study just this year, we also know that 21 of these special -status species have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Basilio et al. 2020: Supplemental Material). Many more species newly protected by AB 454 have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020). 2 Table 1. eBird (https:1_1eBird.org) records of special -status species occurrences within close proximity of the proposed proiect site. Common name Species name Status eBirdpost(s) Known window collision fatalities California gull Larus californicus TWL Nearby Caspian tern H dro ro ne cas is BCC Nearby Turkey vulture Cathartes aura FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Red-tailed hawk Buteo 'amaicensis FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Ferruginous hawk Buteo re alis TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Red -shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Northern harrier Circus c aneus SSC3, FGC 3503.5 Nearby White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Sharp -shinned hawk Acci iter striatus FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Cooper's hawk Acci iter coo eri FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes American kestrel Falco s arverius FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Merlin Falco columbarius FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus FGC 3503.5 Nearby Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Barn owl T to alba FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Great -horned owl Bubo vir inianus FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes Western screech -owl Me asco s kennicottii FGC 3503.5 In region Yes Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi SCC2 Nearby Black swift Cypseloides ni er SSC3 In region Allen's hummingbird Selas horus sasin BCC Nearby Yes Costa's hummingbird Cal to costae BCC Nearby Yes Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby Lewis's woodpecker Melaner es lewis BCC Nearby Horned lark Eremo hila al estris actia TWL Nearby California gnatcatcher Polio tila c. cali ornica FT, SSC Nearby Willow flycatcher Em idonax trailii FE, CE In region Common name Species name Status eSird post(s) Known window collision fatalities Vermilion flycatcher roce halus rubinus SSC2 Nearby Olive -sided flycatcher Conto us coo eri SSC2 Nearby Purple martin Pro ne subis SSC2 Nearby Yes Oak titmouse Baeolo hus inornatus BCC Nearby Yes Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby Least Bell's vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE Nearby Yellow warbler Seto ha a petechia SSC2 Nearby Yes Yellow -breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby Yes Summer tanager Piran a rubra SSC1 Nearby Yes Bell's sage sparrow Am his iza b. belli TWL In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In region Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Yes Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, SSC Nearby Tricolored blackbird A elaius tricolor CT, BCC Nearb Lawrence's goldfinch Sinus lawrencei BCC Nearby 1 Listed as FE and FT = federal endangered and threatened species, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CE and CT = California endangered and threatened species, SSC = California species of special concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFW Code 3511), FGC 3503.5 = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 20o8), and TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardah 2008). 11 Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building facades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016. Glass markets in the USA experienced 5% growth inboth 2011 and 2016, and was forecast to grow 2.3% per year since 2016 (TMCapital 2019). Increasing window to wall ratios and glass facades have become popular for multiple reasons, including a growing demand for `daylighting.' Glass is also a prominant feature of the proposed project, according to depictions of the buildings in the Staff Report. I estimated >70% of fagades could be composed of glass, including glass railings and glass walls. The depictions in the Staff Report include additional contributing collision hazards such as large transparent glass panels, interior lighting, nearby trees, and entrapment spaces interior to the building structures. Entrapment spaces would include `The Social,' `The Hangout,' `Outdoor Escape,' `Fireside,' `The Dinner Party,' `The Backyard,' `Garden Lounge,' `Public Plaza,' and `Entertainment Garden.' Birds entering these species grow increasingly desperate to get out, flying back and forth until colliding with a perceived escape that happens to be a glass panel. City of Santa Ana (2007, 2018) did not address the issue of bird -window collisions. The only window issue addressed was potential glare, to which the 2007 EIR specified on page i-5, "Proposed new structures shall be designed to maximize the use of textured or other nonreflective exterior surfaces and non -reflective glass." The only mitigation measures formulated to minimize bird impacts included preconstruction surveys for nesting birds, timing of tree removals to avoid the nesting season, and careful use of construction vehicles (MM-OZ 4.3-1). No measures were proposed to minize bird - window collision mortality. Glass -facades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these facades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,235 birds were likely killed over the 50 years since the start of their study, and that's at a relatively small building fagade (Figure 1). Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 50 years would have been about 12,705. And this is just for one 3-story, glass -sided walkway between two college campus buildings. 5 Figure 1. A walkway connecting two buildings at Washington State University where one of the earliest studies of bird collision mortality found 85 bird fatalities per year prior to marking windows (254 annual deaths adjusted for the proportion not found). Given that the window markers have long since disappeared, this walkway has likely killed at least 12,7o5 birds since 1968, and continues to kill birds. Notice that the transparent glass on both sides of the walkway gives the impression of unimpeded airspace that can be navigated safely by birds familiar with flying between tree branches. Also note the reflected images of trees, which can mislead birds into seeing safe perch sites. Further note the distances of ornamental trees, which allow birds taking off from those trees to reach full speed upon arrival at the windows. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human -caused bird mortality. Loss et al. (2014) estimated that window collisions cause 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA. Homes with birdfeeders are associated with higher rates of window collisions than are homes without birdfeeders (Kummer and Bayne 2015, Kummer et al. 2o16a), so the developed area might pose even greater hazard to birds if it includes numerous birdfeeders. (The Staff Report is silent on this possibility.) Another factor potentially biasing the national estimates low was revealed by Bracey et al.'s (2o16) finding that trained fatality searchers found 2.6x the number of fatalities found by homeowners on the days when both trained searchers and homeowners searched around homes. The difference in carcass detection was 30.4-fold when involving carcasses volitionally placed by Bracey et al. (2016) in blind detection trials. This much larger difference in trial carcass detection rates likely resulted because their placements did not include the sounds that typically alert homeowners to actual window collisions, but this explanation also raises the question of how often homeowner participants with such studies miss detecting window -caused fatalities because they did not hear the collisions. By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird - window fatalities, a minimially sufficient number of fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) were able to incorporate estimates of fatality rates based on scientific monitoring. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38 of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2o16). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.'s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because 0 most of the bird -window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption -laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. In my review of bird -window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird -window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors — search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates — would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird -window collision fatalities. Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (20o8) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2oo9) recorded 540o bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building fagades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building facades. From 24 days of survey over a 48 day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision -deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds. 7 Project Impact Prediction Predicting the number of bird collisions at a new project is challenging because the study of window collisions remains in its early stages. Researchers have yet to agree on a collision rate metric. Some have reported findings as collisions per building per year and some as collisions per building per day. Some have reported findings as collisions per m2 of window. The problem with the temporal factor in the collision rate metrics has been monitoring time spans varying from a few days to 10 years, and even in the case of the 10-year span, monitoring was largely restricted to spring and fall migration seasons. Short-term monitoring during one or two seasons of the year cannot represent a `year,' but monitoring has rarely spanned a full year. Using `buildings' in the metric treats buildings as all the same size, when we know they are not. Using square meters of glass in the metric treats glass as the only barrier upon which birds collide against a building's facade, when we know it is not. It also treats all glass as equal, even though we know that collision risk varies by type of glass as well as multiple factors related to contextual settings. But the recent flurry of studies of bird -window collision is what is available, and it helps that I have 21 years of experience with estimating mortality of bird collisions with other types of anthropogenic structures (Smallwood 2013, 2020; Smallwood et al. 2018). Without the benefit of more advanced understanding of window collision factors, my prediction of project impacts will be uncertain. Klem's (1990) often -cited national estimate of avian collision rate relied on an assumed average collision rate of 1 to to birds per building per year, but studies since then have all reported higher rates of collisions 12 to 352 birds per building per year. Because the more recent studies were likely performed at buildings known or suspected to cause many collisions, collision rates from them could be biased high. By the time of these comments I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and facades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O'Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Penuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez -Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, , City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042- 0.102). Looking over the proposed building design, I estimated the buildings would include at least 17,991 m2 of glass panels, which applied to the mean fatality rate would predict 1,315 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 781-1,85o) at the buildings. The 100- year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be 131,514 bird deaths (95% CI: 78,o81-1$4,947)• The mortality would continue until the buildings are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills thousands of birds protected by AB 454, the project will cause significant unmitigated impacts. As mentioned earlier, the accuracy of my window collision predictions depends on factors known or hypothesized to affect window collision rates. However, from the national average collision rate, I used all the variation in collision rates that was available and which resulted from a wide range in building height, type of glass, indoor and outdoor landscaping, interior light management, window to wall ratio, and structural context of the facade. This variation contributed to a robust bird -window collision rate represented by a wide 95% confidence interval. Even at the low end of the interval, the death toll would be excessive, amounting to >131,00o bird deaths over 100 years, and this prediction preceeds any adjustments for the proportion of carcasses not found due to searcher error and carcass removal by scavengers. Note that 15 (83%) of the 18 sources of fatality rates cited above were published after the 2007 EIR, and a third of them were published the same year or after the 2018 SEIR. Guidance on how to design buildings and reduce the collision hazards of glass also were produced since the 2007 EIR (see below). These new reports and guidance documents provided new information of substantial importance. The level of impact I predicted from data in these reports would be significant, especially considering that the predicted fatality rate can be largely prevented by implementing appropriate mitigation measures. Below I will discuss hypothesized bird -window collision factors, and I will recommend mitigation measures. Bird -Window Collision Factors Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience. (1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights (2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants (3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect (5) Window or facade extent, or proportion of facade consisting of window or other reflective surface (6) Size of window (7) Type of glass (8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of fagade with respect to winds and solar exposure (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment (12) Context in terms of urban -rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation (13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants (15) Relative abundance (16) Season of the year (17) Ecology, demography and behavior (18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack (19) Aggressive social interactions 0 (1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace. —Not all of a structure's collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2oo9) and Klem et al. (20o9) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although the impacts of a glass -sided building would likely be much greater. (2) Window transparency. —Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation. (3) Window reflectance. —Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2oo9) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions. (4) Black hole or passage effect. —Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird -window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites. The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. (5) Window or facade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2016), Loss et al. (2019), Rebolo-Ifran et al. (2019), and Riding et al. (2020) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger reflective facades or higher proportions of facades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of fagade that was glazed. (6) Size of window. —According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large -pane windows compared to small -pane windows. (7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings. 10 (8) Lighting. —Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the fagade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 8o% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights -out Program. However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building. (9) Height of structure. —Except for Riding et al. (2020), I found little if any hypothesis - testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? (10) Orientation of fagade.—Some studies tested fagade orientation, but not convincingly. Some evidence that orientaiton affects collision rates was provided by Winton et al. (2018). Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of fagade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic -appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under fagades of different orientations would help. (11) Structural layout. —Bird -safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird -window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed -in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University. (12) Context in urban -rural gradient. —Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016a). (13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building. —Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 20o8, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016a, Ocampo- Peiiuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass fagade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the fagade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m away, birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows. (14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P < 0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold. (15) Relative abundance. —Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings. (16) Season of the year. —Borden et al. (2010) found go% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally -explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass facades of the project's building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods. (17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window -caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2o16) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds. (18) Predatory attacks. —Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn's (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper's hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project's windows would include Peregrine falcon, red -shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, and sharp -shinned hawk. (19) Aggressive social interactions. —I found no hypothesis -testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window. For most of the known or suspected collision risk factors, the proposed project's design would either contribute amply to collision risk, or its contribution remains unknown (Table 2). Window Collision Solutions Given the magnitude of bird -window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new 12 structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts. However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post -construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project. Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature. Table 2. Window collision risk factors, their weightings based on the scientific literature, and the level of risk introduced by the proposed project. Collision risk to volant wildlife Factor Weighting Added by project Inherent hazard of structure Universal Some Window transparency Very high Amply Window reflectance Very high Amply Black hole or passage effect High Likely Window or fa ade extent Very high Amply Size of window High Amply Type of glass High Amply Lighting High Amply Height of structure High Amply Orientation of fa ade Unknown Unknown Structural layout High Amply Context in urban -rural gradient Likely high Unknown Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building High Amply Presence of birdfeeders Moderate Unknown Relative abundance Uncertain Unknown Season of the year Nons atial Unknown Ecology, demography and behavior Uncertain Unknown Predatory attacks Uncertain Unknown Aggressive social interactions Uncertain Unknown Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more facades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post -construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. (1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts (1A) Marking windows (1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation (1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation (iD) Managing nocturnal lighting 13 (1A) Marking windows. —Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peiiuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings — the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed facades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland's Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; R6ssler et al. 2015). Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 8 years hence. (2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts (2A) Deciding on location of structure (213) Deciding on facade and orientation (2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows (2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel facades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants (2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs (3) Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts (3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns (3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed. Guidelines on Building Design If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available guidelines on building design intended to minimize collision hazards to birds. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird -collision hazards as well as many visual 14 examples. The San Francisco Planning Department's (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain effectiveness, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess effectiveness and to quantify post -construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. Thank you for your attention, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): eo178667. https://doi.org/lo.1�71/journal.pone.0178667 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird -window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias 92(1): e2o180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745• Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird -window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52• Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird -window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/lo.Z717/peerj.9401 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post -retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird - window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367• City of Santa Ana. 2007. Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2006031041, Volume I: Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone. Prepared by EIP Associates, a Division of PBS&J. Santa Ana, California. 15 City of Santa Ana. 2018. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects. Prepared by ICF. Santa Ana, California. Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1-20. DOI 10.1oo7/s11252-015-0459-3• Dunn, E. H. 1993• Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470• Gomez -Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera -Herrera, and S. Nino -Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitologia 19(2): 227-236. https:lZdoi.org/10.289A7J- hrmo.2018.19.2-347 Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird -window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e46o DOI 10.7717/peerJ.46o. Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564• Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird -window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371• doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed -in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird -window collisions at a west -coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird -window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. 16 Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird -window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird -glass collisions. Unpublished report. Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird -window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406-411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird -glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134• Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird -window collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI 10.5751/ACE-00787-100206. Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird -window collision risk at houses. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.165o/CONDOR-16-26.1 Kunz, T. H., and L. F. Lumsden. 2003. Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. Pages 3-89 in T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, Eds., Bat ecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird —building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird -building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https: [Zdoi.org/1o.1371/journal. pone.0224164 Ocampo-Penuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle. 2016. Patterns of bird -window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4: e1652; DOI10.7717/peerj .1652 O'Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149• 17 Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird -safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679• Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird —building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94• Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Rebolo-Ifran, N., A. di Virgilio, and S. A. Lambertucci. 2019. Drivers of bird -window collisions in southern South America: a two -scale assessment applying citizen science. Scientific Reports 9:18148 1 https://doi.org/1o.1o�8/s415A8-01A-54�51-� Riding, C. S., T. J. O'Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building facade -level correlates of bird —window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1-14. Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C. Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft, M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). R6ssler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird - window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535-541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395-402, doi:lo.1890/130237. Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird -safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird -window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.1712/ peerj.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird -friendly building design, end Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. UK Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Smallwood, K.S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality -rate estimates among North American wind -energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33• + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility -scale solar projects in California. Unpublished report. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018. Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1-19. Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. P1osOne 6(11): e27054• doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054• Tetra Tech. 2020. Glare analysis report for the 240o Barranca Parkway Project, Irvine, California. Prepared for FCS International, Inc. dba FirstCarbon solutions. TMCapital. 2019. 2019 Building products report: enduring growth beyond short-term challenges. https://www.tmcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/20lo/o8/ BuildingProd AnnualReport 2o1A-o8-14.pdf Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626. Winton, R. S., N. Ocampo-Penuela, and N. Cagle. 2018. Geo-referencing bird -window collisions for targeted mitigation. PeerJ 6:e4215; DOI 10.7717/peerJ.4215 Wittig, T. W., N. L. Cagle, N. Ocampo-Penuela, R. Scott Winton, E. Zambello, and Z. Lichtneger. 2017. Species traits and local abundance affect bird -window collision frequency. Avian Conservation and Ecology 12(1):17. https:l/doi.org/lo.-r,7.r;l/ACE- 01014-120112 Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird -building collisions: a status update on "Project Birdsafe." The Loon 82:34-37• 19 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Curriculum Vitae 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Phone (530) 756-4598 Cell (530) 601-6857 pumakdcn.org Ecologist Expertise Born May 3, 1963 in Sacramento, California. Married, father of two. • Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that can inform management decisions. Education Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. Experience • 443 professional publications, including: • 80 peer reviewed publications • 24 in non -reviewed proceedings • 337 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews • 8 in mass media outlets • 84 public presentations of research results at meetings • Reviewed many professional papers and reports • Testified in 4 court cases. Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007. Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995. Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five -member committee investigated the causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC 1 Smallwood CV 2 reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities. Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence -Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife. Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red -legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Taught Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation (twice), Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab. Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines. Systems Ecologist, 1996 to present, Consulting in the Public Interest, www.cipi.com. Member of a multi -disciplinary consortium of scientists facilitating large-scale, environmental planning projects and litigation. We provide risk assessments, assessments of management practices, and expert witness testimony. Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society --Western Section, 1999-2001. Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding. Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD's program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS. Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape. Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Headed NESN's efforts to inform academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws pertaining to special -status species. Also testified at public hearings on behalf of environmental groups and endangered species. Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to Smallwood CV 3 determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red -legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California. Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning. Developed quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities, using the ecological resource requirements of 29 special -status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration. Post -Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis. Under the mentorship of Dr. Shu Geng, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Also managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and assisted with a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Work experience in graduate school: Co -taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss's course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E. Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing a statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring of numbers and distribution. Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers. Projects Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map -based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue. Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built. Planning for additional repowering projects is underway. Test avian safety of new mixer -ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before - after, control -impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as F1oDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a Smallwood CV 4 $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances. Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world's most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions. Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports. Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface -deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars. Hanford Nuclear Reservation Liti ag tion. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review. Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas -fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below). Protocol -level survey. special -status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red -legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt -nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special -status species. Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the Smallwood CV decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population. Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow -billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post -West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow -billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV. Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest -edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management. Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special -status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits. GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star -thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County. Mercury effects on Red -legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red -legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams. Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a "properly functioning HCP." Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson's hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc. Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China. Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China. Smallwood CV rol Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special -status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies. Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black -tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats. Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language. Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post -graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards. Agricultural energy use and Tulare County_ groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Pocket gopher damage in forest clear -cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest -ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear -cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California. Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards. Smallwood CV 7 Reuresentative Clients/Funders Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker National Renewable Energy Lab Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC Law Offices of Berger & Montague Comstocks Business (magazine) Lozeau I Drury LLP BioResource Consultants Law Offices of Roy Haber Tierra Data Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Black and Veatch Law Office of John Gabrielli Law Office of Bill Kopper Law Office of Donald B. Mooney Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh Law Office of Steven Thompson Law Office of Brian Gaffney California Wildlife Federation Defenders of Wildlife Sierra Club National Endangered Species Network Spirit of the Sage Council The Humane Society Hagens Berman LLP Environmental Protection Information Center Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) Seatuck Environmental Association Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Save Our Scenic Area Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound Friends of the Swainson's Hawk Alameda Creek Alliance Center for Biological Diversity California Native Plant Society Endangered Wildlife Trust and BirdLife South Africa AquAlliance Oregon Natural Desert Association Save Our Sound G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Emerald Farms Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Southern California Edison Co. Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Northern Territories Inc. David Magney Environmental Consulting Wildlife History Foundation NextEra Energy Resources, LLC F1oDesign Wind Turbine EDF Renewables Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center EcoStat, Inc. US Navy US Department of Agriculture US Forest Service US Fish & Wildlife Service US Department of Justice California Energy Commission California Office of the Attorney General California Department of Fish & Wildlife California Department of Transportation California Department of Forestry California Department of Food & Agriculture Ventura County Counsel County of Yolo Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District East Bay Regional Park District County of Alameda Don & LaNelle Silverstien Seventh Day Adventist Church Escuela de la Raza Unida Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc. Bob Sarvey Mike Boyd Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry Lisa Rocca Kevin Jackson Dawn Stover and Jay Letto Nancy Havassy Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade) Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc. Panorama Environmental, Inc. Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation Smallwood CV 8 Representative special -status species experience Common name Species name Description Field experience California red -legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections Foothill yellow -legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections Blunt -nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Research in Sumatra Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Research, conservation at NAS Lemoore Monterey dusky -footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non -target captures and mapping of dens Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus Captures; habitat assessment California clapper rail Golden eagle Swainson's hawk Northern harrier White-tailed kite Loggerhead shrike Least Bell's vireo Willow flycatcher Burrowing owl Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Analytical distichlus Rallus longirostris Aquila chrysaetos Buteo swainsoni Circus cyaeneus Elanus leucurus Lanius ludovicianus Vireo bellii pusillus Empidonax traillii extimus Athene cunicularia hypugia Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Surveys and detections Research in Altamont Pass Research in Sacramento Valley Research and publication Research and publication Research in Sacramento Valley Detected in Monterey County Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites Research at multiple locations Research and publication Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report. Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis Expert testimony euryxanthus Smallwood CV 9 Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. In press. The challenges of repowering. Proceedings from the Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, March 2015, Berlin, Germany. Springer. May, R., A.B. Gill, J. K6ppel, R.H.W. Langston, M. Reichenbach, M. Scheidat, S. Smallwood and C.C. Voigt. In press. Future research directions. Proceedings from the Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, March 2015, Berlin, Germany. Springer. Smallwood, K.S. 2016. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms: conflicts and solutions. Pelagic Publishing. In press Smallwood, K.S., L. Neher, and D.A. Bell. 2016. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms: conflicts and solutions. Pelagic Publishing. In press Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human —Wildlife Interactions 10(1): 7-18. Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S. Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind -energy development and wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality -rate estimates among North American wind -energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225. Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913. Smallwood CV 10 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine -caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map -based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow -Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254. Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old -Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223. Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine -caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524. Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation: Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100. Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Smallwood CV 11 Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640. Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161. Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro- ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355. Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001. Intra- and inter -turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian -Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109. Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9:253-261. Smallwood, K.S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35. Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Conservation 26:102-111. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82. Smallwood CV 12 Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329. Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958. Smallwood, K.S., M.L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847. Smallwood, K.S, and C.M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491. Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K.S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97. Morrison, M.L., K.S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi -scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168. Smallwood, K.S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335. Smallwood, K.S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594. Van Vuren, D. and K.S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64. Smallwood, K.S., B.J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an Smallwood CV 13 agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Erichsen, A.L., K.S. Smallwood, A.M. Commandatore, D.M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White- tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Smallwood, K.S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat -use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178. Smallwood, K.S. and W.A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K.S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259. Smallwood, K.S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K.S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order. Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59. Smallwood, K.S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67. Smallwood, K.S. and T.P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests. Biological Conservation 62:149-159. Smallwood, K.S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis. Peer -reviewed Reports Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact -Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M. Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and Bat Impacts and Behaviors at Old Wind Turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-XXX, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. In press. Smallwood CV 14 Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Comparing Utilization Data for Siting New Wind Power Generation. Report to California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program. In Press. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274 ventus vasco_winds _2012_13 avian_ bat monitoring report_ year_l.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energ_y.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map -Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. 63 pp. http://www.energy.ca. gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-065/CEC-500-2009-065.PDF Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Ener Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. 1k. Sacramento, California. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 — September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.energy.ca. og v/reports/500-04-052/2004-08-09 500-04-052.PDF Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Smallwood CV 15 Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp. Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area — a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp. Non -Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. H6tker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21 st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/ reg ifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan's wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus. Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway. Comstock's Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock's Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of "The Atlas of Endangered Species." By Richard Mackay. Environmental Conservation 30:210-211. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of "The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy." By Brian Czech And Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Smallwood CV 16 Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management. Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects. Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability — The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075. Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability — The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075. EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA. Taipei, Taiwan. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion -Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Smallwood CV 17 Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County) Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p284_smallwood_ data needed_ in support_ of_repowering_ in the altamont pass wra.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long -Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/r68_smallwood altamont fatality rates lon t erm.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter -annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. http://www.altamontsre.ora/alt_doc/p268_ Smallwood inter annual comparison of fatality_ rates_1999 2012.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the F1oDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed -bladed Wind Turbine. http://www.altamontsre.ora/alt_doc/p246_ smallwood flodesign detection trial protocol.pdf Smallwood, K. S.,1. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non -breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p245_smallwood et al burrowing owl density 2012.pdf Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p238_smallwood_floeesign draft _study design april_2012 Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www. altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p232_smallwood_ et_ al_ winter owl_survey/alt_doc/p232_smallwood_ et_ al_ winter owl survey update.pdf Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p231_smallwood_apwra use data 2005_2011.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p229_smallwood et al progress_ monitoring_ Smallwood CV 18 burrowing owl_ burrow_use.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p228_smallwood_et al for _nextera_burrowing owl_distri bution_and _abundance _study.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src document �list _with _reference _numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p205_smallwood_neher progress_ on sampling _burrowing owls_ across_apwra.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/pl98_smallwood proposal to sample_ burrowing owls_ across_apwra.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl91_smallwood comments_ on_apwra_monitoring progra m update.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter -turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p189 smallwood_report _of apwra fatality rate patterns.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p190_smallwood review of december 2010 monitoring report.pdf Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee). Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p183_src_integrated_comments_on_nop.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p180_src_comments_ on dip.pdf Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CaIWEA Research Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/D174_smallwood review of calwea_ removal study plan.pdf Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team's Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/pl68_src_comments_ on_m53_mt_draft _study plan for fu ture_monitoring.pdf Smallwood CV 19 Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel -Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team's M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p171_smallwood kb removal rates follow up.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_ do%161 smallwood _assessment _of amps.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of Additional Wind Turbine Hazard Ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p153 smallwood estep additional_ hazard_ratings.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/,pl58 smallwood response_ to memo on_monitoringosts Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. http://www.altamontsrc.oriz/alt doc/p147_smallwood _summary_of src_ recommendations _and _concerns _ 1 11 _ 10. pdf Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. http://www.altamontsrc.oriz/alt doc/pl48 smallwood progress of avian wildlife protection rogram_1 11_10.pdf Smallwood, S. 2010. Old -Generation Wind Turbines Rated for Raptor Collision Hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p155_smallwood_src_ turbine_ ratings_ and status.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel -Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team's M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p154_smallwood_ kb_ removal_ rates_041610.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009. P145 Smallwood Fatality Monitoring Results 12-31-09. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. P 144 SRC Comments on 2009 Draft Monitoring Report M21. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p129_smallwood search_ interval_ summaries _sppplemental_to m39.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood's review of M32. Alameda County SRC document P-111. 6 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/plll smallwoods_review _of m32.12df Smallwood CV f►Q Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC Comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. Alameda County SRC document P-107. 21 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p107_smallwood_ review_ ofjuly 2008_ monitorinlz report_m2l.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing Owl Carcass Distribution around Wind Turbines. Alameda County SRC document 106. 8 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.or /g/alt_doc/p106_smallwood burrowing owl carcass_ distribution around wind turbines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of Relocation/Removal of Altamont Pass Wind Turbines Rated as Hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. Alameda County SRC document P-103. 10 pp. htttp://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p103_assessment_of src_recommendations_to_ relocate rated turbines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine -free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-102. 4 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_ doc/p 102_smallwood_neher wind_ turbine_ free_ rid elg ines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of Mortality Estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when Restricted to Recent Fatalities. Alameda County SRC document P- 101. 14 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/pl01_smallwood_karas_mortality_ restricted_ to_recent.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the Misapplication of Mortality Adjustment Terms to Fatalities Missed During one Search and Found Later. Alameda County SRC document P-97. 3 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p97_double_counting of missed_fatalities.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-88. 6 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p88_smallwood_relative_ abundance of birds_offsite.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Alameda County SRC document P-76. 19 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p76_ mortality estimates _apwra_2005_07.pdf Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010. Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collision - related mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Alameda County SRC document P-70. P70 SRC Hazardous Turbine Relocation Guidelines Smallwood CV 21 Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.or r/alt_doc/p67_src_ turbine _ selection _12_11_07.pdf Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood's Answers to Audubon's Queries about the SRC's Recommended Four Month Winter Shutdown of Wind Turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23. 7 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/s23_ss_answers_to_ audubons queries on winter shutdown recommendation.pdf Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting Opinion on Recommendation to Approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60. 4 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p60 smallwood dissenting opinion awi blade painting st udy 10_2 07.pdf Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of Monitoring Duration and Inter -Annual Variability on Precision of Wind -Turbine Caused Mortality Estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC Document P44, 16 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p44_ smallwood_effects _of monitoring period_ andvariability _7_26 07.pdf Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post -management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43, 5 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p43_smallwood_ on monitoring period _7_26 07.pdf Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood's response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p41_smallwood_response to p24_docs.pdf Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004. SRC Document P26, 12 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p26_new_information_on_ fple_credits.pdf Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]). April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget. 1pp. Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22, 5 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/altdoc/p22 verification_ to tier shutdowns _smallwood_4 15_07.pdf Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. 4 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee Replies to the Parties' Responses to its Queries and to Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document 520, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt settlement/s20 src_replies _to parties_ answers _04_03_ 07.pdf. 12 pp. Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document 519, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt settlement/s19_ Smallwood CV 22 smallwood_ estimated _ effects_ shutdown_ and tier 1 2 removal_3 19_07.pdf. 1 pp. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood's Replies to the Parties' Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S 16, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt settlement/s16_smallwoods_ replies_ to parties respons e_3_9_07.pdf. 9 pp. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S 15, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt_settlement/s15_smallwood_estimated_effects proposed _measures _3_8_07.pdf. 2 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement. 7 pp. Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood's Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt_settlement/s5_ smallwood_on proposed_ settlement_agreement.rtf. 5 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants' Budget and Organization. 3 pp. Reports to Clients Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2016. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District. Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Smallwood CV 23 Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early Assessment of Wind Turbine Layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of Avian Use Survey Report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information Needed for Solar Project Impacts Assessment and Mitigation Planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First -year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to F1oDesign in support of EIR. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/deiL/p278 -smallwood- first annual report of turbine_expe riment_forebay_pdf Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical Bird Monitoring of Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter Surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality Rate Estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, Year One. Unpublished report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at North Sky River. Unpublished report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District. 12 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 75 pp. Smallwood CV 24 Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of F1oDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to F1oDesign, Inc. 11 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet Collision Model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Unpublished report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service. 17 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011. Report to Pattern Energy. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy. 13 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 68 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and Avian Issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch. 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Draft Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. 39 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at Vasco Winds. Unpublished report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California. 32 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. 41 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009. Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp. Smallwood CV 25 Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March -April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red -Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 PP. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellow - billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re -Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement — N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, Smallwood CV P� California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement — N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, puma(&yolo.com . 34 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on Yellow -billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red -legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station -wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re -vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Smallwood CV 27 Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp. Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter -time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p. Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp. Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp - Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment To Support An Adaptive Management Plan For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial Re -assessment of An Adaptive Management Plan For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp. Smallwood CV 28 Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology -based and policy -based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy -Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jefferson -Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures. Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Smallwood CV 29 East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp. Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model. Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp. Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 0 through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association's proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp. Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compean, 16 pp. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Preliminary Comments on the Proposed Blythe Energy Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on March 15 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 14 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp. Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission's Final Staff Assessment of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp. Smallwood CV 30 Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Morrison, M.L., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp. Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California Mountain Lion Track Count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the "no surprises" policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed). Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Smallwood CV 31 Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and Their Management Under the Martell SYP. Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp. EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University -wide Energy Research Group, University of California. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual — A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report — Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi -kill strychnine gopher baits. Final Report to USDA Forest Service NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-00 I OCA. Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis. Comments on Environmental Documents I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including: • Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take (2016, 49 pp); • Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18 pp); • Supplementary Reply Witness Statement Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 38 pp); • Witness Statement on Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 31 pp); • Second Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6 pp); • Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 10 pp); • Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 9 pp); • Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9 pp); Smallwood CV 32 • Replies to comments 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6 pp); • Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR (2015, 9 pp); • West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR(2015, 10 pp); • World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR (2015, 12 pp); • Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS (2014, 21 pp); • Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp); • Response to Comments on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp); • Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR (2014, 12 pp); • Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS (2013, 23 pp); • Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16 pp); • Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR (2013, 9 pp); • Cuyama Solar Project DEIR (2014, 19 pp); • Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49 pp); • Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR (2013, 19 pp); • Lucerne Valley Solar Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013, 12 pp); • Palen Solar Electric Generating System Final Staff Assessment of California Energy Commission, (2014, 20 pp); • Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9 pp); • Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp); • Response to Comments on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp); • Soitec Solar Development Project Draft PEIR (2014, 18 pp); • Comment on the Biological Opinion (08ESMF-00-2012-F-0387) of Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red -legged frog (2014; 3 pp); • West Antelope Solar Energy Project Initial Study and Negative Declaration (2013, 18 pp); • Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28 pp); • Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10 pp); • Declaration on Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (2013; 24 pp); • Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 11 pp); • Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5 pp); • Rosamond Solar Project Addendum EIR (2013; 13 pp); • Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR (2013; 13 pp); • Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 6 pp); • Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp); • Plainview Solar Works Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp); • Reply to the County Staff s Responses on comments to Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10 pp); • Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13 pp); • FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR (PP12232) (2013; 9 pp); • Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (3013; 6 pp); • Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8 pp); • FEIS prepared for Alta East Wind Project (2013; 23 pp); Smallwood CV 33 • Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; ); • Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project DEIR (2013; 9 pp); • Analysis of Biological Assessment of Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10 pp); • Declaration on Campo Verde Solar project FEIR (2013; 1 1pp); • Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8 pp); • Declaration on North Steens Transmission Line FEIS (2012; 62 pp); • City of Lancaster Revised Initial Study for Conditional Use Permits 12-08 and 12-09, Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects (2012; 8 pp); • J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review (2012; 14 pp); • Reply to the County Staff s Responses on comments to Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8 pp); • Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9 pp); • Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS (2012; 15 pp); • Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR (2012; 16 pp); • Ocotillo Sol Project EIS (2012; 4 pp); • Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2012; 5 pp); • Declaration on Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program (2012; 11 pp); • Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16 pp); • City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28 pp); • Comment on Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND (2011; 9 pp); • Statement of Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Regarding Proposed Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4 pp); • Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood on Biological Impacts of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (2011; 9 pp); • Comments on Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (2011; 13 pp); • Comments on Draft EIR/EA for Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project (2011; 16 pp); • Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., on Biological Impacts of the Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (2011; 7 pp); • Rebuttal Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Intervenors Friends of The Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area (2010; 6 pp); • Prefiled Direct Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Intervenors Friends of the Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area. Comments on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power Project DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41 pp); • Evaluation of Klickitat County's Decisions on the Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17 pp); • St. John's Church Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2010; 14 pp.); • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 (2010; 20 pp); • Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2010;12 pp); • Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009: 9 pp); • SEPA Determination of Non -significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania Smallwood CV 34 County, Washington. Second Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Dec 2008; 17 pp); • Comments on Draft IA Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10 pp); • County of Placer's Categorical Exemption of Hilton Manor Project (2009; 9 pp); • Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3 pp); • Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142 pp); • Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 pp + addendum 2 pp); • Declaration of Shawn Smallwood in Support of Care's Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3 pp); • The Public Utility Commission's Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor's Executive Order 5-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9 pp); • The Public Utility Commission's Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor's Executive Order 5-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11 pp); • Draft I Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7 pp.); • SEPA Determination of Non -significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington. Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Sep 2008; 16 pp); • California Energy Commission's Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Colusa Generating Station (2007; 24 pp); • Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (2008: 66 pp); • Replies to Response to Comments Re: Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008; 20 pp); • Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008: 33 pp.); • Clark Precast, LLC's "Sugarland" project, Negative Declaration (2008: 15 pp.); • Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2008; 157 pp.); • Yuba Highlands Specific Plan (or Area Plan) Environmental Impact Report (2006; 37 pp.); • Replies to responses to comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 5 pp); • Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 15 pp); • Windy Point Wind Farm Environmental Review and EIS (2006; 14 pp and 36 Powerpoint slides in reply to responses to comments); • Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR (2005; 18 pp); • Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Notice of Preparation of EIR (2004; 15 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Callahan Estates Subdivision (2004; 11 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 9 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 13 pp); 0 Negative Declaration of the proposed Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 (2004; 21 Smallwood CV 35 pp); • On the petition California Fish and Game Commission to list the Burrowing Owl as threatened or endangered (2003; 10 pp); • Conditional Use Permit renewals from Alameda County for wind turbine operations in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (2003; 41 pp); • UC Davis Long Range Development Plan of 2003, particularly with regard to the Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23 pp); • Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003: 18 pp + 3 plates of photos); • Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B'nai Tikyah (2003: 6 pp); • Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002: 23 pp); • Response to testimony of experts at the East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing on biological resources (2002: 9 pp); • Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002: 7 pp); • Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine's proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002: 3 pp); • UC Merced -- Declaration of Dr. Shawn Smallwood in support of petitioner's application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (2002: 5 pp); • Replies to response to comments in Final Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2003: 22 pp); • Draft Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2002: 19 pp + 8 photos on 4 plates); • California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002: 17 pp + 3 photos; follow-up report of 3 pp); • Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Silver Bend Apartments, Placer County (2002: 13 pp); • UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001: 26 pp); • Initial Study, Colusa County Power Plant (2001: 6 pp); • Comments on Proposed Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001: 5 pp + 4 photos); • Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Report (1998: 28 pp); • Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement for Issuance of Take authorization for listed species within the MSCP planning area in San Diego County, California (Fed. Reg. 62 (60): 14938, San Diego Multi -Species Conservation Program) (1997: 10 pp); • Permit (PRT-823773) Amendment for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento, CA (Fed. Reg. 63 (101): 29020-29021) (1998); • Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999: 8 pp); • Review of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Arroyo Southwestern Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) (1998); • Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999: oral presentation); • California Board of Forestry's proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999); • Negative Declaration for the Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit (1999); 0 Calpine and Bechtel Corporations' Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Smallwood CV 36 Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 10 pp); • California Energy Commission's Final Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000); • US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations' Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 4 pp); • California Energy Commission's Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11 pp); • Site -specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy's mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7 pp); • Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9 pp). Comments on other Environmental Review Documents: • Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12 pp); • Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.'s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8 pp); • Draft Program Level EIR for Covell Village (2005; 19 pp); • Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping document (2003: 7 pp.); • NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7 pp); • Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2001: 8 pp.); • Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35 pp.); • Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2 pp.); • Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7 pp.); • Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000); • Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red -legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2000: 10 pp.); • Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2000: 7 pp.); • State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997); • Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000); • Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10 pp); • Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999); • NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45): 11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 pp + attachments); • Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997). Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists: Smallwood CV 37 • Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society -- Western Section (2001); • Recommended that The Wildlife Society —Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001); • Opposed the siting of the University of California's 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society --Western Section (2000); • Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society --Western Section (2000); • Opposed the Proposed "No Surprises," "Safe Harbor," and "Candidate Conservation Agreement" rules, including permit -shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Posters at Professional Meetings Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird's eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas. Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star -thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ. Smallwood CV Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society. Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015. From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California. The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015. Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, 8 July 2015. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015. Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013. Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012. Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011 Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011. Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society —Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Smallwood CV w Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010. Map -based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities. California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010. Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006. Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006. Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006. Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Toward indicating threats to birds by California's new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005. Smallwood CV 40 Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society —Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004. Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004. The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003. Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000. Intra- and inter -turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000. Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Smallwood CV 41 Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999. Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999. Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999. Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998. "No Surprises" -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997. In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995. Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995. Habitat associations of the Swainson's Hawk in the Sacramento Valley's agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994. Smallwood CV Cyl Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994. Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993. Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993. Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C. Davis, August 6, 1993. Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis. May 1993. Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993. Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990. Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990. Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988. A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986. The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985. Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; Smallwood CV 43 Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California. Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015. • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013. • Workshop co -presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011. • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011. • Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001. • Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999. • Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. • Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Smallwood CV 11EI Printed Mass Media Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. Op - Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo's land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Radio/Television PBS News Hour, FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011. KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009; KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008; KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Smallwood CV 45 Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour. October, 2000; KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997. Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I've provided peer review) Journal Journal American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society —Western Section Trans. Journal of Zoology London Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS Ecology Tropical Ecology Biological Control The Condor Committees • Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento Other Professional Activities or Products Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio -nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified. Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines and Amherst Island Wind Energy projects. Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities. Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O'Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas. Smallwood CV 46 Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm. Memberships in Professional Societies The Wildlife Society Raptor Research Foundation Honors and Awards Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987 J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society —Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978 CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981 National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982 National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978 Community Activities District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007 Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07 Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004 Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002 Davis Visioning Group member Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates EXHIBIT 2 r.V PL.. a r Planning and Building Agency Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 647-5804 I. OWNER/APPLICANT APPEAL APPLICATION Applicant Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation 7111 Firestone Blvd. Buena Park, CA 90621 Mailing Address Legal Owner Name, southwest RFegional Council of Carpenters Legal owner Address.. 533 S. Fremont Ave. 10th Floor los angeles, CA 90071 Phone No.: gl3 ) 385-1457 II. PROPERTY INFORMATION Land use Mixed Use �13) 999-6190 Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building Location 1801 E. Fourth Street Santa Ana Street Address (714 ) 766-7140 Area Code Phone No. Fax: ( Metro East AU District Center Zoning District General Plan Designation CabrHlo Park Drive Name of Nearest Intersecting Street SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS III. REASON FOR REQUEST In the following provided space, please clearly specify and explain the error(s) of decision or requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (If additional space is needed, please attach additional comments to the back of this application.) 1) Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters(SWRCC) has standing to provide prubEic comment and to appeal the November 9th Planning Commission decision on this project. SWRCC represents 55,000 carpenters in 6 state and hundreds of Santa Ana residents. Making these comments and this appeal are within the core functions of the union. In addition, SWRCC represntative John Hanna submitted written comment for the originally scheduled Planning Commission review hearing ( see attached exhibit 1) . 2) The Planning Commission failed to adequately address affordable housing. The City Municipal Code requires that the proposed development will materially assist in accomplishing the goal of Applicant's Signature cmlcntr-frmlappeal 5100 I Date A PEAL PPLICATION NO. cf�-,Z,t- Ill, i -I.C!;, �, SWRCC APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CENTRAL POINTE PROJECT 2) (continued) the goal of providing affordable housing opportunities throughout the city. The Commission failed to address this issue and the project may not qualify to come under the Santa Ana Housing Opportunity Ordinance. SAMC 41-1607 and Public Res. Code Section 15162, 3) The Planning Commission failed to adequately address the well being of the community in ensuring that qualified Santa Ana residents, veterans and graduates or certificate holders of Santa Ana Unified School District and Rancho Santiago Community College District are provided a process to be included as part of the workforce constructing the project, thus ensuring the workforce would be more likely to have received safety training, reducing the risk of on the job injuries and construction defects and also increasing the economic benefit of the project and well being of the city residents. 4) Failure of the Planning Commission to ensure the maximum amount of viable commercial development on the project. While the staff did push the developer to add more commercial space and the developer agreed to an increase, the failure to require the maximum viable square footage of commercial space will lead to greater vehicle trips from the residents to commercial areas both withing Santa Ana as described in the Commission report, areas that are already inundated with traffic, but also to Tustin, sending sales tax revenue out of Santa Ana. This traffic increase due to the inadequate commercial sites that will exist to serve these new residents was not adequately studied by the Commission, something required under California environmental laws. The Carpenters requested a 30-60 day continuance by the Commission so these issues could be addressed but there was no action by the developer to respond to these issues in the only two week continuance due to a lack of a quorum. These issues are curable and the SWRCC are not trying to impede development but ensure that Santa Ana receives the maximum benefit on this valuable, strategic site. We ask the Council to have the developer applicant work with the SWRCC and other interested parties on the issues raised before the project is approved. to essential staff. Due to these emergency circumstances, the City's response to your Public Records Act request will be delayed. Thank you for your patience in these unprecedented times. From: John Hanna <jhanna@swcarpenters.org> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 2:17 PM To: eComment <ecomment@santa-ana.org> Subject: Public Comment on Regular Hearing agenda Item 1 Central Pointe Project- In support of continuing the matter My name is John Hanna and am writing on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters including those members who are residents of the City of Santa Ana. We urge the Planning Commission to continue this Public Hearing or in the Alternative, begin the Public Hearing and hear or read public comment tonight but continue the Public Hearing for another session between 30-60 days from now. There is much to like about this project in terms of its location and adding new housing stock to the city. However, certain deficiencies exist which are curable. They are: 1) Providing a public benefit of affordable housing, either as part of the project or providing an in lieu fee. While the requirements of the Housing Opportunity ordinance are not triggered, it doesn't look like staff even broached the subject of some effort by the developer. Staff pushed back on other areas, including commercial, but not affordable units or some fee, despite the fact that quality affordable housing is a city priority. 2) Provide some measure of a local skilled and trained workforce. As the economy continues to slide into a longer and deeper recession, Santa Ana residents are hurting, including many who have been educated and trained at Santa Ana Unified and Rancho Santiago Community College District programs. While I'm all for conditions of approval concerning the size and height of palm trees, providing a good local job for Santa ana residents and graduates of local school and college districts seems to me something that would fit nicely into a development agreement. 3) 115,130 feet enough commercial space? The staff is to be commended for urging the applicant to increase the commercial component of the project and the applicant did make a good faith effort to comply with that request, increasing it by 40%. The viability study however said the area could support up to 21,000 square feet of commercial space . This part of the city screams for commercial development so that people who will reside in these units and their neighbors to the north will have something local. More commercial would decrease the use of longer drives for residents as well as reduce the likelihood that residents will live in Santa Ana but shop in Tustin. Respectfully, these issues and perhaps others raised by others, could very well be worked out with a 30-60 continuance and that is our request. EXHIBIT 3 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2020 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2020-04 FOR THE CENTRAL POINTE MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1801 EAST FOURTH STREET Prepared by Selena Kelaher, AICP Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ❑ Applicant's Request ❑ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO 11-09-2020 DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM n Plann g M alter Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 as conditioned. Property Owner and Applicant Information 1. Owner: Park Center Santa Ana Associates, L.P. 2. Applicant: Waterford Property Company 3. Project Representative: Sean Rawson Executive Summa Sean Rawson with Waterford Property Company, representing Park Center Santa Ana Associates, L.P, is requesting approval of a site plan review application to facilitate construction of Central Pointe, a mixed -use development project consisting of two buildings with a total of 644 multi -family residential units, 15,130 square feet of commercial space, and associated amenities and open space at 1801 East Fourth Street. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request due to the project's compliance with the intent of the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone by providing a highly amenitized, mid -rise, mixed -use development within an urban environment. Table 1: Project and Location Information ".Item. [nfortriation. , Project Address 1801 East Fourth Street Nearest Intersection Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive General Plan Designation District Center (DC) Zoning Designation Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone (MEMU), Active Urban AU district SPR No. 2020-04 October 26, 2020 Page 2 Pro'ect Description The proposed project contains two buildings with an outdoor lawn in the center of the development. Each building includes five stories of residential units and ground -floor commercial space wrapped around seven levels of parking (one subterranean level and six above -grade levels) with a rooftop amenity deck. The total height of the project is approximately 86 feet. The project has a density of 81 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio of approximately 2.2. The unit mix varies from studio units, one -bedroom units, two -bedroom units, and three -bedroom units, with 12 different floor plans proposed. Residential common open space includes the private balconies or patios, the great lawn, nine courtyards, fitness rooms, club rooms, and a rooftop amenity deck with a pool and spa. Commercial spaces will line Fourth Street and provide opportunities for new eating establishments, service uses, and/or retail businesses. Publicly accessible open space includes the linear park along the east side of the development, a plaza at the corner of Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive, and internal paseos. The outdoor areas will be programmed with picnic tables, benches, umbrellas, lawn games, decorative hardscape, a recreation trail, and landscaping. Vehicular access to the site is provided from both Parkcourt Place and Fourth Street. Onsite parking includes 18 surface level parking spaces off of Fourth Street and a multi -level parking structure for each building. A total of 1,318 parking spaces are proposed which is a ratio of 2.04 spaces per unit. Offsite improvements include a new signalized intersection and crosswalks at Cabrillo Park Drive and Parkcourt Place. The existing median on Parkcourt Place will be reconstructed to provide a 100-foot left turn pocket to allow for vehicles to turn into the site as well as a dedicated left turn lane from Parkcourt Place to northbound Cabrillo Park Drive. The project will construct an additional westbound right -turn lane at Fourth Street and the northbound 1-5 ramp and a dedicated right -turn lane on Cabrillo Park Drive. In addition, the project will also pay its fair share in modifying the eastbound shared through/right-turn lane to construct a free -right turn lane at the Fourth Street and southbound SR-55 ramp. SPR No. 2020-04 October 26, 2020 Page 3 The building has been designed with contemporary architectural elements comprised of high quality, long lasting materials such as metal siding, stone veneer, simulated wood siding, fiber cement lap siding, fiber cement panels, stucco, metal and glass railings and aluminum storefronts (Exhibits 3 through 9). Table 2: Proiect Summar Units 325 units 319 units Commercial 9,568 SF 5,562 SF Square Footage SF Building SF 286,666 SF 274,145 SF Unit Mix/Room 19 studios (6%) 20 studios (6%) 162 one -bedrooms (50%) 164 one -bedrooms (51 %) 121 two -bedrooms (37%) 127 two -bedrooms (40%) 23 three -bedrooms 7% 8 three -bedrooms 3% Unit SF 518 to 543 SF studios 518 to 543 SF studios 683 to 778 SF one -bedrooms 683 to 778 SF one -bedrooms 1,066 to 1,148 SF two -bedrooms 1,066 to 1,148 SF two -bedrooms 1,274 to 1,339 SF three -bedrooms 1,274 to 1,339 SF three -bedrooms Height & Stories 8-stories, 85'5" 8-stories, 85'5" Parking 650 s aces 2.00 spaces per unit 650 spaces 2.03 space per unit Open Space/ Ground Level Courtyards 12,650 SF Ground Level Courtyards 10,271 SF Amenities Roof Deck 15,961 SF Roof Deck 15,961 SF Fitness and Club Room Fitness and Club Room Proiect and Site Background The MEMU Overlay Zone was adopted in 2007 to facilitate mixed -used development opportunities in a portion of the City between the Santa Ana (1-5) and Costa Mesa (SR-55) freeways centered on First and Fourth streets. In 2018, the City approved an expansion of the MEMU Overlay Zone primarily along First Street to Grand Avenue that resulted in an additional 33 acres of potential mixed -use development. In 2006, Shea Homes proposed a mixed -use project at the site consisting of almost 600 residential units, and 7,750 square feet of commercial space within a 5-story, 8-story and 20-story buildings. However, the due to economic conditions, the application was withdrawn. Currently, the project site is vacant and undeveloped. In 2019, the applicant submitted plans to the development review committee and planning staff for review. Planning staff requested that the applicant maximize the amount of commercial space at the project, enhance the corner of Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive, enhance the building materials, and increase in the number of parking spaces. A market analysis was completed for the project and evidenced that no more than 21,000 square feet can be successfully supported. The SPR No. 2020-04 October 26, 2020 Page 4 applicant revised their initial proposal to increase the commercial square footage from 9,100 to 15,130 square feet, reflecting a 40 percent increase from the original proposal. On October 12, 2020, the Planning Commission held a work study session to overview the project. A summary of the Commission's comments and the applicant's response to the comments is included in the table below. Table 3: October 12, 2020 Work Study Session Summary Provide adequate public open The Active Urban District requires that 15% of the site be publically accessible space on site open space (52,468 SF required). The project meets the requirement by providing a total of 54,568 SF of publical[y accessible open space. The publically accessible open space includes the 31,596 SF linear park, plaza at Fourth St. and Cabrillo Park Dr., 15,727 SF central park, and forecourts as shown in Exhibit 9. Provide adequate The Active Urban District requires a total of 76,148 SF of private/common open private/common area open space. The project exceeds the requirement by providing 106,654 SF of space private/common open space through balconies for each unit, courtyards, rooftop amenity decks and a dog run as shown on the unit floor plans and on Exhibit 9. Inclusion of larger trees and The conceptual landscape plan -includes a variety of tree species and sizes that landscape at installation are a minimum of 48-inch box trees.Condition of Approval No. 11 requires a minimum of 48-inch box trees and a minimum of a 10-foot brown truck height for the palm trees. The viability of the commercial The Market and Fiscal impact analysis and peer review of the study concluded uses and intended goals of the that the project could support between 10,000 to 21,000 SF of commercial MEMU space. Additionally, a subsequent analysis on the feasibility of a neighborhood market on -site was conducted. The analysis concluded that it would be infeasible to include a market on -site Exhibit 15. Parking for the commercial use The Active Urban District requires 2.0 parking spaces per unit inclusive of nonresidential uses and guest parking (1,288 space required). The project exceeds this requirement by providing 1,318 spaces. Therefore, there are 30 additional parking spaces for the project (18 surface level parking spaces off Fourth Street adjacent to the commercial space and 12 spaces within the parking structures). The 30 additional spaces is a ratio of one parking space per every 500 square feet of commercial space. Condition of Approval No. 12 requires submittal of a parking management plan which will include management of parking for commercial and leasing office purpose and requires active monitoring of parking by the property manager. Inclusion of green building The project will comply with the requirements of the CALGreen Building Code, features which includes constructing a cool roof, electric vehicle charging stations, water and energy efficient fixtures and appliances, and drought tolerant plants and permeable surfaces. Energy efficient building construction elements include low/no VOC paint, highiy rated insulation, and carbon absorbing framing. SPR No. 2020-04 October 26, 2020 Page 5 Analysis of the Issues Site Plan Review The SAMC and Section 8.2 of the MEMU Overlay Zone require that the Planning Commission review a site plan review application for any project proposed within an overlay zone. An analysis of the required MEMU Overlay Findings and the project's compliance with the MEMU is provided in Table 4 on the following page. Table 4; MEMU Findings for Site Plan Anprovall That the proposed The development will activate a vacant and underutilized 8-acre site in the MEMU development plan is consistent Overlay Zone. The project will create a new mixed -use development within close with and will further the proximity to office buildings, Cabrillo Park, Mabury Park, and less than two miles from objectives outlined in Section Downtown Santa Ana providing opportunities to live, work, and recreate. Each 1.2 for the MEMU Overlay building will be five -stories of residential units wrapped around a seven -level parking Zone. structure. The height of the buildings will blend in with the heights of the nearby office buildings which range from single -story, three-story and eight -story buildings and will create an interface with the Santa Ana (1-5) Freeway. The project will be built to California Building Code standards, which include energy and water conservation measures and will improve pedestrian mobility by providing new sidewalks and parkways along Fourth Street and Parkcourt Place. In addition, the publically accessible linear park will serve as a link to the meandering trail along Mabury Street and to Mabury Park to the north. Each building has a centrally located bike room, and there is a rideshare pick-up/drop-off in the middle of the project site. Additionally, the project is within walking distance of the OCTA Route 463 bus stop at Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. The commercial space has been designed with retail floor heights of 20 feet with storefronts that will be visible from Fourth Street. In addition, the commercial space links directly to an on -site public plaza at the corner of Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive which will include outdoor dining opportunities, decorative hardscape, specimen trees and plantings, umbrellas, seating and lawn games. In addition, the ground floor residential units along Cabrillo Park Drive will have doors and patios with direct access to the street to help activate the street. That the proposed The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 4 of the development plan is consistent MEMU Overlay Zone including land use, stories, minimum development site area, with the development building frontages, publically accessible open space, privatelcommon open space, standards specified in Section building setbacks, and parking and access. The propose project is a mixed -use 4 of the MEMU Overlay Zone. development that has been well designed to fit within the Active Urban District. Further, the access and egress for the project has been thoroughly review by the Public works Agency for compliance with all applicable development standards. That the proposed The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 5 of the development plan is designed MEMU Overlay Zone. The building is desi ned with a high qualitydesign that includes SPR No. 2020-04 October 26, 2020 Page 6 to be compatible with adjacent varied massing, changes in form, and is comprised of high quality material including development in terms of metal siding, stone veneer, simulated wood siding, fiber cement lap siding, fiber similarity of scale, height, and cement panels, stucco, metal and glass railings, and aluminum storefronts. During site configuration and the development review process, the architectural design was peer reviewed by John otherwise achieves the Kalisk[ Architects and City staff, which resulted in higher -quality building materials, an objectives of the Design increase in the commercial square footage and a plaza at the corner of Fourth Street Principles specified in Section and Cabrillo Park Drive. The project massing is broken into distinct building elements, 5 of the MEMU Overlay Zone. facades are broken up with the inclusion of private balconies, courtyards, and contrasting building materials. The commercial storefronts are enhanced with cornices and metal canopies and the primary access to the commercial uses will be from Fourth Street. The project promotes pedestrian activity with landscaping and publically accessible open space. Parking areas are screened from the street. Lastly, over 40 percent of the units are over 1,000 square feet. That the land use uses, site The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 7 of the design, and operational MEMU Overlay Zone. The project has been designed to ensure compatibility between considerations in the proposed the residential and non-residential uses on site. The commercial uses have separate development plan have been entrances from the residential uses, and the parking management plan will manage p[anned in a manner that will parking between the residential and nonresidential uses. Each building has a result in a compatible and dedicated move -in and commercial loading area that will be screened with roll -up harmonious operation as doors and controlled by the property management company. On site lighting will be specified in Section 7 of the consistent with Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security MEMU Overlay Zone. Ordinance). California Environmental (duality Act (CEQA The 2007 Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2006031041) and 2018 Subsequent EIR (SEIR) anticipated potential development of 5,551 residential units, 963,000 square feet of commercial development, and 690,000 of office development, The 2007 EIR and 2018 SEIR analyzed impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture/forestry, air quality, biology, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources and utilities. The EIR and SEIR concluded that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, noise, and transportation/traffic. A traffic impact analysis was prepared for this project by Linscott Law and Greenspan which analyzed the projects impacts on 25 intersections. Of the 25 intersections studied, the intersections of (1) Fourth Street and the 1-5 northbound ramp and (2) Fourth Street and the SR-55 southbound ramp are expected to have a significant impact under 2025 cumulative plus project conditions and 2040 buildout plus project conditions. As such, the off -site improvements listed in the anticipated development potential description above apply to the project to reduce impacts below a level of significance. In addition, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared by Urban Crossroads to SPR No. 2020-04 October 26, 2020 Page 7 identify any impacts from developing a residential community near a major freeway. The HRA concluded that a less than significant impact to project residents would occur due to the project's proximity to a major freeway (Exhibits 11 and 12). The Central Pointe development is within the range of development analyzed as part of the MEMU Overlay zone EIR and SEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the MEMU EIR and SEIR applies to the project and will mitigate impacts below the level of significance, Economic Development The applicant's retained the services of two economic consultants, The Concord Group and RSG, to prepare a market and fiscal impact analysis for the project (Exhibit 13). To validate the findings of the analysis, the City retained AECOM to peer review the applicants study (Exhibit 14). The MEMU does not identify an amount of commercial space required for projects, only that development be mixed -use. Further, one of the objectives of the MEMU is to "facilitate project designs that encourage adequate amounts of retail or commercial space to service residents and/or employees within the development and the larger Metro East Overlay Zone area." The project proposes 15,130 square feet of commercial space. The applicant's study noted that the proposed 15,130 square feet would be sufficient to serve the project and MEMU area. The City's peer review estimates that the project could support between 10,000 and 21,000 square feet of commercial space; therefore, the proposed 15,130 square feet is within this range. Additionally, the proportion of commercial space to the overall size of the development is similar to the proportions approved for nearby mixed -use projects. The project proposes 2.6 percent of the total building square footage as commercial space. The three mixed -use projects within a half -mile of the project site either under construction or in the pipeline (The Madison, AMG First Point, and Elan) provide a similar proportion of commercial spaces at 1.4 to 3.5 percent of the total building square footage, while the Nineteen01 project provided a lower ratio. Unlike projects such as The Bowery, where no commercial space exists in the immediate area, this site is approximately Y2 mile from Seventeenth Street, a main commercial corridor. This corridor contains a mixture of commercial uses, such as restaurants, dry cleaners, service stations and supermarkets. Additionally, a retail center located south of the site on East Fourth Street, although partially vacant, also provides retail opportunities in the MEMU zone. AECOM estimates the following fiscal outcome over a 25-year forecast period; • Approximately $24.6 million in revenue to the City's General Fund (construction period revenues, recurring property tax revenue, utility user tax, residential sales tax and business tax) • Approximately $14.3 million in expenditures from the City General Fund (public services) • The net new General Fund revenue is projected to be approximately $10.3 million from the development of the project. SPR No. 2020-04 October 26, 2020 Page 8 Table 5: Public Notification and Community Outreach Public Notification and Community Outreach each Required Measures A community meeting was held on August 15, 2019 at 6.00 p.m. at Creekside Plaza, 505 N. Tustin Ave., Suite 243 in accordance with the provisions of the City's Sunshine Ordinance. Invitationslnotices were mailed to property owners and occupants/tenants in a 500-foot radius from the project site. Approximately 15 members of the public attended, as well as two City staff. The applicant provided all the required information to the City after the meeting. Details from the community meeting were posted to the project's webpage at htt s://www.santa-ana.or 1 bl lannin -division/mamor- lannin - prolects-and-monthly-development-project-reportslcentral-points Exhibit 16 On October 16, 2020 notification by mail was mailed to all property owners, occupants, and other interested parties within 500 feet of the project site in accordance with SAMC requirements. Newspaper posting was published in the Orange County Reporter in accordance with SAMC requirements. Additional Measures On October 22, 2020, the applicant provided an email update on the project to the members of the public that attended the Sunshine meeting. Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 as conditioned. �W;J-,,6vL- Selena Kelaher, AICP Associate Planner SK:sb SAPlanning Corn mission12020110-26-201SPR No. 2020-04 - 1801 E. Fourth Street Central PointelSPR Central Pointe.pc 102620 AP.docx Exhibits: 1. Resolution (Site Plan Review) 2. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial Map 3. Site Photos 4. Site Plan 5. Residential Unit Floor Plans 6. Building A Elevations 7. Building B Elevations 8. Renderings SPR No. 2020-04 October 26, 2020 Page 9 9. Open Space Plan 10. Conformance to Development Standards 11. Health Risk Assessment 12. Traffic Impact Analysis 13. Market and Fiscal Analysis (The Concord Group) 14. Peer review of the Market and Fiscal Analysis (AECOM) 15. Neighborhood Market Feasibility 16. Sunshine Meeting Minutes LS 11.9.20 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2020-04 AS CONDITIONED FOR A NEW MIXED -USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1801 EAST FOURTH STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Sean Rawson with Waterford Property Company, representing Park Center Santa Ana Associates, L.P ("Applicant"), is requesting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2020-04, as conditioned, to allow the construction of a new mixed -use development consisting of 644 multi -family residential units and 15,130 square feet of commercial space at 1801 East Fourth Street. B. The subject site has a General Plan land use designation of District Center (DC). The site is located within the Professional zoning district and has an overlay zone designation of Metro East Mixed -Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ-1), Active Urban district, which permits medium- to high -intensity mixed -use residential, commercial, office, and hotel developments subject to approval of a site plan review (SPR) application by the Planning Commission. C. The MEMU Overlay Zone was adopted in 2007 as a result of interest in developing mixed -use residential and commercial projects in the project area. In 2018, the City of Santa Ana expanded the MEMU designation along First Street between Grand Avenue and the Santa Ana (1-5) Freeway. The regulating plan, which establishes land uses and development standards, allows a variety of housing and commercial projects, including mixed -use residential communities, live/work units, hotels, and offices. D. A noticed public hearing was scheduled to be heard before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on October 26, 2020, but at that time there was not a quorum of the Planning Commission therefore, the item was continued by the Chair to the next regular meeting. On November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held the duly noticed public hearing and considered all testimony, written and oral for the project. E. Section 41-595.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC") requires a review by the Planning Commission of all plans within a zoning district classification combined with an OZ suffix where the applicant wants to apply the overlay zone, to ensure the project is in conformity with the overlay zone plan. F. The zoning designation for the subject property is proposed to be Metro East Mixed -Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ-1) in the Active Urban land use district. G. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this Site Plan Review pursuant to SAMC Section 41-595.5, have been established for Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 to allow construction of the proposed project: 1. That the proposed development plan is consistent with and will further the objectives outlined in Section 1.2 for the MEMU overlay district. The development will activate a vacant and underutilized 8-acre site in the MEMU Overlay Zone. The project will create a new mixed -use development within close proximity to office buildings, Cabrillo Park, Mabury Park, and less than two miles from Downtown Santa Ana providing opportunities to live, work, and recreate. Each building will be five -stories of residential units wrapped around a seven -level parking structure. The height of the buildings will blend in with the heights of the nearby office buildings which range from single -story, three-story and eight -story buildings and will create an interface with the Santa Ana (1-5) Freeway. The project will be built to California Building Code standards, which include energy and water conservation measures and will improve pedestrian mobility by providing new sidewalks, and parkways along Fourth Street and Parkcourt Place. In addition, the publically accessible linear park will serve as a link to the meandering trail along Mabury Street and to Mabury Park to the north. Each building has a centrally located bike room, and there is a rideshare pick-up/drop-off in the middle of the project site. Additionally, the project is within walking distance of the OCTA route 463 bus stop at Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. The commercial space has been designed with retail floor heights of 20 feet with storefronts that will be visible from Fourth Street. In addition, the commercial space links directly to an on -site public plaza at the corner of Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive which will include outdoor dining opportunities, decorative hardscape, specimen trees and plantings, umbrellas, seating and lawn games. In addition, the ground floor residential units along Cabrillo Park Drive will have doors and patios with direct access to the street to help activate the street. 2. That the proposed development plan is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU overlay district. The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU Overlay Zone including land use, stories, development site area, building frontages, publically accessible open space, private/common open space, building setbacks, and parking. 3. That the proposed development plan is designed to be compatible with adjacent development in terms of similarity of scale, height, and site configuration and otherwise achieves the objectives of the Design Principles specified in Section 5 of the MEMU overlay district. The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 5 of the MEMU Overlay Zone. The buildings are designed with a high quality design that includes varied massing, changes in form, and is comprised of high quality material including metal siding, stone veneer, simulated wood siding, fiber cement lap siding, fiber cement panels, stucco, metal and glass railings, and aluminum storefronts. During the development review process, the architectural design was peer reviewed by John Kaliski Architects and City staff, which resulted in higher -quality building materials, an increase in the commercial square footage and a plaza at the corner of Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. The project massing is broken into discrete building elements, facades are broken up with the inclusion of private balconies, courtyards, and contrasting building materials. The commercial storefronts are enhanced with cornices and metal canopies and the primary access to the commercial uses will be from Fourth Street. The project promotes pedestrian activity with landscaping and publically accessible open space. Parking areas are screened from the street. Lastly, over 40 percent of the units are over 1,000 square feet. 4. That the land use uses, site design, and operational considerations in the proposed development plan have been planned in a manner that will result in a compatible and harmonious operation as specified in Section 7 of the MEMU overlay district. The project is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 7 of the MEMU Overlay Zone. The project has been designed to ensure compatibility between the residential and non- residential uses on site. The commercial uses have separate entrances from the residential uses, and the parking management plan will manage parking between the residential and nonresidential uses. Each building has a dedicated move -in and commercial loading area that will be screened with roll -up doors and controlled by the property management company. On site lighting will be consistent with Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 8 (Security Ordinance). Section 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2006-01 (SCH No. 2006031041) and Subsequent EIR SEIR No. 2018-15 as per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines. All mitigation measures in EIR No. 2006-01 and SEIR No. 2018-15 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be enforced and apply to the proposed project. In addition, a traffic impact analysis dated July 30, 2020 was also prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan which analyzed the project's impacts on 25 intersections. The off -site improvements listed the Traffic Impact Analysis shall be implemented. A health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to identify any impacts from developing a residential community near a major freeway. The HRA finds that a less than significant impact to project residents would occur due to the project's proximity to a major freeway. Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 as conditioned in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 26, 2020, and November 9, 2020, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 9t" day of November, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: Mark McLoughlin Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on November 9, 2020. Date: Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana Conditions for Approval for Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The Applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan review. The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the site plan review. A. Plannina Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Development Project Review approval of DP No. 2019-26, and the staff report exhibits incorporated herein by reference. 2. Applicant shall agree to all recommendations contained within the required technical studies and reports prepared for the project including the Traffic Impact Analysis dated July 30, 2020. All studies and reports shall be finalized by the Applicant and approved by the City of Santa Ana prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Any amendment to this site plan review, including modifications to approved materials, finishes, architecture, site plan, landscaping, unit count, mix, and square footages must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the site plan review must be amended. 4. The full volume (first and second levels) of the commercial square footage within both buildings along Fourth Street shall be maintained for commercial purposes only and may not be converted or used for residential purposes. 5. The publicly accessible open space areas as shown on the open space plan shall remain accessible to the public and include a combination of landscape and hardscape as specified in Section 4.5 of the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone requirements. 6. A residential property manager shall be available at all times that the Project is occupied and Applicant and onsite management shall at all times maintain a 24- hour emergency contact and contact information on file with the City that is also posted at the entrance to the leasing office for public view. 7. All Project mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public and courtyard areas. 8. After Project occupancy, landscaping and hardscape materials must be maintained as shown on the approved landscape plans. 9. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the subject site must meet the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (i.e. a Lot Merger or Parcel Map must be recorded for the subject property). 10. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a final detailed amenity plan must be reviewed and approved by Applicant and the Planning Division. The plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture for amenity, plaza, or courtyard areas, as well as an installation plan. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a construction schedule and staging plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The plan shall include construction hours, staging areas, parking and site security/screening during Project construction. 12. Prior to installation of landscaping, the Applicant shall submit photos and specifications of all trees to be installed on the Project site for review and approval by the Planning Division. Specifications shall include, at a minimum, the species, box size (48 inches minimum), brown trunk height (10-foot minimum), and name and location of the supplier. 13. Applicant shall provide onsite parking for residents and visitors of the Project and actively monitor the parking demand of the Project site. Applicant shall continually monitor and take appropriate measures to manage the parking demand of the Project site to mitigate the use of offsite parking spaces on private or public properties and/or right-of-way. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and/or building permit finals, Applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Planning and Building Agency a Parking Management Plan (the "PMP") meeting the requirements of this condition. The approved PMP shall be adhered to and be enforced by the Project at all times. 14. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance, public art shall be installed on the Project site at a value of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total valuation of both buildings. The selection, design, and installation of the art shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, and the Applicant. 15. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance, a Property Maintenance Agreement must be recorded against the property. The agreement will be subject to review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City Attorney to ensure that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly maintained, Applicant (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a Maintenance Agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The Maintenance Agreement shall contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following: (a) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); (b) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses, (c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable; (d) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); (e) If Applicant and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the Applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the Applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the Maintenance Agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms. (f) The Maintenance Agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties, obligations and responsibilities set forth under the Maintenance Agreement. (g) The Maintenance Agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City. �• 'Li -all 2019 Aerial -Santa Ana Boundary Zoning Zon Desc General Agri eu Itu ral Community Commercial Com m u oily Ca mmercial - Museum D istrin ■ General Commercial ■ Planned Shopping Center ■ Arterial Cam mer W ■ Commercial Residential ■ South Main Street Commercial Govemment Center District ■ Light Industrial ■ He y Industrial ■ Open Space Land ■ Metm East Dverlay Zone ■ Prolessi-al Single -Family Re"""" ■ Two -Family Residenre ■ Multiple -Family Resld—te ■ Suburban Apartment ■ Residential -Estate ■ Specifl[ Development Flo- 1 ■ Specifi[ Development Flo- 1L ■ Specific Development FIc_ 12 ■ Specific Development FIc- 13 ■ Specific Development H.- 15 ■ Specific Development Ro- 16 ■ Specifl[ Development N.- 17 ■ SpecificDevelopment I" 18 ■ Specific Development Flo_ 19 ■ Specific Development FIc- 2 ■ Specific Development H.- 20 ■ Specific Development Ro- 2L ■ Specifl[ Development N.- 25 ■ SpecificDevelopment I" 26 ■ Specific Development Flo_ 27 ■ Specific Development FIc- 3L ■ Specific Development H.- 32 ■ Specific Development Ro- 34 ■ Specifl[ Development Flo- 35 ■ SpecificDevelopment I" 36 ■ Specific Development Flo_ 38 ■ Specific Development FIc- 39 ■ Specific Development Mo-4 ■ Specific Development Ro-40 ■ Specifl[ Development Flo- 4 L ■ SpecificDevelopment Flo-42 ■ Specific Development FIc_ 43 ■ Specific Development FIc-44 ■ Specific Development Mo-46 ■ Specific Development Ro-48 ■ Specific Development Flo-49 Central Pointe Mixed -Use Project SPR No. 2020-04 1801 E. Fourth Street Jv I ' ➢ 313 feet n i N Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View (c) ? o ? n I)initaI Man P rnrh irtc All rinhtc rpc prvpri SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Exhibit 3 — Site Photos I - Wli - AM 0111UM IT �11 1.3 Y- - w .I 1.,1. ! . LL 5 �2 YX SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Exhibit 4 — Site Plan r I z :A- - P- _ CYr� 6: wn SPR No. 2020-04 F� la FL3 34 R Pr ' I W iC F 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Exhibit 5 — Residential Unit Floor Plans M-+ 1 Naeeea� A W� 1K!?a KI` 4Z-r Ran 11 3 Bedroom 12 Bathroom 1284 SQ. Fr. 44s as sa rt 44 LF I � me u'*y R�rn xc 42'-2' 4—L—LJ� � 1-TAT Qeclr F150 SQ- Ff M. Bed— Eq 6ednxm 2 U' M. 8a[hv O Balh— Bd_ 3 Yrtchen Fir �--�3 Bed—l2 BaThronn SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Exhibit 5 — Residential Unit Floor Plans J ri r 1 I I LLh Sl!MI fwn fflI +h� 2 cam Pad bm 6naiw laws 8 Fw4w9 P4ce EWYAwi i tlmi w. n A WwA Wr "r an rk a J $'k SgRpr C4rwim lWwA; SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Exhibit 6 — Building A Elevations 1 47+Steel LkwIon s*oQn) F� BlYr1� �'OIILf�F Dll'J60451W 3 P'a�YT FticA �YtrrOhon U�>n! wr parr wa.-r c�a 5-mo re -�-y r.-r�� J 9Y &*— P--w SAf-w) SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Exhibit 7 — Building B Elevations FIVON& ohm* Iwj),j .fir % AL - m" -JOWL ti i IwOMIM- .-i - - it �7 y q,.w tt a SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Exhibit 9 — Open Space Plan Development Standards Standard Required by MEMU Active Urban Provided Land Uses Mixed -Use Development 644 multi -family residential units and 15,130 SF of commercial space Maximum Stories 3 minimum Complies; 5 stories residential No maximum 7 level parking structure and amenity deck Minimum 1 acre Complies; 8.03 acres net Development Size Street Level Forecourt, Shopfront, Gallery or Forecourt and Shopfront Building Frontages Arcade Publicly 15% of lot area (52,468 sq. ft.) Complies; 15% (52,521 SF) Accessible Open Space Private and 90 SF per unit and 5% of site area for Complies; 106,654 SF Common Open non-residential uses (58,716 SF) Space Building to Street 10 feet maximum Complies; 10 feet maximum Building to 5 feet adjacent to any other use N/A — no immediately adjacent Property Line uses Building to 15 feet minimum between buildings Complies; 95 feet between Building buildings Parking 2.0 per unit inclusive of guest and Complies; 2.04 spaces/unit non-residential SF (1,288 spaces) (1,318 spaces) SPR No. 2020-04 1801 East Fourth Street Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Exhibit 10 — Development Standards Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (DPM) HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA PREPARED BY: Haseeb Qureshi hqureshi@urbanxroads.com (949) 336-5987 DUNE 5, 2020 13400-03 Freeway HRA Report TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................I APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................II LISTOF EXHIBITS...............................................................................................................................III LISTOF TABLES.................................................................................................................................III LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS........................................................................................................... IV EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................................5 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................7 1.1 Site Location.................................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 7 2 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION.........................................................................................................10 3 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION...................................................................................................12 4 EXPOSURE QUANTIFICATION...................................................................................................15 5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION........................................................................................................17 5.1 Carcinogenic Chemical Risk......................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Non -Carcinogenic Exposures......................................................................................................18 5.3 Potential Cancer and Non -Cancer Risks......................................................................................19 6 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................21 7 CERTIFICATION........................................................................................................................23 APPENDICES APPENDIX 3.1: EMISSION RATE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3.2: RISK CALCULATION WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 4.1: AERMOD MODEL OUTPUT SUMMARY FILE APPENDIX 4.2: AERMOD MODEL INPUT/OUTPUT FILES (ELECTRONIC FORMAT, AVAILABLE ON REQUEST) LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP.............................................................................................................8 EXHIBIT 4-A: SOURCE RECEPTOR GRID NETWORK.............................................................................16 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1 FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES...........................................................................................10 TABLE 3-1: VEHICLE FLEET MIX PROFILE............................................................................................13 LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (1) Reference AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes ARB Air Resources Board CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CO Carbon Monoxide CPF Cancer Potency Factor EPA Environmental Protection Agency HRA Health Risk Assessment LDA Light Duty Auto LDT Light Duty Truck LHD Light Heavy Duty MCY Motorcycle MDV Medium Duty Vehicle NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide OBUS Other Bus OLM Ozone Limiting PM10 Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less PPM Parts per Million Project Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development PVMRM Plume Volume Molar Ratio Methods REL Reference Exposure Level RME Reasonable Maximum Exposure SBUS School Bus SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality management District TACs Toxic Air Contaminants UBUS Urban Bus URF Unit Risk Factor UTM Universal Traverse Mercator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) promulgated an advisory recommendation to avoid setting sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The ARB indicates that due to traffic - generated pollutants, there is an estimated increased cancer risk incidence of 300 to 1,700 per million in within this domain. At some point however, the increased cancer risk incidence due the effects of freeway/roadway corridor pollutants become indistinguishable from the ambient air quality condition. In this regard, the effects of freeway/roadway-source pollutants that may impact the Project site are already acknowledged and accounted for within the ambient air quality discussions presented within this Section. More specifically, the MATES -IV Study data for the Project site comprehensively reflects increased TAC-source cancer risks affecting the City and Project site, inclusive of increased cancer risks due to freeway sources. The 2005 ARB guidance noted previously, information made available through the MATES -IV Study, and configuration and design of the Project would suggest that further assessment of freeway -source pollutant impacts is not warranted. Notwithstanding, this Off -Site Freeway - Source Air Toxic Health Risk Assessment has been prepared for the Project and is intended to: • Comply with and support CEQA Section 15003 (i) policies addressing adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure; • Disaggregate potential freeway -source air pollutant health effects from other background conditions identified in the MATES IV Study; and • Identify means to reduce the specific effects of freeway -source pollutants at the Project site. Findings and conclusions of this Assessment are summarized below. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS For carcinogenic exposures resulting from exposure to toxics from the freeway, the summation of risk for the maximum exposed residential receptor totaled 3.58 in one million and will not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. For chronic noncarcinogenic effects, the hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one. For acute exposures, the hazard indices for the identified averaging times did not exceed unity. Therefore, noncarcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur. This page intentionally left blank 1 INTRODUCTION In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) promulgated an advisory recommendation to avoid setting sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. According to the ARB, the increased cancer risk is 300 to 1,700 per million within this domain. The strongest association of traffic related emissions with adverse health outcomes was seen within 300 feet of roadways with high truck densities. Notwithstanding, the ARB notes that a site -specific analysis would be required to determine the actual risk near a particular land use and should consider factors such as prevailing wind direction, local topography and climate. In consideration of the above referenced requirement, the assessment and dispersion modeling methodologies used in the preparation of this report were composed of all relevant and appropriate procedures presented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The methodologies and assumptions offered under this regulatory guidance were used to ensure that the assessment effectively quantified residential exposures associated with the generation of contaminant emissions from adjacent mobile source activity. This report summarizes the protocol used to evaluate contaminant exposures and presents the results of the health risk assessment (HRA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development (referred to as "Project). 1.1 SITE LOCATION The proposed Project is located at 1801 E Fourth Street at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive in the City of Santa Ana within the Metro East Mixed -Use (MEMU) Overlay District, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is proposed to consist of up to 650 multi -family residential units and 8,800 square feet of commercial space on an approximately 8-acre site. As part of the project design, the Project applicant has agreed to installing and maintaining air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2. (1)1 in the proposed multi -family residential dwelling units. 1 The use of MERV filtration systems to reduce DPM and particulates has been successfully implemented by several lead agencies, including, but not limited to: City of Los Angeles, City of Claremont, City of Irvine, City of Glendale, City of Berkley, City of Oakland, and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The average particle size efficiency (PSE) removal based on ASHRAE Standard 52.2 for MERV 13 is approximately 75% for 0.3 to 1.0 µg/m3(DPM) (2). EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP "I" This page intentionally left blank 2 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit collects and maintains traffic volume counts for vehicles traversing the California state highway system. Table 2-1 presents the annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) for the freeway segment considered in the assessment. TABLE 2-1 FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Roadway Segment AADT Vehicles Per Hour (ALL) Vehicles Per Hour (gas) Vehicles Per Hour (diesel) 1-5 Freeway 329,500 13,729 13,189 540 This page intentionally left blank 3 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION In urban communities, vehicle emissions contribute significantly to localized concentrations of air contaminants. Typically, emissions generated from these sources are characterized by vehicle mix, the rate pollutants are generated during the course of travel and the number of vehicles traversing the roadway network. Currently, emission factors are generated from a series of computer based programs to produce a composite emission rate for vehicles traveling at various speeds within a defined geographical area or along a discrete roadway segment. To account for the emission standards imposed on the California fleet, the ARB has developed the EMFAC2017 emission factor model. EMFAC2017 was utilized to identify pollutant emission rates for total organic gases (TOG), diesel particulates, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) compounds (2). To produce a representative vehicle fleet distribution, the assessment utilized ARB's Orange County population estimates for the 2020 calendar year. This approach provides an estimate of vehicle mix associated with operational profiles at the link or intersection level. Table 3-1 lists the identified fleet mix considered in the assessment. Based upon the freeway traffic volumes and population profiles noted above, discrete traffic counts were identified for each roadway segment. Diesel vehicles account for 3.94 percent of the total on -road mobile fleet. For chronic (long term) exposures, AADT values were averaged to produce representative hourly traffic volumes. An average observed route speed of 65 miles per hour was assumed for vehicles traversing the main highway link (1-5). The focus of this HRA is on DPM associated with vehicular activity traversing 1-5. Appendix 3.1 presents the on -road emission rate calculation worksheets for the freeway segment considered in the assessment. TABLE 3-1: VEHICLE FLEET MIX PROFILE Vehicle class Orange County Fuel Population Percent LDA Diesel 11,165 0.43 LDA Gas 1,247,860 51.75 LDT1 Diesel 56 0.00 LDT1 Gas 134,019 5.46 LDT2 Diesel 2,427 0.07 LDT2 Gas 447,358 16.58 LHD1 Diesel 21,630 1.54 LHD1 Gas 36,819 1.59 LHD2 Diesel 8,344 0.58 LHD2 Gas 6,427 0.22 MCY Gas 55,869 2.69 MDV Diesel 6,029 0.25 MDV Gas 312,580 15.17 MH Diesel 2,902 0.20 MH Gas 7,043 0.55 T6 Diesel 27,487 1.17 T6 Gas 7,555 0.12 T7 Diesel 10,494 1.42 T7 Gas 10 0.00 OBUS Diesel 618 0.02 OBUS Gas 996 0.04 SBUS Diesel 1,330 0.08 SBUS Gas 478 0.04 UBUS Diesel 0 0.00 UBUS Gas 210 0.02 Note: Vehicle category descriptions can be found on the California Air Resources Board website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm. This page intentionally left blank 4 EXPOSURE QUANTIFICATION In order to assess the impact of emitted compounds on individuals who reside at the proposed apartment complex, air quality modeling utilizing the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model AERMOD was performed to assess the downwind extent of mobile source emissions. AERMOD's air dispersion algorithms are based upon a planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including the treatment of surface and elevated sources in simple and complex terrain. The model offers additional flexibility by allowing the user to assign initial vertical and lateral dispersion parameters for sources representative of a localized mobile fleet. For this assessment, the volume source algorithm was utilized to model the emissions generated from on -road mobile source activity. Air dispersion models require additional input parameters including pollutant emission data and local meteorology. Due to the their sensitivity to individual meteorological parameters such as wind speed and direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends that meteorological data used as input into dispersion models be selected on the basis of relative spatial and temporal conditions that exist in the area of concern. In response to this recommendation, the nearest meteorological data available from the SCAQMD John Wayne Airport Meteorological Data Station (Source Receptor Area 18), was used to represent local weather conditions and prevailing winds. Five years (2012-2016) of available AERMOD meteorological data was utilized in the modeling. The modeling analysis also considered the spatial distribution of mobile source activity traversing the freeway in relation to the proposed site. To accommodate a Cartesian grid format, direction dependent calculations were obtained by identifying the universal transverse mercator (UTM) coordinates for each volume source location. On -site receptors were placed to provide coverage across the identified residential portion of the site. A ground level receptor height was assumed as a conservative measure. A graphical representation of the source -receptor grid network is presented in Exhibit 4-A. A dispersion model input summary table is provided in Appendix 4.1. A complete listing of model input/output files are provided in electronic format in Appendix 4.2. EXHIBIT 4-A: SOURCE RECEPTOR GRID NETWORK x a c .............. . ro 1L � /fitlllfli i i 111!!!!,�p • ifliffffffff! fit. � `' ifilfffflillifli!!i' •liiii!lii1111�li1!•�, iliflifflitlf •i11• a ' _ if/ifff/ff11�111! f Imo• i, ililfifliiiiilii,� �' I �i111i11i1fif111l: to 6mQ II41p�t �]t- Y PAR 7,11 5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 5.1 CARCINOGENIC CHEMICAL RISK The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) states that emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are considered significant if a HRA shows an increased risk of greater than ten in one million. Based on guidance from the SCAQMD in the document Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis ( (3), for purposes of this analysis, ten (10) in one million is used as the cancer risk threshold for the proposed Project. Excess cancer risks are estimated as the upper -bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens over a specified exposure duration. The estimated risk is expressed as a unitless probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical -specific cancer potency factor (CPF). A risk level of 1 in a million implies a likelihood that up to one person, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of toxic air contaminants over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer risk that is in addition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics. Health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic compounds can be defined in terms of the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical at a given concentration. Under a deterministic approach (i.e., point estimate methodology), the cancer risk probability is determined by multiplying the chemical's annual concentration by its unit risk factor (URF). The URF is a measure of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical when a dose is received through the inhalation pathway. It represents an upper bound estimate of the probability of contracting cancer as a result of continuous exposure to an ambient concentration of one microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) over a 70 year lifetime. The URFs utilized in the assessment and corresponding cancer potency factors were obtained from the Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. Notwithstanding, it is the intent of the HRA to provide risk estimates from near -field on -road sources that are reflective of anticipated exposures experienced at a given residential occupancy. As such, a review of relevant guidance was conducted to determine applicability of the use of early life exposure adjustments to identified carcinogens. For risk assessments conducted under the auspices of The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, Connelly, Statutes of 1987; Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et seq.) a weighting factor is applied to all carcinogens regardless of purported mechanism of action. However, for this assessment, the HRA relied upon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance relating to the use of early life exposure adjustment factors (Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early -Life Exposure to Carcinogens, EPA/630/R-003F) whereby adjustment factors are only considered when carcinogens act "through the mutagenic mode of action." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified 19 compounds that elicit a mutagenic mode of action for carcinogenesis. None of the gaseous compounds considered in the HRA elicit a mutagenic mode of action and, therefore, early life exposure adjustments were not considered. For diesel particulates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their derivatives, which are known to exhibit a mutagenic mode of action, comprise < 1% of the exhaust particulate mass. To date, the U.S. Environmental Agency reports that whole diesel engine exhaust has not been shown to elicit a mutagenic mode of action. To effectively quantify dose, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete exposure variates. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (CPF) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)-1 to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures associated with the proposed residential population, the following dose algorithm was utilized. Where: CD1= (Cair x EF x ED x 1 R) I (BW x AT) CDI = chronic daily intake (mg/kg/day) Carr = concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m3) EF= exposure frequency (days/year) ED = exposure duration (years) IR = inhalation rate (m3/day) BW = body weight (kg) AT = averaging time (days) To represent residential exposures, the assessment employed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's guidance to develop viable dose estimates based on reasonable maximum exposures (RME). Specifically, activity patterns for population mobility recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and presented in the Exposure Factors Handbook were utilized. As a result, lifetime risk values for residents were adjusted to account for an exposure duration of 350 days per year for 30 years (i.e., 95th percentile). These values are consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act which considers the evaluation of environmental effects of proposed projects in a manner that reflects both reasonable and feasible assumptions. 5.2 NON -CARCINOGENIC EXPOSURES An evaluation of the potential noncancerous effects of contaminant exposures was also conducted. Under the point estimate approach, adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the concentration of each compound with the appropriate Reference Exposure Level (REL). Available REL's presented in the Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values were considered in the assessment. To quantify noncarcinogenic impacts, the hazard index approach was used. The hazard index assumes that subthreshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (i.e., toxicological endpoint). For each discrete pollutant exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were utilized. To calculate the hazard index, the pollutant concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity value. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds one (i.e., unity), a health hazard is presumed to exist. For chronic exposures, REL's were converted to units expressed in mg/kg/day to accommodate the above referenced intake algorithm. To assess acute noncancer impacts, the maximum pollutant concentration is divided by the REL for the corresponding averaging time (e.g., 1-hour). No exposure adjustments are considered for short duration exposures. Appendix 3.2, summarizes the REL's and corresponding reference dose values used in the evaluation of chronic noncarcinogenic and acute exposures. The noncancer hazard quotient for identified compounds generated from each source and a summation for each toxicological endpoint are presented on this table. For chronic noncarcinogenic effects, the hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than the threshold of 1.0 for all exposure scenarios. For acute exposures, the hazard indices for the identified averaging times did not exceed the threshold of 1.0. Therefore, acute and chronic non -carcinogenic hazards were predicted to be within acceptable limits and are less than significant. 5.3 POTENTIAL CANCER AND NON -CANCER RISKS2 For carcinogenic exposures resulting from exposure to toxics from the freeway, the summation of risk for the maximum exposed residential receptor totaled 3.58 in one million and will not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. 2 SCAQMD guidance does not require assessment of the potential health risk to on -site workers. Excerpts from the document OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines —The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2003), also indicate that it is not necessary to examine the health effects to on -site workers unless required by RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) / CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) orthe worker resides on -site. This page intentionally left blank 6 REFERENCES American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Method of Testing General Ventilation Air Cleaning Devices for Removal by Particle Size. 2017. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2.2017. 2. California Department of Transportation. EMFAC Software. [Online] http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/emfac.htm. 3. South Coast Air Quality Managment District. Mobile Source Toxics Analysis. [Online] 2003. http://www.agmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/mobile_toxic/mobile_toxic.html. This page intentionally left blank 7 CERTIFICATION The contents of this HRA represent an accurate depiction of the potential impacts to the proposed Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development Project. The information contained in this HRA is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5987. Haseeb Qureshi Associate Principal URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 260 E Baker St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 336-5987 hqureshi@urbanxroads.com EDUCATION Master of Science in Environmental Studies California State University, Fullerton • May 2010 Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Analysis and Design University of California, Irvine • June 2006 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AEP —Association of Environmental Planners AWMA — Air and Waste Management Association ASTM — American Society for Testing and Materials PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS Environmental Site Assessment — American Society for Testing and Materials • June 2013 Planned Communities and Urban Infill — Urban Land Institute • June 2011 Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene — EMSL Analytical • April 2008 Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring — California Air Resources Board • August 2007 AB2588 Regulatory Standards — Trinity Consultants • November 2006 Air Dispersion Modeling — Lakes Environmental • June 2006 This page intentionally left blank APPENDIX 3.1: EMISSION RATE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS This page intentionally left blank EMFAC2017 Worksheet (65 mph) EMFAC2017 Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: ORANGE Calendar Year: 2020 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Pollutant Classification: Criteria Region CalYr Season Veh Class Fuel Md1Yr Speed Population Wt Frac CO RUNEX CO RUNEX AVE NOX RUNEX NOx RUNEX AVE PM10 RUNEX PM10 RUNEX AVE PM10 PMTW PM10 PMTW AVE PM10 PMBW PM10 PMBW AVE (miles/hr) (vehicles) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/tmle) (gins/mile) (gm/mile) (gins/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gins/mile) ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA DSL Aggregated 65 11164.903 0.0048 0.1576780 0.00074923 0.0868281 0.00041257 0.0082320 0.00003912 0.0080 0.00003801 0.03675 0.000174622 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA GAS Aggregated 65 1247860.077 0.5311 0.5131502 0.27251912 0.0438778 0.02330222 0.0014267 0.00075769 0.0080 0.00424857 0.03675 0.019516854 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDTI DSL Aggregated 65 55.819 0.0000 1.8674899 0.00004436 1.3902125 0.00003303 0.1898617 0.00000451 0.0080 0.00000019 0.03675 0.000000873 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDTI GAS Aggregated 65 134019.271 0.0570 1.0208223 0.05822426 0.1234590 0.00704169 0.0020130 0.00011482 0.0080 0.00045629 0.03675 0.002096096 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 DSL Aggregated 65 2427.176 0.0010 0.0729230 0.00007533 0.0357127 0.00003689 0.0045846 0.00000474 0.0080 0.00000826 0.03675 0.000037962 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 GAS Aggregated 65 447357.582 0.1904 0.6886944 0.13111970 0.0859344 0.01636095 0.0013986 0.00026629 0.0080 0.00152311 0.03675 0.006996788 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDTI DSL Aggregated 65 21629.925 0.0092 0.5292682 0.00487211 2.2226139 0.02046000 0.0169925 0.00015642 0.0120 0.00011046 0.07644 0.000703659 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDTI GAS Aggregated 65 36819.260 0.0157 0.8630355 0.01352354 0.2146306 0.00336320 0.0010699 0.00001676 0.0080 0.00012536 0.07644 0.001197794 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 DSL Aggregated 65 8343.637 0.0036 0.4462804 0.00158471 1.8266933 0.00648646 0.0162931 0.00005786 0.0120 0.00004261 0.08918 0.000316672 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 GAS Aggregated 65 6427.420 0.0027 0.5119900 0.00140051 0.2149770 0.00058805 0.0009178 0.00000251 0.0080 0.00002188 0.08918 0.000243944 ORANGE 2020 Annual MCY GAS Aggregated 65 55868.871 0.0238 23.7251412 0.56411192 1.2028594 0.02860035 0.0018872 0.00004487 0.0040 0.00009511 0.01176 0.000279617 ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV DSL Aggregated 65 6028.952 0.0026 0.1265906 0.00032481 0.0591852 0.00015186 0.0048780 0.00001252 0.0080 0.00002053 0.03675 0.000094294 ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV GAS Aggregated 65 312579.715 0.1330 0.9627388 0.12807249 0.1229682 0.01635837 0.0014811 0.00019704 0.0080 0.00106423 0.03675 0.004888827 ORANGE 2020 Annual MH DSL Aggregated 65 2901.594 0.0012 0.2650886 0.00032735 3.6428042 0.00449841 0.1460253 0.00018032 0.0160 0.00001976 0.13034 0.000160954 ORANGE 2020 Annual MH GAS Aggregated 65 7043.392 0.0030 2.2246649 0.00666857 0.4283714 0.00128407 0.0012950 0.00000388 0.0120 0.00003597 0.13034 0.000390702 ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT DSL Aggregated 65 27487.170 0.0117 0.3870657 0.00452795 2.5404975 0.02971908 0.0975440 0.00114108 0.0120 0.00014038 0.13034 0.001524735 ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT GAS Aggregated 65 7554.979 0.0032 0.9441306 0.00303565 0.3448827 0.00110890 0.0007712 0.00000248 0.0120 0.00003858 0.13034 0.000419081 ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT DSL Aggregated 65 10494.469 0.0045 0.3731136 0.00166643 4.0257130 0.01798001 0.0808631 0.00036116 0.0360 0.00016079 0.06174 0.000275749 ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT GAS Aggregated 65 10.178 0.0000 24.2851878 0.00010520 5.5044337 0.00002384 0.0012867 0.00000001 0.0200 0.00000009 0.06174 0.000000267 ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS DSL Aggregated 65 617.692 0.0003 0.5133360 0.00013495 3.8917273 0.00102306 0.1074946 0.00002826 0.0120 0.00000315 0.13034 0.000034264 ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS GAS Aggregated 65 995.682 0.0004 1.4501108 0.00061448 0.5132142 0.00021747 0.0007231 0.00000031 0.0120 0.00000508 O. 13034 0.000055231 ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS DSL Aggregated 65 1330.412 0.0006 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0120 0.00000679 0.74480 0.000421708 ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS GAS Aggregated 65 477.537 0.0002 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0080 0.00000163 0.74480 0.000151368 ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS DSL Aggregated 65 0.000 0.0000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000000 0.00000000 0.0000 0.00000000 0.0000 0.000000000 ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS GAS Aggregated 65 209.765 0.0001 0.2433834 0.00002173 0.3161702 0.00002823 0.0002009 0.00000002 0.0120 0.00000107 0.13035 0.000011637 2349705 1.0 1.194 O.179 0.0034 0.008 0.040 EMFAC2017 Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: ORANGE Calendar Year: 2020 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Pollutant Classification: TOG GAS Region CalYr Season Veh Class Fuel Md1Yr Speed Population Wt Frac TOG RUNEX TOG RUNEX AVE (miles/hr) (vehicles) (gm/mile) (gms/mile) ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA GAS Aggregated 65 1247860.077 0.5528 0.0145697 0.0081 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDTI GAS Aggregated 65 134019.271 0.0594 0.0364124 0.0022 ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 GAS Aggregated 65 447357.582 0.1982 0.0215635 0.0043 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDTI GAS Aggregated 65 36819.260 0.0163 0.0447649 0.0007 ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 GAS Aggregated 65 6427.420 0.0028 0.0296607 0.0001 ORANGE 2020 Annual MCY GAS Aggregated 65 55868.871 0.0248 2.7688096 0.0685 ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV GAS Aggregated 65 312579.715 0.1385 0.0341850 0.0047 ORANGE 2020 Annual MH GAS Aggregated 65 7043.392 0.0031 0.0913197 0.0003 ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT GAS Aggregated 65 7554.979 0.0033 0.0611843 0.0002 ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT GAS Aggregated 65 10.178 0.0000 0.9835975 0.0000 ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS GAS Aggregated 65 995.682 0.0004 0.0883973 0.0000 ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS GAS Aggregated 65 477.537 0.0002 0.0000000 0.0000 ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS GAS Aggregated 65 209.765 0.0001 0.0141811 0.0000 2257224 1.0 0.089 EMFAC2017 Worksheet (65 mph) PM2 5 RUNEX PM2 5 RUNEX AVE PM2 5 PMTW PM2 5 PMTW AVE PM2 5 PMBW PM2 5 PMBW AVE (g-/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (g-/mile) 0.0078759 0.000037423 0.0020 0.000009503 0.01575 0.000074838 0.0013119 0.000696685 0.0020 0.001062142 0.01575 0.008364366 0.1816483 0.000004315 0.0020 0.000000048 0.01575 0.000000374 0.0018511 0.000105579 0.0020 0.000114073 0.01575 0.000898327 0.0043863 0.000004531 0.0020 0.000002066 0.01575 0.000016269 0.0012861 0.000244850 0.0020 0.000380778 0.01575 0.002998623 0.0162574 0.000149655 0.0030 0.000027616 0.03276 0.000301568 0.0009842 0.000015422 0.0020 0.000031339 0.03276 0.000513340 0.0155883 0.000055353 0.0030 0.000010653 0.03822 0.000135716 0.0008438 0.000002308 0.0020 0.000005471 0.03822 0.000104548 0.0017678 0.000042032 0.0010 0.000023777 0.00504 0.000119836 0.0046670 0.000011975 0.0020 0.000005132 0.01575 0.000040412 0.0013630 0.000181322 0.0020 0.000266059 0.01575 0.002095212 0.1397083 0.000172522 0.0040 0.000004940 0.05586 0.000068980 0.0011917 0.000003572 0.0030 0.000008993 0.05586 0.000167444 0.0933243 0.001091720 0.0030 0.000035094 0.05586 0.000653458 0.0007091 0.000002280 0.0030 0.000009646 0.05586 0.000179606 0.0773650 0.000345535 0.0090 0.000040197 0.02646 0.000118178 0.0011830 0.000000005 0.0050 0.000000022 0.02646 0.000000115 0.1028444 0.000027036 0.0030 0.000000789 0.05586 0.000014684 0.0006651 0.000000282 0.0030 0.000001271 0.05586 0.000023671 0.0000000 0.000000000 0.0030 0.000001699 0.3192 0.000180732 0.0000000 0.000000000 0.0020 0.000000406 0.31920 0.000064872 0.0000000 0.000000000 0.0000 0.000000000 0.0000 0.000000000 0.0001847 0.000000016 0.0030 0.000000268 0.05587 0.000004987 0.0032 0.002 0.017 ENWAC2017 Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: Orange (SC) Calendar Year: 2020 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Pollutant Classification: TOG DSL Region CalYr Season Veh_Class Fuel MdIYr ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual LDTI DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDTI DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual MIT DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS DSL Aggregated EMFAC2017 Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: Orange (SC) Calendar Year: 2020 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Pollutant Classification: DSL Particulate Region CalYr Season Veh Class Fuel MdIYr ORANGE 2020 Annual LDA DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual LDTI DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual LDT2 DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDTI DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual LHDT2 DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual MDV DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual MH DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual MHDT DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual HHDT DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual OBUS DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual SBUS DSL Aggregated ORANGE 2020 Annual UBUS DSL Aggregated EMFAC2017 Worksheet (65 mph) Speed Population Wt Frac TOG RUNEX TOG_RUNEX AVE (miles/hr) (vehicles) (gins/mile) (gm lmle) 65 11164.903 0.1207 0.0140263 0.0017 65 55.819 0.0006 0.2697117 0.0002 65 2427.176 0.0262 0.0099900 0.0003 65 21629.925 0.2339 0.0791822 0.0185 65 8343.637 0.0902 0.0686702 0.0062 65 6028.952 0.0652 0.0091178 0.0006 65 2901.594 0.0314 0.0638991 0.0020 65 27487.170 0.2972 0.1043012 0.0310 65 10494.469 0.1135 0.1028850 0.0117 65 617.692 0.0067 0.1618479 0.0011 65 1330.412 0.0144 0.0000000 0.0000 65 0.000 0.0000 0.0000000 0.0000 92482 1.0 0.073 Speed Population Wt Frac PM10 RUNEX PM10 RUNEX AVE (miles/hr) (vehicles) (gm/mile) (gas/mile) 65 11164.903 0.1207 0.0082320 0.0010 65 55.819 0.0006 0.1898617 0.0001 65 2427.176 0.0262 0.0045846 0.0001 65 21629.925 0.2339 0.0169925 0.0040 65 8343.637 0.0902 0.0162931 0.0015 65 6028.952 0.0652 0.0048780 0.0003 65 2901.594 0.0314 0.1460253 0.0046 65 27487.170 0.2972 0.0975440 0.0290 65 10494.469 0.1135 0.0808631 0.0092 65 617.692 0.0067 0.1074946 0.0007 65 1330.412 0.0144 0.0000000 0.0000 65 0.000 0.0000 0.0000000 0.0000 92482 1.0 0.050 On -Road Mobile Sources Emission Rate Computation Interstate 5 Mainline DSL Particulate Emissions Number of Sources 9 Link Length (meters) 520 Volume/Baseline (VPH) 540 Pollutant Mass Emission Rate (gr/mi) 0.050 Emission Rate (gr/sec) _ ((Mass Emission Rate x Volume/Baseline)/(1609.3 m/mile) x (3600 sec/hr)) x (L Pollutant Emission Rate (gr/sec) 0.00242 Pollutant Emission Rate (gr/sec/source) 2.69E-04 All 2349705 DSL 92482 Diesel Fleet Mix (weight fraction) F 0.0394 Link Counts AADT VPH VPH VPH all gas diesel 1 Interstate 5 Mainline 329500 13729 13189 540 6 I-5 SB On -Ramp at 1 st St. 14900 621 596 24 APPENDIX 3.2: RISK CALCULATION WORKSHEETS This page intentionally left blank Table Al Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards 30 Year Exposure Scenario / Maximum Residential Receptor Source (a) Concentration Weight Fraction (d) Contaminant (e) Carcinogenic Risk Noncarcinogenic Hazards / Toxicological Endpoints* URF (ug/m3) (f) CPF (mg/kg/day) (g) RISK (h) REL (ug/m3) (i) RID (mg/kg/day) 0) RESP (k) CNS/PNS (1) CVBL (m) IMMUN (n) KIDN (o) GI/LV (p) REPRO (q) EYES (r) (ug/m3) (b) (mg/m3) (c) Freeway 0.02900 2.9E-05 1.00E+00 Diesel Particulates 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 3.6E-06 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 5.6E-03 Total 3.58E-06 5.6E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 * Key to Toxocological Endpoints RESP Respiratory System CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System CVBL Cardiovascular/Blood System IMMUN Immune System KIDN Kidney GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver REPRO Reproductive System (e.g., teratogenic and developmental effects) EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects Note: Exposure factors used to calculate contaminant intake exposure frequency (days/year) 350 exposure duration (years) 30 inhalation rate (m3/day) 20 average body weight (kg) 70 averaging time(,_,) (days) 25550 averaging timet� (days) 10950 APPENDIX 4.1: AERMOD MODEL OUTPUT SUMMARY FILE This page intentionally left blank T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 1 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY *** **Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values. -- DEPOSITION LOGIC -- **NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided. **NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided. **Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DRYDPLT = F **Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WETDPLT = F **Model Uses URBAN Dispersion Algorithm for the SBL for 9 Source(s), for Total of 1 Urban Area(s): Urban Population = 3010232.0 ; Urban Roughness Length = 1.000 m **Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options: 1. Stack -tip Downwash. 2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects. 3. Use Calms Processing Routine. 4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine. 5. No Exponential Decay. 6. Urban Roughness Length of 1.0 Meter Assumed. **Other Options Specified: ADJ_U* - Use ADJ_U* option for SBL in AERMET CCVR_Sub - Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions TEMP —Sub - Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions **Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights. **The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: DPM **Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only **This Run Includes: 9 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 348 Receptor(s) with: 0 POINT(s), including 0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s) and: 9 VOLUME source(s) and: 0 AREA type source(s) and: 0 LINE source(s) and: 0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s) and: 0 OPENPIT source(s) and: 0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with 0 line(s) **Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 16216 **Output Options Selected: Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword) Model Outputs Separate Summary File of High Ranked Values (SUMMFILE Keyword) **NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours m for Missing Hours b for Both Calm and Missing Hours **Misc. Inputs: Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) = 17.00 Decay Coef. = 0.000 Rot. Angle = 0.0 Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07 Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3 **Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 3.5 MB of RAM. **Input Runstream File: **Output Print File: **Detailed Error/Message File: **File for Summary of Results: T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** E FIRST ST.ISC *** *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** aermod.inp aermod.out 13400 FREEWAY HRA.ERR 13400 FREEWAY HRA.SUM *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 06/05/20 *** 02:17:27 PAGE 2 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING *** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1=YES; 0=NO) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE. *** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *** (METERS/SEC) 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80, T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 3 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJU* *** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA * * * Surface file: KSNA_V9 ADJU\KSNA_V9.SFC Met Version: 16216 Profile file: KSNA V9 ADJU\KSNA V9.PFL Surface format: FREE Profile format: FREE Surface station no.: 93184 Upper air station no.: 3190 Name: UNKNOWN Name: UNKNOWN Year: 2012 Year: 2012 First 24 hours of scalar data YR MO DY JDY HR HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO - - - REF WS - - - - WD - - HT - - - - REF TA HT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 01 - - - - 01 1 - - 01 - - - - -4.5 - - - - - - 0.082 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 56. 11.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.87 62. 5.8 283.8 2.0 12 01 01 1 02 -3.5 0.073 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 47. 9.9 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.77 27. 5.8 283.1 2.0 12 01 01 1 03 -3.5 0.073 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 47. 9.9 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.77 336. 5.8 283.1 2.0 12 01 01 1 04 -3.3 0.070 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 45. 9.7 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.74 34. 5.8 283.1 2.0 12 01 01 1 05 -3.0 0.068 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 42. 9.4 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.70 154. 5.8 282.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 06 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.00 0. 5.8 282.0 2.0 12 01 01 1 07 -2.0 0.059 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 34. 9.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.55 343. 5.8 281.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 08 -2.6 0.066 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 40. 9.7 0.12 2.65 0.53 0.69 25. 5.8 281.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 09 21.6 0.133 0.252 0.010 27. 116. -9.9 0.12 2.65 0.31 1.03 344. 5.8 282.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 10 115.6 0.162 0.713 0.008 114. 156. -3.3 0.12 2.65 0.24 1.06 233. 5.8 286.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 11 160.9 0.126 1.129 0.005 325. 108. -1.1 0.12 2.65 0.21 0.67 261. 5.8 291.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 12 187.0 0.138 1.467 0.005 614. 123. -1.3 0.12 2.65 0.20 0.75 252. 5.8 294.9 2.0 12 01 01 1 13 186.9 0.189 1.755 0.005 1051. 197. -3.3 0.12 2.65 0.20 1.23 280. 5.8 297.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 14 168.3 0.247 1.857 0.005 1383. 295. -8.1 0.12 2.65 0.21 1.86 268. 5.8 299.2 2.0 12 01 01 1 15 115.3 0.275 1.688 0.005 1517. 346. -16.3 0.12 2.65 0.24 2.25 248. 5.8 298.1 2.0 12 01 01 1 16 41.5 0.262 1.211 0.005 1552. 322. -39.2 0.12 2.65 0.33 2.32 227. 5.8 295.9 2.0 12 01 01 1 17 -17.9 0.217 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 244. 52.0 0.12 2.65 0.60 2.18 227. 5.8 292.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 18 -24.7 0.250 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 300. 68.7 0.12 2.65 1.00 2.50 219. 5.8 288.8 2.0 12 01 01 1 19 -5.2 0.088 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 91. 12.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.94 201. 5.8 287.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 20 -3.5 0.073 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 47. 10.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.77 259. 5.8 287.0 2.0 12 01 01 1 21 -2.6 0.064 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 39. 9.1 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.65 264. 5.8 286.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 22 -4.4 0.081 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 55. 10.9 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.86 211. 5.8 285.9 2.0 12 01 01 1 23 -4.2 0.079 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 53. 10.7 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.84 247. 5.8 284.9 2.0 12 01 01 1 24 -7.1 0.103 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 80. 14.1 0.12 2.65 1.00 1.09 236. 5.8 283.8 2.0 First hour of profile data YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV 12 01 01 01 5.8 1 62. 0.87 283.8 99.0 -99.00 -99.00 F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0) T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 4 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS *** ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID -ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.45, 36.45, 7.00) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.26, 36.26, 7.00) DC 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 0.11599 AT ( 421925.73, 3734653.54, 0.11329 AT ( 421937.11, 3734627.53, 0.11286 AT ( 421925.73, 3734662.21, 0.11236 AT ( 421902.97, 3734705.56, 0.11117 AT ( 421914.35, 3734688.22, 0.11073 AT ( 421937.11, 3734636.20, 0.10963 AT ( 421948.49, 3734601.52, 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.08, 36.08, 7.00) DC 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 36.54, 36.54, 7.00) DC 0.10923 AT ( 421925.73, 3734670.88, 0.10818 AT ( 421937.11, 3734644.87, 0.10817 AT ( 421902.97, 3734714.23, *** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART GP = GRIDPOLR DC = DISCCART DP = DISCPOLR T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 5 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution *** --------- Summary of Total Messages -------- A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s) A Total of 2 Warning Message(s) A Total of 1864 Informational Message(s) A Total of 43848 Hours Were Processed A Total of 1500 Calm Hours Identified A Total of 364 Missing Hours Identified ( 0.83 Percent) ******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** ME W186 99 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1-min ASOS wind speed threshold used 0.50 ME W187 99 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET APPENDIX 4.2: AERMOD MODEL INPUT/OUTPUT FILES (ELECTRONIC FORMAT, AVAILABLE ON REQUEST) ** Lakes Environmental AERMOD MPI ** **************************************** ** ** AERMOD INPUT PRODUCED BY: ** AERMOD VIEW VER. 9.9.0 ** LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL SOFTWARE INC. ** DATE: 6/5/2020 ** FILE: C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\13400 FREEWAY HRA\13400 FREEWAY HRA.ADI ** **************************************** ** ** **************************************** ** AERMOD CONTROL PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** CO STARTING TITLEONE C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC MODELOPT DFAULT CONC AVERTIME ANNUAL URBANOPT 3010232 POLLUTID DPM FLAGPOLE 0.00 RUNORNOT RUN ERRORFIL "13400 FREEWAY HRA.ERR" CO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD SOURCE PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** SO STARTING ** SOURCE LOCATION ** ** SOURCE ID - TYPE - X COORD. - Y COORD. ** ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- ** LINE SOURCE REPRESENTED BY ADJACENT VOLUME SOURCES ** LINE VOLUME SOURCE ID = SLINEI ** DESCRSRC I-5 MAINLINE ** PREFIX ** LENGTH OF SIDE = 57.91 ** CONFIGURATION = ADJACENT ** EMISSION RATE = 0.00242 ** VERTICAL DIMENSION = 7.59 ** SZINIT = 3.53 ** NODES = 4 ** 421732.353, 3734852.628, 37.00, 0.00, 26.93 ** 421856.672, 3734643.962, 36.00, 0.00, 26.93 ** 421905.810, 3734500.098, 35.00, 0.00, 26.93 ** 421939.898, 3734380.185, 34.94, 0.00, 26.93 ** LOCATION L0000001 VOLUME 421747.173 3734827.753 37.00 LOCATION L0000002 VOLUME 421776.813 3734778.004 37.00 LOCATION L0000003 VOLUME 421806.453 3734728.254 36.69 LOCATION L0000004 VOLUME 421836.093 3734678.504 36.15 LOCATION L0000005 VOLUME 421862.394 3734627.210 36.00 LOCATION L0000006 VOLUME 421881.112 3734572.408 36.00 LOCATION L0000007 VOLUME 421899.829 3734517.607 35.42 LOCATION L0000008 VOLUME 421916.585 3734462.192 35.00 LOCATION L0000009 VOLUME 421932.421 3734406.489 35.00 ** END OF LINE VOLUME SOURCE ID = SLINEI ** SOURCE PARAMETERS ** ** LINE VOLUME SOURCE ID = SLINEI SRCPARAM L0000001 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 SRCPARAM L0000002 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 SRCPARAM L0000003 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 SRCPARAM L0000004 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 SRCPARAM L0000005 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 SRCPARAM L0000006 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 SRCPARAM L0000007 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 SRCPARAM L0000008 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 SRCPARAM L0000009 0.0002688889 0.00 26.93 3.53 ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- URBANSRC ALL SRCGROUP ALL SO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD RECEPTOR PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** RE STARTING INCLUDED "13400 FREEWAY HRA.ROU" RE FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD METEOROLOGY PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** ME STARTING SURFFILE KSNA_V9_ADJU\KSNA V9.SFC PROFFILE KSNA_V9_ADJU\KSNA_V9.PFL SURFDATA 93184 2012 UAIRDATA 3190 2012 PROFBASE 17.0 METERS ME FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD OUTPUT PATHWAY **************************************** ** ** OU STARTING ** AUTO -GENERATED PLOTFILES PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL "13400 FREEWAY HRA.AD\AN00GALL.PLT" 31 SUMMFILE "13400 FREEWAY HRA.SUM" OU FINISHED *** Message Summary For AERMOD Model Setup *** --------- Summary of Total Messages -------- A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s) A Total of 2 Warning Message(s) A Total of 0 Informational Message(s) ******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** ME W186 99 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1-min ASOS wind speed threshold used 0.50 ME W187 99 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET *********************************** *** SETUP Finishes Successfully *** *********************************** T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 1 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY *** **Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values. -- DEPOSITION LOGIC -- **NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided. **NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided. **Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DRYDPLT = F **Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WETDPLT = F **Model Uses URBAN Dispersion Algorithm for the SBL for 9 Source(s), for Total of 1 Urban Area(s): Urban Population = 3010232.0 ; Urban Roughness Length = 1.000 m **Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options: 1. Stack -tip Downwash. 2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects. 3. Use Calms Processing Routine. 4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine. 5. No Exponential Decay. 6. Urban Roughness Length of 1.0 Meter Assumed. **Other Options Specified: AD] _U* - Use ADJ_U* option for SBL in AERMET CCVR_Sub - Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions TEMP —Sub - Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions **Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights. **The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: DPM **Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only **This Run Includes: 9 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and Receptor(s) with: 0 POINT(s), including 0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s) and: 9 VOLUME source(s) and: 0 AREA type source(s) and: 0 LINE source(s) and: 0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s) and: 0 OPENPIT source(s) and: 0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with 0 line(s) **Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 16216 348 **Output Options Selected: Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword) Model Outputs Separate Summary File of High Ranked Values (SUMMFILE Keyword) **NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours m for Missing Hours b for Both Calm and Missing Hours **Misc. Inputs: Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) = 17.00 Decay Coef. = 0.000 Rot. Angle = 0.0 Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07 Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3 **Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 3.5 MB of RAM. **Input Runstream File: aermod.inp **Output Print File: aermod.out **Detailed Error/Message File: **File for Summary of Results: T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** E FIRST ST.ISC *** *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** 13400 FREEWAY HRA.ERR 13400 FREEWAY HRA.SUM *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 06/05/20 *** 02:17:27 PAGE 2 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** VOLUME SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L0000001 0 0.26889E-03 421747.2 3734827.8 37.0 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES L0000002 0 0.26889E-03 421776.8 3734778.0 37.0 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES L0000003 0 0.26889E-03 421806.5 3734728.3 36.7 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES L0000004 0 0.26889E-03 421836.1 3734678.5 36.1 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES L0000005 0 0.26889E-03 421862.4 3734627.2 36.0 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES L0000006 0 0.26889E-03 421881.1 3734572.4 36.0 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES L0000007 0 0.26889E-03 421899.8 3734517.6 35.4 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES L0000008 0 0.26889E-03 421916.6 3734462.2 35.0 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES L0000009 0 0.26889E-03 421932.4 3734406.5 35.0 0.00 26.93 3.53 YES T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 3 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS *** SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs --------------------- ALL L0000001 L0000002 L0000003 L0000004 L0000005 L0000006 L0000007 L0000008 , L0000009 , T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 4 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** URBAN ID URBAN POP -------- --------- *** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES SOURCE IDs 3010232. L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 L0000006 L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 5 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *** (X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) (METERS) ( 421959.9, 3734566.8, 35.9, 35.9, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734566.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734575.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734584.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734592.8, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734601.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734610.2, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, ( 421982.6, 3734610.2, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, ( 422005.4, 3734610.2, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, ( 422028.1, 3734610.2, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** E FIRST ST.ISC *** *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 7.0); 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 7.0); 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 7.0); 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 7.0); *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 06/05/20 *** 02:17:27 PAGE 6 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *** (X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) (METERS) ( 422050.9, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734610.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734618.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734627.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734636.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734644.9, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421925.7, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734653.5, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, ( 421959.9, 3734653.5, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, ( 421982.6, 3734653.5, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, ( 422005.4, 3734653.5, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, ( 422028.1, 3734653.5, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** E FIRST ST.ISC *** *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 7.0); 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 7.0); 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 7.0); 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 7.0); 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 7.0); *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 06/05/20 *** 02:17:27 PAGE 7 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *** (X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) (METERS) ( 422050.9, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734653.5, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421925.7, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734662.2, 36.0, 36.0, 7.0); ( 421925.7, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734670.9, 36.1, 36.1, 7.0); ( 421925.7, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734679.5, 36.2, 36.2, 7.0); ( 421914.3, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 421925.7, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734688.2, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, ( 422085.0, 3734688.2, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, ( 422107.8, 3734688.2, 3734688.2, 36.3, 36.3, ( 422130.6, 3734688.2, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, ( 421925.7, 3734696.9, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, ( 421948.5, 3734696.9, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** E FIRST ST.ISC *** *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 7.0); 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 7.0); 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 7.0); 36.3, 36.3, 7.0); ( 421914.3, 7.0); 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 7.0); 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 7.0); *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 06/05/20 *** 02:17:27 PAGE 8 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *** (X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) (METERS) ( 421971.2, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734696.9, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421903.0, 3734705.6, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421914.3, 3734705.6, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421925.7, 3734705.6, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734705.6, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734705.6, 36.4, 36.4, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734705.6, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421903.0, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421914.3, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421925.7, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734714.2, 36.5, 36.5, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734714.2, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421903.0, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421914.3, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421925.7, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421937.1, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421948.5, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421959.9, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421971.2, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421982.6, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 421994.0, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422005.4, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422016.8, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422028.1, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422039.5, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422050.9, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422062.3, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422073.7, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422085.0, 3734722.9, 36.6, 36.6, 7.0); ( 422096.4, 3734722.9, 36.7, 36.7, 7.0); ( 422107.8, 3734722.9, 36.7, 36.7, 7.0); ( 422119.2, 3734722.9, 36.7, 36.7, 7.0); ( 422130.6, 3734722.9, 36.7, 36.7, 7.0); T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 9 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING *** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1=YES; 0=NO) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE. *** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *** (METERS/SEC) 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, c :o, T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 10 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA * * * Surface file: KSNA_V9 ADJU\KSNA_V9.SFC Met Version: 16216 Profile file: KSNA V9 ADJU\KSNA V9.PFL Surface format: FREE Profile format: FREE Surface station no.: 93184 Upper air station no.: 3190 Name: UNKNOWN Name: UNKNOWN Year: 2012 Year: 2012 First 24 hours of scalar data YR MO DY JDY HR HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO - - - REF WS - - - - WD - - HT REF TA HT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 01 - - - - 01 1 - - 01 - - - - - - - - - - -4.5 0.082 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 56. 11.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.87 62. 5.8 283.8 2.0 12 01 01 1 02 -3.5 0.073 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 47. 9.9 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.77 27. 5.8 283.1 2.0 12 01 01 1 03 -3.5 0.073 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 47. 9.9 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.77 336. 5.8 283.1 2.0 12 01 01 1 04 -3.3 0.070 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 45. 9.7 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.74 34. 5.8 283.1 2.0 12 01 01 1 05 -3.0 0.068 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 42. 9.4 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.70 154. 5.8 282.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 06 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.00 0. 5.8 282.0 2.0 12 01 01 1 07 -2.0 0.059 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 34. 9.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.55 343. 5.8 281.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 08 -2.6 0.066 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 40. 9.7 0.12 2.65 0.53 0.69 25. 5.8 281.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 09 21.6 0.133 0.252 0.010 27. 116. -9.9 0.12 2.65 0.31 1.03 344. 5.8 282.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 10 115.6 0.162 0.713 0.008 114. 156. -3.3 0.12 2.65 0.24 1.06 233. 5.8 286.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 11 160.9 0.126 1.129 0.005 325. 108. -1.1 0.12 2.65 0.21 0.67 261. 5.8 291.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 12 187.0 0.138 1.467 0.005 614. 123. -1.3 0.12 2.65 0.20 0.75 252. 5.8 294.9 2.0 12 01 01 1 13 186.9 0.189 1.755 0.005 1051. 197. -3.3 0.12 2.65 0.20 1.23 280. 5.8 297.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 14 168.3 0.247 1.857 0.005 1383. 295. -8.1 0.12 2.65 0.21 1.86 268. 5.8 299.2 2.0 12 01 01 1 15 115.3 0.275 1.688 0.005 1517. 346. -16.3 0.12 2.65 0.24 2.25 248. 5.8 298.1 2.0 12 01 01 1 16 41.5 0.262 1.211 0.005 1552. 322. -39.2 0.12 2.65 0.33 2.32 227. 5.8 295.9 2.0 12 01 01 1 17 -17.9 0.217 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 244. 52.0 0.12 2.65 0.60 2.18 227. 5.8 292.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 18 -24.7 0.250 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 300. 68.7 0.12 2.65 1.00 2.50 219. 5.8 288.8 2.0 12 01 01 1 19 -5.2 0.088 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 91. 12.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.94 201. 5.8 287.5 2.0 12 01 01 1 20 -3.5 0.073 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 47. 10.0 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.77 259. 5.8 287.0 2.0 12 01 01 1 21 -2.6 0.064 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 39. 9.1 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.65 264. 5.8 286.4 2.0 12 01 01 1 22 -4.4 0.081 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 55. 10.9 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.86 211. 5.8 285.9 2.0 12 01 01 1 23 -4.2 0.079 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 53. 10.7 0.12 2.65 1.00 0.84 247. 5.8 284.9 2.0 12 01 01 1 24 -7.1 0.103 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 80. 14.1 0.12 2.65 1.00 1.09 236. 5.8 283.8 2.0 First hour of profile data YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV 12 01 01 01 5.8 1 62. 0.87 283.8 99.0 -99.00 -99.00 F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0) T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 11 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 L0000002 L0000003 L0000004 L0000005 , L0000006 L0000007 , L0000008 L0000009 , *** ** *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 421959.87 3734566.84 0.10666 421971.25 3734566.84 0.09644 421982.63 3734566.84 0.08740 421994.01 3734566.84 0.07937 422005.39 3734566.84 0.07220 422016.77 3734566.84 0.06580 422028.15 3734566.84 0.06006 422039.53 3734566.84 0.05491 422050.91 3734566.84 0.05028 422062.29 3734566.84 0.04614 422073.67 3734566.84 0.04242 422085.05 3734566.84 0.03907 422096.43 3734566.84 0.03608 422107.81 3734566.84 0.03340 422119.19 3734566.84 0.03098 422130.57 3734566.84 0.02881 421959.87 3734575.51 0.10469 421971.25 3734575.51 0.09489 421982.63 3734575.51 0.08620 421994.01 3734575.51 0.07846 422005.39 3734575.51 0.07156 422016.77 3734575.51 0.06537 422028.15 3734575.51 0.05981 422039.53 3734575.51 0.05481 422050.91 3734575.51 0.05031 422062.29 3734575.51 0.04625 422073.67 3734575.51 0.04260 422085.05 3734575.51 0.03932 422096.43 3734575.51 0.03636 422107.81 3734575.51 0.03370 422119.19 3734575.51 0.03129 422130.57 3734575.51 0.02913 421959.87 3734584.18 0.10300 421971.25 3734584.18 0.09351 421982.63 3734584.18 0.08510 421994.01 3734584.18 0.07763 422005.39 3734584.18 0.07095 422016.77 3734584.18 0.06496 422028.15 3734584.18 0.05957 422039.53 3734584.18 0.05471 422050.91 3734584.18 0.05032 422062.29 3734584.18 0.04635 422073.67 3734584.18 0.04276 422085.05 3734584.18 0.03953 422096.43 3734584.18 0.03661 422107.81 3734584.18 0.03397 422119.19 3734584.18 0.03158 422130.57 3734584.18 0.02942 421959.87 3734592.85 0.10129 421971.25 3734592.85 0.09209 421982.63 3734592.85 0.08396 421994.01 3734592.85 0.07675 422005.39 3734592.85 3734592.85 0.06450 422028.15 3734592.85 3734592.85 0.05454 422050.91 3734592.85 3734592.85 0.04638 422073.67 3734592.85 3734592.85 0.03969 422096.43 3734592.85 3734592.85 0.03419 422119.19 3734592.85 3734592.85 0.02968 421948.49 3734601.52 3734601.52 0.09952 421971.25 3734601.52 3734601.52 0.08279 421994.01 3734601.52 3734601.52 0.06958 422016.77 3734601.52 3734601.52 0.05890 422039.53 3734601.52 3734601.52 0.05015 422062.29 3734601.52 3734601.52 0.04292 422085.05 3734601.52 3734601.52 0.03696 422107.81 3734601.52 3734601.52 0.03204 T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** E FIRST ST.ISC *** *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** 0.07029 422016.77 0.05927 422039.53 0.05026 422062.29 0.04287 422085.05 0.03681 422107.81 0.03183 422130.57 0.10963 421959.87 0.09063 421982.63 0.07582 422005.39 0.06397 422028.15 0.05431 422050.91 0.04636 422073.67 0.03980 422096.43 0.03438 422119.19 *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 06/05/20 *** 02:17:27 PAGE 12 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 L0000002 L0000003 L0000004 L0000005 , L0000006 L0000007 L0000008 L0000009 , *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS *** ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 422130.57 3734601.52 - - - - - - 0.02991 421948.49 3734610.19 0.10746 421959.87 3734610.19 0.09772 421971.25 3734610.19 0.08915 421982.63 3734610.19 0.08158 421994.01 3734610.19 0.07485 422005.39 3734610.19 0.06883 422016.77 3734610.19 0.06340 422028.15 3734610.19 0.05849 422039.53 3734610.19 0.05403 422050.91 3734610.19 0.04998 422062.29 3734610.19 0.04629 422073.67 3734610.19 0.04292 422085.05 3734610.19 0.03986 422096.43 3734610.19 0.03707 422107.81 3734610.19 0.03453 422119.19 3734610.19 0.03221 422130.57 3734610.19 0.03010 421948.49 3734618.86 0.10525 421959.87 3734618.86 0.09588 421971.25 3734618.86 0.08764 421982.63 3734618.86 0.08034 421994.01 3734618.86 0.07385 422005.39 3734618.86 0.06804 422016.77 3734618.86 0.06279 422028.15 3734618.86 0.05803 422039.53 3734618.86 0.05371 422050.91 3734618.86 0.04976 422062.29 3734618.86 0.04617 422073.67 3734618.86 0.04288 422085.05 3734618.86 0.03988 422096.43 3734618.86 0.03714 422107.81 3734618.86 0.03463 422119.19 3734618.86 0.03235 422130.57 3734618.86 0.03026 421937.11 3734627.53 0.11329 421948.49 3734627.53 0.10305 421959.87 3734627.53 0.09404 421971.25 3734627.53 0.08611 421982.63 3734627.53 0.07909 421994.01 3734627.53 0.07283 422005.39 3734627.53 0.06721 422016.77 3734627.53 0.06214 422028.15 3734627.53 0.05753 422039.53 3734627.53 0.05334 422050.91 3734627.53 0.04950 422062.29 3734627.53 0.04600 422073.67 3734627.53 0.04279 422085.05 3734627.53 0.03986 422096.43 3734627.53 0.03717 422107.81 3734627.53 0.03471 422119.19 3734627.53 0.03245 422130.57 3734627.53 0.03039 421937.11 3734636.20 0.11073 421948.49 3734636.20 0.10086 421959.87 3734636.20 0.09220 421971.25 3734636.20 0.08457 421982.63 3734636.20 0.07781 421994.01 3734636.20 0.07178 422005.39 3734636.20 0.06636 422016.77 3734636.20 0.06145 422028.15 3734636.20 0.05699 422039.53 3734636.20 0.05293 422050.91 3734636.20 0.04921 422062.29 3734636.20 0.04580 422073.67 3734636.20 0.04267 422085.05 3734636.20 0.03980 422096.43 3734636.20 0.03716 422107.81 3734636.20 0.03474 422119.19 3734636.20 0.03252 422130.57 3734636.20 0.03048 421937.11 3734644.87 0.10818 421948.49 3734644.87 0.09868 421959.87 3734644.87 0.09036 421971.25 3734644.87 0.08302 421982.63 3734644.87 0.07652 421994.01 3734644.87 0.07071 422005.39 3734644.87 0.06548 422016.77 3734644.87 0.06074 422028.15 3734644.87 0.05643 T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 13 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 L0000002 L0000003 L0000004 L0000005 , L0000006 L0000007 L0000008 L0000009 , *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS *** ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 422039.53 3734644.87 - - - - - - 0.05248 422050.91 3734644.87 0.04887 422062.29 3734644.87 0.04555 422073.67 3734644.87 0.04250 422085.05 3734644.87 0.03970 422096.43 3734644.87 0.03712 422107.81 3734644.87 0.03475 422119.19 3734644.87 0.03256 422130.57 3734644.87 0.03055 421925.73 3734653.54 0.11599 421937.11 3734653.54 0.10560 421948.49 3734653.54 0.09649 421959.87 3734653.54 0.08851 421971.25 3734653.54 0.08147 421982.63 3734653.54 0.07522 421994.01 3734653.54 0.06962 422005.39 3734653.54 0.06457 422016.77 3734653.54 0.06000 422028.15 3734653.54 0.05583 422039.53 3734653.54 0.05201 422050.91 3734653.54 0.04850 422062.29 3734653.54 0.04528 422073.67 3734653.54 0.04231 422085.05 3734653.54 0.03957 422096.43 3734653.54 0.03705 422107.81 3734653.54 0.03472 422119.19 3734653.54 0.03258 422130.57 3734653.54 0.03060 421925.73 3734662.21 0.11286 421937.11 3734662.21 0.10298 421948.49 3734662.21 0.09429 421959.87 3734662.21 0.08666 421971.25 3734662.21 0.07991 421982.63 3734662.21 0.07390 421994.01 3734662.21 0.06851 422005.39 3734662.21 0.06365 422016.77 3734662.21 0.05923 422028.15 3734662.21 0.05520 422039.53 3734662.21 0.05150 422050.91 3734662.21 0.04810 422062.29 3734662.21 0.04497 422073.67 3734662.21 0.04208 422085.05 3734662.21 0.03941 422096.43 3734662.21 0.03694 422107.81 3734662.21 3734662.21 0.03256 422130.57 3734662.21 3734670.88 0.10923 421937.11 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.09179 421959.87 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.07814 421982.63 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.06726 422005.39 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.05835 422028.15 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.05090 422050.91 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.04459 422073.67 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.03919 422096.43 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.03456 422119.19 3734670.88 3734670.88 0.03059 421925.73 3734679.55 3734679.55 0.09697 421948.49 3734679.55 3734679.55 0.08246 421971.25 3734679.55 3734679.55 0.07090 421994.01 3734679.55 3734679.55 0.06152 422016.77 3734679.55 3734679.55 0.05372 422039.53 3734679.55 3734679.55 0.04712 422062.29 3734679.55 3734679.55 0.04147 T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** E FIRST ST.ISC *** *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** 0.03467 422119.19 0.03062 421925.73 0.09997 421948.49 0.08456 421971.25 0.07241 421994.01 0.06260 422016.77 0.05447 422039.53 0.04762 422062.29 0.04178 422085.05 0.03679 422107.81 0.03250 422130.57 0.10561 421937.11 0.08928 421959.87 0.07635 421982.63 0.06598 422005.39 0.05745 422028.15 0.05029 422050.91 0.04418 422073.67 *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 06/05/20 *** 02:17:27 PAGE 14 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 L0000002 L0000003 L0000004 L0000005 , L0000006 L0000007 , L0000008 L0000009 , *** ** *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 422085.05 3734679.55 - - - - - - 0.03894 422096.43 3734679.55 0.03660 422107.81 3734679.55 0.03443 422119.19 3734679.55 0.03242 422130.57 3734679.55 0.03055 421914.35 3734688.22 0.11117 421925.73 3734688.22 0.10207 421937.11 3734688.22 0.09399 421948.49 3734688.22 0.08679 421959.87 3734688.22 0.08036 421971.25 3734688.22 0.07460 421982.63 3734688.22 0.06941 421994.01 3734688.22 0.06472 422005.39 3734688.22 0.06045 422016.77 3734688.22 0.05655 422028.15 3734688.22 0.05296 422039.53 3734688.22 0.04965 422050.91 3734688.22 0.04659 422062.29 3734688.22 0.04375 422073.67 3734688.22 0.04112 422085.05 3734688.22 0.03867 422096.43 3734688.22 0.03640 422107.81 3734688.22 0.03428 422119.19 3734688.22 0.03231 422130.57 3734688.22 0.03048 421914.35 3734696.89 0.10719 421925.73 3734696.89 0.09871 421937.11 3734696.89 0.09114 421948.49 3734696.89 0.08438 421959.87 3734696.89 0.07831 421971.25 3734696.89 0.07286 421982.63 3734696.89 0.06793 421994.01 3734696.89 0.06346 422005.39 3734696.89 0.05937 422016.77 3734696.89 0.05563 422028.15 3734696.89 0.05219 422039.53 3734696.89 0.04900 422050.91 3734696.89 0.04605 422062.29 3734696.89 0.04331 422073.67 3734696.89 0.04076 422085.05 3734696.89 0.03839 422096.43 3734696.89 0.03618 422107.81 3734696.89 0.03412 422119.19 3734696.89 0.03219 422130.57 3734696.89 0.03040 421902.97 3734705.56 0.11236 421914.35 3734705.56 0.10343 421925.73 3734705.56 0.09548 421937.11 3734705.56 0.08838 421948.49 3734705.56 0.08202 421959.87 3734705.56 0.07628 421971.25 3734705.56 0.07113 421982.63 3734705.56 0.06645 421994.01 3734705.56 0.06219 422005.39 3734705.56 0.05829 422016.77 3734705.56 0.05471 422028.15 3734705.56 0.05141 422039.53 3734705.56 0.04835 422050.91 3734705.56 0.04550 422062.29 3734705.56 0.04286 422073.67 3734705.56 0.04038 422085.05 3734705.56 0.03808 422096.43 3734705.56 0.03593 422107.81 3734705.56 0.03393 422119.19 3734705.56 0.03205 422130.57 3734705.56 0.03030 421902.97 3734714.23 0.10817 421914.35 3734714.23 0.09976 421925.73 3734714.23 0.09232 421937.11 3734714.23 0.08567 421948.49 3734714.23 0.07970 421959.87 3734714.23 0.07432 421971.25 3734714.23 0.06944 421982.63 3734714.23 0.06500 421994.01 3734714.23 0.06094 422005.39 3734714.23 0.05722 422016.77 3734714.23 0.05379 422028.15 3734714.23 0.05061 422039.53 3734714.23 0.04767 422050.91 3734714.23 0.04493 T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 15 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL MWIT1 ,IGIGI.I.IC? *** EZ3 *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S) L0000005 , L0000007 , L0000008 ffiffcoocc. *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 422062.29 3734714.23 - - - - - - - 0.04238 422073.67 3734714.23 0.03999 422085.05 3734714.23 0.03776 422096.43 3734714.23 0.03568 422107.81 3734714.23 0.03372 422119.19 3734714.23 0.03190 422130.57 3734714.23 0.03019 421902.97 3734722.90 0.10408 421914.35 3734722.90 0.09628 421925.73 3734722.90 0.08932 421937.11 3734722.90 0.08308 421948.49 3734722.90 0.07747 421959.87 3734722.90 0.07239 421971.25 3734722.90 0.06778 421982.63 3734722.90 0.06355 421994.01 3734722.90 0.05969 422005.39 3734722.90 0.05614 422016.77 3734722.90 0.05286 422028.15 3734722.90 0.04982 422039.53 3734722.90 0.04699 422050.91 3734722.90 0.04436 422062.29 3734722.90 0.04189 422073.67 3734722.90 0.03959 422085.05 3734722.90 0.03743 422096.43 3734722.90 0.03540 422107.81 3734722.90 0.03350 422119.19 3734722.90 0.03172 422130.57 3734722.90 0.03005 T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 16 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN AD7_U* *** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL RESULTS AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS *** ** CONC OF DPM ** IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID -ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.11599 AT ( 421925.73, 3734653.54, 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.11329 AT ( 421937.11, 3734627.53, 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.11286 AT ( 421925.73, 3734662.21, 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.11236 AT ( 421902.97, 3734705.56, 36.45, 36.45, 7.00) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.11117 AT ( 421914.35, 3734688.22, 36.26, 36.26, 7.00) DC 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.11073 AT ( 421937.11, 3734636.20, 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.10963 AT ( 421948.49, 3734601.52, 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.10923 AT ( 421925.73, 3734670.88, 36.08, 36.08, 7.00) DC 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.10818 AT ( 421937.11, 3734644.87, 36.00, 36.00, 7.00) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.10817 AT ( 421902.97, 3734714.23, 36.54, 36.54, 7.00) DC *** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART GP = GRIDPOLR DC = DISCCART DP = DISCPOLR T *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\1660 E FIRST ST\1660 E FIRST ST.ISC *** 06/05/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** *** *** 02:17:27 PAGE 17 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN ADJ_U* *** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution *** --------- Summary of Total Messages -------- A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s) A Total of 2 Warning Message(s) A Total of 1864 Informational Message(s) A Total of 43848 Hours Were Processed A Total of 1500 Calm Hours Identified A Total of 364 Missing Hours Identified ( 0.83 Percent) ******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** ME W186 99 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1-min ASOS wind speed threshold used 0.50 ME W187 99 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET ************************************ *** AERMOD Finishes Successfully *** ************************************ REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT 4T" AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT Q oESSipN9 S. 2 -- w � No. 78943 Exp 3/31 /22 9T CIVIL DF CAS-�F� Prepared by: Shane S. Green, P.E. Transportation Engineer III Megan Lam Transportation Engineer II CENTRAL POINTE Santa Ana, California July 30, 2020 (Original dated August 27, 2019) Prepared for: ARNEL & AFFILIATES 949 South Coast Drive, 6th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LLG Ref. 2-19-4141-1 Under the Supervision of: Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Principal Q OFESSIO\ E• ems_ jj r No. 2006 Exp 6/30/21 q�F TRAFFIC ; OF a Linscott Law& Greenspan, Engineers 2 Executive Circle 5urte M Irvine, CA 92614 949,lta<W75 ir "RR�6t73 F WIAW.IlgeraginevC 'Oom TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Scope of Work...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area............................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 Project Description..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site Access............................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Existing Street System.......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Public Transit.............................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Bicycle Master Plan.............................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes...................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Existing Intersection Conditions........................................................................................... 8 3.4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis ..................................... 8 3.4.2 Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections)......................................................................................................................... 9 3.4.3 Level of Service Criteria........................................................................................... 12 3.5 Existing Level of Service Results....................................................................................... 12 4.0 Traffic Forecasting Methodology............................................................................................15 5.0 Project Traffic Characteristics................................................................................................ 16 5.1 Project Traffic Generation.................................................................................................. 16 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment...................................................................... 16 5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................ 17 6.0 Future Traffic Conditions........................................................................................................ 20 6.1 Ambient Traffic Growth..................................................................................................... 20 6.2 Related Projects Traffic Characteristics.............................................................................. 20 6.3 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions............................................................................................. 25 6.4 Year 2025 and Year 2040 Traffic Volumes........................................................................ 25 6.4.1 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes...................................................................................... 25 6.4.2 Year 2040 Traffic Volumes...................................................................................... 25 7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology.................................................................................... 26 7.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds........................................................................................... 26 7.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios...................................................................................... 27 8.0 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis............................................................................. 28 8.1 Existing Plus Project Analysis............................................................................................ 28 8.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................. 28 8.2 Year 2025 Traffic Conditions............................................................................................. 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 8.2.1 Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions............................................................... 32 8.2.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions....................................................... 32 8.3 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions............................................................................................. 37 8.3.1 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions................................................................................... 37 8.3.2 Year 2040 Plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................... 37 9.0 State of California (Caltrans) Analysis................................................................................... 42 9.1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) ......... 42 9.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................ 44 9.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions....................................................................................... 44 9.2.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................. 44 9.3 Year 2025 Traffic Conditions............................................................................................. 46 9.3.1 Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions............................................................... 46 9.3.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions ........................................... 46 9.4 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions............................................................................................. 48 9.4.1 Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions.................................................................... 48 9.4.2 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions ................................................ 48 10.0 Site Access and Internal Circulation Evaluation................................................................... 50 10.1 Site Access.......................................................................................................................... 50 10.2 Queuing Analysis................................................................................................................ 50 10.2.1 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions .......................................... 50 10.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation........................................................................................... 54 10.4 Sight Distance Evaluation................................................................................................... 54 11.0 Recommended Intersection Improvements............................................................................ 55 11.1 Planned and/or Recommended Improvements................................................................... 55 11.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................ 55 11.1.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions ..................................... 55 11.1.3 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions .......................................... 56 11.2 Project -Specific Improvements........................................................................................... 56 11.3 Recommended Circulation Enhancement........................................................................... 56 11.4 Project -Related Fair -Share Contribution............................................................................ 57 12.0 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Compliance Assessment ................................... 59 13.0 Summary Of Findings And Conclusions................................................................................ 61 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Traffic Study Scope of Work B. Existing Traffic Count Data C. Year 2040 Modeling Worksheets D. Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets E. Caltrans Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets F. Project Driveway Level of Service Calculation Worksheets G. Queueing Worksheets H. Signal Warrant Worksheets LIST OF FIGURES SECTION —FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 1-1 Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................2 2-1 Existing Aerial Site Photograph.........................................................................................4 2-2 Proposed Site Plan...............................................................................................................4 3-1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls...............................................7 3-2 OCTA Transit Map............................................................................................................7 3-3 Transit Stop Locations.......................................................................................................7 3-4 City of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan..........................................................................7 3-5 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................................................................8 3-6 Existing PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes......................................................8 5-1 Project Traffic Distribution Pattern ................................................................................ 19 5-2 AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes....................................................................... 19 5-3 PM Peak Hour and Daily Project Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 19 5-4 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................... 19 5-5 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes .............................. 19 6-1 Location of Cumulative Projects..................................................................................... 20 6-2 AM Peak Hour Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ................................................... 20 6-3 PM Peak Hour and Daily Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes .................................. 20 6-4 Year 2025 Cumulative AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................ 25 6-5 Year 2025 Cumulative PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ........................... 25 6-6 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................... 25 6-7 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ..... 25 6-8 Year 2040 Buildout AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 25 6-9 Year 2040 Buildout PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes ................................ 25 6-10 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................... 25 6-11 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes .......... 25 10-1 SU-30 Truck Turning Analysis...................................................................................... 54 10-2 Project Driveways Sight Distance Analysis.................................................................. 54 11-1 Planned and Recommended Improvements.................................................................. 57 11-2 Conceptual Improvement Plan: 4th Street from I-5 NB Ramps to Cabrillo Park Dr..... 57 LIST OF TABLES SECTION —TABLE # PAGE 2-1 Project Development Summary..........................................................................................5 3-1 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections ................................................ 10 3-2 Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections ............................................ 11 3-3 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis..................................................13-14 5-1 Project Traffic Generation Rates and Forecast............................................................... 18 5-2 Project Directional Distribution Pattern .......................................................................... 19 6-1 Location and Description of Cumulative Projects.....................................................21-22 6-2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Generation Forecast......................................................23-24 8-1 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis.............................29-31 8-2 Year 2025 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis .......................... 34-36 8-3 Year 2040 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................... 39-41 9-1 Level of Service Criterial for Signalized Intersections (HCM)..................................... 43 9-2 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis - Caltrans ................. 45 9-3 Year 2025 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis - Caltrans .............. 47 9-4 Year 2040 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis - Caltrans................... 49 10-1 Project Driveway Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................ 52 10-2 Year 2040 Buildout Peak Hour Queueing Analysis....................................................... 53 11-1 Year 2040 Buildout Project Fair -Share Contribution..................................................... 58 12-1 Project Percentage Radius of Influence CMP Analysis ................................................. 60 REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT 4T" AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT CENTRAL POINTE Santa Ana, California July 30, 2020 (Original dated August 27, 2019) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Traffic Impact Analysis report addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with 41h and Cabrillo Mixed -Use Project, formally named Central Pointe, (hereinafter referred to as Project) in the City of Santa Ana. The project proponent, Arnell & Affiliates, proposes to develop up to 644 apartment units, and up to 15,200 square -feet (SF) of retail/commercial floor area consisting of 3,500 SF of restaurant use and 11,700 SF of retail space. The Project site is an 8.35-acre vacant parcel of land within the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone that is generally located north of 4th Street, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, and west of Cabrillo Park Drive. 1.1 Scope of Work This traffic report documents the findings and recommendations of a traffic impact analysis conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine the potential impacts associated with the proposed Project. The traffic analysis evaluates the existing operating conditions at twenty-five (25) key study intersections within the project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed Project, and forecasts future near -term (Year 2025) and long-term (Year 2040) operating conditions without and with the proposed Project. Where necessary, intersection improvements/mitigation measures are identified. This revised traffic report satisfies the traffic impact requirements of the City of Santa Ana and is consistent with the current Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County and addresses comments of City staff based on review of the draft traffic study. The Scope of Work for this traffic study, which is included in Appendix A, was developed in conjunction with and reflects input City of Santa Ana Public Works Department staff. The project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed. Existing weekday peak hour traffic count information has been collected at twenty-five (25) key study intersections for use in the preparation of intersection level of service calculations. Information concerning cumulative projects (planned and/or approved) in the vicinity of the proposed Project has been researched at the City of Santa Ana and City of Tustin. Based on our research, there are twenty-eight (28) related projects located in the City of Santa Ana and two (2) related projects located in the City of Tustin. The thirty (30) related projects were considered in the cumulative traffic analysis for this project. This traffic report analyzes existing and future weekday daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions for a near -term (Year 2025) and long-term (Year 2040) traffic setting upon completion of the proposed Project. Near -term (Year 2025) cumulative daily and peak hour traffic forecasts were projected by incorporating a one percent (1.0%) annual growth rate and the trip generation potential of thirty (30) related projects. Long-term (Year 2040) daily and peak hour traffic forecasts were projected based on modeled traffic projections prepared by OCTA utilizing the OCTAM 4.0 Year 2040 Model. 1.2 Study Area Based on a "50 trip threshold" for analysis and collaboration with City staff, twenty-five (25) key study intersections have been identified for evaluation. The twenty-five (25) intersections listed below provide regional and local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation. Key Study Intersections 1. Elk Lane at First Street (Santa Ana) 2. I-5 SB On -Ramp at First Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street (Santa Ana) 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street (Santa Ana) 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street (Tustin) 6. Yorba Street at First Street (Tustin) 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4a' Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 41 Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 41 Street (Santa Ana) 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4t' Street (Santa Ana) 11. Park Center Drive at 4t' Street (Santa Ana) 12. Tustin Avenue at 41 Street (Santa Ana) 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 41 Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4t' Street (Tustin/Caltrans) 15. Yorba Street at 4« Street (Tustin) 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road (Santa Ana) 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Center Access Road (Santa Ana) 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17« Street (Santa Ana) 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue (Santa Ana) 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue (Santa Ana) 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place (Santa Ana) Figure 1-1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project and depicts the study locations and surrounding street system. The Level of Service (LOS) investigations at these key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic -related impacts associated with area growth, cumulative projects and the proposed Project. When necessary, this report recommends intersection and/or roadway improvements that may be required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service, and/or mitigates the impact of the project. Wert ly s. {#,r Wells Fargo Bank harnrler Bijy+ Pcpeyes 7th St Louisiana Kitchen 17th St El PoDo Loca 18 • 1 7th S1 5tarbucks Navy Federal z z Crodii Union C,] E a Superior Grocers E t6Th Albertsons Ross Dress far Less a R Little Caesars Pi2za In. E 151h St ^t E SI E 15th Si m stdth m E 14th St 4j < Black Angus Steakhouse sc Jack in the Raxw 3 y 4 � El Tori to 17thSt Citibank V � � r Enderle Center l Belacan Grill - CVS Malaysian Bistro � The Crah Cooker 55 f %.P UandenW Via Lindo A Win Calma Fiaslei Way E Washington Avg 1 g H � r � • E Wellingronikve 7 3 o 9�okve EWE11irin37 Ave n Q ro`�%Rdn L� r 1 m ro 2E �'� E�t+elll�g[onA,. • aj k Qr,.QSt n + Redwoods HorrieONTlers y Orange County i!3 AssaClati0rl Ynf Global Medical Center r'lorwood Pack Pr S p 2 f w C or abury Park © us + 21 ® Parker Dr yt E Ru,t St • • E Emit St •© Lake1)iann14Apartrnents E Fruit St 4 vinNeOr g m o ss a y o x.i* a Cabrillo Park c� Village Apartments ar0�1 _ Ainaganset Way Q E6th St American Red Cross E4Ih8t { t Bland Donation Center ©5 Helen Estock!j E 6t1, SC a7. _ _ _ en 7.4 ........... ....... E 6th 5t LA_ ' Elernentary School z D at- Chevrorl a g is 13e Andy rt & \ g Califon :! r: artrxa •• �., of Tr' firiiiJ Think Together g ThA UPS Store neOC g 10 11 12 13 14 Vii,twoodAve 15 We m Wellington Avo Big 4rangO Tree Ln Uri NO U) no ChBtharnUt � G Th- Sherbraok Dr AmagstON gY er' �7 m ry 7 E 4ih St • • • Can I o de WVi • Del fuco • Irvir>iAlvd • Irvine Blvd Amaganset Way Weatbury Ln Cc Tu I'. - Mn St E dth 5t 1 su C Encompass Health 16 St. Joseph Herltage Rehabilitation Hospital... tie-9 Our Lady of Guadalupe + Medical Gralup Santa„ 2 z ns Church (3rd) 8 o Palm5l Nfrieteen0l -4 Z. sur Tires a Social Securit • Ap�artrnenI Hame9 The Pith Bike Soap �_ � a ll2ntas.... Motel 6 Santa AnaAvil�1's El Ranch ' McDonald's El Pella Nortefin dminlstration 17 O1 v O F1ir�rSireei y • • • Corn oundir3 Pharmac • '�� First St • VU First St V4 First St E First St E First St E First S# P Y j V3 Sarrta Arta DMV W S K F Advarl e ehab I Peaportre2 I Star Ine _ C'.pnlar of Ti ictin 5 h P.-:irle 15NO SCALE SOURCE: GOOGLE KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION = ROADWAY SEGMENT = PROJECT SITE FIGURE 1-1 VICINITY MAP 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA Included in this Traffic Impact Analysis are: ■ Existing traffic counts, ■ Estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, ■ Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, ■ AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing conditions, ■ AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing plus project conditions, ■ AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for future near -term (Year 2025) traffic conditions without and with the proposed Project, ■ AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for future long-term (Year 2040) traffic conditions without and with the proposed Project, ■ Caltrans Analysis, ■ Site Access Evaluation, ■ Queueing Analysis, ■ Internal Circulation and Sight Distance Evaluation, ■ Recommended Intersection Improvements, ■ Congestion Management Program Compliance Assessment, and 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is an 8.35-acre vacant parcel of land within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone that is generally located north of 4th Street, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway, and west of Cabrillo Park Drive. Figure 2-1 is an existing aerial photograph of the Project site. Table 2-1 summarizes the project development totals. The proposed Project includes the development of up to 644 apartment units, 3,500 SF restaurant uses and 11,700 SF of retail space. The proposed Project will provide a total of 1,300 parking spaces within two buildings along with 18 surface parking spaces. "Building A" is proposed as a five -story apartment podium with up to 325 apartment homes consisting of approximately 19 (±5.8%) studio units, 162 (f49.8%) one -bedroom units, 121 (±37.2%) two -bedroom units and 23 (±7.1%) three -bedroom units and approximately 6,100 SF of ground floor retail/commercial space and 3,500 SF restaurant space "wrapped" around an eight -level partial subterranean parking structure with a total of approximately 650 spaces along with 9 ground floor spaces for retail/leasing. "Building B" is proposed as a five -story apartment podium with up to 319 apartment homes consisting of approximately 20 (±6.3%) studio units, 164 (±51.4%) one -bedroom units, 127 (±39.8%) two -bedroom units and 8 (±2.5%) three -bedroom units and approximately 5,600 SF of ground floor retail/commercial space "wrapped" around a eight -level partial subterranean parking structure with a total of approximately 650 spaces along with 9 ground floor spaces for retail/leasing. On -site facilities/amenities of the proposed Project include a leasing office, a lounge/lobby, business center, pool/spa, and a fitness center for residents. Figure 2-2 presents the preferred Project site plan, prepared by KTGY. The Project is expected to be constructed and completed by Year 2025, which has been utilized to assess the Project's potential traffic impacts at full occupancy of the project within an opening year traffic setting. 2.1 Site Access Vehicular access to the proposed Project will be provided via one (1) full access unsignalized driveway along Park Court Place and one (1) right in/out only driveway located along 4th Street. As part of the proposed Project's design features, an exclusive southbound right -turn lane will be constructed at the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. Additionally, Project's curb face is planned to be set back far enough to accommodate improvements at I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street, which include the construction of an additional right -turn lane. 2.2 Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation for the proposed Project would be provided via existing public sidewalks along Park Court Place, Cabrillo Park Drive, and 4' Street within the vicinity of the Project. The existing sidewalk system within the Project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the existing development located along major thoroughfares. Pedestrian access to both the residential and retail components of the Project will be provided via building entries/exits located on Park Court Place and 4th Street. (tNO SCALE SOURCE: GOOGLE KEY = PROJECT SITE FIGURE 2-1 EXISTING AERIAL SITE PLAN 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers TABLE 2-1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Land Use / Project Description Project Development Totals' 41" & Cabrillo Apartments ❑ Building A 0 Studio Units 19 Units (5.8%) 0 1 Bedroom Units 162 Units (49.8%) 0 2 Bedroom Units 121 Units (37.2%) 0 3 Bedroom Units 23 Units (7.1%) ❑ Building B o Studio Units 20 Units (6.3%) 0 1 Bedroom Units 164 Units (51.4%) 0 2 Bedroom Units 127 Units (39.8%) 0 3 Bedroom Units 8 Units (2.5%) Total Residential Units: 644 Units ❑ Building A Retail 6,100 SF ❑ Building A Restaurant 3,500 SF ❑ Building B Retail 5,600 SF Total Retail Space: 15,200 SF Parking Supply ❑ Parking Structure 0 Building A 650 spaces 0 Building B 650 spaces ❑ Surface Parking Lot o Retail/Leasing 18 spaces Total Parking Supply: 1,318 spaces Source: Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by KTGY, dated February 28, 2020. 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing Street System The principal local network of streets serving the project site is First Street, 4th Street, 17th Street, Park Court Place, Cabrillo Park Drive, and Tustin Avenue. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of these key area streets. The descriptions are based on an inventory of existing roadway conditions. First Street a four to six -lane, divided roadway in the vicinity of the project, oriented in the east - west direction that provides two or three lanes in each direction separated by a raised median island. The posted speed limit on First Street is 35 mph. On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway. A traffic signal controls the study intersections of First Street at Mabury Street/Elk Lane, I-5 SB On Ramp, Cabrillo Park Drive, Golden Center Drive, Tustin Avenue, and Yorba Street. 4' Street is a six -lane, divided roadway oriented in the east -west direction that provides three eastbound and three westbound travel lanes separated by a raised median island. The posted speed limit on Fourth Street is 40 miles per hour (mph). On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the project. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Fourth Street at I-5 SB Off -Ramp, I-5 NB On -Ramp, Cabrillo Park Drive, Golden Circle Drive, Park Center Drive, Tustin Avenue, SR-55 SB Ramps, SR-55 NB Ramps and Yorba Street. East of the SR-55 Freeway, Fourth Street is known as Irvine Boulevard within the City of Tustin. 17'h Street is a six -lane, divided roadway oriented in the east -west direction. The posted speed limit on 17th Street is 40 mph. On -street parking is not permitted on either side of this roadway in the vicinity of the Project. A traffic signal controls the study intersection of 17th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive. Park Court Place is a two-lane, divided roadway oriented in the east -west direction. The posted speed limit on Park Court Place is 25 mph. On -street parking is not permitted on either side of this roadway in the vicinity of the Project. Cabrillo Park Drive is a four -lane, divided roadway that borders the project site to the east, oriented in the north -south direction. The posted speed limit on Cabrillo Park Drive is 35 mph. On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the project. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Fourth Street, State Fund Access Road, Xerox Centre Access Road, and First Street. Tustin Avenue is a six -lane, divided roadway, oriented in the north -south direction. On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit on Tustin Avenue is 40 mph. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Tustin at Fourth Street, First Street, Wellington Avenue, and Fruit Street. Figure 3-1 presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions for the arterials and intersections evaluated in this report. This figure identifies the number of travel lanes for key arterials, as well as intersection configurations and controls for the key area study intersections. 3.1.1 Public Transit Public transit bus service is provided in the project area by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Four (4) OCTA bus routes operate within the vicinity of the project site on First Street, 4th Street, 17th Street, and Tustin Avenue, which consists of the following: ■ OCTA Route 60: The major routes of travel include 17th Street and Tustin Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on 17th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the northwest and southwest corners. Route 60 operates on approximate 30-minute headways during weekdays and 20-minute headways on weekends. ■ OCTA Route 64: The major route of travel is First Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on First Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the southeast and northeast corners. Route 64 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and 20-minutes on the weekends. ■ OCTA Route 71: The major route of travel is Tustin Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on Tustin Avenue at 4th Street in the northeast and southwest corners. Route 71 operates on approximate 30-minute headways on the weekdays and 45-minute headways on the weekends. ■ OCTA Route 463: The major route of travel is 4th Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on 4th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the northeast and southeast corners. Route 463 operates on approximate 25-minute headways on the weekdays and no bus service on the weekends. Figure 3-2 graphically illustrates the transit routes of OCTA within the vicinity of the project. Figure 3-3 identifies the locations of the existing bus stops in proximity to the Project site. 3.2 Bicycle Master Plan The City of Santa Ana promotes bicycling as a means of mobility and a way in which to improve the quality of life within its community. The Bikeway Master Plan recognizes the needs of bicycle users and aims to create a complete and safe bicycle network throughout the City. Currently, not many bicycle facilities exist in the study area. However, review of Figure 3-4, which presents the City's Bikeway Master Plan, shows that a Class I bike path is proposed to be built along Tustin Avenue within the vicinity of the Project. W A / \ / \ / Jo \ / \ / Jo OL 17TH 18Q NP ST 1� / 1\ \\ �y. I / / 0 > NP 40 SIGNAL E 2 PHASE SIGNAL E 5 PHASE �' / 6 PHASE SIGNAL \ 5 PHASE o \ _N/S SPLIT \ ,SIGNAL \ _N/S SPLIT \ ,SIGNAL \ _N/S SPLIT \ _ _ ,SIGNAL p o ELK LN @ 1-5 SB ON -RAMP @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ TUSTIN AVE @ YORBA ST @ N N FIRST ST FIRST ST FIRST ST FIRST ST FIRST ST FIRST ST N Cn C Ln 19 z z WELLINGTON 2U o \ ©0 3 PHASE SIGNAL 3 PHASE SIGNAL \ 6 PHASE SIGNAL 5 PHASE SIGNAL ONE-WAY STOP 8 PHASE SIGNAL IL AVE \� \� \Li _N/SSPLIT p cNii c 1-5 SB ON -RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ PARK CENTER DR @ TUSTIN AVE @ `s v MABURY ST @ 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 3 2 ?o 4TH ST FRUIT 21 © 2U P ST (35) P D D v� 3 PHASE 3 PHASE 6 PHASE GNAL 3 PHASE 3 PHASE] o o \ _ — SIGNAL \ _ _ SIGNAL \ _NI/S SPLIT \ SIGNAL \ _ — SIGNAL a SR-55 SB RAMPS @ SR-55 NB RAMPS @ YORBA ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ 6 z o o z z 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD c PARK CT(@ PL N 4TH 0AL 11 ST 12 13 14 15 6D NP E 40 NP 5 PHASE TWO-WAY 5 PHASE ALL -WAY \ ALL-WAY.L o SIGNAL STOP SIGNAL STOP STOP -0 c STATE FUND 16 ACCESS RD z CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ TUSTIN AVE @ MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ U A m 1//N 17TH ST WELLINGTON AVE WELLINGTON AVE FRUIT ST FRUIT ST EROX CENTR Cf) 17 ACCESS RD FIRST 6D ST 35) O5 NP II O O ® N m TWO-WAY 2 PHASE TWO-WAY o © STOP SIGNAL STOP z PARK CENTER DR @ TUSTIN AVE @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ FRUIT ST FRUIT ST PARK COURT PL KILT 1 LINSCOTT = APPROACH LANE ASSIGNMENT FIGURE — 1 • =TRAFFIC SIGNAL, = STOP SIGN P = PARKING, NP = NO PARKING GREENSPAN U = UNDIVIDED, D = DIVIDED 2 = NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS (tNO SCALE (XX)= POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS F = FREE -RIGHT, OL = OVERLAP = PROJECT SITE 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA o 1 11111111 ANTA ANA STATION 11 1 r. (tNO SCALE SOURCE: OCTA KEY = PROJECT SITE ms 0 0 N 40 0 0 N N �E _ � o 116�� ° ► .MEN � a . a rn - � N ' . O - � O I _ � rrrrrrri C J FIGURE 3-2 OCTA TRANSIT MAP 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA Phan nedNarerrthood Santa Ana Healthy Center Q 17th St Starbucks 17 Tar et 0 Zov's Bakery jo Superior Grocers Ross Dr® for LessQ O O Q Q E 15ih4 €SStiS`t € G 1a<onden�� m OE 141h SC y m n- Pluck Angus Stenkhou$e se 0 T E Washingion kvz ry M A D U R Y PARK E WvllingtPn fixe Q QT [L ,nr nr ersd's'`' R*dwobds Homeowners � Orarlj7fbUrlty Association Global Medi Center � E FnrS 5t s Lake p-ionne Apartrr�­ts a 0 0 y N ��ypytpn live I O 91 yr o crd o t, Nor o r Sa J Chatham or rn L' 3 n ThE v r7 4 Bherhtoak Dr Gbbr1110 Park � �s f Armawnsel Way 3: E yin=-- Helen Estock wsa,bwyl o hSt _ _ a Ermsr ElernentnrySChool Milicr IA Co l ur 'vron SADDLEBACK �..... 1 s Q Tustir ._ •••i t VIEW p Consulado de Mexico T wine Olvd Iry E o Q ElQ x a ° a c Motel 6 Santa Ana Social Security AdminIs#oon p O(D� m O O United ostal` �'y '!' E F11%St Q sS I W FIr51 Ga y Q a €�- Santa Ana DMV w O O 23 r- F � F.IrRI� Ts O rinm S7 u - 14 try¢ SL J SOURCE: GOGGLE LINSCOTT KEY FIGURE 3-3 (tNO PROJECT SITE GREENSPAN SCALE = TRANSIT STOP TRANSIT STOP LOCATIONS 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA Exhibit 2 Bikeway Master PlanZf Ix -` V —_ - I, 1 � � � h � � li- Wit'' �� •� — - - �"'` _ _ ; � Fryt ss 1 � _ �` 4 Ar�lBar� - - - - 3 IC' v 11 1 _l 7 - � 7 SOURCE: CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN LINSCOTT KEY FIGURE 3-4 N C —1 = PROJECT SITE NO SCALE CITY OF SANTA ANA BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes Twenty-five (25) key study intersections have been identified as the locations at which to evaluate existing and future traffic operating conditions. Some portion of potential project -related traffic will pass through each of these intersections, and their analysis will reveal the expected relative impacts of the project. These key locations were selected for evaluation based on discussions with City of Santa Ana staff and in consideration of Orange County CMP requirements. Existing daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections evaluated in this report were obtained from manual turning movement counts conducted by National Data and Surveying Services in May 2019. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections evaluated in this report, respectively. Figure 3-6 also presents the existing average daily traffic volumes for twelve (12) key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Appendix B contains the detailed peak hour and daily traffic count sheets for the key intersections and roadway segments evaluated in this report. 3.4 Existing Intersection Conditions Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) for unsignalized intersections. 3.4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis In conformance with Cities of Santa Ana, Tustin and Orange County CMP requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time, and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Per City of Santa Ana requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through lanes and 1,600 vph for left -turn lanes and right -turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. Per City of Tustin requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning INO SCALE JN \\ `V 698 \ r 43 cV _K LN IRST ST ?I \\ ' `N 630 \ r 38 / 3 ON -RAMP/ IURY ST 4TH ST / 798 \ r 315 700� \ 627� \ \ / / 1-5 SB ON -RAMP @ FIRST ST / 447 \ 511 \ 37--" \ 911— \ � N/ 1-5 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / ^ ' 1084\ J r 452 \ 507— \ 989---� \ \ / / SR-55 SIB RAMPS 4TH ST 18 Im-o_ L 34\ 743 220 \ \ 23� 856�, } �/� \ \ 4� / \ / CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST 2351 45 PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION •;• = PROJECT SITE /��U-) 16\ `Vr'r�831\ 23 \\ 4833� } r I CABRILLO PARK DR FIRST ST /o 43\ `V `V — 562 \ / j ` r 68 \ 169---' 704— c } \ \ 6---� / CABRILLO PARK DR 4TH ST / �741\ 1120 \ 176J \ 382— r, SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / a N L 33\ / NLoN 0 \ 119 \ 2 \ � } r5y N CABRILLO PARK DR WELLINGTON AVE 24 /� —1-1 25\ 25 \ \ 1—' r cD TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST 61\ `V `V r' 906 \ /Jj� 60 \ 42-j 487— c }00 \ 13� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST 24\ 639 \ 15� 868—, } �� \ 93� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST /N N CO 32\ / J 49\ i � r 13 \58--' 585— , } \ \ 4---� �2 / YORBA ST 4TH ST /ao r 2 \ 13 \ \ 105--j \ 11— } l 2/ TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE 3 \ \ 0— C } n \ 109� c N CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL 21 625 \ \\ 336— `l } " I TUSTIN AVE FIRST ST / r, 85\ / J 7763 \ 78� \ 898— \ \ — / / PARK CENTER DR 4TH ST 99\ F 487\ a \ 605� \ N 0 33� \ / rn \ / YORBA ST ® 0 N FIRST ST r N 12 1 0 / D c 33\ `V^"' 608\ o \ 130--� ' O 705— \ 24--, oO '�lo- ,N / N J TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST 3 16 w O '00 \ Lr) \ NM \ 9 \ � / 10 77 \ 1 rn \ 6� NM / \ 4­A "'cc YI)i a CABRILLO PARK DR ® CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD o 0 21 / 22 / — / 0 0 11 \ 00 cc) 35\ / 17 \ 5 / J i b �16 \ 40 -o °x' \ 1J `l } r \ 22J , } r E 6CN \ N7� \ CcliM r-- 31� 146� U MABURY ST ® CABRILLO PARK DR @ a`8 FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FIGURE 3-5 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA 15NO SCALE 'N�748� r 35 �y 00 - / N / _K LN @ IRST ST J N 882 57 �y I / 3 ON -RAMP/ IURY ST 4TH ST / f 780 r 309 \ 1234� 865� / \ \ / 1-5 SB ON —RAMP FIRST ST / 921 f 77n \ 75J 730� r 00 N 1-5 NB RAMPS 4TH ST oo N — 1089\ j ` 372 \ 843— \ 484---� / SR-55 SB RAMPS 4TH ST /o l oo 52\ 1188\ �1 l� 131 \ 46J 998— } r �I 108---� cl' CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST / 6\ V 101 22 \ � 77} PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST ® = STUDY INTERSECTION XX,XXX►= STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT :• = PROJECT SITE /�2 o 13\ 22 1� \ 384--� } 841— `l / \ / CABRILLO PARK DR FIRST ST O -00 I 1-1/I r- o r 86\ 4359\ \ 2212� 611: 1 } r 52� / \ \ / / CABRILLO PARK DR 4TH ST / 684 1146 \ 282" 1 r �1047— LO m o / N N \ / SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST 66\ 53 \ 2- 1 } r 0� � ID CABRILLO PARK DR WELLINGTON AVE /oo N 6 3\ co / 10 j � 48 \ \ 105� , } r 58—, M \ / TUSTIN AVE FRUIT ST 59\ a ' — 688 36 \ 67� 846� } CN 16­� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST 10 / 15\ 848 \ 26J 741— � } / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST 15 /cc:) n 61 \ 1457\ \ 129J 1031— 1.0 r } � / \ 144---� N N YORBA ST 4TH ST 20 14\ 29 \ 40 J � } (' \ 76� M � \ 2 / / TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE / o 34\ 00 rn f 0 535 co CN 84­� / CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL /� CD N 39\ / 65 J + � 5� \ 454-, ID} r I TUSTIN AVE FIRST ST 55 937 \ 78--" 916— / \ \ — / / PARK CENTER DR 4TH ST 41 98--" 0 � \ 545— } 34� / 0 0 0 YORBA ST @ N FIRST ST co 0 12 / 1 0 /, 340\ 824 /�f �1,r145 N \ 210J � } r a; 0 669— � (N � 48� . N / / a_ J TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST ° 3 Cy)N 156J } 114��0 / �140­� �2� / O CABRILLO PARK DR ® CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD o 0 21 /' 22 /' — j /O N N 46\ /a ' - Ln 93\ U) .� �. 60 6 / NNE f 68 24 o °x16— ' � 22� N Lrc,)) o U MABURY ST © CABRILLO PARK DR ® -ld FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FIGURE 3-6 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA w N 0 N 0 0 c movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 3-1. 3.4.2 Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) Two-way stop -controlled intersections are comprised of a major street, which is uncontrolled, and a minor street, which is controlled by stop signs. Level of service for a two-way stop -controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay. The control delay by movement, by approach, and for the intersection as a whole is estimated by the computed capacity for each movement. LOS is determined for each minor -street movement (or shared movement) as well as major -street left turns. The worst side street approach delay is reported. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole or for major -street approaches, as it is assumed that major -street through vehicles experience zero delay. The HCM control delay value range for two-way stop - controlled intersections is shown in Table 3-2. TABLE 3-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU METHODOLOGY) Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer A <_ 0.60 than one red light, and no approach phase is fully used. VERY GOOD. An occasional approach B 0.61 — 0.70 phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to C 0.71 — 0.80 wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough D 0.81 — 0.90 lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. POOR. Represents the most vehicles E 0.91 — 1.00 intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent F > 1.00 movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. TABLE 3-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 6 METHODOLOGY)' Level of Service (LOS) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A < 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and <_ 15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and <_ 25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and <_ 35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and <_ 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 20: Two -Way Stop -Controlled Intersections. The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major -street approaches or for the intersection as a whole. 3.4.3 Level of Service Criteria According to the Cities of Santa Ana and Tustin, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the peak commute hours. However, the City of Santa Ana has defined exceptions to this criterion at specific locations within the study area. The City of Santa Ana has defined major development areas where LOS "E" is considered acceptable. Based on the above, the following summarizes the LOS required for each key study intersection: ➢ LOS "D" Requirements: 1. Elk Lane at First Street 2. I-5 SB On -Ramp at First Street 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street 6. Yorba Street at First Street 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 41 Street 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4' Street 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4' Street ➢ LOS "E" Requirements: 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 41h Street 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4' Street 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street 3.5 Existing Level of Service Results 15. Yorba Street at 4th Street 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 171 Street 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place 12. Tustin Avenue at 4' Street 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Center Access Road 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street Table 3-3 summarizes the existing peak hour service level calculations for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometrics. Review of Table 3-3 indicates that twenty-four (24) of the twenty-five key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street currently operates at unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour. Appendix D presents the ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculation worksheets for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. TABLE 3-3 EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minimum Acceptable Control Time Key Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Type Period ICU/HCM LOS Elk Lane at 40 Traffic AM 0.599 A 1. First Street Santa Ana D Signal PM 0.716 C I-5 SB On Ramp at Santa Ana/ 20 Traffic AM 0.599 A 2 First Street Caltrans D Signal PM 0.716 C Cabrillo Park Drive at 60 Traffic AM 0.425 A 3. Santa Ana E First Street Signal PM 0.584 A Golden Circle Drive at 50 Traffic AM 0.450 A 4. First Street Santa Ana E Signal PM 0.544 A Tustin Avenue at 60 Traffic AM 0.331 A 5. Tustin D First Street Signal PM 0.324 A Yorba Street at 50 Traffic AM 0.396 A <. Tustin D First Street Signal PM 0.418 A I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at Santa Ana/ 30 Traffic AM 0.448 A 7 4th street Caltrans D Signal PM 0.526 A I-5 NB Ramps at Santa Ana/ 30 Traffic AM 0.357 A 8 41h Street Caltrans D Signal PM 0.395 A Cabrillo Park Drive at 60 Traffic AM 0.429 A 9. 4t' Street Santa Ana E Signal PM 0.774 C Golden Circle Drive at 50 Traffic AM 0.398 A 10. 4�h Street Santa Ana E Signal PM 0.405 A Park Center Drive at One -Way AM 13.7 s/v B 11. 4th Street Santa Ana E Stop PM 16.2 s/v C Tustin Avenue at 80 Traffic AM 0.667 B 12. 4th Street Santa Ana E Signal PM 0.738 C SR-55 SB Ramps at Santa Ana/ 30 Traffic AM 0.978 E 13. 41h Street Caltrans D Signal PM 0.748 C SR-55 NB Ramps at Tustin/ 30 Traffic AM 0.670 B 14. 4th Street Caltrans D Signal PM 0.689 B Yorba Street at 60 Traffic AM 0.561 A 15. Tustin D 4th Street Signal PM 0.605 B TABLE 3-3 (CONTINUED) EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minimum Acceptable Control Time Key Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Type Period ICU/HCM LOS Cabrillo Park Drive at 30 Traffic AM 0.308 A 16. State Fund Access Road Santa Ana E Signal PM 0.340 A Cabrillo Park Drive at 30 Traffic AM 0.271 A 17. Xerox Centre Access Road Santa Ana E Signal PM 0.308 A Cabrillo Park Drive at 50 Traffic AM 0.568 A 18. 17�' Street Santa Ana D Signal PM 0.611 B Cabrillo Park Drive at Two -Way AM 17.8 s/v C 19. Wellington Avenue Santa Ana D Stop PM 17.9 s/v C Tustin Avenue at 50 Traffic AM 0.574 A 20. Santa Ana E Wellington Avenue Signal PM 0.411 A Mabury Street at All -Way AM 7.7 s/v A 21. Santa Ana D Fruit Street Stop PM 7.7 s/v A Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 12.5 s/v B 22. Santa Ana D All -Way Stop Fruit Street PM 11.5 s/v B Park Center Drive at Two -Way AM 10.3 s/v B 23. Fruit Street Santa Ana D Stop PM 10.5 s/v B Tustin Avenue at 20 Traffic AM 0.509 A 24. Fruit Street Santa Ana E Signal PM 0.446 A Cabrillo Park Drive at Two -Way AM 18.6 s/v C 25. Park Court Place Santa Ana D Stop PM 24.3 s/v C 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the proposed Project, a multi -step process has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed project is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast project traffic. The need for site - specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated and the significance of the project's impacts identified. 5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Project Traffic Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the loth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017]. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed Project and presents the project's forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. As shown in the upper portion of Table 5-1, ITE Land Use 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise), ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center, and ITE Land Use 932: High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant trip rates were used to forecast the trip generation potential for the proposed project. A review of the lower portion of this table indicates that the proposed Project, after adjustment for internal capture, is forecast to generate approximately 4,121 "net" daily trips, with 264 "net" trips (82 inbound, 182 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 344 "net" trips (205 inbound, 139 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. 5.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Figure 5-1 presents the traffic distribution pattern for the proposed Project. A tabular summary of the general directional Project trip distribution pattern is presented Table 5-2. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the project site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations: ■ location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system, ■ the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes, ■ physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns, ■ presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity, ■ ingress/egress availability at the project site (i.e. right -turn restrictions on 4th Street access and full access on Park Court Place driveway), ■ distribution patterns contained within the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana, and ■ input from City staff. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project are presented in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, respectively. Figure 5-3 also presents the daily Project traffic volumes. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 5-2 and 5-3 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-1 and the traffic generation forecast presented in Table 5-1. It should be noted that travel patterns are generally focused to major streets with larger roadway classifications and typically higher travel speeds. As such, it is forecast that the majority of project - related traffic will utilize 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive to Park Court Place to access the Project site, with Project traffic travelling to and from the north via Mabury Street for to be minimal when accessing the Project site. Based on Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1, it is anticipated that approximately 4% of Project traffic will utilize Mabury Street which translates to approximately 1 cars every 8 minutes and 1 car every 4 minutes in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This added volume to the local residential network is considered nominal and would have little to no effect on the overall existing traffic patterns or operating conditions. 5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions The Existing Plus Project traffic conditions have been generated based upon existing conditions and the estimated project traffic. These forecast traffic conditions have been prepared to assess the potential impacts of a Project upon the circulation system as it currently exists. This traffic volume scenario and the related intersection capacity analyses will identify the roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the direct traffic impacts of the Project, if any. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 present projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections and two (2) Project driveways with the addition of the trips generated by the proposed Project to existing traffic volumes, respectively. Figure 5-5 also presents the Existing Plus Project daily traffic volumes. TABLE 5-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES AND FORECASTS Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Description 2-Way Trip Rates: ■ 221: Multifamily Housing Mid -Rise (TE/DU) 5.44 26% 74% 0.36 61% 39% 0.44 ■ 820: Shopping Center (TE/1000 SF) 37.75 62% 38% 0.94 48% 52% 3.81 ■ 932: High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant 112.18 55% 45% 9.94 62% 38% 9.77 (TE/1000 SF) Trip Generation: ■ 4' & Cabrillo Apartments (644 DU) 3,503 60 172 232 173 110 283 ■ 4' & Cabrillo Retail (11,700 SF) 442 7 4 11 22 23 45 ■ 4th & Cabrillo Restaurant (3,500 SF) 393 19 16 35 21 13 34 Total Project Trip Generation: 4,338 86 192 278 216 146 362 Internal Trip Capture (5%) -217 -4 -10 -14 -11 -7 -18 Total Net Project Trip Generation 1 4,121 1 82 1 182 264 205 139 344 Notes: TE/1000 SF = Trip End per 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area TE/DU = Trip End per Dwelling Unit Source: Trip Generation, 10' Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). TABLE 5-2 PROJECT DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION PATTERN Distribution Percentage Orientation/Direction 15% To/from the north via I-5 Freeway 17% To/from the south via I-5 Freeway 10% To/from the north via SR-55 Freeway 10% To/from the south via SR-55 Freeway 6% To/from the north via Cabrillo Park Drive 4% To/from the north via Parkcourt Place/Marbury Street 5% To/from the north via Tustin Avenue 3% To/from the south via Elk Avenue 10% To/from the east via Fourth Street/Irvine Boulevard 10% To/from the west via Fourth Street 5% To/from the east via First Street 5% To/from the west via First Street 100% Total (tNO SCALE A /,-,> n —3% `� �3%% `I i —5% ` 000 —5%% / LK LN -1RST ST I� �10% Lo b �182\` B ON -RAMP/ 3URY ST 4TH ST xc> 1-9% �\ 8%-0 1-5 SB ON -RAMP FIRST ST / �- 15% \ .4-- 30% 25%-0 \12%— 1-5 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / o \ 20%— \ / SR-55 SB RAMPS 4TH ST L3%% 8%j CABRILLO PARK DR FIRST ST 32%� 10% / \12%, / i CABRILLO PARK DR 4TH ST —10% 10%J \10%— o / SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST \ 3%, GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST / —32% ` 32%% GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST i —10% \ 10%%— YORBA ST 4TH ST Ln CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ TUSTIN AVE 17TH ST WELLINGTON AVE WELLINGTON AVE 5%— PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION a = INBOUND PERCENTAGE = OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE = PROJECT SITE / L \ 1) 5%J TUSTIN AVE FRUIT ST 11 %i \50%-� t"'. 1-1 / CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL \ 3%, TUSTIN AVE FIRST ST / —32% ` 32%— PARK CENTER DR 4TH ST \ 5%%, ° \ / U \ / O / N O YORBA ST @ N FIRST ST r N I 0 / \ N —30% \ 30%— 2%-� \ N / J TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST a ° CABRILLO PARK DR ® CABRILLO PARK DR 0 STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD c O F5% ` \ / \ (o u / ° MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR O U FRUIT ST FRUIT ST / ` / �- 65%\ 31 % \ 4%-� / \ / bl° 12%— 0 PROJECT DWY N0. 1 ® CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL PROJECT DWY NO. 2 FIGURE 5 -1 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA INO SCALE — L \ 9 \ �r 5 1 r / LK UN O -IRST ST N \ 18 \ r 36 3y 3 ON -RAMP/ 3URY ST 4TH ST / 15 \ r 16 \ 15� 1-5 SB ON -RAMP O FIRST ST / 27 \ 55 \\ 42— r CD 1-5 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / r � o \ 0 \ 36- 18� / SR-55 SB RAMPS 4TH ST / 0\ / ono 0 \ \ 0— C r CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST 00o f 4 \ /J 1.�0 \ g—' f r \ 0­'� / PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION = PROJECT SITE /� 2 \ lJ��r0 \ \ 7y1 (� CD CD CABRILLO PARK DR FIRST ST O9 /----, /0000 'k- 8\ OS \\ 22� — CD r CABRILLO PARK DR 4TH ST 0 \ f g \ 18— 00 r \ / SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / 0\ / ono f 0 \ J 0 \ o� CD r CABRILLO PARK DR WELLINGTON AVE 0 \ moo f 0 \ 0 \ 9y4 } r \ 0­� / TUSTIN AVE FRUIT ST CD CD CD 0 \ 0J1 f r \ 0­1 / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST 00o f 26 \ o \\ 58— } D GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST o 0 \ \ 18-, } r \ 0T / / YORBA ST 4TH ST / 0\ / ono 0 \ o \ o� CD r TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE Moo 0 \ 0 \ 2oy' 1 f r I CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL / 'k— 2\ \ 5y' r TUSTIN AVE FIRST ST / o 0 \ J 26 \ 0_ \ 58— / \ / PARK CENTER DR 4TH ST / 0o \ 0 } r/� \ 9— \ / O � / N O YORBA ST ® N FIRST ST r I 25 \ 0 } r/ 55-, \ 4� � / o J TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST 3 I 0-- oo / O CABRILLO PARK DR ® CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD 6 O V) / o oo J�l.r0 f 0 \ / ono J��.�4 f 0 \ 6 X 0J1 f r E ono / \ / 6 MABURY ST ® CABRILLO PARK DR ® U c�6 FRUIT ST FRUIT ST / \ / r o6 J 153 8 \ 0y r \ 56— v PROJECT DWY NO. 1 ® CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL PROJECT DWY NO. 2 FIGURE 5-2 AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA INO SCALE 7 \ �r 4 / LK LN @ "IRST ST 14 \ r 28 3 ON -RAMP/ 3URY ST 4TH ST KEY r 13 � 116y / 1-5 SB ON -RAMP @ FIRST ST / 21 \ 42 �\ 68— 1-5 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / CD�41 \ 0 28— / SR-55 SB RAMPS 0 4TH ST 18 / / N 0\ CD _ o 0�4 00 CD CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST / CD 0\ �10 \ o oJ' 1 f f PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST ® = STUDY INTERSECTION XX,XXX►= STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT C ::] = PROJECT SITE 6 \ / Now 0 \ �' 0 16�4 } r / \ 0­1 CABRILLO PARK DR FIRST ST 0000 21\ 05 \ 86-' / \ 17— } D CABRILLO PARK DR 4TH ST / 0 \ 21 14-1 \\ 14— \ / SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / N 0\ CD no _ /J o o- f CD 00 � / \ 0­1 \\ CABRILLO PARK DR WELLINGTON AVE ,o 0 \ 00 _ 0 ay' 1 } f \ 0­1 -_ / TUSTIN AVE FRUIT ST 0\ / o00 6 \ i � r0 4-,� / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ FIRST ST 00o f 66 \ /J o �\ 44— c cD D GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ 4TH ST 00o f 21 \ �.r0 �\ 14-1 YORBA ST 4TH ST o 0\ ono _ 0 0—CDr-CD r/ TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE 0 \ /J i fro \ � 1oJ'1CDC) / \ 70---� CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL 4\ / oo 6 \ 0 0�1 r / TUSTIN AVE FIRST ST 11 / — / C) o \ 66 \ 44- 1-1 / PARK CENTER DR 4TH ST 0 00o f \ 0 0­'� \ } r / o 7— O00 / U \ 0� \ / O � / N O YORBA ST @ N FIRST ST r N 12 / I o 00o f 62 \ N o �\ } 42— D � / o J TUSTIN AVE @ 4TH ST Lp / � \ , c \ \\ CD �o 0- N 6 CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD 6 6 / 0\ , N 0\ / o00o f 0 \ / ono f 0 \ 6 0 X \\off o(10%� \\off o�j� / \ / 6 U MABURY ST ® CABRILLO PARK DR ® 46 FRUIT ST FRUIT ST / \ / c \ / \ / \ r 6o 4 143 0—') �' / \ 103— / 0) cv \ 00 / \ / o PROJECT DWY NO. 1 ® CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL PROJECT DWY NO. 2 FIGURE 5-3 PM PEAK HOUR AND DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA (tNO SCALE � N 707 r 48 N N / LK LN @ -1RST ST / 813 707— � 331 642�, \ / 1-5 SB ON -RAMP @ FIRST ST N f 648 / 474 r 74 566 �\ D-1 953 00 D N B ON —RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS @ 3URY ST @ 4TH ST 4TH ST / ern 11) / 1100\ r 452 543— \ 1007---� / \ / SR-55 SB RAMPS @ 4TH ST /ol o o 34\ C"j/743 220\ 23--" 856— c } `// \ \ 4- / CABRILLO PARK DR @ 17TH ST 655 95- f c \ 35-, / \ / PARK CENTER DR @ FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION C = PROJECT SITE 16'3\ r)r)0 f 831 / + � 23 197-' 483— \ 15-, CABRILLO PARK DR @ FIRST ST /N1Q01 51\ `V `V 580 j + 68 203� 726� � Ln r 26:� \ \ 6---� / CABRILLO PARK DR @ 4TH ST / 741 1128 194---' \ 400— COD� r-- ro SR-55 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST / N N 33\ NLnN f O \\ 2— co Ln cN r / \ � N/ CABRILLO PARK DR @ WELLINGTON AVE 44 /cc)co25\ 25 80�' f r I \ 41-A D / TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST � 61\ N N r' f 908 60 42---' 492—, } ) \ 13---, GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ FIRST ST 24\ 665 \ 15� 926— c C/� \ 93--� \ / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ 4TH ST /° ' o ►� 32\ V V 0O 1457\ / 13 58--" 603— \ \ 4- / YORBA ST @ 4TH ST /oo CN 2 \ 13 \ 105- f (' o in d / TUSTIN AVE @ WELLINGTON AVE 25 0 22'' 'co f Lo' \ 200� \ N / \ / CABRILLO PARK DR @ PARK COURT PL 22\ 627� 341� f r / TUSTIN AVE @ FIRST ST / 85 789 78---' \ 956— / \ / PARK CENTER DR @ 4TH ST 99\ 481� 69--" 614-1-1 �/� \ 33--,A YORBA ST @ FIRST ST 33\ `V r- Ln 633 / j l_ ,� 115 130-' 7 6 0 — ." \ 28---� N TUSTIN AVE @ 4TH ST f o U 0 N O N I N I r 0 N 0 J O Nr c \ \ 9­1 ro a CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD c a 22 / ' cD 11 \ /� o D 35\ / co co f 17 �.� / Ln ,.o f 16 °x' 5 I �� 44 1-J �j } r \ 22---' } r E \ 631� N / 28— m 74 / \ o 146� U MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ FRUIT ST FRUIT ST / 45 r 26 PROJECT DWY NO. 1 @ PARK COURT PL / 53 f 966 1195— N \ / o \ / O CABRILLO PARK DR @ PROJECT DWY NO. 2 FIGURE 5-4 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA (tNO SCALE N 755 l_ 39 7-1 r ro "' N / LK LN @ -1RST ST / 791 r 322 1250— 876--j \ / 1-5 SB ON -RAMP FIRST ST Ln \ / \ N f 896 / 942 85 772 �\ / 7� 798— c N N B ON -RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS @ 3URY ST @ 4TH ST 4TH ST / «'00 \ 1130\ l� r 372 871— \ 498--� / \ / SR-55 SB RAMPS 4TH ST /o o co 52\ �"'r 1188\ /j �' 131 46-1 998- } o 108--� Ic CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST / 6\ �' `V �' 22 84-, } r 16� � L PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION XX,XXX► = STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT C ::] = PROJECT SITE 14\ 122 400--" \ 841— `l } c) CABRILLO PARK DR @ FIRST ST /o o� ,07\ 434� r 308--" � } D / 628— 52---� CABRILLO PARK DR @ 4TH ST / 684 1167 296---' r `o N \ / SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / 66\ / j 53 \ 0� �L� CABRILLO PARK DR O WELLINGTON AVE Ln 63\ �`flN f 10 / � 48 115� y 5� O TUSTIN AVE FRUIT ST A, 59\ m °' Ln 694 /j � 36 67---' 850� } ��/ � 16� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ FIRST ST 15\ 8434_ 26—' ( 785— } O \ 8- / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ 4TH ST 15 i--� /c-, m n 61 \ 1478\ 14 129—' 1045— } 144- N N YORBA ST @ 4TH ST m 14\ /j �, 29 \ 408- 1 } r 76---, TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE 34\ 0 53 21� } 1- 1 CN (� r) 14d- 154--� CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL AS 4 0` r7 o N f 471 /jj� 5 468— ? / 0- TUSTIN AVE @ FIRST ST / Ln / 55 f 1003 78- 960— \ / PARK CENTER DR Q 4TH ST / 00 00 / O-) N \ 131� CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD 21 i--� /o rN 46\ /j+60 2 22--� MABURY ST FRUIT ST p/� \\ / 104 r 64 8 0 PROJECT DWY NO. 1 PARK COURT PL a 678 41 98--" 552— � } N, 34--, YORBA ST @ FIRST ST 12 i--� o r") 34'0\ 885 � 210—' 711-00 } / \ / TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST 156- 140--� } CABRILLO PARK DR XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD ° LI) 93\ �N-d- f 68 / �' 34 12- 27— 1 } CABRILLO PARK DR FRUIT ST / 133 1658 988— CABRILLO PARK DR PROJECT DWY NO. 2 FIGURE 5-5 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA 6.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6.1 Ambient Traffic Growth Horizon year, background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future related projects in the study area, as well as account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The future growth in traffic volumes has been calculated at one percent (1.0%) per year. Applied to the Year 2019 existing traffic volumes, this factor results in a 6.0% growth in existing volumes to the near -term horizon year 2025. 6.2 Related Projects Traffic Characteristics In order to make a realistic estimate of future on -street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project, the status of other known development projects (related projects) within a two- mile radius of the proposed project has been researched at the Cities of Santa Ana and Tustin. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed Project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. Based on our research during the scoping process, there are twenty-eight (28) related projects in the City of Santa Ana and two (2) related projects in the City of Tustin that are being processed for approval. These thirty (30) related projects have been included as part of the cumulative background setting. Table 6-1 provides a brief description for each of the thirty (30) related projects. Figure 6-1 graphically illustrates the location of the thirty (30) related projects. These related projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic, which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections. Table 6-2 summarizes the trip generation potential for all thirty (30) related projects on a daily and peak hour basis for a typical weekday. As shown, the related projects are expected to generate 45,942 daily trips, with 3,033 trips (1,458 inbound, 1,575 outbound) anticipated during the AM peak hour and 3,837 trips (1,927 inbound, 1,910 outbound) produced during the PM peak hour. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the thirty (30) related projects in the Year 2025 are presented in Figures 6-2 and 6-3, respectively. Figure 6-3 also presents the daily related project traffic volumes. KEY 1. STARBUCKS `"'' Smile Direct Club 2. STARBUCKS WITH DRIVE THRU 3. HAMPTON INN HOTEL O 4. NORTH GRAND CAR WASH DiSCov" Cub-E 5. ROCKET EXPRESS CAR WASH 6 TUSTIN SERVICE STATION AND CAR WASH �r0ne County 7. SEXLINGER HOMES AND ORCHARD 8. ARTS COLLECTIVE META HOUSING ADAPTIVE REUSE n 9. THE ORLEANS ADAPTIVE REUSE LIIr5 M U u m lr APARTMENTS 10. ONE BROADWAY PLAZA 11 11. BRIDGING THE AQUA 12. FIRST STREET FAMILY APARTMENTS 13. 1660 FIRST STREET ELKS APARTMENTS 14. ELK'S LODGE 15. RUSSELL FISHER COMMERCIAL 9 16. EDNOVATE CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL 10 Q ADAPTIVE REUSE 17. KIDDIE ACADEMY OF SANTA ANA 21 18. TARGET SHOPPING CENTER 19. RAISING CANE'S RESTAURANT 4 20. 888 ADAPTIVE REUSE ���}� 21. LEGACY SQUARE MIXED —USE DEVELOPMENT 3 22. FIRST AMERICAN PLAZA 3M 23. 4TH AND MORTIMER (BLOCK A & B) _ 24. 201 E 4TH STREET IN BID hop 25. TOM'S TRUCK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 26. EAST FIRST STREET APARTMENTS 27. THE MADISON 28. 2114 EAST FIRST APARTMENTS 29. SERVICE STATION 30. VINTAGE (tNO SCALE FaIrhv.. Arc O 55 7 e Belxa Aido O� . 18 16 19 inn sr 17 � 9• c � e 15 12 v@@ wFiret�� slats} W SantaAnEi.7ofl Tustin 30 n r vp M.F.dde live 55 '� © �kN Edinger Ay,'9 14 FaNhdl P N64h Tustin 3 0 q N i o i 0 0 411 Th@! K1lR)rkc %t6 TuviA gports Park i a 7 E wgrrlgrAgp m 7 � a 55 ;. N - J SOURCE: GOOGLE KEY ® = CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LOCATION = PROJECT SITE LOCATION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA FIGURE 6 -1 (tNO SCALE 18 i LK LN @ "IRST ST / 99 \ 48 164 9 9:�t \ / 1-5 SIB ON -RAMP @ FIRST ST — — — — \ ® - \ CD \ / \ V 54 \ / 93 \ 14 54 3� 24--' r / 73— o / 3 ON -RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS @ 3URY ST @ 4TH ST 4TH ST / rl'o 90 \ 1, 10 138- 41---, / SR-55 SB RAMPS @ 4TH ST 18 81 \ 4 � 41--�fr / CABRILLO PARK DR @ 17TH ST / 000 0 \ 0 o— } r / \ 0� / PARK CENTER DR @ FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION •; = PROJECT SITE 3 \ rl'OL 112 \ /J i l o 52--j } (' \\ 1044 oOO / CABRILLO PARK DR @ FIRST ST O/ono 27\ 91 51— CABRILLO PARK DR @ 4TH ST / 10 \ 81 \\ 65— SR-55 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST / N 0 \ / ONO 0 \ J � �.f—o �\ 0- CABRILLO PARK DR @ WELLINGTON AVE / CID L 0\ / O N O o \ 0 TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST �15 \ 0 0­1 } `\ 1320— o 0 0 / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ FIRST ST 00o f 128 \ 17 0--) r 8} GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ 4TH ST / 0\ 000 _ oo �\ 54— 1 } D QID YORBA ST @ 4TH ST / C), 0\ / oN0 0 \ 0 o-CD f r / TUSTIN AVE @ WELLINGTON AVE / 'k- 0\ OHO _ f- 0 o� ,CD } r / \ 0� / CABRILLO PARK DR @ PARK COURT PL /o 0 \ r)00 58 \ /J l o 143— c } r / TUSTIN AVE @ FIRST ST / o \ 144 0­4 \ 86— / \ / PARK CENTER DR @ 4TH ST / 0\ 000 58 \ o --j `o } 83— cD YORBA ST @ FIRST ST / N 7\ 89 \ � 78� `o } TUSTIN AVE @ 4TH ST 0 UI .x 0 cxD I 0 1 co 0 0 0 J 1 1 I 60-" cod 0 CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD o 0 / 0 100 o \ 0 / CD1NO 0 \ .1 1 �%'0� X 0 0� `o no / E o00 Ln U MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FIGURE 6-2 AM PEAK HOUR CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA w (tNO SCALE J� 76 \ r 69 / _K LN @ IRST ST / 145 \ 32 181� 84� / \ i 1-5 SB ON -RAMP @ FIRST ST to 128 \ / 62 \ r 20 - 109 33" r 3 ON -RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS @ 3URY ST @ 4TH ST 4TH ST 13CD / o / 7 \ 7 131— \ 28---� / \ / SR-55 SB RAMPS @ 4TH ST / a 0 \ ono 55 \ 3 73� , } r \ 5-, M / CABRILLO PARK DR @ 17TH ST / 0\ / o00 2 \ o 2J'1f�/ PARK CENTER DR @ FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION XX,XXX► = STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT = PROJECT SITE 3 /- /� o CN L 13\ 1042 \ 48---' \ 0� CABRILLO PARK DR @ FIRST ST / N _ 19\ 135 70� } r \ 133---, / CABRILLO PARK DR @ 4TH ST / 7 \ 120 -' r \ Lo / SR-55 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST / L 0\ / ono 0 \ 0 0-� } r \ 0_� M / CABRILLO PARK DR @ WELLINGTON AVE / 0\ / o Cpo o \ o o1 } r TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST 00'k—o\ / + � 1055 \ 0 \ 0� i GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ FIRST ST 10 /'--- / 0 \ 000 / 193 \ ,l 1, ,� 38 \\ 93— c } cD GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ 4TH ST 000 84 \ o 60— YORBA ST @ 4TH ST / m 0 \ f- 0 \ 0­' TUSTIN AVE @ WELLINGTON AVE / 0\ / ono f o \ o oJ'1f�/ CABRILLO PARK DR @ PARK COURT PL 5 —\ 119� 138— c } D \ 0­� \ / TUSTIN AVE @ FIRST ST / CD \ 231 \ 93— / PARK CENTER DR @ 4TH ST 000 97 \ o 44--j 94— c } D u \ 0� \ / o-) 0 YORBA ST @ N FIRST ST co 0 12 o cl� � 182 \ N /mil �r97 0 8o } 8- \ \ o J TUSTIN AVE @ 4TH ST 3 rri 1 \ 0� o / \ 29-, / a o E a CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD a N /0 2\ /0 0\ � 1CD CN 0 \ / I \�I}0 1� 00 / \ a X /s \ 0� lO I 1}o \ O� r I E \ / M / \ Oy Oy •0 U MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ C�d FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FIGURE 6-3 PM PEAK HOUR AND DAILY CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA w 0 0 TABLE 6-1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS' No. Cumulative Project Location/Address Description City of Santa Ana 1. Starbucks 2701 North Grand Avenue 907 SF coffee shop with drive-thru 2. Starbucks with Drive -dim 2301 North Tustin Avenue 3,567 SF coffee shop with drive-thru 3. Hampton hm Hotel 2056, 2058, 2115, 2129 and 2129 2,657 SF commercial, 135 room hotel, and North Main Street 1821 North Grand Ave 1,619 SF existing office demolition 4. North Grand Car Wash 5,243 SF carwash and 6,592 SF existing restaurant demolition 5. Rocket Express Car Wash 1703 East 171 Street 4,292 SF carwash 6 Tustin Service Station and Car 2230 North Tustin Avenue 3,600 SF commercial Wash 7. Sexlinger Homes and Orchard 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue 23 DU single-family detached 8 Arts Collective Meta Housing 1666 North Main Street 58 DU residential apartments Adaptive Reuse 9 The Orleans Adaptive Reuse 1212 North Broadway Avenue 24 DU residential apartments Apartments 10. One Broadway Plaza 1109 North Broadway 518,000 SF office tower with 16,000 SF restaurant 11. Bridging the Aqua 317 East 17th Street 57 DU residential apartments 12. First Street Family Apartments 1440 East 11 Street 69 DU residential apartments, 47,040 SF existing office demolition 13. 1660 First Street Elks Apartments 1660 East I" Street 603 DU residential apartments and 20,671 Elk's Lodge SF retail 14. 1751 South Lyon Street 52,453 SF commercial/lodge 10,195 SF commercial, 1,780 SF existing 15. Russell Fisher Commercial 301-325 North Tustin Avenue carwash demolition and 3,440 SF existing 1450 East 17" Street restaurant demolition 16. Ednovate Charter High School 29,368 SF charter high school Adaptive Reuse 17. Kiddie Academy of Santa Ana 1345 North Grand Avenue 7,657 SF childcare 18. Target Shopping Center 1330 East 171 Street 9,112 SF commercial Notes: SF = Square -feet DU = Dwelling units Source: City of Santa Ana and City of Tustin Planning Department. TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED) LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS' No. Cumulative Project Location/Address Description City ofSanta Ana (Continued) 19. Raising Cane's Restaurant 2250 East 171 Street 3,935 SF restaurant and 10,000 SF existing restaurant demolition 20. 888 Adaptive Reuse 888 North Main Street 146 Condominiums and 3,700 SF commercial 21 Legacy Square Mixed -Use 609 North Spurgeon Street 93 DU residential apartments and 6,335 SF Development commercial 22. First American Plaza 421 North Main Street A 14 East 220 DU multifamily (mid -rise) and 12,350 SF 5' Street retail 133 DU residential apartments, 105,812 SF 23. 4' and Mortimer (Block A & B) 409/ 509 East 4' Street commercial and 22,330 SF demolition of 201 E 4' Street commercial building 24. 401 North Bush Street 24 DU residential apartments 25 Tom's Trucks Residential 1008 East 4' Street 133 DU single-family residences Development 26. East First Street Apartments 2222 East ls' Street 418 DU senior residential apartments 27. The Madison 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive 260 DU apartments, 6,561 SF commercial and 2,507 SF retail component of live/work 28. 2114 East First Apartments 2114 East V Street 552 DU affordable apartments, 10,000 SF commercial City of Tustin 29. Service Station 1001 Edinger Avenue 6 fueling stations 30. Vintage 420 West 6' Street 140 DU condominiums Notes: SF = Square -feet DU = Dwelling units 5 Source: City of Santa Ana and City of Tustin Planning Department. TABLE 6-2 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST Cumulative Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total 1. Starbucks' 372 20 20 40 10 9 19 2. Starbucks with Drive-thru 1,463 81 77 158 39 38 77 3. Hampton Inn Hotel? 1,228 38 27 65 46 45 91 4. North Grand Car Wash? 740 0 0 0 37 37 74 5. Rocket Express Car Wash 610 0 0 0 31 30 61 6. Tustin Service Station and Car Wash 3,247 64 64 128 114 114 228 7. Sexlinger Homes and Orchard 217 4 13 17 14 9 23 8. Arts Collective Meta Housing Adaptive 425 6 21 27 20 12 32 9. The Orleans Adaptive Reuse Apartments 176 3 8 11 8 5 13 10. One Broadway Plaza? 6,660 595 149 744 150 535 685 11. Bridging the Aqua 417 6 20 26 20 12 32 12. First Street Family Apartments' 459 7 28 35 28 15 43 13. 1660 First Street Elks Apartments' 4,648 70 242 312 266 162 428 14. Elk's Lodge 1,512 61 31 92 57 64 121 15. Russell Fisher Commercial' 346 5 4 9 13 13 26 16. Ednovate Charter High School Adaptive? 413 70 29 99 15 13 28 17. Kiddie Academy of Santa Anal 365 45 39 84 40 45 85 18. Target Shopping Center 310 5 3 8 11 12 23 19. Raising Cane's Restaurant 926 41 40 81 33 31 64 20. 888 Adaptive Reuse? 1,209 17 53 70 59 37 96 21. Legacy Square Mixed -Use Development 2,833 43 54 97 110 101 211 22. First American Plaza' 1,420 26 59 85 70 52 122 23. 4th and Mortimer (Block A & B) 4,569 69 81 150 174 166 340 24. 201 E 4th Street 176 3 8 11 8 5 13 25. Tom's Trucks Residential Development' 1,256 25 73 98 83 49 132 6 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 10' Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). 7 Source: First American Plaza TIA, prepared by LLG, dated April 2019. 8 Source: First Street Family Apartments TIA, prepared by LLG, dated January 2016. 9 Source: 1660 E. First Street Elks Apartments TIA, prepared by LLG, dated June 2019 TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST10 Cumulative Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total 26. East First Street Apartments 1,785 33 67 100 76 49 125 27. The Madison" 2,010 30 104 134 115 69 184 28. 2114 East First Apartments12 4,381 63 199 262 207 127 334 29. Service Station 744 13 13 26 24 25 49 30. Vintage 1,025 15 49 64 49 29 78 Cumulative Projects Total Trip Generation Potential 45,942 1,458 1,575 3,033 1,927 1,910 3,837 10 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 10' Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). 11 Source: The Madison Mixed -Use Development TIA, prepared by LLG, dated August 2017. 12 Source: First American Plaza TIA, prepared by LLG, dated April 2019. 6.3 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions As coordinated with City staff, the Year 2040 traffic volume forecasts for this traffic study were development via the utilization of the OCTAM 4.0 Year 2040 traffic model provided by OCTA. Specifically, daily, AM peak period and PM peak period link traffic volumes were provided by OCTA for the existing base year (i.e. Year 2012) and for the Year 2040 year. The AM peak period corresponds to a three-hour morning commute period while the PM peak period corresponds to a four-hour afternoon commute period. Using the peak period model runs and the OCTA approved peak hour factors (i.e. AM = 0.3566 and PM = 0.2662), the one -hour peak hour link traffic volumes were determined. These future year 2040 link traffic volumes were post -processed based on the relationship of the base year validation model run output to the base year ground traffic counts resulting in Year 2040 without project daily traffic volumes for the AM peak hour/PM peak hour turning movements for the key study intersections. Copies of the model post -processing worksheets are contained in Appendix C. 6.4 Year 2025 and Year 2040 Traffic Volumes 6.4.1 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes Figures 6-4 and 6-5 present the AM and PM peak hour cumulative traffic volumes (existing traffic + ambient growth + related projects) at twenty-five (25) key study intersections for the Year 2025, respectively. Figure 6-5 also presents the Year 2025 daily cumulative traffic volumes. Figures 6-6 and 6-7 illustrate the Year 2025 forecast AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed Project, respectively. Figure 6-7 also presents the Year 2025 cumulative plus project daily traffic volumes. 6.4.2 Year 2040 Traffic Volumes Figures 6-8 and 6-9 present the Year 2040 AM and PM peak hour cumulative traffic volumes at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections, respectively. Figure 6-9 also presents the Year 2040 daily cumulative traffic volumes. Figures 6-10 and 6-11 illustrate the Year 2040 forecast AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed Project, respectively. Figure 6-11 also presents the Year 2040 buildout plus project daily traffic volumes. (tNO SCALE --\ �rM \ `N � 821 � 1, 64 Sy r i LK LN @ 'IRST ST / 945 382 706 64; \ / 1-5 SB ON -RAMP @ FIRST ST ?� "V 722 / 567 54 596 �y / 63 \\1039— / 3� o ( N N// 3 ON -RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS @ 3URY ST @ 4TH ST 4TH ST 13 / 1196\ J 471 655— \ 1050---, / \ / SR-55 SB RAMPS @ 4TH ST 18 36 \ 869 237 24---" 948—, } r/� CABRILLO PARK DR @ 17TH ST 23 / \ / 6\ 48 \ } r Ln / PARK CENTER DR @ FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION = PROJECT SITE I J i 3 24 616J � } r CABRILLO PARK DR @ FIRST ST O / "I\ /°O o 73 `N `V — 687 I J 82 179� \ 325� c" CABRILLO PARK DR @ 4TH ST / 795 — 1268 259-' r \ 470— c // SR-55 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST / 35\ NON f O 126 \ 5� M / CABRILLO PARK DR @ WELLINGTON AVE 24 /--\ /N 27\ 27 \ 7--' \ 43­� / TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST O n co r 65\ `n1075\ 64 45� 648— , } D � \ 14 \ / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ FIRST ST / L 25\ 805 209 16� 1006— , } o \ 99--.� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ 4TH ST /Ncli CB 34\ / J � 1466� 61--j 674— 'Go} r /� \ 110-, C YORBA ST @ 4TH ST a0ON 2 \ \ 117� � co \ / TUSTIN AVE @ WELLINGTON AVE '1\ / Ln oo r7 0 3 1.1 6H_ -1 / CABRILLO PARK DR @ PARK COURT PL 23\ 121 499J } r / TUSTIN AVE @ FIRST ST 11 / \ Lgo / J 953 83--� \1038— / \ / PARK CENTER DR @ 4TH ST 10\ / 765 51 133-j 1 } r 724— � \ 35-A YORBA ST @ FIRST ST 12 / \ /°0 o n 733 35�, j � 151 \ 146--� 825CD— } I r \ 25­� TUSTIN AVE @ 4TH ST c 0 Q U .f 0 N I 0 1 00 0 rn L6 M 0 0 J 16 71-j } \ 6� N / \ 48­� / a CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD o 0 22 /' \ 12\ 4o 37\ 8 co r- / 17 \ 5 42 `� } r `� } �' \ E 68� \ 33� N / 30� \ 155� N N / o U MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ 43 FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FIGURE 6-4 YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA (tNO SCALE J N f 869 \ r 106 i� - r r•7 / _K LN IRST ST )00 � J 1063\ 80 ly � 3 ON -RAMP/ 3URY ST 4TH ST KEY / 972 \ 360 1489- 1001---� / \ \ / / 1-5 SB ON -RAMP FIRST ST / 1038\ 883 113J \ 914— 1-5 NB RAMPS 4TH ST 15'5\ 844 \ 455--j CABRILLO PARK DR FIRST ST O /I 11 N� � 58\ 85 235� 718�, } CABRILLO PARK DR 4TH ST / cV / / 732 ,1 ` r 4016\ / � 1335\ 1 541-, / 1177-, 1 \ / \ N / SR-55 SB RAMPS © SR-55 NB RAMPS 0 4TH ST 4TH ST /N O) M 55\ 6i 00 1314\ 142 49J 1131— } mn CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST / 6\ MNM f 109 \ .1 `r 23 0 84— E rn - �� \ 17� PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST ® = STUDY INTERSECTION XX,XXX►= STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT :• = PROJECT SITE /SON 70\ 56 \ 2 \ Oy,�o CABRILLO PARK DR WELLINGTON AVE / L 67\ r-r`V 11 \ V15— - cD } n TUSTIN AVE FRUIT ST /rn o r- 63\ 8884 \ 1069— 7N } r I \ 17� N � GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST /rn�o 16\ 1279\ 28� 878— 0 } GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST 15 /r mCD 65\ / i r 1528\ 137--" 1153— c } \ 153---� M N \ / YORBA ST 4TH ST /1)00 / NI\N 3 \ 51J� } r 0: �77� \ 81, TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE / 36\ 00 rl f 0 \ 56 s� } - \ 89� ocD� CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL 424\ /o N 20�1 / 't CD N 589 \ b / - - 805 \ J i 5 J 43 0 630- 1 � 678-' } r o \ 0­� O') TUSTIN AVE ® YORBA ST © O N FIRST ST FIRST ST r N 11 /' 12 / \ I o / \ /S, 1365\ _ / 1224 i �. r 251 } 0 1064-' 797-� Lo J PARK CENTER DR © TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST 4TH ST 3 7 Lc) CO / O� \ / ON \ I 139---' 1 } 205-' } /Q 00 / \ 177---� co O CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD 0 21 51\ /nCOoo 99\ 64 \ 6 / N�� .� I �. f 74 \ 25 o X 2--" 1 } r 13-' �j } r E 17— \ 23� 73 31— \ 37� 'd-MC-� o L U MABURY ST © CABRILLO PARK DR FRUIT ST FRUIT ST I FIGURE 6-5 YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PM PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA N O O E INO SCALE ` V 830 r 69 3� 0CN /I i LK LN -1RST ST / 960913— \ � 398 779---� I 1-5 SB ON -RAMP FIRST ST ' 740 \ / 594 \ `r90 651 d I / 1081— N N / B ON -RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS 3URY ST @ 4TH ST 4TH ST / N \ / N ' 1212\ 471 691— I \ 1068--� / \ / SR-55 SB RAMPS 4TH ST 36\ 869\ 24-j 948— - \ \ 0--� / CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST 23 i--� / 658 48 \ 5 100-'CD 1 f �0'// \ 37- \ / PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION = PROJECT SITE 243 \ 260-' 616— \ 16-, CABRILLO PARK DR FIRST ST 81\ `V Ln `V 705 \ / j j � 82 213-' 819— ? o \ 325---., c \` ---/ CABRILLO PARK DR 4TH ST / 795 \ f 1276 277---' \ 488� D /I �� SR-55 NB RAMPS Q 4TH ST / 35\ N LnN f o \ 126 \ 5� �0 / CABRILLO PARK DR @ WELLINGTON AVE 44 rLl) 27\ 27 \ 8-' r / \ 43� � / TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST Ln oo 65\ V 1077\ 64 45--" 653— - () \ 14� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST 25\ 231 09 \ 16� 1064— } _ \ 99--� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST /c-�j 00� 34\ `V `V / 1574\ �r 14 61� 692� `l f q \ 110� 1-1/ YORBA ST 4TH ST 20 iN — � /OWN 2 \ 14 \ co TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE 25 i--� oMor) � 1 \ / �r 0 \ 20� � r \ Ln 207� CD/ CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL /M_c", 23�' 'k_ 10\ 23 / 769 1\ .� + �r 51 r I 133� r I 504- / o 1-1 35---� CD TUSTIN AVE @ YORBA ST @ o N FIRST ST FIRST ST N /co \ /oNo r o 35� / m 90 \ / cv con f 758 \ r7 �97983-' \\1096— I �\ 889-' . I J PARK CENTER DR @ TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST 4TH ST ° 3 o � r \ N \ 10­1 \ 6� cv 0 / \ 48--, o r / a CABRILLO PARK DR Q CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD a 22 / v 12\ /� °�° o ►� 37\ 18 \ / o� f 17 \ 1­4 �l f r I 30�' l f r I E 6 \ N / 33� \ N 155� M / U MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR FRUIT ST FRUIT ST / \ / r 26 1170\ \ 118— r I \ 1357— I N o PROJECT DWY NO. 1 @ CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL PROJECT DAY NO. 2 FIGURE 6-6 YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA INO SCALE - D0 \ J N 876 f `110 3— 'o o LKLN® -1RST ST / / f 983 r 373 1 0— \ / 1-5 SB ON -RAMP FIRST ST J M f 107A / 1059\ 108 925 1� 113 982— Y3 N N/ / \ B ON -RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS 3URY ST ® 4TH ST 4TH ST KEY 16\ 834 471---, f I \ 10177— ? R CABRILLO PARK DR FIRST ST /o N 13x I J i 8503\ 321� , } 735�r \CN 188� ��� � 1 / CABRILLO PARK DR 4TH ST 14 / L0 1377\ / 732 J r 401 1356 1053— \ 379 555� 1191— ( 0 \ / \ �0 N / / / SR-55 SB RAMPS @ SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST 4TH ST /N 7 55\ 4\ 142 49---' 1131— 1 } r / CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST / 6lig 23 0 91— 6 } r�/ \ 17� Ln PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST ® = STUDY INTERSECTION XX,XXX► = STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT = PROJECT SITE / oN i0\\ + `f-56 2" 1 r \ 0� N 0 / CABRILLO PARK DR WELLINGTON AVE 67\ 00r-" f 11 1 51� TUSTIN AVE FRUIT ST 8g0 71-1 } r 1073— N o ro N \ 17� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST 10 / /o-) 16\ 1285\ 127 28---, 922— } �/ \ \61­� / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST /N o 65\ 1549\ 137� 1167� ) \ 153­� YORBA ST 4TH ST /n°Oo 15\ 3 \ 31 50— } r \ 81-1 TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE 36\ 0 56 2�� } r \\9­� CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL � 42� o N f 595 I •� i `5 634� 1 } r / TUSTIN AVE FIRST ST / 58 .� 1290 83� \ 1108— PARK CENTER DR 4TH ST /o 20�` L 435� 148--' r � o 679— � \ 36-1 � 0 \ / � / O N YORBA ST ® O N FIRST ST N 12 /`—� I o /2, coo 1-6 365\ 1117\ Ln 251 N 229� } (� 839— N °O om \ 54-1 `"� � / o J TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST 3 16 /`—� 17 1 / CN \ / �� \ 139---� , } ` 205---' } � \ 177� / / c 0 CABRILLO PARK DR ® CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD o 0 21 22 /`—� / N o 51 \ /Ln 2 . �'_ 99\ 64 6 / N 7� f 74 o °x' 2-' E 1 31-, o 37-A U MABURY ST ® CABRILLO PARK DR FRUIT ST FRUIT ST / / 110 64 9g­100 1 r PROJECT DWY NO. 1 PARK COURT PL / 133 1930 CD 1244— N \ � o CABRILLO PARK DR PROJECT DWY NO. 2 FIGURE 6-7 YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA (tNO SCALE � N \ — 862 67 I I �1 cal r7 / i _K LN @ IRST ST M 758 r 69 i 3 ON -RAMP/ IURY ST @ 4TH ST / / 992 401 802: I 1-5 SB ON -RAMP @ FIRST ST / 595 — 626 66-' 1174— /I N N 1-5 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST oo 26�' PI' r' `V 1043\ / j1 � 35 266� 647— , lmo} D \ 17� CABRILLO PARK DR @ FIRST ST /oN° o r 77\ N nN 721 199-J 837— } n 326� N CABRILLO PARK DR @ 4TH ST 13 / oLn 5\ / 1 495331 \ 688— I 259--" `\ 1103-1 / \\ 511— co / SR-55 SB RAMPS @ SR-55 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST 4TH ST 18 / \ 38\ 984 246 \ 25---' 995— 0 CD cli r /I 2- / CABRILLO PARK DR @ 17TH ST 23 /--\ C) 6 57 `r50 \ 96� } r 39� � � / PARK CENTER DR @ FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION = PROJECT SITE 07 \ �\ 2- M CABRILLO PARK DR @ WELLINGTON AVE 24 /N rn 28\ 28 \ 75"1 r } 43­� / TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST 68\ 67 50-' 748— c } � /I \ 17� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ FIRST ST / 26\ 845 219 17-' 1056—, } - /I \ 104--� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ 4TH ST 36\ /J +1644\ 64-' 786— 00- /I \ 116� YORBA ST @ 4TH ST /orn 7 2 \ 15 \ 114—' } r I 123� � / TUSTIN AVE @ WELLINGTON AVE / Lc) oo r f 0 0—1 oo } r / 122---� r' / CABRILLO PARK DR @ PARK COURT PL /L' S 24�' o 28 / " f 757 �. / 803 .% 1 63 a I 1 r I L 572— ID " 834— } co rn 0 TUSTIN AVE @ YORBA ST @ N FIRST ST FIRST ST (.0 0 1 0 0 o � 376 c 95 / rnrnc 770 2 1001 I } r I 1090— 866— L N rn / J PARK CENTER DR @ TUSTIN AVE @ 4TH ST 4TH ST 3 00 CO 00 M \ 75-" } I \ 6� N / \ 50---, / CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD D 22Lo /- \ 39\ co co / _ / cD �. _ 48 r 59 .� + 1 } (� I 24� 1}-'1- \ 35� N / 163� � / o D U MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ 46 FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FIGURE 6-8 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA w rn N 0 0 (tNO SCALE JN f 912 r 111 1 r r7 LK LN @ "IRST ST JM 1123\ r 145 1- 3� / / 3 ON -RAMP/ 3URY ST @ 4TH ST 1320 / 1021\ 378 1563— \ 1051---� / \ \ / / 1-5 SIB ON -RAMP @ FIRST ST / 1090\ 927 208--" \ 960ID Ln — N N 1-5 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST L \ / D 1351� 478 1076— \ 577---� \ / SR-55 SB RAMPS @ 4TH ST 18 /�o� 58\ 0\ 149 51J 1188— r } r / \ 125� CABRILLO PARK DR @ 17TH ST / 6\ 114 24 88J } r 0) / \ 18� � / PARK CENTER DR @ FRUIT ST ® = STUDY INTERSECTION XX,XXX►= STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT :• = PROJECT SITE /��N 16\ 6 /j+� 13� 478--� \10680—, CABRILLO PARK DR @ FIRST ST 8966\ 242-" } 764— \ 197---� ill '� \ \ / / CABRILLO PARK DR @ 4TH ST / 769 1402 383--� r \1236— co',' SR-55 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST / C'4 14\\ 59 2J1 } r 2— Nrc_) COD' \ 0­� Q0 CABRILLO PARK DR @ WELLINGTON AVE /d- a' - 70\ r- r- N f 12 54 125J \ 64­� cy)r- M TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST O ho N /o69 92 j + ` r 408 75: 1122� } r \ 18� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ FIRST ST 10 1380\ 28--" 935— � } 00 r \ \ 4---� / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR @ 4TH ST 15 /'--- 68\ 1859\ 144-" 1204— � } r / YORBA ST @ 4TH ST /Doo 16\ N CON 3 \ + ` f- 33 54J 0—� } r/ \ 85-, \ / TUSTIN AVE @ WELLINGTON AVE / 38\ 00rl-'rl- 0 \ / J I `r- 59 6J �} } r \ 93� oro� CABRILLO PARK DR @ PARK COURT PL /F- T 445\ It CD / l_ r 825 J i 660— } / \ 0­� \ \ ­- TUSTIN AVE @ FIRST ST / o \ / 61 J 1285 87--' \ 1117— / \ \ — / / PARK CENTER DR @ 4TH ST 249\ 459 229--� \ 51� YORBA ST @ FIRST ST 12 0' 11 264 \ 232-" 837— , } r \54---� TUSTIN AVE @ 4TH ST U) a� (D U .i 0 N I 0 1 00 0 rn N J 16 /'—� 17LO rn � J+ 146J } 215- 1 } \ 127---� � \ 186� \ / \ / 6 O CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD a 0 V) 21 N /� (0 °M° 54\ /N 10\ I /J s /J 11.�2s x \\ , } \\ } O 0 cO � t O 24J / 33— \ \ / \/ \ / C3 U MABURY ST @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ 48 FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FIGURE 6-9 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PM PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA w N 0 0 c (tNO SCALE - J N \ 2 `" 871 ` r 72 NI'r-,I-J / LK LN -1RST ST / 1007\ r 417 gj8— \ / 1-5 SB ON —RAMP FIRST ST J In 776 / 622 105 f681 D_ 66 r / J / \ 1216-2 N N / B ON —RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS 3URY ST ® 4TH ST 4TH ST / 00CN \ 1271� j r 495 724— \ 1121� / SR-55 SB RAMPS 0 4TH ST N38\ 984 \ 25-, 995—, } r/ \\2- CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST / N 661 50 \ 5 105— L } 0 \ 39� PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST KEY ® = STUDY INTERSECTION = PROJECT SITE /F cc 269\ 1043\ 35 273-1 647— } r/ \ 17� CABRILLO PARK DR O FIRST ST 85\ `" Lo rl' 739 / j j � 86 859— ` } r / \ 326---� c" CABRILLO PARK DR O 4TH ST / 925 1339 277---, r \ 529— `0 - / SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / o 37\ / NCON o \ �r 132 2 \ 2- 1 f I' / CABRILLO PARK DR WELLINGTON AVE 24— /� -no, 28\ 28\ 5� ��o 43/ \ � � TUSTIN AVE FRUIT ST /� O 68\ r"" `0 1131 \ / �'r 67 50-, 753— c } c / \ 17� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST / 26\ 871 219 1114— 104} �// \ � GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST 36\ 1552\ 64- 804—, } - YORBA ST 4TH ST 2 \ 15 \ 114-1 } r 2— Nam`/ \ 123- 0O TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE 25 �� 1 \ 0 22-, 00 }r 0-, \ 213-1 CABRILLO PARK DR PARK COURT PL /6 24�' L't _ 159 386-1 577— } r / TUSTIN AVE O FIRST ST / N / 95 1027 87- \ 1148— / \ / PARK CENTER DR O 4TH ST /--� 16Ln / N I� � 11� 6­ N n \ -_ -I- --- CABRILLO PARK DR 0 STATE FUND ACCESS RD / o -4- 13\ Dom' f 19 /ji 5 1 1-1 \ 35---� N N MABURY ST FRUIT ST / 50 r 26 124 PROJECT DWY NO. 1 PARK COURT PL � 607 140-1 } r o 843— -'1- cN Lr) / \ 37� O \ / N / O N YORBA ST FIRST ST N I r CD 12 /�—� /o N 37� N �'oD f795� 159 N 153-1 } 921— r \ N ro / 30- 0 TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST 3 0 CN 75 � 50-1, m / \ / 0 0 CABRILLO PARK DR XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD a 0 co 22 /�—� j o 39\ 18 � 48 x 1 32— } ) \ 163--� c" 0 � / 0 U CABRILLO PARK DR FRUIT ST / 53 .1 1228 1463— N \ / o \ / o CABRILLO PARK DR PROJECT DWY NO. 2 FIGURE 6 -10 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA (tNO SCALE JN f 919 \ 115 o r7 LK LN -1RST ST — — __l J� 1137\ 173 3­1 / B ON -RAMP/ 3URY ST 4TH ST KEY / 1032\ r 391 1579� 1062� 1-5 SB ON -RAMP FIRST ST 969 208---� �1028— � 0000 N N 1-5 NB RAMPS @ 4TH ST / "' L \ / `0 1392\ l� r 478 1104— \ 591--, / \ / SR-55 SB RAMPS 4TH ST 18 /--� 58\ 1490\ 51-' 1188-- ro } n 125--, CABRILLO PARK DR 17TH ST / 6\ r'Nr f 124 \ / l�r 24 5� } - 9 Lc) CD PARK CENTER DR FRUIT ST ® = STUDY INTERSECTION XX,XXX► = STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT C ::] = PROJECT SITE /c" 16\ "' `V 886 \ j + � 13 494� 106 CABRILLO PARK DR Q FIRST ST /N co �_o_ 13\ 8911\ 328-' 0 781— f O 197I \ � � / CABRILLO PARK DR @ 4TH ST / 769 \ 1423 397-' \1250� �� \ / SR-55 NB RAMPS 4TH ST / 74\ _N-)N _ /j 59 2--"�}r1 2r0_0CD / \ / CABRILLO PARK DR @ WELLINGTON AVE 70\ 00 r- N f 12 \ �r54 127--" \ 65 } / TUSTIN AVE @ FRUIT ST /o o_ 69\ 404 \ 75--" 1126— c f �// � 18� GOLDEN CIRCLE DR FIRST ST 10 / — /- � 17\ 6\ 133 28---' 979— � } dO \ 4- / GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 4TH ST 15 /--� c o 68\ 1880\ 144-' 1218— � } �/ / YORBA ST 4TH ST 16\ N 00N 3 \ �1,r33 54-4 0— } (-/ Lo 85--j �2 \ / TUSTIN AVE WELLINGTON AVE 38\ 0 \ 59 21 � 163� � � r/ 1 / CABRILLO PARK DR @ PARK COURT PL 44\ �oN f 831 \ /j � 5 664— ' } / TUSTIN AVE Q FIRST ST /°N_° a 24\ / r 859 \ 229--" 713— `l } �// 51� YORBA ST FIRST ST 11 /--__l 12 /--� / � \ /� 6A / 1351 / _ 264 1161� / 879�o ^ / 57--., PARK CENTER DR @ TUSTIN AVE 4TH ST 4TH ST 16 /--� 17 /--� CO \ Ln 146--" } \ 215---' } 127--� / 186� / c U CABRILLO PARK DR @ CABRILLO PARK DR STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD a a 21 /--� 22 /--� ­d-m L 54\ /D�o 10� / �� f 67 \ / �r'�' f 78 \ �r 6 36 x � } 33�' � � 18-' Ln -) / 0 Ln o 24- 39-'� \ / \ / a U MABURY ST CABRILLO PARK DR C� FRUIT ST FRUIT ST / 116 \ r 64 1081— c / PROJECT DWY NO. 1 @ PARK COURT PL w V / Q, \ _ / 133 \ 2026 1301— N \ / o CABRILLO PARK DR @ PROJECT DWY NO. 2 FIGURE 6 -11 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA 7.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The relative impact of the proposed Project during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections, without, then with, the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume -to -capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection was then evaluated using the following traffic impact criteria. 7.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds 7.1.1 City of Santa Ana Based on the City of Santa Ana, impacts to local and regional transportation systems are considered significant if any of the following would occur: ■ Project traffic would cause an intersection currently operating at an acceptable peak hour Level of Service (LOS) to operate at an unacceptable peak hour LOS. The City of Santa Ana considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable LOS for all intersections, except for those locations located within the City's defined major development areas, where LOS E is considered acceptable. Based on the above, the following summarizes the LOS required for each key study intersection: ➢ LOS "D" Requirements: 1. Elk Lane at First Street 2. I-5 SB On -Ramp at First Street 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 41h Street 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 17th Street ➢ LOS "E" Requirements: 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 41h Street 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4th Street 11. Park Center Drive at 41h Street 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place 12. Tustin Avenue at 41 Street 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Center Access Road 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street ■ The project increases traffic demand by 1% of capacity (ICU increase >_ 0.01) at a signalized study intersection forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS. ■ At unsignalized intersections, an impact is considered to be significant if the project causes an intersection at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or F and the traffic signal warrant analysis determines that a signal is justified. 7.1.2 City of Tustin For those study intersections within the jurisdiction of the City of Tustin, impacts to local and regional transportation systems are considered significant if - An unacceptable peak hour Level of Service (LOS) at any of the key intersections is projected. The City of Tustin considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the peak commute hours. For this analysis, if the project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1 % of capacity (ICU increase >_ 0.010), causing or worsening LOS E or F (ICU > 0.901), the impact is considered significant. 7.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios The following scenarios are those for which volume/capacity calculations have been performed at the twenty-five (25) key intersections for existing plus project, near -term (Year 2025) and long-term (Year 2040) traffic conditions: A. Existing Traffic Conditions; B. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions; C. Scenario (B) with Improvements, if necessary; D. Near -Term (Year 2025) Cumulative Traffic Conditions, E. Near -Term (Year 2025) Cumulative plus Project Traffic Conditions; F. Scenario (E) with Improvements, if necessary; G. Long -Term (Year 2040) Future Traffic Conditions; H. Long -Term (Year 2040) Future Traffic Conditions plus Project Traffic; and I. Scenario (H) with Improvements, if necessary. 8.0 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 8.1 Existing Plus Project Analysis Table 8-1 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections for existing plus project traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS values and HCM/LOS values in Table 8-1 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 3-3). The second column (2) lists existing plus project traffic conditions. The third column (3) shows the increase in ICU value and/or HCM value due to the added peak hour Project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fourth column (4) presents the resultant level of service with the inclusion of recommended traffic improvements, where needed, to achieve an acceptable level of service. 8.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (2) and (3) of Table 8-1 indicates that traffic associated with the proposed Project will significantly impact one (1) of the twenty-five study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. The impacted intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. Review of column (4) of Table 8-1 indicates that the implementation of recommended improvements at the intersection will help offset the Project's impact. Planned and recommended improvements are discussed in Section 11.0. Appendix D presents the existing plus project ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculations for the twenty- five (25) key study intersections. TABLE H-1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS O (4) (1) (2) Existing Plus Project E Existing Existing Plus Project (3) Plus Improvements Traffic a. Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Conditions u Time Key Intersection Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Elk Lane at AM 0.599 A 0.604 B 0.005 No -- -- 1. D First Street PM 0.716 C 0.725 C 0.009 No -- -- I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 0.425 A 0.434 A 0.009 No -- -- 2. D First Street PM 0.584 A 0.594 A 0.010 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.450 A 0.458 A 0.008 No -- - 3. E First Street PM 0.544 A 0.558 A 0.014 No -- - Golden Circle Drive at AM 0.331 A 0.331 A 0.000 No -- - 4. E First Street PM 0.324 A 0.325 A 0.001 No -- - Tustin Avenue at AM 0.396 A 0.398 A 0.002 No -- - 5. D First Street PM 0.418 A 0.421 A 0.003 No -- - Yorba Street at AM 0.448 A 0.449 A 0.001 No -- - 6. D First Street PM 0.526 A 0.529 A 0.003 No -- - I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 0.357 A 0.382 A 0.025 No -- - T 4tn Street D PM 0.395 A 0.399 A 0.004 No -- - I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.429 A 0.442 A 0.013 No -- - 8 D 4th Street PM 0.774 C 0.787 C 0.013 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.551 A 0.547 A -0.00413 No -- - 9. E 4tb Street PM 0.714 C 0.793 C 0.079 No -- - Note: • Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ■ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 13 Negative V/C increase is due to Project -specific improvements as detailed in Section 11.0. TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS O (4) (1) (2) Existing Plus Project E Existing Existing Plus Project (3) Plus Improvements Traffic a o. Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Conditions u Time Key Intersection Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Golden Circle Drive at AM 0.398 A 0.410 A 0.012 No -- - 10. E 4th Street PM 0.405 A 0.421 A 0.016 No -- - Park Center Drive at AM 13.7 s/v B 14.0 s/v B 0.3 s/v No -- - 11. E 4th Street PM 16.2 s/v C 17.0 s/v C 0.8 s/v No -- - Tustin Avenue at AM 0.667 B 0.667 B 0.000 No -- - 12. E 4th Street PM 0.738 C 0.751 C 0.013 No -- -- SR-55 SB Ramps at AM 0.978 E 0.991 E 0.013 Yes 0.521 A 13. D 4th Street PM 0.748 C 0.761 C 0.013 No 0.706 C SR-55 NB Ramps at AM 0.670 B 0.684 B 0.014 No -- - 14. D 4th Street PM 0.689 B 0.705 C 0.016 No -- - Yorba Street at AM 0.561 A 0.563 A 0.002 No -- - 15. D 4th Street PM 0.605 B 0.610 B 0.005 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.308 A 0.319 A 0.011 No -- - 16. E State Fund Access Road PM 0.340 A 0.347 A 0.007 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.271 A 0.282 A 0.011 No -- - 17. E Xerox Centre Access Road PM 0.308 A 0.315 A 0.007 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.568 A 0.571 A 0.003 No -- - 18. D 17th Street PM 0.611 B 0.619 B 0.008 No -- - Note: Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS O (4) (1) (2) Existing Plus Project E Existing Existing Plus Project (3) Plus Improvements Traffic a o. Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Conditions u Time Key Intersection Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 17.8 s/v C 18.2 s/v C 0.4 s/v No -- - 19. D Wellington Avenue PM 17.9 s/v C 18.3 s/v C 0.4 s/v No -- - Tustin Avenue at AM 0.574 A 0.575 A 0.001 No -- - 20. E Wellington Avenue PM 0.411 A 0.412 A 0.001 No -- - Mabury Street at AM 7.7 s/v A 7.7 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- - 21. D Fruit Street PM 7.7 s/v A 7.7 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 12.5 s/v B 12.7 s/v B 0.2 s/v No -- - 22. D Fruit Street PM 11.5 s/v B 11.9 s/v B 0.4 s/v No -- - Park Center Drive at AM 10.3 s/v B 10.4 s/v B 0.1 s/v No -- - 23. D Fruit Street PM 10.5 s/v B 10.6 s/v B 0.1 s/v No -- - Tustin Avenue at AM 0.509 A 0.516 A 0.007 No -- - 24. E Fruit Street PM 0.446 A 0.451 A 0.005 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 18.6 s/v C 22.6 s/v C 4.0 s/v No -- - 25. D Park Court Place PM 24.3 s/v C 32.4 s/v D 8.1 s/v No -- - Note: • Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ■ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 8.2 Year 2025 Traffic Conditions Table 8-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections for the Year 2025 horizon year. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS values in Table 8-2 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists projected cumulative traffic conditions (existing plus ambient plus related projects traffic) based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2025 near -term traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in ICU value and/or HCM value due to the added peak hour Project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) presents the resultant level of service with the inclusion of recommended traffic improvements, where needed, to achieve an acceptable level of service. 8.2.1 Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 8-2 indicates that the addition of ambient traffic growth and related projects traffic will adversely impact two (2) of the twenty-five key study intersections. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections forecast to operate adversely consist of the following: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Ka Intersection ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS 1. Elk Lane at First Street -- -- 0.921 E 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 41h Street 1.063 F -- -- 8.2.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Review of columns (3) of Table 8-2 indicates that four (4) of the twenty-five study intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable level of service during the AM and/or PM peak hours, based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report, with the addition of project traffic. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections forecast to operate adversely consist of the following: Key Intersection 1. Elk Lane at First Street 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4' Street 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 411 Street 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS -- -- 0.929 E -- -- 0.904 E 1.074 F -- -- -- -- 45.9 s/v E Review of column (4) of Table 8-2 indicates that two (2) intersections are significantly impacted by the Project under Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions, which include I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street and SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street. Review of column (5) indicates that the implementation of planned and/or recommended improvements at the intersections will help offset the Project's impact. Planned and recommended improvements are discussed in Section 11.0. Although the intersection of Elk Lane/First Street operates adversely during the PM peak hour, the proposed Project adds less than 0.010 increment to the ICU value and is therefore not considered significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report. Although Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place operates adversely during the PM peak hour, a traffic signal is not warranted during the PM peak hour and therefore the intersection is not considered significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report. However, a traffic signal is warranted during the AM peak hour and therefore it is recommended to implement improvements at the intersection to help achieve acceptable level of service. Review of column (5) indicates that the installation of a two-phase traffic signal at this intersection would help improve the intersection and result in an acceptable level of service. It should be noted that the installation of a two-phase traffic signal would be in place of previously identified improvements at the intersection (i.e. median diverters to prohibit cross -traffic) as documented in the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. Appendix D also presents the near -term ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculations for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections. Appendix H presents the signal warrant worksheets for the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place. TABLE 8-2 YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS (2) (3) (5) Year 2025 Cumulative B (1) Year 2025 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project _ Existing Cumulative Plus Project (4) Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Traffic Conditions � Time Key Intersection U d Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Elk Lane at AM 0.599 A 0.748 C 0.753 C 0.005 No -- -- 1. D First Street PM 0.716 C 0.921 E 0.929 E 0.008 No - -- I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 0.425 A 0.517 A 0.527 A 0.010 No - - 2. D First Street PM 0.584 A 0.681 B 0.691 B 0.010 No - - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.450 A 0.563 A 0.571 A 0.008 No - - 3. E First Street PM 0.544 A 0.716 C 0.730 C 0.014 No - -- Golden Circle Drive at AM 0.331 A 0.384 A 0.385 A 0.001 No - -- 4. E First Street PM 0.324 A 0.381 A 0.382 A 0.001 No -- - Tustin Avenue at AM 0.396 A 0.487 A 0.489 A 0.002 No -- - 5. D First Street PM 0.418 A 0.476 A 0.478 A 0.002 No -- - Yorba Street at AM 0.448 A 0.524 A 0.525 A 0.001 No -- -- 6. D First Street PM 0.526 A 0.610 B 0.613 B 0.003 No -- - I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 0.357 A 0.413 A 0.437 A 0.024 No -- - 7 D 4tb Street PM 0.395 A 0.478 A 0.482 A 0.004 No -- - I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.429 A 0.482 A 0.495 A 0.013 No 0.495 A 8 D 40' Street PM 0.774 C 0.891 D 0.904 E 0.013 Yes 0.573 A Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.551 A 0.633 B 0.620 B -0.01314 No -- - 9. E 4th Street PM 0.714 C 0.817 D 0.881 D 0.064 No -- - Note: • Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 14 Negative V/C increase is due to Project -specific improvements as detailed in Section 11.0. TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS v, (2) (3) (5) Year 2025 Cumulative (1) Year 2025 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project A� Existing E l Cumulative us Project Plus P (4) Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact0. Traffic Conditions d u Time Key Intersection U d Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Golden Circle Drive at AM 0.398 A 0.447 A 0.459 A 0.012 No -- -- 10. E 4th Street PM 0.405 A 0.469 A 0.483 A 0.014 No -- -- Park Center Drive at AM 13.7 s/v B 15.6 s/v C 15.8 s/v C 0.2 s/v No -- -- 11. E 4o Street PM 16.2 s/v C 20.9 s/v C 22.2 s/v C 1.3 s/v No -- -- Tustin Avenue at AM 0.667 B 0.779 C 0.785 C 0.006 No -- - 12. E 4th Street PM 0.738 C 0.843 D 0.856 D 0.013 No -- - SR-55 SB Ramps at AM 0.978 E 1.063 F 1.074 F 0.011 Yes 0.610 B 13. D 4th Street PM 0.748 C 0.834 D 0.847 D 0.013 No 0.810 D SR-55 NB Ramps at AM 0.670 B 0.771 C 0.785 C 0.014 No -- - 14. D 4th Street PM 0.689 B 0.802 D 0.818 D 0.016 No -- - Yorba Street at AM 0.561 A 0.614 B 0.616 B 0.002 No - - 15. D 4th Street PM 0.605 B 0.664 B 0.668 B 0.004 No - -- Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.308 A 0.347 A 0.359 A 0.012 No - - 16. E State Fund Access Road PM 0.340 A 0.386 A 0.393 A 0.007 No - - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.271 A 0.350 A 0.362 A 0.012 No -- - 17. E Xerox Centre Access Road PM 0.308 A 0.398 A 0.400 A 0.002 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.568 A 0.624 B 0.628 B 0.004 No -- -- 18. D 17' Street PM 0.611 B 0.697 B 0.705 C 0.008 No -- -- Note: • Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS v, (2) (3) (5) Year 2025 Cumulative (1) Year 2025 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project A� E Existing l Cumulative us Project Plus P (4) Plus Improvements a Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Traffic Conditions d u Time Key Intersection U d Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 17.8 s/v C 22.0 s/v C 22.6 s/v C 0.6 s/v No -- -- 19. D Wellington Avenue PM 17.9 s/v C 21.7 s/v C 22.2 s/v C 0.5 s/v No -- -- Tustin Avenue at AM 0.574 A 0.612 B 0.613 B 0.001 No -- -- 20. E Wellington Avenue PM 0.411 A 0.443 A 0.445 A 0.002 No -- -- Mabury Street at AM 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.0 s/v No - - 21. D Fruit Street PM 7.7 s/v A 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.1 s/v No - - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 12.5 s/v B 13.9 s/v B 14.2 s/v B 0.3 s/v No - -- 22. D Fruit Street PM 11.5 s/v B 12.9 s/v B 13.3 s/v B 0.4 s/v No - - Park Center Drive at AM 10.3 s/v B 10.5 s/v B 10.6 s/v B 0.1 s/v No - - 23. D Fruit Street PM 10.5 s/v B 10.7 s/v B 10.8 s/v B 0.1 S/v No - - Tustin Avenue at AM 0.509 A 0.543 A 0.550 A 0.007 No - - 24. E Fruit Street PM 0.446 A 0.480 A 0.485 A 0.005 No -- -- Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 18.6 s/v C 21.4 s/v C 26.6 s/v D 5.9 s/v No 0.487 A15 25. D Park Court Place PM 24.3 s/v C 31.7 s/v D 45.9 s/v E 6.6 s/v No 0.414 A15 Note: • Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ■ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 15 Although the intersection is not considered significantly impacted, it is forecast to operate at unacceptable level of service. Therefore, recommended mitigation measures have been included in this analysis for informational purposes. Recommended mitigation includes the installation of a two-phase traffic signal. 8.3 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions Table 8-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty-five (25) key study intersections for the Year 2040. The first column (1) of ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS values in Table 8- 3 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists projected Year 2040 long-term traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2040 long-term traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in ICU value and/or HCM value due to the added peak hour Project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) presents the resultant level of service with the inclusion of recommended traffic improvements, where needed, to achieve an acceptable level of service. 8.3.1 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions Review of column (2) of Table 8-3 indicates that projected long-term (Year 2040) without project traffic will adversely impact four (4) of the twenty-five key study intersections. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections forecast to operate adversely consist of the following: Key Intersection 1. Elk Lane at First Street 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4' Street 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 41h Street 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS -- -- 0.964 E -- -- 0.960 E 1.111 F 0.934 E -- -- 37.2 s/v E 8.3.2 Year 2040 Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (3) of Table 8-3 indicates that four (4) of the twenty-five study intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable level of service during the AM and/or PM peak hours, based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report, with the addition of project traffic. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections forecast to operate adversely consist of the following: Key Intersection 1. Elk Lane at First Street 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4' Street 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS -- -- 0.972 E -- -- 0.973 E 1.123 F 0.948 E -- -- 56.9 s/v F Review of column (4) of Table 8-3 indicates that two (2) intersections are significantly impacted by the Project under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions, which include I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street and SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street. Review of column (5) indicates that the implementation of planned and/or recommended improvements at the intersections will help offset the Project's impact. Planned and recommended improvements are discussed in Section 11.0. Although the intersection of Elk Lane/First Street operates adversely during the PM peak hour, the proposed Project adds less than 0.010 increment to the ICU value and is therefore not considered significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report. Although Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place operates adversely during the PM peak hour, a traffic signal is not warranted during the PM peak hour and therefore the intersection is not considered significantly impacted based on the LOS standards and impact criteria specified in this report. However, a traffic signal is warranted during the AM peak hour and therefore it is recommended to implement improvements at the intersection to help achieve acceptable level of service. Review of column (5) indicates that the installation of a two-phase traffic signal at this intersection would help improve the intersection and result in an acceptable level of service. It should be noted that the installation of a two-phase traffic signal would be in place of previously identified improvements at the intersection (i.e. median diverters to prohibit cross -traffic) as documented in the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. Appendix D also presents the long-term ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculations for the twenty-five (25) key study intersections. Appendix H presents the signal warrant worksheets for the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place. TABLE W YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 5 C (3) Year 2040 Buildout E a (1) (2) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Existing Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project (4) Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Traffic Conditions � Time Key Intersection u Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Elk Lane at AM 0.599 A 0.785 C 0.791 A 0.006 No -- -- 1. D First Street PM 0.716 C 0.964 E 0.972 E 0.008 No -- - I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 0.425 A 0.541 A 0.550 A 0.009 No -- 2. D First Street PM 0.584 A 0.713 C 0.722 C 0.009 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.450 A 0.652 B 0.660 B 0.008 No -- - 3. E First Street PM 0.544 A 0.750 C 0.764 C 0.014 No -- Golden Circle Drive at AM 0.331 A 0.403 A 0.404 A 0.001 No -- 4. E First Street PM 0.324 A 0.390 A 0.391 A 0.001 No -- Tustin Avenue at AM 0.396 A 0.506 A 0.508 A 0.002 No -- 5. D First Street PM 0.418 A 0.557 A 0.559 A 0.002 No -- Yorba Street at AM 0.448 A 0.626 B 0.628 B 0.002 No -- 6. D First Street PM 0.526 A 0.684 B 0.686 B 0.002 No -- I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 0.357 A 0.432 A 0.457 A 0.025 No -- 7 D 41 Street PM 0.395 A 0.503 A 0.517 A 0.014 No -- I-5 NB Ramps at AM 0.429 A 0.528 A 0.541 A 0.013 No 0.541 A 8 D 4' Street PM 0.774 C 0.960 E 0.973 E 0.013 Yes 0.626 B Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.551 A 0.669 B 0.661 B -0.00816 No -- 9. E 4' Street PM 0.714 C 0.846 D 0.915 E 0.069 No -- Note: • Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 16 Negative V/C increase is due to Project -specific improvements as detailed in Section 11.0. TABLE 8-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS (3) (5) Year 2040 Buildout a R (1) (2) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project A Existing Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project (4) Plus Improvements a Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Traffic Conditions � Time Key Intersection U Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Golden Circle Drive at AM 0.398 A 0.466 A 0.478 A 0.012 No -- 10. E 41h Street PM 0.405 A 0.490 A 0.503 A 0.013 No -- - Park Center Drive at AM 13.7 s/v B 16.2 s/v C 16.5 s/v C 0.3 s/v No -- - 11. E 4111 Street PM 16.2 s/v C 22.7 s/v C 24.3 s/v C 1.6 s/v No -- - Tustin Avenue at AM 0.667 B 0.820 D 0.826 D 0.006 No -- - 12. E 4th Street PM 0.738 C 0.961 E 0.961 E 0.000 No -- - SR-55 SB Ramps at AM 0.978 E 1.111 F 1.123 F 0.012 Yes 0.635 B 13. D 4th Street PM 0.748 C 0.934 E 0.948 E 0.014 Yes 0.903 E SR-55 NB Ramps at AM 0.670 B 0.835 D 0.849 D 0.014 No -- 14. D 4th Street PM 0.689 B 0.851 D 0.890 D 0.039 No -- Yorba Street at AM 0.561 A 0.752 C 0.754 C 0.002 No -- 15. D 4th Street PM 0.605 B 0.715 C 0.719 C 0.004 No -- Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.308 A 0.362 A 0.374 A 0.012 No -- - 16. E State Fund Access Road PM 0.340 A 0.403 A 0.409 A 0.006 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.271 A 0.366 A 0.377 A 0.011 No -- 17. E Xerox Centre Access Road PM 0.308 A 0.408 A 0.417 A 0.009 No -- Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 0.568 A 0.652 B 0.655 B 0.003 No -- 18. D 17th Street PM 0.611 B 0.730 C 0.737 C 0.007 No -- Note: • Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. ■ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) TABLE 8-3 (CONTINUED) YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS (5) (3) Year 2040 Buildout a (1) (2) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Existing Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project (4) Plus Improvements Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Significant Impact Traffic Conditions � Time Key Intersection U d Period ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No ICU/HCM LOS Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 17.8 s/v C 24.4 s/v C 25.2 s/v D 0.8 s/v No -- -- 19. D Wellington Avenue PM 17.9 s/v C 24.1 s/v C 24.7 s/v C 0.6 s/v No -- -- Tustin Avenue at AM 0.574 A 0.640 B 0.641 B 0.001 No -- - 20. E Wellington Avenue PM 0.411 A 0.462 A 0.464 A 0.002 No -- - Mabury Street at AM 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- 21. D Fruit Street PM 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 7.9 s/v A 0.1 s/v No -- Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 12.5 s/v B 14.9 s/v B 15.2 s/v C 0.3 s/v No -- - 22. D Fruit Street PM 11.5 s/v B 13.6 s/v B 14.0 s/v B 0.4 s/v No -- - Park Center Drive at AM 10.3 s/v B 10.7 s/v B 10.8 s/v B 0.1 s/v No -- - 23. D Fruit Street PM 10.5 s/v B 10.8 s/v B 12.0 s/v B 1.2 s/v No -- Tustin Avenue at AM 0.509 A 0.577 A 0.584 A 0.007 No -- - 24. E Fruit Street PM 0.446 A 0.502 A 0.506 A 0.004 No -- - Cabrillo Park Drive at AM 18.6 s/v C 23.0 s/v C 29.2 s/v D 7.2 s/v No 0.514 A 17 25. D Park Court Place PM 24.3 s/v C 37.2 s/v E 56.9 s/v F 9.1 s/v No 0.423 A17 Note: Bold ICU/LOS or HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Cities LOS standards. • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 17 Although the intersection is not considered significantly impacted, it is forecast to operate at unacceptable level of service. Therefore, recommended mitigation measures have been included in this analysis for informational purposes. Recommended mitigation includes the installation of a two-phase traffic signal. 9.0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CALTRANS) ANALYSIS In conformance with the current Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, dated December 2002, existing and projected peak hour operating conditions at the five (5) state-controlled study intersections within the study area have been evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual operations method of analysis. These state-controlled locations include the following study intersections: 2. I-5 SB On -Ramp at First Street (City of Santa Ana/Caltrans) 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4"' Street (City of Santa Ana/Caltrans) 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 0' Street (City of Santa Ana/Caltrans) 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 0' Street (City of Santa Ana/Caltrans) 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4t' Street (City of Tustin/Caltrans) Caltrans "endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" on State highway facilities"; it does not require that LOS "D" (shall) be maintained. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. For this analysis, LOS D is the target level of service standard and will be utilized to assess the project impacts at the state-controlled study intersections. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, dated December 2002 states that if an existing State-owned facility operates at less than the target LOS (i.e. LOS D); the existing service level should be maintained. Based on Caltrans Criteria, a Project's impact is considered significant if the Project causes the LOS to change from an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS D or better) to a deficient LOS (i.e. LOS E or F). 9.1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) Based on the HCM 61h Edition operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents and when there are no other vehicles on the road. In the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 9-1. TABLE 9-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM)18 Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive A < 10.0 during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. This level generally occurs with good B > 10.0 and < 20.0 progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More — vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may C > 20.0 and < 35.0 begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Long traffic delays. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some D > 35.0 and < 55.0 combination of unfavorable progression, long — cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Very long traffic delays. This level is considered by many agencies (i.e. SANBAG) to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high E > 55.0 and < 80.0 delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Severe congestion. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates F >_ 80.0 exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. 18 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Signalized Intersections). 9.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Table 9-2 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the five (5) state-controlled study intersections for existing plus project traffic conditions. The first column (1) of HCM/LOS values in Table 9-2 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic. The second column (2) lists existing plus project traffic conditions with current intersection geometry/lane configurations. The third column (3) shows the increase in delay value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fourth column (4) indicates the anticipated level of service with improvements, if any. 9.2.1 Existing Traffic Conditions Review of column (1) of Table 9-2 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street currently operates at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour. The remaining state-controlled study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 9.2.2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (2) and (3) of Table 9-2 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Appendix E presents the existing plus project HCM/LOS calculations for the state-controlled study intersections. TABLE 9-2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY - CALTRANS (1) (2) (3) Existing Plus Project Existing Existing Plus Project Significant Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Impact with Improvements Time HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No HCM LOS Key Intersection Period I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 7.2 s/v A 7.4 s/v A No -- 2. First Street PM 7.2 s/v A 7.4 s/v A No No - -- I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 15.2 s/v B 16.1 s/v B 7. 4th street PM 13.3 s/v B 14.3 s/v B No -- -- I-5 NB Ramps at AM 8.7 s/v A 8.6 s/v A No -- -- 8. 41 Street PM 14.2 s/v B 14.4 s/v B No -- -- SR-55 SB Ramps at AM 147.9 s/v F 151.8 s/v F No 26.8 s/v C19 13. 4th Street PM 27.2 s/v C 27.6 s/v C C No No 24.8 s/v C19 SR-55 NB Ramps at AM 24.8 s/v C 25.6 s/v -- -- 14. 41h Street PM 20.0 s/v B 20.7 s/v C No -- -- Note: • Bold HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS standards. • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 19 Although the intersection is not considered a significant impact based on Caltrans criteria, level of service results at the intersection with the implementation of improvements discussed in Section 11.0 have been included for informational purposes. 9.3 Year 2025 Traffic Conditions Table 9-3 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the at the five (5) state-controlled study intersections for the Year 2025 horizon year. The first column (1) of HCM/LOS values in Table 9-3 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists future Year 2025 cumulative traffic conditions (existing plus ambient growth traffic plus cumulative projects traffic), without any traffic generated by the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed Project. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in delay value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) indicates the anticipated level of service with improvements, if any. 9.3.1 Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Review of Column (2) of Table 9-3 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 9.3.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (3) and (4) of Table 9-3 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/0' Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Appendix E presents the Year 2025 HCM/LOS calculations for the state-controlled study intersections. TABLE 9-3 YEAR 2025 CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY - CALTRANS (3) (1) (2) (4) Year 2025 Cumulative Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Existing Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Significant Traffic Conditions Time Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Impact with Improvements HCM LOS HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No HCM LOS Key Intersection Period I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 7.2 s/v A 7.7 s/v A 8.0 S/v A No -- -- 2. First Street PM 7.2 s/v A B 8.3 s/v A 8.6 s/v A No -- -- - -- I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 15.2 s/v 15.6 s/v B 16.4 s/v B No 7. 40' street PM 13.3 s/v B 14.8 s/v B 15.6 s/v B No -- -- I-5 NB Ramps at AM 8.7 s/v A 10.0 S/v A 9.9 S/v A No 9.2 s/v A20 8. 41 Street PM 14.2 s/v B 20.6 s/v C 21.2 s/v C No 11.9 S/v B20 SR-55 SB Ramps at AM 147.9 s/v F 156.9 s/v F 160.7 s/v F No 25.7 s/v C20 13. 4' Street PM AM 27.2 s/v C 31.4 s/v C 32.8 s/v C No 26.0 s/v C20 SR-55 NB Ramps at 24.8 s/v C 34.7 s/v C 36.2 s/v D No -- 14. 41 Street PM 20.0 s/v B 26.8 s/v C 29.4 s/v C No -- Note: • Bold HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS standards. • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 20 Although the intersection is not considered a significant impact based on Caltrans criteria, level of service results at the intersection with the implementation of improvements discussed in Section 11.0 have been included for informational purposes. 9.4 Year 2040 Traffic Conditions Table 9-4 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the at the five (5) state-controlled study intersections for the Year 2040 buildout year. The first column (1) of HCM/LOS values in Table 9-4 presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The second column (2) lists future Year 2040 buildout traffic conditions, without any traffic generated by the proposed Project. The third column (3) presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed Project. The fourth column (4) shows the increase in delay value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria defined in this report. The fifth column (5) indicates the anticipated level of service with improvements, if any. 9.4.1 Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions Review of Column (2) of Table 9-4 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 9.4.2 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns (3) and (4) of Table 9-4 indicates that the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4ch Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/0' Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. Appendix E presents the Year 2040 HCM/LOS calculations for the state-controlled study intersections. TABLE 9-4 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY - CALTRANS ( (1) (2) �4) Year 2040 Buildout Year 20400 Buildout Plus Project Existing Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Significant Traffic Conditions Time Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions Impact with Improvements HCM LOS HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No HCM LOS Key Intersection Period I-5 SB On Ramp at AM 7.2 s/v A 7.9 s/v A 8.1 s/v A No -- -- 2. First Street PM 7.2 s/v A 8.9 S/v 16.6 s/v A B 9.2 s/v A No No -- -- - I-5 SB On Ramp/Mabury Street at AM 15.2 s/v B 17.6 s/v B 7. 4' street PM 13.3 s/v B A 16.8 s/v 10.2 s/v B 17.4 s/v B No -- - A21 I-5 NB Ramps at AM 8.7 s/v B 10.2 s/v B No 9.4 s/v 8. 41 Street PM 14.2 s/v 147.9 s/v B 28.1 s/v 170.3 s/v C 29.1 s/v C No 13.8 s/v B21 C2i SR-55 SB Ramps at AM F F 174.1 s/v F No 25.4 s/v 13. 40' Street PM 27.2 s/v C 39.7 s/v 48.2 s/v D 41.7 s/v D No 32.2 s/v C-- SR-55 NB Ramps at AM 24.8 s/v C D 50.6 s/v D No -- 14. 41' Street PM 20.0 s/v B 34.7 s/v C 37.0 s/v D No -- Note: • Bold HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the Caltrans LOS standards. • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) 21 Although the intersection is not considered a significant impact based on Caltrans criteria, level of service results at the intersection with the implementation of improvements discussed in Section 11.0 have been included for informational purposes. 10.0 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION EVALUATION 10.1 Site Access Access to the proposed Project will be provided via one (1) full access unsignalized driveway along Park Court Place and one (1) right in/out only driveway located along 4th Street. Table 10-1 summarizes the intersection level of service results for the two (2) proposed Project driveways under near -term (Year 2025) and long-term (Year 2040) traffic conditions at completion and full occupancy of the proposed Project. As shown, these key study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Appendix F presents the near -term and long-term HCM/LOS calculations for the two (2) Project driveways. 10.2 Queuing Analysis A queuing assessment has been completed to validate the driveway locations and egress from the site. In addition, as a result of the recommended improvements in Section 11.0, which identifies a second westbound right turn lane at I-5 NB Ramps/46 Street, the queueing analysis includes additional recommended improvements to help with existing congestion at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. This evaluation is based on Synchro 10.0 Sim Traffic 95th Percentile methodology. 10.2.1 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions Table 10-2 presents the queueing analyses results for the AM and PM peak hours for Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions. Column (1) presents results for Year 2040 Buildout project traffic conditions and column (2) presents results for Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions with recommended improvements. Based on field observation it is apparent that congestion occurs at Cabrillo Park Drive/0' Street as a result of vehicles trying to enter the westbound right -turn lane along 41h Street. Due to the recommended second westbound right -turn lane along 4th Street, additional improvements are recommended for the northbound approach at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. The additional recommended improvements consist of the following: ■ Add signage to the northbound direction along with lane line extensions to direct the motorist in the left turn lane that they can enter the inner right -turn lane for access to the I-5 NB Ramp. The northbound left/thru lane should have signage and lane extensions to direct the motorist to use the outer right -turn lane for access to the I-5 NB Ramp. These improvements are subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. Review of Column (1) of Table 10-2 indicates that the queues are generally adequate under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the southbound right -turn lane at Cabrillo Park Drive/41h Street may exceed the storage provided. As an alternative, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right -turn lane can be striped to provide additional queuing storage. Review of Column (2) of Table 10-2 indicates that with the implementation of improvements, the queues are generally adequate under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the southbound right -turn lane at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street may exceed the storage provided. As an alternative, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right -turn lane can be striped to provide additional queuing storage. The implementation of the recommended improvements also helps to improve congestion and limit unnecessary weaving/merging of vehicles that need to enter the I-5 NB Ramp22. However, in the event that Fourth Street experiences "spikes" in congestion during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, residents will very likely re-route themselves (self -monitor) and utilize the northern Driveway on Park Court Place instead of the driveway on Fourth Street. The intersections of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place and Cabrillo Park Drive/Fourth Street have enough capacity to accommodate the additional trips. Appendix G presents the queueing worksheets for Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions. 22 Level of service results at Cabrillo Park Drive/4' Street with Improvements: Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project: AM Peak Hour: ICU 0.674, LOS B; PM Peak Hour: ICU 0.915, LOS E TABLE 10-1 PROJECT DRIVEWAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS (1) (2) Year 2025 Cumulative Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Plus Project Intersection Time Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions HCM LOS HCM LOS Key Intersection Control Period Project Driveway 1 at One -Way AM 9.5 s/v A 9.5 s/v A A. Park Court Place Stop PM 9.3 s/v A 9.4 s/v A Project Driveway 2 at One -Way AM 16.6 s/v C 17.2 s/v C B. 41h Street Stop PM 29.1 s/v D 31.6 s/v D Notes: ■ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) TABLE 10-2 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR QUEUING ANALYSIS" (1) (2) Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions Traffic Conditions with Improvements AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Max. Max. Max. Max. Storage Queue/ Min. Adequate Queue/ Min. Adequate Queue/ Min. Adequate Queue/ Min. Adequate Provided Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Key Study Intersection (feet) Required (Yes/No) Required (Yes/No) Required (Yes/No) Required (Yes/No) 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4a' Street Westbound Through 555'/215'24 196' Yes 189, Yes 204' Yes 184' Yes Westbound Right -Turn 555'/215'24 134' Yes 171' Yes 137' Yes 188, Yes 9 Cabrillo Park Drive at 41h Street Southbound Right -Turn 100, 210' No25 162' No 176' N025 126' N025 A Project Driveway 1 at Park Court Place Northbound Left/Right-Turn 90, 58' Yes 56' Yes 61' Yes 60' Yes B. Project Driveway 2 at 4a' Street Southbound Right -Turn 185' 68' Yes 79' Yes 61' Yes 60' Yes 23 Queues are based on SimTraffic 95' Percentile methodology. 24 A storage of 555-feet is provided under existing traffic conditions while a storage of 215-feet represents the distance between the limit line and the proposed project driveway. 25 Please note that a right -turn storage is 100-feet with a 60-foot transition. Alternatively, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right -turn lane can be striped to provide additional queuing storage. 10.3 Internal Circulation Evaluation Access to the site is proposed via a right -turn in/out driveway along 4th Street. Access for small service/delivery trucks (i.e. UPS, FedEx, and trash trucks) and passenger vehicles for the Project site have been evaluated. Our evaluation of the on -site circulation shown on the Project site plan was performed using the Turning Vehicle Templates, developed by Jack E. Leisch & Associates and AutoTURN for AutoCAD computer software that simulates turning maneuvers for various types of vehicles. Figure 10-1 illustrates the turning movements required of a small delivery truck (SU-30) as it accesses the site from 4th Street. Review of Figure 10-1 shows overall the turning movements are considered adequate. After reviewing the design of Project Driveway 2 along 4th Street, it has been determined that the driveway throating is considered adequate. 10.4 Sight Distance Evaluation At intersections and/or project driveways, a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right, without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. A sight distance evaluation has been performed for both project driveways. The Sight Distance Evaluation prepared for the project driveways are based on the criteria and procedures set forth by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the State's Highway Design Manual (HDM). Corner sight distance was utilized for the evaluation. Corner sight distance is defined in the Caltrans HDM to be the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to maneuver their vehicle and avoid an object without radically altering their speed. Line of sight for corner sight distance is to be determined from a 3'/2 foot height at the location of the driver of a vehicle on a minor road to a 41/4 foot object height in the center of the approaching lane of the major road. Based on the criteria set forth in Table 405.1A of the Caltrans HDM and a posted speed limit of 25 mph on Park Court Place, a corner sight distance of 275 feet is required for left -turn at Project Driveway 1 and 239 feet for right -turn at Project Driveway 1. Based on the criteria set forth in Table 405.1A of the Caltrans HDM and a posted speed limit of 40 mph on 4th Street, a corner sight distance of 382 feet is required for right -turn at Project Driveway 2. Figure 10-2 presents the results of the sight distance evaluation for the Project driveways based on the application of the corner sight distance criteria. The figure illustrates the limited use areas. As shown, the sight lines at the proposed Project driveways are expected to be adequate as long as obstructions within the sight triangles are minimized. - - - - - l - - - A. kYu PARKCOURT PLACE- - ta: a•Fr i ,ew 1 _ I • Lk I O Ell El di r2 %1 —i � r . kA � �_ I I — = L o J_� J j W •`z __ � a m. � o 30.00 4 C � 4.00 20.00 ISA feet Width 8.00 Track Lock to Lock Time 8.00 6.0 R`• 'I ram: I Steering Angle 31.8 I E a NO - b O FOURTH STREET SOURCE: KTGY ARCHITECTS LINSCOTT FIGURE 10 -1 GREENSPAN (tNO SCALE SU-30 TRUCK TURNING ANALYSIS 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA 3i I 4 CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE _ __ I T DESIGN SPEED LIMIT: 25 MPH I L REQUIRED CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE: 239 FEET - RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT DESIGN SPEED LIMIT: 25 MPH REQUIRED CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE: 275 FEET LEFT TURN MOVEMENT-71 ;_.-. DESIGN SPEED LIMIT: 40 MPH , % REQUIRED CORNER, I SIGHT DISTANCE: 382 FEETz RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT t: LEGEND L F� f LIMITED USE AREA: TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SIGHT � DISTANCE, HARDSCAPE AND/OR LANDSCAPE SHALL tit 5 NOT BE HIGHER THAN 30 INCHES. NO FENCES Y3 OR WALLS IN LIMITED USE AREA. rl Four STM1 382' 11 -- - - - - -- - - - -�- - - - - - SOURCE: KTGY ARCHITECTS INO SCALE FIGURE 10 - 2 PROJECT DRIVEWAYS SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA 11.0 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS For those intersections where projected traffic volumes are expected to result in unacceptable operating conditions, this report recommends (identifies) improvement measures that change the intersection geometry to increase capacity. These capacity improvements involve roadway widening and/or re -striping to reconfigure (add lanes) to specific approaches of a key intersection. The identified improvements are expected to: ■ mitigate the impact of existing traffic, Project traffic and future non -project (ambient traffic growth and cumulative project) traffic and ■ improve Levels of Service to an acceptable range and/or to pre -project conditions. 11.1 Planned and/or Recommended Improvements 11.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analyses presented previously in Table 8-1 shows that the proposed Project is expected to have a significant impact at one (1) of the twenty-five (25) key study intersections under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. As such, the following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. No. 13 — SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Modify the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free -right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project's fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. 11.1.2 Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analyses presented previously in Table 8-2 shows that the proposed Project is expected to have a significant impact at two (2) of the twenty-five (25) key study intersections under Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions. As such, the following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. No. 8 — I-5 NB Ramps at Fourth Street: Construct an additional westbound right -turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary, inclusive any modifications to the traffic signal phasing. This improvement is consistent with the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. The proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement these mitigation measures, which are reflected in the Project site plan and is considered a "design feature". No. 13 — SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Same as those identified in Section 11.1.1 — Modify the eastbound shared through/right-turn lane to construct a free -right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project's fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. 11.1.3 Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions The results of the intersection capacity analyses presented previously in Table 8-3 shows that the proposed Project is expected to have a significant impact at two (2) of the twenty-five (25) key study intersections under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions. As such, the following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ■ No. 8 — I-5 NB Ramps at Fourth Street: Same as those identified in Section 11.1.2 — Construct an additional westbound right -turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary inclusive any modifications to the traffic signal phasing. This improvement is consistent with the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. The proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement these mitigation measures which are reflected in the Project site plan and is considered a "design feature". ■ No. 13 — SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Same as those identified in Sections 11.1.1 and 11.1.2 — Modify the eastbound shared through/right-turn lane to construct a free -right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project's fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. 11.2 Project -Specific Improvements The following improvements are being implemented as part of the proposed Project, which the Project is expected to pay the full construction costs: ■ No. 9 — Cabrillo Park Drive at Fourth Street: Construct an exclusive southbound right - turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement, which has been incorporated in the Project site plan as a Project "design feature" is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. As an alternative to the above mentioned improvement, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right -turn lane is proposed to minimize the southbound right -turning vehicles from impeding the through traffic. 11.3 Recommended Circulation Enhancement The following improvements are recommended to be implemented to enhance circulation within the Project Vicinity, thereby maintaining acceptable operating conditions: ■ No. 25 — Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place: Install two-phase traffic signal and implement all necessary signing and striping improvements. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. Figure 11-1 graphically illustrates the recommended and project specific improvements, as well as recommended circulation enhancements. Figure 11-2 presents a conceptual improvement plan for 4th Street between the I-5 NB Ramps and Cabrillo Park Drive that illustrates recommended signage and striping to inform motorists of availability of lanes to access the I-5 NB ramps and/or continue on 4th Street. The improvements are consistent with those recommended in Section 10.2 of this report. Please note that the proposed Project may be expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement the signage and striping for the proposed freeway wayfinding at 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. However, it is assumed that the City and/or Caltrans will provide maintenance of these improvements. 11.4 Project -Related Fair -Share Contribution The transportation impacts associated with the development of the Project were determined based on the Existing Plus Project, Year 2025 and Year 2040 Buildout traffic analyses. As summarized in Tables 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3, the development of the Project is anticipated to have a significant impact at two (2) locations. While the proposed Project is expected to pay the full constructions costs for the intersection of I-5 NB Ramps/Fourth Street, the Project can be expected to pay its fair share of the improvement costs at the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/Fourth Street to offset the Project's incremental traffic impact at these intersections. Although the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place is not considered significantly impacted, it was determined that the implementation of improvements at this location would help improve the level of service at this location, thereby enhancing access and circulation through this intersection for local area traffic as well as Project -related traffic. Therefore, based on collaboration with City staff, the proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost or install a traffic signal at this location. Table 11-1 presents the Project's fair -share contribution to construct the recommended improvements at the two (2) study intersections. As presented in this Table 11-1, the first column (1) presents a total of all intersection peak hour movements for existing conditions. The second column (2) presents Project -related added traffic volumes during AM peak hour and PM peak hour. The third column (3) presents Year 2040 Buildout traffic conditions with Project traffic. The fourth column (4) represents what percentage of total added intersection peak hour traffic is Project -related traffic. Review of Table 11-1 shows that the proposed Project's percentage of net traffic impact ranges from 12.30% to 100.00%. This percentage represents the Project's "fair -share" cost responsibility associated with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. D D 1 / 1-12 / \ 3 / IN, W / \ / LOL 17TH 18 ST 1� a 4 PHASE 2 PHASE 6 PHASE 5 PHASE 5 PHA! \ NI/S SPLIT \ SIGNAL SIG SPLIT \ SIGNAL SI�NAL E SIGNAL �N S SPLIT � � 0 ELK LN ® 1-5 SB ON -RAMP ® CABRILLO PARK DR ® GOLDEN CIRCLE DR ® TUSTIN AVE ® YORBA ST ® 1 cf) FIRST ST FIRST ST FIRST ST FIRST ST FIRST ST FIRST ST °N z r Lo 4- ill WELLINGTON tt \� 3 PHASE \� 3 PHASE \� [A� PHASE \� 5 PHASE \� ONE-WAY \� 8 PHA! d AVE SIGNAL SIGNAL �� SIGNAL SIGNAL STOP SIGNAL — —N/S SPLIT 1-5 SB ON -RAMP/ 1-5 NB RAMPS @ CABRILLO PARK DR @ GOLDEN CIRCLE DR ® PARK CENTER DR ® TUSTIN AVE ® a MABURY ST ® 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST ATU CT 18 FRUIT 21 © ST ® W �.�►� 1 , �/ �1� 4 4� 1 tt -° v cn �� SIGNAL SIGNAL j SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL a �N SSPLIT 1-1� a 0 SR-55 SB RAMPS ® SR-55 NB RAMPS 0 YORBA ST ® CABRILLO PARK DR 0 CABRILLO PARK DR 0 CABRILLO PARK DR ® a z 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST STATE FUND ACCESS RD XEROX CENTRE ACCESS RD 17TH ST m a x PARK CTO PL 9i Ir 4TH O \ ® �B� I O 10 11 ST 12 13 14 15 \ + �t� / -)tt� / + �' / +� ��� / �' / _)t / E TWO-WAY 5 PHASE ALL -WAY ALL -WAY TWO-WAY 2 PHA: - o STOP SIGNAL STOP STOP STOP SIGNAL -0 D a c STATE FUND ACCESS RD z CABRILLO PARK DR ® TUSTIN AVE ® MABURY ST ® CABRILLO PARK DR ® PARK CENTER DR ® TUSTIN AVE ® a 16 < WELLINGTON AVE WELLINGTON AVE FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FRUIT ST FRUIT ST EI CENTR ACCESS RD m 17 0 25 \ G MOD 1 G MOD 2 G MOD 3 / NORTH NORTH FIRST ST / \ 4TH STREET NORTH A to NORTH/SOUTH to V4 r r � ONLY N rri\ 2 PHASE ONLY ONLY o SIGNAL [A] INSTALL G MOD 1 [A] INSTALL G MOD 2 [B] INSTALL G MOD 3 SIGN FOR THE NB SIGN FOR THE NB SIGN FOR THE WB j z CABRILLO PARK DR @ APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH c PARK COURT PL (tNO SCALE KEY = RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT = PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENT = RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION ENHANCEMENT = PROJECT SITE FIGURE 11-1 PLANNED AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 4TH AND CABRILLO MIXED —USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA LINSCOTT FIGURE 11-2 GREENSPAN CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (tSCALE: 1°=so' 4TH STREET FROM I-5 NB RAMPS TO CABRILLO PARK DRIVE engineers 4TH & CABRILLO MIXED —USE, SANTA ANA TABLE 11-1 YEAR 2040 BUILDOUT PROJECT FAIR -SHARE COST CONTRIBUTION (3) Year 2040 (4) (1) (2) Buildout Project City/ Time Existing Project Plus Project Fair -Share Key Intersection Jurisdiction Period Traffic Traffic Traffic Percent26 SR-55 SB Ramps at Santa Ana/ AM 3163 78 3,797 12.30% 13. 4' Street Caltrans PM Cabrillo Park Drive at AM -- -- -- -- 25. Park Court Place Santa Ana PM -- -- -- 100.00v27 26 Project fair -share percentage Column (4) _ [Column (2)] / [Column (3) — Column (1)]. 27 As the intersection is not considered significantly impacted, the installation of the two-phase traffic signal shall be fully paid by the Project or the Project will implement the improvement. 12.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT This analysis is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the current Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). As noted in Section 5.0 of this traffic study, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 4,121 daily trip -ends and thus meets the criteria requiring a CMP TIA. The CMPHS includes specific roadways, which include State Highways and Super Streets, which are now known as Smart Streets. Therefore, the CMP TIA analysis requirements relate to the potential impacts only on the specified CMPHS, which in this case includes First Street west of the I-5 SB On -Ramp. As described in the "Radius of Development Influence" section of the CMP TIA, the study area (i.e. CMP intersections) is recommended to be defined by the CMP links which have a project impact of three percent, or more, of their daily LOS "E" capacity. There is one (1) CMP intersection in close proximity to the site which is as follows: Study Intersection Location 13 I-5 SB On -Ramps at First Street Table 12-1 summarizes the Project percentage impact CMP analysis for three (3) key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed Project along First Street. Column one (1) of Table 12-1 shows the CMP LOS "E" Capacity for each roadway segment, column two (2) shows the Project ADT for each roadway segment, column three (3) shows the Project ADT LOS "E" capacity percentages for each roadway segment and column (4) shows whether or not added project traffic meets or exceeds the "three percent" limit. Review of Table 12-1 shows that the three percent limit is not exceeded at any of the three (3) key roadway segments and therefore a CMP analysis is not required. TABLE 12-1 PROJECT PERCENTAGE RADIUS OF INFLUENCE CMP ANALYSIS (1) (4) CMP (2) (3) Radius of LOS "E" Project Percentage Influence Roadway Segment Capacity ADT (3) = (2) _ (1) (Yes/No) First Street, west of 1. 56,300 206 0.4% No Elk Lane/Mabury Street First Street, between 2. 56,300 495 0.9% No Elk Lane/Mabury Street and I-5 SB On -Ramp First Street, between 3. 56,300 515 0.9% No I-5 SB On -Ramp and Cabrillo Park Drive 13.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ■ Project Description —The Project site is an 8.35-acre vacant parcel of land within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone that is generally located north of 4th Street, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway, and west of Cabrillo Park Drive. The proposed Project includes the development of up to 644 apartment units, 3,500 SF restaurant uses and 11,700 SF of retail space. The proposed Project will provide a total of 1,300 parking spaces within two buildings along with 18 surface parking spaces. "Building A" is proposed as a five -story apartment podium with up to 325 apartment homes consisting of approximately 19 (±5.8%) studio units, 162 (±49.8%) one -bedroom units, 121 (±37.2%) two -bedroom units and 23 (±7.1 %) three -bedroom units and approximately 6,100 SF of ground floor retail/commercial space and 3,500 SF restaurant space "wrapped" around an eight -level partial subterranean parking structure with a total of approximately 650 spaces along with 9 ground floor spaces for retail/leasing. "Building B" is proposed as a five -story apartment podium with up to 319 apartment homes consisting of approximately 20 (f6.3%) studio units, 164 (f51.4%) one - bedroom units, 127 (±39.8%) two -bedroom units and 8 (±2.5%) three -bedroom units and approximately 5,600 SF of ground floor retail/commercial space "wrapped" around an eight - level partial subterranean parking structure with a total of approximately 650 spaces along with 9 ground floor spaces for retail/leasing. On -site facilities/amenities of the proposed Project include a leasing office, a lounge/lobby, business center, pool/spa, and a fitness center for residents. Vehicular access to the proposed Project will be provided via one (1) full access unsignalized driveway along Park Court Place and one (1) right in/out only driveway located along 4th Street. As part of the proposed Project, an exclusive southbound right -turn lane will be constructed at the intersection of Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street. Additionally, the project's curb face is planned to be set back far enough to accommodate improvements at I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street, which include the construction of an additional right -turn lane. Study Scope — The following twenty-five (25) key study intersections were selected for detailed peak hour level of service analyses under Existing Traffic Conditions, Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions, Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions, Year 2025 Cumulative plus Project, Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions, and Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions. Key Study Intersections 1. Elk Lane at First Street (Santa Ana) 2. I-5 SB On -Ramp at First Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 3. Cabrillo Park Drive at First Street (Santa Ana) 4. Golden Circle Drive at First Street (Santa Ana) 5. Tustin Avenue at First Street (Tustin) 6. Yorba Street at First Street (Tustin) 14. SR-55 NB Ramps at 4t' Street (Tustin/Caltrans) 15. Yorba Street at 41 Street (Tustin) 16. Cabrillo Park Drive at State Fund Access Road (Santa Ana) 17. Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Center Access Road (Santa Ana) 18. Cabrillo Park Drive at 171 Street (Santa Ana) 19. Cabrillo Park Drive at Wellington Avenue (Santa Ana) 7. I-5 SB On-Ramp/Mabury Street at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 8. I-5 NB Ramps at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 9. Cabrillo Park Drive at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 10. Golden Circle Drive at 4' Street (Santa Ana) 11. Park Center Drive at 4th Street (Santa Ana) 12. Tustin Avenue at 41h Street (Santa Ana) 13. SR-55 SB Ramps at 4th Street (Santa Ana/Caltrans) 20. Tustin Avenue at Wellington Avenue (Santa Ana) 21. Mabury Street at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 22. Cabrillo Park Drive at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 23. Park Center Drive at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 24. Tustin Avenue at Fruit Street (Santa Ana) 25. Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place (Santa Ana) ■ Existing Traffic Conditions — Twenty-four (24) of the twenty-five key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street currently operates at unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour. ■ Project Trip Generation — The proposed Project, after adjustment for internal capture, is forecast to generate approximately 4,121 "net" daily trips, with 264 "net" trips (82 inbound, 182 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 344 "net" trips (205 inbound, 139 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. ■ Related Projects Traffic Characteristics —Thirty (30) related projects were considered as part of the cumulative background setting. The thirty (30) related projects are forecast to generate 45,942 daily trips, with 3,033 trips (1,458 inbound, 1,575 outbound) anticipated during the AM peak hour and 3,837 trips (1,927 inbound, 1,910 outbound) produced during the PM peak hour. ■ Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions — Traffic associated with the proposed Project will significantly impact one (1) of the twenty-five study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. The impacted intersection of SR- 55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The implementation of recommended improvements at the intersection will help offset the Project's impact Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Plus Project — Traffic associated with the proposed Project will significantly impact two (2) of the twenty-five study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report, which include I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street and SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The implementation of recommended improvements at the intersection will help offset the Project's impact. ■ Year 2040 Buildout Traffic Conditions Plus Project — Traffic associated with the proposed Project will significantly impact two (2) of the twenty-five study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report, which include I-5 NB Ramps/4th Street and SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street. The remaining study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The implementation of recommended improvements at the intersection will help offset the Project's impact. ■ Caltrans Existing Traffic Conditions — The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/41 Street currently operates at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour. The remaining state-controlled study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. ■ Caltrans Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions — The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/411 Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. ■ Caltrans Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions — The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. ■ Caltrans Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions — The intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street will continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The remaining state-controlled study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Although the intersection of SR-55 SB Ramps/4th Street is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the AM peak hour, the intersection is not considered significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. ■ Queuing Analysis — Based on field observation it is apparent that congestion occurs at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street as a result of vehicles trying to enter the westbound right -turn lane along 4th Street. Due to the recommended second westbound right -turn lane along 4' Street, additional improvements are recommended for the northbound and southbound approaches at Cabrillo Park Drive/0 Street. The additional recommended improvements consist of the following: ➢ Add signage to the northbound direction along with lane line extensions to direct the motorist in the left turn lane that they can enter the inner right -turn lane for access to the I-5 NB Ramp. The northbound left/thru lane should have signage and lane extensions to direct the motorist to use the outer right -turn lane for access to the I-5 NB Ramp. These improvements are subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. With the implementation of improvements, the queues are generally adequate under Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the southbound right -turn lane at Cabrillo Park Drive/4th Street may exceed the storage provided. As an alternative, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right -turn lane can be striped to provide additional queuing storage. The implementation of the recommended improvements also helps to improve congestion and limit unnecessary weaving/merging of vehicles that need to enter the I-5 NB Ramp. However, in the event that Fourth Street experiences "spikes" in congestion during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, residents will very likely re-route themselves (self -monitor) and utilize the northern Driveway on Park Court Place instead of the driveway on Fourth Street. The intersections of Cabrillo Park Drive/Park Court Place and Cabrillo Park Drive/Fourth Street have enough capacity to accommodate the additional trips. ■ Existing Plus Project Recommended Improvements — The following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ➢ No. 13 — SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Modify the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free -right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project's fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. ■ Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Recommended Improvements — The following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ➢ No. 8 — I-5 NB Ramps at Fourth Street: Construct an additional westbound right -turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary inclusive any modifications to the traffic signal phasing. This improvement is consistent with the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. The proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement these mitigation measures. ➢ No. 13 — SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Modify the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free -right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project's fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. ■ Year 2040 Buildout Plus Project Recommended Improvements The following intersection improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project under these conditions. ➢ No. 8 — I-5 NB Ramps at Fourth Street: Construct an additional westbound right -turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary inclusive any modifications to the traffic signal phasing. This improvement is consistent with the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. The proposed Project is expected to pay the full construction cost needed to implement these mitigation measures. ➢ No. 13 — SR-55 SB Ramps at Fourth Street: Modify the eastbound shared through/right- turn lane to construct a free -right turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana and Caltrans. Per City requirements, the Project may be expected to pay a fair-share/local fee to cover the Project's fair share of the full construction costs needed to implement these mitigation measures. ■ Project Specific Improvements — The following improvements are being implemented as part of the proposed Project, which the Project is expected to pay the full construction costs: ➢ No. 9 — Cabrillo Park Drive at Fourth Street: Construct an exclusive southbound right - turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal as necessary. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. As an alternative to the above mentioned improvement, subject to review and approval of City staff, an option southbound through/right lane in addition to the proposed southbound right -turn lane is proposed to minimize the southbound right -turning vehicles from impeding the through traffic. ■ Recommended Circulation Enhancement. The following improvements, which are expected to be implemented or paid for by the Project, are recommended to be implemented to enhance circulation within the Project Vicinity, thereby maintaining acceptable operating conditions: ➢ No. 25 — Cabrillo Park Drive at Park Court Place: Install two-phase traffic signal and implement all necessary signing and striping improvements. This improvement is subject to the review and approval of the City of Santa Ana. ■ Project -Related Fair -Share Contribution — The proposed Project's percentage of net traffic impact ranges from 12.30% to 100.00%. This percentage represents the Project's "fair -share" cost responsibility associated with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. ■ CMP Compliance Assessment — The three percent limit is not exceeded at any of the three (3) key roadway segments and therefore a CMP analysis is not required. THE CONCORD GROUP 369 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, SUITE 265 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 PHONE 949.717.6450 251 KEARNY STREET, 6T" FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 PHONE 415.397.5490 1170 PEACHTREE STREET NE, SUITE 1200 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 PHONE 404.879.5000 641 LEXINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1 400 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 PHONE 646.354.7090 MARKET & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSES FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR: FOR A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT IN AUGUST 10, 2020 ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. SANTA ANA, CA (4T" & CABRILLO PARK DRIVE) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MARKET ANALYSIS 1. Recommendations 2. MF Rent Positioning A. Rent to Size Graph B. Absolute Rent 3. Retail / Office Rent Positioning 4. Project Location A. Regional B. Median Income C. Local Setting D. Surrounding Land Uses E. Traffic Counts 5. Site Plan 6. Demographics 7. MF Macro -Market Performance A. Inventory & Deliveries B. Occupancy & Rents 8. MF Inventory A. Location & Performance B. Vacancy by Unit Type C. Floor Plan Mix D. Amenities 9. Retail Performance 10.Office Performance 1 1.Mixed-Use Analogs AL 4W TABLE OF CONTENTS THE CONCORD GROUP FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX A. Survey — Apartments B. Survey — Retail Leases C. ULI — Emerging Trends in Real Estate ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. May 2020 Santa Ana — 4" & Cabrillo Park Drive 20233.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE CONCORD GROUP THEE CONCORD GROUP To: Arnel Development Co. From: The Concord Group Date: August 2020 Re: Market & Fiscal Impact Analyses for a Mixed -Use Development in Santa Ana, CA (0 & Cabrillo Park Dr) Arnel Development Co. ("Arnel") is evaluating the development potential of a mixed -use project in the central Orange County community of Santa Ana. The project site is located at the eastern edge of the city, immediately opposite Interstate 5. The project is planned for 644 upscale apartment units and 15,200 square feet of commercial space, in a five -story building. In support of strategic planning and underwriting due diligence, Arnel required market and fiscal impact input to identify the highest and best use of the project under the current MEMU zoning and demonstrate the financial viability of the development. To this end, The Concord Group ("TCG") and RSG were engaged to conduct market and fiscal feasibility analyses for the project. The following text highlights the key findings and conclusions generated by the analysis, supported by an exhibit package of tables, maps and graphs. Project Overview • The project is well located near Interstate 5, Southern California's primary north / south connector, and is just over a mile from the city's Downtown and associated food, dining, service and employment amenities (Exhibit 4). • A total of 644 apartments are planned in a five -story building with 15,200 square feet of ground floor retail, located at the northwest corner of 4" Street and Cabrillo Park Drive (Exhibits 7 and ,�. • The prolect's elevated regional accessibility, close proximity to Downtown's cultural amenities and major County job nodes, combined with a top -of -market community amenity and interior unit specification package, merits a near top - of -market multi -family rent positioning strategy (Exhibit .2). • The scale of the commercial retail planned within the project's mixed -use context is in alignment with other multi -family focused mixed -use projects in Orange County, who's commercial retail footprints range from 8,500 to 14,000 SF ( Exhibit 7 7) . Arnel Development Co. August 2020 Santa Ana — 4'" & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 THE CONCORD GROUP Marketability The project's marketing strengths are as follows: • Regional Accessibility— the project site is easily accessible to the target renter and consumer base, with freeway and rail access each less than a mile away (Exhibit 4C). • Proximity to Jobs— several major Orange County office employment nodes are within a five -mile radius of the project, including Downtown Santa Ana, South Coast Metro, Irvine Business Complex and Town and Country, driving demand for both apartments and commercial space. • Cultural and Entertainment Amenities — the Project is located proximate to the city's Downtown and Artists Village, home to numerous galleries and popular restaurants that possess regional draws (Exhibit 4q. • Shortage of State -of -the -Art Apartments — Santa Ana is under -supplied with Class A rental apartment product, evidenced by high rates of occupancies and rapid rent growth over the past five years (Exhibit The project's marketing challenges are as follows: • Distressed Retail Environment— the rise of e-commerce has had a significant negative impact on "brick- and -mortar" retailers, leading to store closures across the retail landscape. The negative effects of e-commerce have been especially apparent during the current pandemic which has served to accelerate store closings and overall retail contraction (Appendix C). Apartment Market Performance • TCG surveyed eight comparable rental projects in the CMA, representing best -in -class product in the cities of Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Tustin, Orange and Anaheim (Exhibit 8A). • The average base rent (ie. an average of the lowest listed rent for each floorplan, excluding premiums for views, orientation and elevation) of the eight comparables surveyed is $2,606, or $2.88 per square foot ("PSF") — top of market rents include Skyloft (average base rent of $3,024, $3.32 PSF) and Eleven 10 ($2,571, $3.12). ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana — 4'" & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 THIF CONCORD GROUP • The overall rental apartment market is performing strongly, evidenced by: o Surveyed occupancy of 94% in stabilized projects (ie. not in lease -up), slightly below 95% stabilization, but high relative the Covid-19 market environment (Exhibit8A). o Elevated rent growth — rents in Santa Ana have increased an average of 4.0% per year since 2014 (Exhibit 713). Commercial Market Performance • Neither 4th Street nor Cabrillo Park Drive are established retail corridors in the project's neighborhood around 1-5 ( Exhibit 4D). • The local 3-mile radius trade area is in general equilibrium, with 44 SF of retail per capital, a ratio on par with the County average (also 44, per Exhibit 6). • There has been limited demand for new retail in the site's 3-mile radius trade area. While the trade area has added only 100,000 SF of new retail 10-years (current inventory of 12.2M SF), occupancy has not changed during the timeframe (Exhibit 9 • The mixed -use character of the multi -family driven projects is limiting to the overall scale of retail opportunity. Successful, large-scale commercial retail projects require anchor tenancy (grocery, department store, etc), a characteristic that cannot be met within the mixed -us context of the site. o Two of the three analog mixed -use multi -family / commercial projects surveyed suffer from poor occupancy, each below 50% (Exhibit 7 7). o The two low occupancy analogs share both a similar walk score as the subject (60-69 range) and overall scale (13,000 SF average) (Exhibit 77). • Without a critical mass of retail near the site, the project will be challenged to attract a significant scale of retail tenancy. • The 15,200 SF of commercial retail planned is at the upper end of the range supportable on site o Target tenant types will require smaller unit footprints, ranging from 500 to 2,500 SF. o Target tenant types include hairdressers, dry cleaners, craft food store, small professional service businesses, etc. ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana — 4'" & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 THIF CONCORD GROUP Apartment Rent Recommendations Arnel Program TCG Recommended Rents Unit Mix Den/ Unit Base Rent Avg. Premium Average Rent Floorplan Num. Perc. Beds Loft Bath Size $ $/sf $ % $ $/sf S1 19 3% 0 --- 1 518 $2,080 54.02 $62 3.0% 52,142 $4.14 S2 20 3% 0 --- 1 543 $2,120 $3.90 S64 3.0% $2,184 $4.02 1 B - 1 122 19% 1 --- 1 683 $2,425 $3.55 $73 3.0% $2,498 $3.66 1 B - 2 176 27% 1 --- 1 726 $2,485 $3.42 S75 3.0% $2,560 $3.53 1 B - 3 3 0% 1 --- 1 728 $2,590 53.56 $78 3.0% $2,668 $3.66 1 B - 5 5 1% 1 --- 1 750 $2,545 $3.39 $76 3.0% $2,621 $3.50 1 B - 4 20 3% 1 --- 1 752 $2,550 53.39 $77 3.0% $2,627 $3.49 2B - 1 140 22% 2 --- 2 1,066 $3,061 $2.87 $92 3.0% $3,153 $2.96 2B - 3 68 11% 2 --- 2 1,071 $3,069 $2.87 $92 3.0% $3,162 $2.95 2B - 2 40 6% 2 --- 2 1,148 $3,195 52.78 $96 3.0% $3,291 $2.87 3B - 1 25 4% 3 --- 3 1,274 $3,400 52.67 $102 3.0% $3,502 $2.75 3B - 2 6 1% 3 --- 3 1,339 $3,680 $2.75 $1 10 3.0% $3,790 $2.83 Total 644 100% 560,650 $1,758,803 $1,811,567 Average 871 $2,731 $3.14 $82 $2,813 $3.23 Studio 39 6% 531 $2,101 53.96 $63 $2,164 $4.08 1-Bed 326 51% 712 $2,468 $3.47 $74 $2,542 $3.57 2-Bed 248 39% 1,081 $3,085 $2.85 $93 $3,178 $2.94 3-Bed 31 5% 1,287 $3,454 52.68 $104 $3,558 $2.77 • TCG recommends an average base rent of $2,731, or $3.14 PSF, placing the project at the near the top of the CMA (Exhibit 28). • Rent premium garners for elevation, courtyard and views generate an additional $82 in premium revenue for an average project rent of $2,813 ($3.23 PSF). Commercial Rent Recommendations • In -line commercial tenancy will achieve rents ranging from $28 to $32 PSF per year (NNN), in line with mixed -use analogs (Appendix B) and at the top of the local 4'" Street / Irvine Boulevard commercial corridor. ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana - 4'" & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 THIIE CONCORD GROUP Market Conclusions • The current development plan represents the highest and best use for the project. • Multi -family residential possesses the greatest level of marketability of the MEMU permitted land uses. A regional under -supply of Class A residences is evidenced by high rates of occupancy and rent growth within the product type (Exhibit 75). The project location, just of 1-5 and proximate to Downtown Santa Ana, will be highly desirable to prospective residents seeking convenient access to both jobs and entertainment. • The modest scale of commercial land uses planned is appropriate for the mixed -use orientation of the project. The scale of commercial (15,200) is in alignment with similar scope, multi -family anchored projects elsewhere in Orange County (Exhibit 77). Fiscal Impact Findings (RSG) • The multi -family / commercial mixed -use development at the site will provide significantly more fee and tax revenue to the City of Santa Ana as compared to the existing office land use: o Approximately $41.3 million ($23.1 million in net present value [2020 dollars], discounted at four percent) in additional City General Fund Revenue, including construction period revenues, recurring site -specific tax and other project revenues o Approximately $541,400 in property tax revenue per year, as opposed to the current $1 1,700. The site development would generate approximately $10.3 million after 25 years (discounted) o Over the same 25-year period, the City General Fund expenditures associated with the project total $7.0 million (discounted) o As a result, the net new General Fund revenue is projected to be approximately $28.1 million ($16.1 million in 2020 dollars) from the acquisition and development of the project • The Development will generate more revenue to the City in one year than the existing use is projected to generate over the next 25 years ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana — 4'" & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 Net New Recurring General Fund Fiscal Impacts 25-Year Recurring Revenue Category Nominal NPV 4.0% Property Tax $ 18,505,380 $ 10,333,353 Property Tax In -Lieu 12,096,754 6,756,731 Utility User Tax 3,537,877 1,884,715 Sales Tax 3,479,170 1,853,440 Measure X (2018) Sales Tax Increase 2,753,009 1,786,920 Business Tax 927,121 493,901 Total Revenues $ 41,299,312 $ 23,109,059 Less City Expenditures $(13,214,039) $ (7,026,724) NET NEW REVENUE TOTAL $ 28,085,273 $ 16,082,335 Sources: City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, California State Board of Equalization, ESRI Business Analyst Online, and RSG, Inc. The entire fiscal impact study, in detail, is available for review in Section II of this report. This assignment was completed by Michael Reynolds in association with RSG. We have enjoyed working with you on this assignment and look forward to our continued involvement. ARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. August 2020 Santa Ana — 4'" & Cabrillo Park Dr 20233.00 MARKET ANALYSIS THE CONCORD GROUP EXHIBIT 1 RECOMMENDATIONS SANTA ANA - CENTRAL POINTE MAY 2020 Project Summary Location: • Central Orange County, in the City of Santa Ana Santa Ana is the County seat, with county, state and federal offices all located in Downtown Eastern edge of the city, just east of 1-5, at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive • 1-5, the West Coast's primary north/south connector, directly fronts the site, connecting renters to major job centers throughout Orange and LA Counties Santa Ana Metrolink Station is just under a mile northeast of the property, linking the site to Southern California's growing rail hub • Downtown Santa Ana, a major regional food and entertainment destination, is just over a mile west of the project Description: • 644 apartment units and 15,200 of street level retail in two 5 story, wrap style buildings o 7 stories of parking (with semi -sub); some street front surface parking for retail 8.35-acre site - 80.9 dwelling units per acre • Extensive community amenity program include two roof top courtyards with pools and large community park central to the project • Interior unit specifications on par with best -in -class, Orange County Class "A" rental market Marketability Metrics Market • RegionaiAccessibiiity 1-5 and the Santa Ana Metrolink Station are both proximate to the site Strengths: • Proximity to In addition to downtown Santa Ana, multiple major Orange County employment cores are located within a White Collar Jobs five -mile radius, including South Coast Metro, Irvine Business Complex and Anaheim/Orange • Arts and Dining o Project is located proximate to the city's Artists Village, home to numerous galleries and popular restaurants that Destination possess regional draws • Lack of Class o The city is under -supplied with luxury, "Class A" apartment product Institutional Supply - Santa Ana's gentrification to date has focused primarily on retail and office redevelopment o Indicative of the City's housing shortage, the City boasts a jobs to housing ratio of 1.2, higher than the County average of 1.1 Market • Distressed The rise of e-commerce has had a significant negative impact on "brick- and -mortar" retailers, leading to store Challenges Retail Environment closures across the retail landscape. The negative effects of e-commerce have been especially apparent during the current pandemic which has served to accelerate store closings Multi -Family Program & Recommended Rents Positioning • Subject site base rents are positioned slightly below the top of upscale, low-rise competitive set in Central Orange County Thesis: Top -of -market positioning is merited by the project's downtown Santa Ana location, Orange County's only authentic, walkable Downtown neighborhood, accessibility to the 5 freeway, planned high level of amenities, and interior unit specifications Average base rent of $3.14 PSF positions the project generally in line with Eleven 10 ($3.12), a project with a superior location in the Platinum Triangle in Orange Arnel Program TCG Recommended Rents MF Unit Mix Den/ Unit Base Rent Avg. Premium Average Rent Program: Floorplan Num. Perc. Beds Loft Bath Size $ $/sf $ % $ $/sf S1 19 3% 0 --- 1 518 $2,080 $4.02 $62 3.0% $2,142 $4.14 S2 20 3% 0 --- 1 543 $2,120 $3.90 $64 3.0% $2,184 $4.02 1 B - 1 122 19% 1 1 683 $2,425 $3.55 $73 3.0% $2,498 $3.66 1 B - 2 176 27% 1 --- 1 726 $2,485 $3.42 $75 3.0% $2,560 $3.53 1 B - 3 3 0% 1 --- 1 728 $2,590 $3.56 $78 3.0% $2,668 $3.66 1 B - 5 5 1 % 1 --- 1 750 $2,545 $3.39 $76 3.0% $2,621 $3.50 1 B - 4 20 3% 1 --- 1 752 $2,550 $3.39 $77 3.0% $2,627 $3.49 2B - 1 140 22% 2 --- 2 1,066 $3,061 $2.87 $92 3.0% $3,153 $2.96 2B - 3 68 11% 2 --- 2 1,071 $3,069 $2.87 $92 3.0% $3,162 $2.95 2B - 2 40 6% 2 --- 2 1,148 $3,195 $2.78 $96 3.0% $3,291 $2.87 3B - 1 25 4% 3 --- 3 1,274 $3,400 $2.67 $102 3.0% $3,502 $2.75 3B - 2 6 1% 3 --- 3 1,339 $3,680 $2.75 $110 3.0% $3,790 $2.83 Total 644 100% 560,650 $1,758,803 $1,811,567 Average 871 $2,731 $3.14 $82 $2,813 $3.23 Commercial Program and Recommended Rents Commercial • TCG recommends an average rent of $30 PSF per year (NNN) for the 15,200 SF of retail Program: • Rent recommendations are in line with mixed -use analogs in Orange County - namely Pinnacle at MacArthur Place (local to Santa Ana) and Pinnacle at Fullerton (downtown Fullerton address) • Recommended rents are positioned at the top of the 4th Street / Irvine Boulevard corridor • TCG projects a slow to moderate paced lease -up, based primarily on the relative low rate of occupancy at the Pinnacle at MacArthur Place project 20233.00 RecComps: Rec THE CONCORD GROUP $4,000 $3,900 $3,800 $3,700 $3,600 $3,500 $3,400 $3,300 $3,200 $3,100 $3,000 $2,900 $2,800 $2,700 $2,600 $2,500 $2,400 $2,300 $2,200 $2,100 $2,000 $1,900 $1 800 EXHIBIT 2A MF RENT POSITIONING - RENT TO SIZE GRAPH SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Color = Location 1,339 SF floor plan • 0 has premium due to Red = Santa Ana / Costa Mesa elevation Blue = Irvine _ 0 Green = Anaheim / Orange 0 0 0 � ■ O 0 0 O 0�0 ■ o El 0 HE 0 0 ■ u 728 SF floor plan 0A 0 [�> ■ Q has premium due Q 0 O<i to elevation AL m0 • 00 0❑O • O O� Off❑ 0 �• 00 • oil ■ O v ♦ ►J 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 CG - Central Pointe • Broadstone Arden (2020) ■ The Charlie (2019) ♦ Nineteen0l (2016) • Amalfi (2014) esidences on Jamboree (2017) ♦ Skyloft Apartments (2019) ♦ AMLI Uptown Orange (2016) ♦ Eleven 10 (2018) Source: Appendix A 20233.00 RecComps: RS THE CONCORD GIROUP Color = Location Red = Santa Ana / Costa Mesa Blue = Irvine / Tustin Green = Anaheim / Orange EXHIBIT 213 MF RENT POSITIONING - ABSOLUTE RENT SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Rents listed are "base" - an average of the lowest listed rents per floorplan Project Aver Unit Mix Overall Studios and List Rent) One -Bedrooms Two -Bedrooms Map Year (by Bed Count) Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Key Project Name Units Built Occ. 0 1 2 Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf M. . BroadstoneArden 335 2020 26% 26% 79% 53% 7,023 $3,063 $2.99 800 $2,676 $3.34 887 $2,769 $3.74 7,757 $3,372 $2,86 SkyloftApartments 388 2079 79% 8% 54% 36% 970 $3,024 $3.32 577 $2,537 $4.43 768 $2,773 $3.53 7,765 $3,573 $3.02 OWN M. H Eleven 10 260 2018 93% 21% 51% 28% 825 $2,571 $3.12 515 $2,103 $4.08 764 $2,463 $3.22 1,167 $3,118 $2.67 G AMLI Uptown Orange 334 2016 93% 3% 45% 51% 930 $2,663 $2.86 570 $2,101 $3.69 782 $2,307 $2.95 1,071 $2,986 $2.79 Amalfi 542 2014 95% 12% 69% 19% 785 $2,268 $2.89 584 $2,035 $3.48 748 $2,242 $3.00 1,046 $2,510 $2.40 Residences on Jamboree 381 2017 96% 18% 43% 33% 897 $2,447 $2.73 690 $1,994 $2.89 724 $2,132 $2.95 1,134 $2,906 $2.56 The Charlie 228 2079 73% 70% 40% 42% 875 $2,373 $2.77 542 $7,848 $3.47 708 $2,060 $2.97 7,048 $2,633 $2.57 Nineteen0l 261 2016 90% 0% 46% 50% 1,072 $2,495 $2.33 --- --- --- 831 $2,056 $2.47 1,235 $2,804 $2.27 Total/Average: 2,729 2017 68% 12% 48% 37% 904 $2,606 $2.88 645 $2,236 $3.47 765 $2,329 $3.04 1,130 $3,010 $2.66 Excluding Lease -Ups: 7,778 94% SkyloftApartments 388 2079 79% 8% 54% 36% 970 $3,024 $3.32 577 $2,537 $4.43 768 $2,773 $3.53 7,765 $3,573 $3.02 A BroadstoneArden 335 2020 26% 26% 79% 53% 7,023 $3,063 $2.99 800 $2,676 $3.34 887 $2,769 $3.74 7,757 $3,372 $2.86 H Eleven 10 260 2018 93% 21% 51% 28% 825 $2,571 $3.12 515 $2,103 $4.08 764 $2,463 $3.22 1,167 $3,118 $2.67 10915WIT-TIEFUM AMLI Uptown Orange 334 2016 93% 3% 45% 51% 930 $2,663 $2.86 570 $2,101 $3.69 782 $2,307 $2.95 1,071 $2,986 $2.79 Residences on Jamboree 381 2017 96% 18% 43% 33% 897 $2,447 $2.73 690 $1,994 $2.89 724 $2,132 $2.95 1,134 $2,906 $2.56 Nineteen0l 261 2016 90% 0% 46% 50% 1,072 $2,495 $2.33 --- --- --- 831 $2,056 $2.47 1,235 $2,804 $2.27 The Charlie 228 2079 73% 70% 40% 42% 875 $2,373 $2.77 542 $7,848 $3.47 708 $2,060 $2.97 7,048 $2,633 $2.57 • Amalfi 542 2014 95% 12% 69% 19% 785 $2,268 $2.89 584 $2,035 $3.48 748 $2,242 $3.00 1,046 $2,510 $2.40 dstoneArden 335 2020 26% 26% 79% 53% 7,023 $3,063 $2.99 800 $2,676 $3.34 887 $2,769 $3.74 7,757 $3,372 $2.86 r oftApartmnts 388 2019 19% 8% 54% 36% 910 $3,024 $3.32 571 $2,531 $4.43 768 $2,713 $3.53 1,165 $3,513 $3.02 n 10 260 2018 93% 21% 51% 28% 825 $2,571 $3.12 515 $2,103 $4.08 764 $2,463 $3.22 1,167 $3,118 $2.67 1,081 $3,085 G AMLI Uptown Orange 334 2076 93% 3% 45% 5 7 % 930 $2,663 S2.86 570 $2,707 $3.69 782 $2,307 $2.95 7,077 $2,986 $2.79 Amalfi 542 2014 95% 12% 69% 19% 785 $2,268 $2.89 584 $2,035 $3.48 748 $2,242 $3.00 1,046 $2,510 $2.40 Residences on Jamboree 381 2017 96% 18% 43% 33% 897 $2,447 $2.73 690 $1,994 $2.89 724 $2,132 $2.95 1,134 $2,906 $2.56 B The Charlie 228 2079 73% 70% 40% 42% 875 $2,373 $2.77 542 $7,848 $3.47 708 $2,060 $2.97 7,048 $2,633 $2.57 Source: Appendix A 20233.00 RecComps: Pas THE CONCORD CROUIP EXHIBIT 3 RETAIL / OFFICE RENT POSITIONING ORANGE COUNTY AND LOCAL THREE-MILE TRADE AREA JANUARY 2017 THROUGH JULY 2020 - 3.5-YEARS Positioning - Annual Lease Rate TCG - Retail / Services Color = Location Red = Local 4th St / Irvine Blvd Corridor Blue = Mixed Use Analogs Creekside Plaza ■ 17400 Irvine Blvd ■ 2000 E. 4th St 17772 Irvine Blvd ■ 17671 Irvine Blvd ■ 1901 E. 4th St ■ Pinnacle at MacArthur Place Pinnacle at Fullerton $16 $18 $20 $22 $24 $26 $28 $30 $32 $34 Source: Appendix B 20233.00 RecComps: rPos THIIE CONCORD GROUP EXHIBIT 4A PROJECT LOCATION - REGIONAL ORANGE COUNTY MAY 2020 -Yorha Linda • Bell ower M1 Irk - ,, Fullerton I :' The subject site is located in the city of Santa Ana (dark ,- t t t !I' -- maroon shading), the County sea and its geographic center. _ -Fullerton -Placentia ; •Artesia Buena Park c• Cer itgk -"�t� j �• -=_ RIVERSIDE • La Palma 1 I -Anaheim- • Ha aiiao Gardens- } 1 r, ........ • •CypreSS Anaheim/ VilfaPark Orange --� Los Alamitos •Stanton 1,1 • •Rossmoor •Orange Q - t �. r Westminster O NGE Sea3 3ee�l, Santa Ana 'Santa •Tustin 1 • Fountain Valley I f l - ���� • Foothill RanCh Irvine - r7mes.E' -Huntington Beach � •� Lake Forest `Costa Mesa Rancho Santa Margarita wport Beach ~ Sa r- ]oaq Uin Hills Laguna Woods- una Hilk" 'I _ LEG EN D Q Mission Vie_ o pc R; W.:; I:. IAglE' ' -' Mre5 Map: Maptitude 20233.00 Maps: Reg THE CONCORD GROUIP EXHIBIT 4B PROJECT LOCATION - MEDIAN INCOME ORANGE COUNTY MAY 2020 Convention Anaheim « n center Re rt E o ra ry 7t - Avr- y = _ y i u Median Income ($) - E Wa I ut'A— p' a _ - 1 DDDD1 - 6DDo 'o z a e El Modena f �0001 100DD0 I.: I:...... ._. iWGh apmanA ve �Gld TownOrangePhers... $ E Ch. pman Ave Orange - ��� D1 - 65000 m 50DD0 {" ? Nort est` m ' ?= n a. �5. d. 3 ��000 - 400DO W L9 yet' s're E �_ c, 0 - 29999 Bristol U {N } o Mein'tiFy Coalit' - 8� Garden Grose River I Morrts on-E ridge Park � �o " ,. Pan Drama g "eights Garden ; ❑n Gen ardGmve Blvd ;� 4 .y- Cowan Heights Garden - Fairhaven A— Grove1'� on rd Fisher Park Cas d antis a 3-Mile _ Park Santiago Fig" Fcclliill w Floral Park M1 RgdlUs Trask Ave t Fairhaven yE Santa Clara Ave — r E:dn �rk ivervi T c Portola Park v North Tustin ~ Colonic _, m West Santa Ana _ �41 �i --_ = E t - Manzartillo �' a Floral Triangle L'. =� y 3 Park f Pa rkwoo Lemon Heights Wectmi tre 17thst —1; -tr" Mar es F—nah'Gco, rt Ma6ury Park 1-Mile m Willard ' an Washi gton Square Downtown L Radius < - santa East Tustin - Santa Artesia Pila Ana Sa Adle6ank rn z Anita Civic Center Cr W — Red Hill Yte = Park Flower Park Santa Ana Lacy E+:h Sr Riverview Ly ori, Street z West W 1st st - Y! 9s1. St Tustin fOrchard Hills Casa Bonita Henninger z Windsor Park ..r Village Pico-Lawell Ea sts ide - W McFadden Ave North Central its , Cornerstone I NTownsend -Raitt Village Lower We in Browning Peters Gro a New Wilshire E Mc F3 dFi#ktr I-l.,_ Canyon Yell E� Windsor Hor irons n a Square Madison Park rb� Village = Mid- its IT: iii N E'-`-'r A'rc Santa Ana c E Edinger Ave. Gardens Shadow Run Bristol Manor Cedar Northwood � Centennial Valley Rdams Evergreen N �, y� �d. Point Park BriWarner Co -OP u, Lau relhurst EWarner Av t7clhi .._:.. ...Warne'r'Ave .Y Morning w Sun wo od ! o��`�+e•r.r-�a Frances es '4 a. % 5unwo vd 4 Gent raI h gye-/ `:5 � %il� qy «m N Thornton San m Slate r'Ave Park m Rosewood Ana c W'5egerstmm Ave' Baker uflye r.R Walnut Northwood Metro Classic x b 7 w H = Repu 6li,c'' Kathryn Homes South C oast S" All9.c P, G` t -.... .Taftie IT Ave W. f W Ka cRrth ur Blvd Sandpo7n#e' Source: ESRI 20233.00 Maps: Income THE CONCORD GKOUIIP . - SA NTA ANA E zolh st �. fi tr _ ` -- - i _ TRIANGLE : E w[nsx .� "�� '3, _ _ g .. ;-1 a _ n Lv t9th St '- _ ^ E 14th St -- c E t4th 5[ 2 E 2001 St .� Medford Ave i - o - W WEE, St � ��t � � ' �' + Wa greens � E $ao, s1 r r �� � Plus 6u its �� � r � �� _ lArl lth �t mY n. - z E17[h St -may f.. aLt - " 6 7th St f7 4,m Aub�. € I7th St N-E 17tR 5� - E�flh sl E 7 7th st -a Et6th 51 ry [ EMffi-S[ C- End&l[ F.3 Q � m- " Center v[ W Mn It -FRENCH COURT , - t - E15th 52 tr # # - ti -�-- Vand nb Ln E ldth 6[ = 2 V a Lo Arbolatla Way Euth 51 t i_ -_•• - MABVRY_ PARK ,, s •r t - ,. __ : �'�•sa - d 3 , +runderrlP Are —2 �' - a E WNlln Weli n4tan Ave` `� n _tea a WILARD ' EWash,rgtu A /.S- 8gelow Pack 89e10 irk 3�Pr ^ ill w, H rn L me st - _ Q .`.!' '.le QE+� : �. - _ - - �- Orange Tree Lna K-k Avr rr# Hatesw°rtM1yt E 111fi St Z - - d }T7g ` J } _ - . �y. Norwood Wh P! . T z aE turn s[ HISTORICParked r " enath5m �,� ` Theodora P - F�tENCH PARK E rm,r st - E¢mn 3t _ rheado�a nr - 5 East Tu�1 [� .. - - �"L.} �9th Sf - ` _� `.. ES3 �• EF -, sbethmak Dr Lucero was Lucero Way 7l .i lea - as �� - E $■k}y h SL �° E 2.,•.' ^.e � Y'a N L �.. Anla9 -, Way °' k ® C isG� e - t�•S �. f{-. 2 _ 8eneta Way_ Beneta Way4 E 6th St u h-- a_...� d ° Sarin n n�a L •' ` E 6th St Park a tort PI tav O' E 8th 5[ $ ' ry M ',yr range Co�niy Tax _ '�a1 E . . ' - [ • . - _ - - I m - Mnler or CtTustin Park T.- - ttiQaet » A z un an way o a dar Jne's �st W SLh E Sth S[ E 5th Stt a c 2[ B s �7 -• 1 E W ••::::. I ��4fh St LACY 7 -+� E 4th SF z E Ott Yolurrrus SE r CS E dth SSfo IrYif�e BIYd Y 2 a Irvine BUJ Koh{'s Y Irvine BIB �a{e Rlo m ` r, E 384 O� tra `-'' •- a a - _ 1 4 C l" W S[ E 3N Si IT � � Pal fflSe'� r Z �_ rl< { ■I "�"! E zntl It zE a,d St - F [�v L - TI _ ® a .unned SEdtes'�dstar r Z �,..;a -� C'aniornia E lst5t W Yst St' E"t st E1st st _ EYst St E7n St W1s[St • - O a ' E Walnut St E W lnuw st �• t rn — a Y w 2:rd s r5 a :.Santa Ana Zoo at - r c m f - Tu5[ n D fled /� ' a B 9• Prent [e Park g a $��1 O stnd 2Jr E 3N S ell, , r Ave ,�/, a ai' 3 a g V q �. _ _ ] r . - � 4 w M.m si Myrtle S[ N IF ECle St ty , am �. a-- , - /• g - HENNINGER PARK -a - o s. '� '- Wsm st- '"Eeth S," the Honey6aketl li�m E' EBisho St Wrren St'• �.S `' C-6p-y9P._'i:4a9 j 9� "E aiu,np It EASTSIDE n i _ " a-Ip,,.,�. -_ 3_ - -,- ! i ;,. A Richland 5t " u Hgnoar E Alli ■ CORNERSTO.4ve i"er qYe vofl ♦ D Nr VILLASEV r - -■ I ys 3 UL1 ��.. Via. + q� ance ve _ - - _ VciTuelM'§s !vn vo9ae LLC�- } ,vDo ors Pizza $eLerly PI - 'a - B -Iy PI . .. - �,�e. Sn ✓ sP Norna d PI ,n - a i` n y ,PP McFadden Ave - P-rra Hut ® - `41 i _ Harwood P1 _ E McFadden Ave € McFadden M PI' E MCFadd- w - I I E McFadden Aver " McFadden Ave r _11 ��, R 9 Lots 4aFa we , Key Inn and sait- W-",-II AYe � �>;x• -�. "` ®it ot. �y'r N„ten _v R � ' t�1 r� N � g � �I 5 � WILSHIRE ' - oxferdst a. ![ ■ 7'J .E9p� 6 ;h ' q� Q' -,o' F! a Alradenao �a S ,zf SQUARE - o e' ' _ ar ■ ,l .=� - -� lln'.ted States Pos[al . .n . Y 52 ' ` C Serxice ry lioki&t S1 Fio6arc St _ _ 4 _ .. •� wr - ' . 0 3 [Wynn E Elyey Ave EBerchard Ave artl Ave - . e A - DollarGenera Madcet - i ■�•�r� ! _ �'' ®zo'egH - � =.fir � � s `�"- � ■� .ice" - f ' r t of � �'� L i ~ fl' e ; [ _ +• y0 I E6th St '--_� a _1 _ •`.ems u - s �- .p I,I E eth Stx i.i�°iP� IL �. � -. T^.,.#'_ .:III,■ - �' - I�+�. - z � - -. • •` 1�-�� :.. - - �a - r � , F _ �� _j_. .mp:� �_. J lit .ice,' ,�,. An 6 i , I a l E Sth St. �'- 1 - - 1' jl d,iFsy-' - ^� — .. z -I ,r� p� ii+�dgrHomePd9e �J ! fI _L tom^ r a. °Y — a +?• 4th St=: �. E 4th E 4 h 5 ' J c _ t t1. �JF .. Consulada de Merr�� 1 iy � e� ,�� a�'� - -� v •�•+. �IF ISM r yp��� ik Ar r °z *� Ie the sand ®s may,•. .e Eodg _�.. -' -Luskin ott �� _ Tus[en Santa A _ �f" �!-• -77 .• - ■ - Metro Bean Cate @ -i ry i°m 1 SAD.-0. - A Wt--y Ho.. ® -- _ Z'''fff - �s+ nta AmVc4 5 - jfff 4 : l_ N fla hrla : 'A.;� ti Sf. ,.yp — • $ .. Sunrand Mole; 0 Guest Inn E 1st st E 1st St E 1st st _ . W 1sl • Fit Pasta �SP�a® � - s h -y Yry0 yb- s.. Rr ,. s , .xs^_..-. zsotEet etel�rg 7 EXHIBIT 4E PROJECTION LOCATION - TRAFFIC COUNTS SANTA ANA MAY 2020 Vol t. '- _°� 'J 24.72 ,jTj 282.000 �4 -1 0 ..a I � it j I-� - �w i �' I i i •�i 1, _y 4'-'�� L:7I'�jG't3a:� ... � � E'i' k��,;_1 �: i ,i 1- �e �y_ � "°•_. -�:T ��7, a '`�' - c�3} -`r,� Y} - • i : :, ' "rtyF'1ix"�tp..-�j4'•.: �� S.i2321-00 '}. ..-,�.r, 'f~S" ,+� f.Z- �' -�; t•1" . rx1=:r 1' .. - 9.752 ©a� s 9 r - 33"fir 34.1- �` 17.000rF --- 19,524 - 28,753t.: 31.963 --� 33.001) a- 37:444 rLiwl l$ ,. _- 34.938 � i9 ': -�_ Lf,�31�3 20,647 �l,L�t u _ C7� L1'��s G'�xsWl3 I II 171k L Jt fiihl it ti>ti a 3D,D00, 10.516 _ 8.462 _ - � 354.•-94 �a h.- .. - 8,927 9,371 245,349 82M. Maser Tc:F..-.ecza o�. _..._,..a ....a. s_-P, -.e a_e..aen,.v WOm, .. ie.na0 iJea Map: Co$tar 20233.00 Maps: Traffic THE CONCORD GIRDUIP EXHIBIT 5 SITE PLAN 4TH AND CABRILLO - SANTA ANA MAY 2020 —' '— — --- -'-,AgKGUURT PI.Ai-.E lop _M16 - B ILD?NG B #;■ �„ ■ t BVILOTNG r- a ► "' RT IEGS 110131toor.. _-- CLLMROOMSP 4 -;p # �i U Aft ' ti I Lti l+ r k iff RE'A It 41H STRE-ET -�r ImoI_ _ 20233.00 Maps: SitePlan THE CONCORD GROUP Geography: Population 2019 2024 Gr./ Yr. Households 2010 2019 Gr./ Yr. 2024 Gr./ Yr. Renters ('19) HH Size ('19) 1 Person 1-2 Persons 3+ Persons Family HHs Median Income (000s) 2019 2024 Gr./ Yr. Income Profile ('19) Over $50K Over $75K Over $100K Over $150K Over $200K Age Profile ('19) Median - Pop. Householder Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 Plus Reta i I Inventory SF (000s) (QTD) SF per Person Local Radii 1.0-Mile EXHIBIT 6 DEMOGRAPHICS ORANGE COUNTY 2019 3.0-Mile Num. Perc. Num. Perc 34,761 35,921 232 0.7% 9,395 9,853 51 0.5% 10,107 51 0.5% 6,615 67% 3.5 2,026 21 % 4,178 42% 5,675 58% 7,128 72% $53 $60 $1.2 2.2% 5,396 55% 3,124 32% 1,732 18% 706 7% 299 3% 30 462 5% 2,032 21 % 2,305 23% 1,984 20% 1,493 15% 1,576 16% 1,198 34 280,411 287,653 1,448 0.5% 71,438 73,769 259 0.4% 75,335 313 0.4% 41,031 56% 3.8 12,535 17% 29,106 39% 44,663 61 % 56,102 76% $67 $78 $2.3 3.3% 46,846 64% 33,370 45% 23,171 31 % 11,239 15% 5,690 8% 32 2,556 3% 12,762 17% 15,575 21 % 15,337 21 % 12,785 17% 14,754 20% 12,231 44 Santa Ana Num. Perc. 340,347 349,390 1,809 0.5% 73,123 75,607 276 0.4% 77,346 348 0.5% 41,674 55% 4.5 9,533 13% 22,207 29% 53,400 71 % 61,665 82% $60 $71 $2.2 3.5% 45,254 60% 29,958 40% 19,230 25% 7,697 10% 3,201 4% 31 2,435 3% 13,551 18% 16,632 22% 16,677 22% 12,992 17% 13,321 18% 12,117 36 Orange County Num. Perc. 3,252,459 3,368,861 23,280 0.7% 992,781 1,060,886 7,567 0.7% 1,095,455 6,914 0.6% 458,189 43% 3.1 222,107 21% 532,561 50% 528,325 50% 757,094 71 % $88 $103 $2.9 3.0% 771,621 73% 614,698 58% 475,348 45% 269,674 25% 156,471 15% 37 30,673 3% 153,712 14% 190,990 18% 209,921 20% 207,275 20% 268,296 25% 143,250 44 U.S. Num. Perc. 332,417,793 345,487,602 2,613,962 0.8% 116,716,292 125,168,557 939,141 0.8% 129,922,162 950,721 0.7% 45,709,279 37% 2.7 33,464,681 27% 74,476,732 60% 50,691,825 40% 83,153,401 66% $61 $69 $1.7 2.7% 73,892,464 59% 51,974,116 42% 36,152,986 29% 17,309,482 14% 9,153,435 7% 39 5,004,274 4% 19,381,040 15% 20,976,243 17% 22,103,882 18% 24,301,863 19% 33,399,611 27% Retail per Capita 50 45 44 44 40 34 36 35 30 ❑ 1.0-Mile 25 ❑ 3.0-Mile 20 ❑ Santa Ana 15 ■Orange County 10 5 0 Retail PSF Source: ESRI 20233.00 DemoRetail:DemoCL THE CONCORD GROUIP EXHIBIT 7A MF MACRO -MARKET PERFORMANCE - INVENTORY & DELIVERIES ORANGE COUNTY 2000 THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2020 YTD - Apr-20 Values Annual Annual Average U/C in 000s 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Yr 10-Yr 15-Yr 1Q20 Num. %Inv Job Growth Orange County 3.1% 1.8% -0.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 1.9% -0.2% -2.0% -7.1% -1.2% 1.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 3.2% 2.6% 2.1% 2.0% 1.3% 0.9% Inventory (000s) Orange County 204.6 207.7 210.5 212.3 214.1 216.7 218.9 219.4 222.0 225.9 229.6 230.1 232.2 234.6 237.4 240.6 243.4 248.5 252.6 256.1 260.4 Santa Ana 19.7 19.7 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.7 19.8 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.0 20.3 20.3 20.5 20.6 20.8 20.8 22.2 % County 9.6% 9.5% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.2% 9.1 % 9.0% 8.9% 8.9% 8.7% 8.7% 8.6% 8.5% 8.6% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.2% 8.1% 8.5% Completions (000s) YTD U/C Orange County 1.66 4.89 0.70 2.52 1.71 2.82 1.51 0.90 3.85 5.77 1.15 0.09 3.34 2.64 2.98 3.47 2.07 5.62 4.22 5.07 4.09 3.28 3.03 1.65 3.22 Santa Ana 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.18 0.23 0.13 0.11 0.09 1.22 0.22 1.0% % County 0% 0% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 13% 0% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 74% 7% 8,000 Completions (bar) and Job Growth (line) 8% 7,000 6,000 6 % 4% 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2 0% -2 % -4% -6 % 1 -8% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Santa Ana o Rem. Orange County -Orange Count' (left axis) Source: Jobs - BLS; Apartment - CoStar (for projects that are 5+ units) Note: "U/C" - under construction 20233.00 Macro: Scale THE CONCORD GIROUIP EXHIBIT 7B MF MACRO -MARKET PERFORMANCE - OCCUPANCY & RENTS ORANGE COUNTY 2000 THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2020 Values Historical Annual Average 1-Year in000s 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Yr 10-Yr 15-Yr 1Q19 1Q20 Job Growth Orange County 3.1% 1.8% -0.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 1.9% -0.2% -2.0% -7.1% -1.2% 1.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 3.2% 2.6% 2.1% 2.0% 1.3% 0.9% Asking Rent($) Orange County 1,238 1,302 1,321 1,328 1,358 1,428 1,520 1,598 1,626 1,555 1,518 1,537 1,584 1,640 1,705 1,788 1,875 1,938 1,988 2,050 2,013 2,053 Gr/Yr 5.2% 1.4% 0.5% 2.3% 5.1 % 6.5% 5.1 % 1.8% -4.4% -2.4% 1.3% 3.1 % 3.5% 3.9% 4.9% 4.9% 3.4% 2.6% 3.1 % 3.8% 2.8% 2.8% Y/Y: 2.0% Santa Ana 1,096 1,152 1,173 1,183 1,204 1,260 1,339 1,403 1,425 1,367 1,331 1,353 1,395 1,439 1,512 1,590 1,669 1,731 1,779 1,838 1,813 1,859 Gr/Yr 5.1 % 1.8% 0.8% 1.8% 4.6% 6.3% 4.8% 1.6% -4.1 % -2.6% 1.6% 3.1 % 3.2% 5.0% 5.2% 5.0% 3.7% 2.8% 3.3% 4.0% 3.0% 2.9% Y/Y: 2.5% Asking Rent($/SF) Orange County 1.41 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.55 1.63 1.74 1.83 1.86 1.78 1.73 1.75 1.81 1.87 1.95 2.04 2.15 2.22 2.27 2.34 2.30 2.35 Gr/Yr 5.3% 1.3% 0.5% 2.3% 5.3% 6.4% 5.0% 1.9% -4.6% -2.4% 1.2% 3.1 % 3.6% 4.0% 4.9% 5.0% 3.4% 2.5% 3.1 % 3.8% 2.8% 2.8% Y/Y: 2.2% Santa Ana 1.32 1.39 1.41 1.43 1.45 1.52 1.62 1.70 1.72 1.65 1.61 1.63 1.69 1.74 1.83 1.92 2.02 2.09 2.15 2.22 2.19 2.25 Gr/Yr 5.1 % 1.8% 0.9% 1.9% 4.6% 6.4% 4.8% 1.5% -4.2% -2.6% 1.7% 3.2% 3.0% 5.2% 5.3% 5.1 % 3.6% 2.7% 3.3% 4.0% 3.0% 2.9% Y/Y: 2.7% Occupancy Orange County 97% 96% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 95% 95% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 95% 95.1% 94.0% Santa Ana 98% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 94% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 95.4% 90.9% 8% Rent Growth (bar) and Job Growth (line) 8.0% 6% 6 % 6.0 % 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4 % 4.0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2 % 2 % 2.0% 0% 0.0% -2 % -2.0 -3 -4 % -4.0% -4 -6 % -6.0 % -8 % -8.0 % 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Santa Ana =Orange County -Orange County ( right axis) Source: Jobs - BLS; Apartment - CoStar (for projects that are 5+ units) 20233.00 Macro: Rent THE CONCORD GIROUIP EXHIBIT 8A MF INVENTORY - LOCATION & PERFORMANCE SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Rents listed are "base' - an average of the lowest listed rents per floorplan Project Averages (Size and List Rent) Unit Mix Overall Studios One -Bedrooms Two -Bedrooms Map Year (by Bed Count) Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Unit Base Rent Key Project Name Units Built Occ. 0 1 2 Size $ $/sf Size $ v-s-F Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Skylo/tApartments 388 2079 79% 8% 54% 366y 970 $3,024 $3.32 577 $2,537 $4.43 768 $2,773 $3.53 7,765 $3,573 $3.02 H Eleven 10 260 2018 93% 21 % 51 % 28% 825 $2,571 $3.12 515 $2,103 $4.08 764 $2,463 $3.22 1,167 $3,118 $2.67 BroadstoneArden 335 2020 26% 26% 79% 53% 7,023 $3,063 $2.RR 800 $2,676 $3.34 887 $2,769 $3.74 7,757 $3,372 $2.86 Amalfi 542 2014 95% 12% 69% 19% 785 $2,268 $2.89 584 $2,035 $3.48 748 $2,242 $3.00 1,046 $2,510 $2.40 Residences on Jamboree 381 2017 96% 18% 43% 33% 897 $2,447 $2.73 690 $1,994 $2.89 724 $2,132 $2.95 1,134 $2,906 $2.56 G AMLI Uptown Orange 334 2016 93% 3% 45% 51 % 930 $2,663 $2.86 570 $2,101 $3.69 782 $2,307 $2.95 1,071 $2,986 $2.79 The Charlie 228 2079 73% 70% 40% 42% 875 $2,373 $2.77 542 $7,848 $3.47 708 $2,060 $2.97 7,048 $2,633 $2.57 Nineteen0l 261 2016 90% 0% 46% 50% 1,072 $2,495 $2.33 --- --- --- 831 $2,056 $2.47 1,235 $2,804 $2.27 Total/Average: 2,729 2017 68% 12% 48%d 37% 904 $2,606 $2.88 645 $2,236 $3.47 765 $2,329 $3.04 1,130 $3,010 $2.66 Excluding Lease -Ups: 7,778 94% -.- .. ;..h,-Am U tl Map Satellite Color = Location s' ANAHEIM 55 Red = Santa Ana Costa Mesa RESORT wchepmaeAw .Tep ECl.een�v�Rrr Orange EAre 9 El Modena EChhkm .Af .yv camp Blue = Irvine / Tustin - e i d Green = Anaheim / Orange d "rnpcmAre y 4 Z L.vere A - _ n � C] HH] Garden Garden Grove a i Cube $ scovery F.1dA- Q Dra,�..r� nge County _ C Sire, Mr. A•. FoalFlll [yam T ­ Bowers Museum o $ a r North Tustin n w r 4 Y F � halard Aee x Flo�rd Ar'e a ARTESIA PILAR e ( °�.e� y w sxaa R", BW E Fin sr n s7 r 9.1-1 WIsl9 WIsl91 'wk- Santa Ana FF-111 .11 1111 S1 3 � Santa Ana zoo Tustin � c .fir 1Vita S1 W chop sI W McFadden Ave McFadden Are Cd�nyei .tve 55 h A V r4 dam+ - � Fenger R+a Cdinger Rre Mile Square Regional Park Wrar avo - ivaiieAr' = W tVarnn ajB EWe�.ier are £ � Fountain Valley s d°` a e saurH coAsr SOUTH COAST p METRO°9 _Ta ��'y Jam � � F� AY � Ellie pre � W3unlWwer Are 5'snrxrww A'•+ ?c g v SC-br RI'ltre BI4't E d� � .. d a IRVI,� BIII Barber NE BUSINESS 4 C �� r Memorial Park COMPLEX a o a -Afft�. Irvine Baker Sr a ❑range Coast " �� Q WOOD13RIDGE € College11 John Wayne Boomers! Irvine- iemporarilyclosed c RminaAr Q Airport TeWinkle Park y � w.r `gay Fairview Park alrOr Costa Mesa Q Adventure Playground Comas map owner •,,,_,w- IAp data @52029 2DOo ft r Teens of Use Reporta map error Source: Appendix A 20233.00 RecComps: Inv THE CONCORD GROUP Color = Location EXHIBIT 813 Red = Santa Ana / Costa Mesa MF INVENTORY - VACANCY BY UNIT TYPE Blue = Irvine / Tustin SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Green = Anaheim / Orange Year 1 B Unit Sizes Project Name Built $/SF Units 0 1 2 3 0 v 2018 $3.22 260 515 764 1,167 --- 55 Amalfi 2014 $3.00 542 584 748 1,046 --- 65 Residences on Jamboree 2017 $2.95 381 690 724 1,134 1,452 69 LI Uptown Orange 2016 $2.95 334 570 782 1,071 1,418 10 2016 $2.47 261 --- 831 1,235 1,799 0 2016 $2.88 1,778 601 762 1,127 1,092 198 Total/Average: Vacancy Rate Unit Count Unit Mix Vac- By Unit Type 1 133 374 164 150 121 941 2 3 0 1 2 3 ancy 0 1 2 3 73 0 21% 51% 28% 0% 7% 4% 1% 0% --- 103 0 12% 69% 19% 0% 5% 0% 5% 13% --- 126 23 18% 43% 33% 6% 4% 3% 2% 4% 13% 170 4 3% 45% 51% 1% 7% 10% 8% 5% 0% 130 11 0% 46% 50% 4% 10% --- 3% 7% 18% 601 38 11% 53% 34% 2% 69/. 1 3% 4% 14.0% 70% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% O 4.1 % 2.5% 13.3% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed OVacancy (bar, left axis) •Mix of Inventory (circle, right axis) (1) Exc'ludes projects in Lease -up (2) Represents availability of units as per leasing agents and community websites Source: Appendix A 20233.00 RecComps: Vac THE CONCORD GROUP EXHIBIT 8C MF INVENTORY - FLOOR PLAN MIX SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Units by Rent Range (Base) Bed Under Count 00 $2,000 $2,100 $2,100 $2,200 $2,200 $2,300 $2,300 $2,400 $2,400 $2,500 $2,500 $2,600 $2,600 $2,700 $2,700 $2,800 52,800 MIL901 $2,900 $3,000 $3,000 $3,100 $3,100 $3,200 $3,200 $3,300 $3,300 $3,400 $3,400 $3,500 $3,500 $3,600 $3,600 $3,700 $3,700 $3,800 M f Total Num. Share 0 92 87 65 0 0 22 31 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 340 12% Share ` 27% 26% 19% 0% 0% 6% 9% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 85 166 248 210 196 51 153 87 50 40 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 1,304 48% Share 7% 13% 19% 16% 15% 4% 12% 7% 4% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 0 0 0 0 1 63 100 107 91 78 98 33 92 107 91 66 37 31 0 18 1,014 37% Share 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 10% 11% 9% 8% 10% 3% 9% 11% 9% 6% 4% 3% 0% 2% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 20 8 2 2 22 71 3% Share 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 12% 28% 30 Total 177 252 313 210 197 135 283 194 141 141 98 41 92 116 122 94 45 33 2 43 2,729 100% Cumulative 6% 16% 27% 35% 42% 47% 57% 65% 70% 75% 78% 80% 83% 88% 92% 95% 97% 98% 98% 100% Units by Floor Plan Size Range Bed Under Count 600 600 650 650 700 700 750 750 800 800 850 850 900 900 950 950 1,000 1,000 1,050 1,050 1,100 1,100 1,150 1,150 1,200 1,200 1,250 1,250 1,300 1,300 1,350 1,350 1,400 1,400 1,450 1,450 1,500 1,500 Plus Total Num. Share 0 203 0 72 22 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 340 12% Share 60% 0� 6% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 27 10 194 414 285 244 42 37 31 12 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,304 48% Share 2% 1% 15% 32% 22% 19% 3% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 146 249 231 197 54 47 0 22 0 2 13 1,014 37% Share 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 14% 25% 23% 19% 5% 5% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 28 3 22 71 3% Share 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% % Jill 00/. 40% Total 230 10 266 435 285 244 64 37 85 179 249 231 197 79 47 0 22 28 5 35 2,729 100% Cumulative 8% 9% 19% 34% 45% 54% 56% 58% 61% 67% 76% 85% 92% 95% 97% 97% 98% 99% 99% 100% 350 300 Unit Count by Rent Range (Base) 250 200 150 100 50 0 $2,000-$2,100 $2,200-$2,300 $2,400-$2,500 $2,600-$2,700 $2,800-$2,900 $3,00043,100 $3,200-$3,300 $3,400-$3,500 $3,60043,700 $3,800-Plus ❑Studio 131Bed ❑2Bed ■3+Bed Source: Appendix A 20233.00 RecComps: Mix THE CONCORD GROUP Project: Community Summary EXHIBIT 8D MF INVENTORY - AMENITIES SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Nineteen0l Broadstone Arden Eleven 10 City Santa Ana Santa Ana Orange Address 1901 E 1 st St 1951 E Dyer Road 1 1 10 W. Town and Country Rd Year Built 2016 2020 2018 Elevation 5 5 5 Units 261 335 260 Average Rent ($) $2,495 $3,063 $2,571 Average Rent ($/sf) $2.33 $2.99 $3.12 1-Beds 46% 19% 51% 2-Beds 50% 53% 28% Community Amenities Concierge Service No Yes Yes Business Center Yes Yes Yes Conference Room No Yes Yes Fitness Center Yes Yes Yes + Outdoor Athletic Terrace Cardio Room Combined Spin Studio Combined Weight Room Combined Yes Combined Yoga/Stretch Room --- Yes Outdoor Area Game Room Yes Outdoor, Ping Pang / Billiards Billiards / Shuffleboard Kitchen/Clubhouse Catering Kitchen / Games Large, Catering Kitchen Catering Kitchen Pool Rooftop / Cabanas Resort Pool, Salt Room Resort -Style Pool and Spa Theater TV Room Outdoor Pool Theatre No Wi-Fi Yes Yes Yes Other Areas Car Wash Station Golf Simulator Pet Spa and Dog Park Pet Spa and Dog Park Coffee Lounge Amazon parcel locker system Outdoor Cabanas w/ TVs Day Spa Outdoor Cabanas Bike Storage Storage Units Interior Spec Kitchen Appliance Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Counters Quartz/Marble Quartz Quartz Floor Wood -Grain Finish Wood Plank Style Wood -Style Cabinets Contemporary Contemporary Contemporary Backsplash Full Full Full Washer/Dryer In Unit Stacked Stacked Stacked Flooring (common) Wood -Grain Finish Wood Plank Style Wood -Style Balcony/Patio In most units Private Patios In most units Pictures , _ !�4 I11* "'+++ E r Tr � 20233.00 RecComps: Amenities THIIE CONCORD GROUP EXHIBIT 9 RETAIL PERFORMANCE ORANGE COUNTY 2006 THROUGH SECOND QUARTER 2020 Annual Annual Average Quarterly Under Const. Period: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Yr 10-Yr 1Q20 2Q20 Num. %Inv Inventory SF (MMs) Growth (#) Orange County 138.6 139.8 141.3 142.1 142.3 141.8 141.8 141.5 141.6 142.1 142.6 143.0 143.2 143.3 0.33 0.11 143.3 143.3 0.16 0.1% Santa Ana 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 (0.00) (0.01) 12.1 12.1 0.1 0.5% 3.0-Mile 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.2 12.2 0.03 0.01 12.2 12.2 0.01 0.0% 1.0-Mile 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.01 0.00 1.2 1.2 0.00 0.0% % Santa Ana 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% -187% -24% 10% 10% 0% Occupancy Orange County 96.3% 96.6% 96.0% 94.2% 93.6% 94.0% 93.9% 94.4% 95.4% 96.0% 96.2% 95.9% 96.2% 96.2% 96.1% 95.2% 96.0% 95.8% Santa Ana 96.3% 96.8% 96.3% 95.4% 94.1 % 94.2% 93.9% 93.4% 94.9% 95.6% 95.8% 95.7% 96.6% 96.3% 96.0% 95.0% 95.9% 96.3% 3.0-Mile 95.0% 96.7% 97.2% 95.8% 94.0% 93.8% 94.3% 94.1 % 94.9% 94.7% 94.6% 95.3% 96.6% 96.1 % 95.4% 94.8% 95.8% 95.8% 1.0-Mile 97.9% 97.6% 96.1 % 92.4% 91.6% 92.0% 94.2% 94.9% 92.7% 93.3% 96.1 % 96.7% 97.7% 97.1 % 96.1 % 94.6% 97.3% 97.1 % Absorption SF (000s) Orange County 987 1,965 (97) (2,323) (312) 100 295 790 1,206 1,685 47 145 716 (394) 440 428 Santa Ana 134 64 60 (227) 3 (94) (5) 27 52 111 (43) (44) 134 (67) 18 7 3.0-Mile 96 276 46 (255) (102) 17 69 45 (87) 43 (24) 226 76 (74) 49 19 1.0-Mile 18 (12) (7) (0) (18) 7 46 (6) (42) 46 15 28 (1) 3 18 8 Lease Rate Growth (%) Orange County $24 $27 $29 $26 $23 $22 $22 $22 $23 $24 $25 $26 $26 $27 3.8% 0.6% $28.26 $28.62 Santa Ana $25 $26 $25 $22 $19 $19 $19 $18 $20 $22 $21 $23 $24 $26 4.8% 1.7% $26.97 $27.11 3.0-Mile $23 $24 $24 $21 $19 $19 $19 $19 $20 $22 $23 $23 $24 $25 5.4% 2.1% $26.37 $25.80 1.0-Mile $16 $37 $31 $27 $22 $22 $22 $21 $23 $26 $25 $26 $26 $27 3.0% 0.1% $27.11 $30.23 400 3.0-Mile - Absorption (MMs SF) and Lease Rate ($/SF/Yr) $30 300 $25 200 $20 100 E Absorption p F7 F7$15 Lease Rate $10 (100) (200) $5 (300) $0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2Q20 Source: CoStar 20233.00 DemoRetail: Retail THE CONCORD GROUP EXHIBIT 10 OFFICE PERFORMANCE ORANGE COUNTY 2006 THROUGH SECOND QUARTER 2020 Annual Annual Average Quarterly Under Const. Period: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Yr 10-Yr 1 Q20 2Q20 Num. %Inv Inventory SF (MMs) Orange County Santa Ana 3.0-Mile 1.0-Mile % Santa Ana Occupancy Orange County Santa Ana 3.0-Mile 1.0-Mile Absorption SF (000s) Orange County Santa Ana 3.0-Mile 1.0-Mile Lease Rate Orange County Santa Ana 3.0-Mile 1.0-Mile Growth (#) 146.3 149.8 153.2 153.9 153.9 154.0 154.4 154.0 154.7 154.9 155.4 156.5 158.1 158.9 0.83 0.56 159.1 159.1 1.38 0.9% 19.6 19.6 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.6 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.4 (0.02) (0.03) 19.4 19.4 0.0 0.0% 21.6 21.7 21.8 21.9 22.0 22.0 22.0 21.8 21.7 21.8 21.8 21.9 21.9 21.9 0.03 (0.01) 21.8 21.8 0.19 0.9% 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 0.00 (0.01) 5.4 5.4 0.00 0.0% 27% 27% 27% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 0% 20% 28% 28% 93.1 % 91.1 % 87.8% 86.0% 84.5% 85.8% 87.0% 88.5% 89.1 % 90.5% 91.4% 91.2% 90.5% 90.4% 90.8% 88.9% 90.4% 90.3% 93.8% 92.3% 90.0% 87.8% 87.5% 88.0% 87.4% 86.9% 87.0% 87.5% 87.6% 89.8% 90.1 % 89.2% 88.8% 88.1 % 88.5% 88.0% 94.4% 93.6% 91.6% 90.5% 89.2% 89.3% 88.6% 88.4% 89.5% 89.8% 88.8% 90.2% 91.0% 90.7% 90.1 % 89.5% 90.7% 90.4% 95.7% 93.5% 89.1 % 87.3% 85.0% 86.2% 85.0% 86.5% 88.1 % 88.6% 89.1 % 88.4% 89.2% 88.4% 88.7% 87.4% 87.7% 87.0% 700 (852) (1,001) (3,581) (472) 2,900 2,054 1,193 2,880 1,572 1,582 243 620 245 852 1,282 86 (586) (167) (338) 33 58 (25) (487) 244 (162) 393 333 (115) (392) 12 (12) 276 (432) 47 (308) (128) 99 (285) (193) 463 (179) (8) 497 (61) (42) 41 16 154 (267) (43) (99) (4) 40 (55) 1 85 (43) 160 (77) (15) (53) (5) 4 Growth (%) $28 $30 $29 $26 $24 $23 $22 $22 $24 $26 $27 $29 $31 $32 5.9% 2.0% $32.26 $32.76 $24 $25 $25 $22 $21 $20 $19 $19 $20 $21 $22 $23 $25 $27 6.1% 1.9% $28.13 $27.82 $23 $25 $24 $22 $21 $20 $19 $20 $21 $21 $22 $24 $26 $27 5.3% 1.9% $27.30 $28.01 $23 $23 $23 $23 $21 $19 $19 $19 $20 $21 $20 $22 $24 $26 5.2% 1.3% $28.24 $28.69 600 3.0-Mile - Absorption (MMs SF) and Lease Rate ($/SF/Yr) $30 400 $25 200 $20 0 $15 Absorption Ll Lease Rate (200) $10 (400) $5 600) $0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2Q20 Source: CoStar 20233.00 DemoRetail: Office THE CONCORD GROUP Project Name City Street Project Description Year Built Elevation Apartments Retail (SF) Parking Garage Street Retail Performance Occupancy Visibility Primary Frontage Street Walk Score Traffic Count Picture Central Pointe Santa Ana 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr TBD 5-stories 644 15,200 Wrap - 7-stories 20-spaces TBD 4th Street 67 23,000 EXHIBIT 11 MIXED -USE ANALOGS SANTA ANA, LAGUNA HILLS AND FULLERTON MAY 2020 Pinnacle at MacArthur Place Reata Oakbrook Village Santa Ana Laguna Hills 31 E. MacArthur Cres 24391 Avenida de la Carlota 2001 4-stories 253 14,000 Semi -Sub Podium 25-spaces 44% MacArthur Boulevard 63 36,000 2016 4-stories 289 12,000 Semi -Sub Podium Unlimited Spaces 30% Avenida de la Carlota 65 15,000 Pinnacle at Fullerton Fullerton 229 E. Commonwealth Ave 2004 4-stories 192 8,500 Semi -Sub Podium 8-spaces 90% Commonwealth Avenue 96 24,000 100% Bar = Retail Occupancy --- Circle = Walk Score 120 ° 0 96 Source: Costar; OCTA; TCG 20233.00 Analogs: Summ THE CONCORD GROUP FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS THE CONCORD GROUP SG aETSER [BMMUNITIES $BLUER FUTURE$. June 3, 2020 Michael D. Reynolds, Principal THE CONCORD GROUP 369 San Miguel Drive, Suite 265 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Va72 C4LLETTE AVE "4 5414&W SUITE 350 wro@W+EBR5G_[CN4 IRVINE, CA 92M4 WERPSCkCOM DEVELOPMENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS CENTRAL POINTE MIXED -USE PROJECT, SANTA ANA Dear Mr. Reynolds: Via Electronic Mail RSG, Inc. ("RSG") was retained by The Concord Group ("TCG") to perform a fiscal and economic impact analysis for the development of a proposed mixed -use apartment and retail project ("Project") in Santa Ana, California. TCG obtained this analysis on behalf of the property owner/developer, Arnel & Waterford Property Company ("Developer"), which recently submitted an application for redevelopment of the subject property with the City of Santa Ana's ("City") Planning and Building Services Department. The Project site sits along 4th Street, between the Santa Ana (Interstate 5) Freeway (1-5") and Cabrillo Park Drive. The gross site area is approximately 8.35 acres, and is made up of four vacant parcels. If approved, the Project would consist of two five -story mixed -used buildings divided by a central park and open walk space. Attached to the buildings would be two seven -story parking structures. On the ground floor of each building would be a total 15,200 square feet of retail space. This letter describes our analysis, methodology, and anticipated recurring fiscal impacts resulting from development of the Project. As is typical at this stage, our conclusions could evolve as the application moves forward through the design and environmental review process. As is consistent with other Santa Ana projects analyzed by RSG, the construction period was assumed to be over three years. Part of the work would begin in 2021 (36 percent), with a majority taking place in 2022 (51 percent), leading to the remainder in 2023 (13 percent). The Project would open in the third construction year. Fiscal impacts from that year are reduced to reflect a partial year. Overall, RSG anticipates the following fiscal outcomes over a 25-year forecast period: Gross General Fund revenues of approximately $23.1 million, (net present value, discounted at 4 percent), including: o $10.3 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) in net new property tax revenues to the City General Fund. o A combined $3.6 million in sales taxes that includes $1.8 million from the City's base rate, as well as an additional $1.8 million from the City's Measure X additional tax rate through the sunset in 2039 (net present value, discounted at 4 percent). o A total of $23.1 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) in additional City General Fund revenue, including construction period revenues, recurring site - specific tax, and other Project impacts. • City General Fund expenditures associated with the Project total $7 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) • As a result, the net new General Fund revenue (revenues less expenditures) is projected to be approximately $16.1 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) if the Project were developed as proposed. Table 1 summarizes the 25-year fiscal impact of the Project. Table 2 provides the corresponding forecast of the same impacts on the following page. Table 1 NET NEW RECURRING GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACTS Central Pointe, Santa Ana 25-Year Recurring Revenue Category Nominal NPV 4.0% Property Tax $ 18,505,380 $ 10,333,353 Property Tax In -Lieu 12,096,754 6,756,731 Utility User Tax 3,537,877 1,884,715 Sales Tax 3,479,170 1,853,440 Measure X (2018) Sales Tax Increase 2,753,009 1,786,920 Business Tax 927,121 493,901 Total Revenues $ 41,299,312 $ 23,109,059 Less City Expenditures $(13,214,039) $ (7,026,724) NET NEW REVENUE TOTAL $ 28,085,273 $ 16,082,335 Sources: City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, California State Board of Equalization, ESRI Business Analyst Online, and RSG, Inc. Table 2 25-YEAR NET NEW RECURRING FISCAL IMPACT PROJECTIONS Central Pointe, Santa Ana Measure X Net New Property Tax Utility User (2018) Business Gross City Net New Year Property Tax In -Lieu Tax Sales Tax Additional Tax Revenue Expenditures Total Sales Tax CY1 2021 $ 205,735 $ 138,575 $ $ $ $ $ 344,309 $ $ 344,309 CY2 2022 462,569 302,985 765,554 765,554 CY3 2023 529,747 346,150 91,766 90,244 135,366 24,048 1,217,321 (307,968) 909,354 1 2024 540,342 353,073 94,519 92,951 139,427 24,769 1,245,082 (353,986) 891,096 2 2025 551,149 360,135 97,355 95,740 143,609 25,512 1,273,500 (364,606) 908,895 3 2026 562,172 367,337 100,276 98,612 147,918 26,278 1,302,593 (375,544) 927,049 4 2027 573,416 374,684 103,284 101,570 152,355 27,066 1,332,375 (386,810) 945,565 5 2028 584,884 382,178 106,383 104,617 156,926 27,878 1,362,866 (398,414) 964,451 6 2029 596,582 389,821 109,574 107,756 161,634 28,715 1,394,081 (410,367) 983,714 7 2030 608,513 397,618 112,861 110,988 149,668 29,576 1,409,225 (422,678) 986,547 8 2031 620,684 405,570 116,247 114,318 154,158 30,463 1,441,440 (435,358) 1,006,082 9 2032 633,097 413,682 119,734 117,748 158,783 31,377 1,474,421 (448,419) 1,026,002 10 2033 645,759 421,955 123,326 121,280 163,546 32,318 1,508,186 (461,872) 1,046,314 11 2034 658,674 430,394 127,026 124,918 168,453 33,288 1,542,754 (475,728) 1,067,026 12 2035 671,848 439,002 130,837 128,666 173,506 34,287 1,578,146 (489,999) 1,088,147 13 2036 685,285 447,782 134,762 132,526 178,711 35,315 1,614,382 (504,699) 1,109,682 14 2037 698,990 456,738 138,805 136,502 184,073 36,375 1,651,483 (519,840) 1,131,642 15 2038 712,970 465,873 142,969 140,597 189,595 37,466 1,689,470 (535,436) 1,154,034 16 2039 727,230 475,190 147,258 144,815 195,283 38,590 1,728,366 (551,499) 1,176,867 17 2040 741,774 484,694 151,676 149,159 - 39,748 1,567,051 (568,044) 999,007 18 2041 756,610 494,388 156,226 153,634 40,940 1,601,798 (585,085) 1,016,713 19 2042 771,742 504,276 160,913 158,243 42,168 1,637,342 (602,638) 1,034,704 20 2043 787,177 514,361 165,740 162,990 43,433 1,673,702 (620,717) 1,052,985 21 2044 802,920 524,648 170,713 167,880 44,736 1,710,898 (639,338) 1,071,559 22 2045 818,979 535,141 175,834 172,916 46,078 1,748,949 (658,518) 1,090,431 23 2046 835,358 545,844 181,109 178,104 47,461 1,787,876 (678,274) 1,109,602 24 2047 852,066 556,761 186,542 183,447 48,885 1,827,700 (698,622) 1,129,078 25 2048 869,107 567,896 192,139 188,950 - 50,351 1,868,443 (719,581) 1,148,862 TOTAL $ 18,505,380 $ 12,096,754 $ 3,537,877 $ 3,479,170 $ 2,753,009 $ 927,121 $ 41,299,312 $ (13,214,039) $ 28,085,273 NPV 4.00% $ 10,333,353 $ 6,756,731 $ 1,884,715 $ 1,853,440 $ 1,786,920 $ 493,901 $ 23,109,059 $ (7,026,724) $ 16,082,335 Inflation Rate 2.0% 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is situated just east of the 1-5 Freeway on 4t" Street at Cabrillo Park Drive, south of Parkcourt Place. The Project sits at the northern border of the MEMU zone. It is 1.7 miles east of Downtown Santa Ana. Santa Ana's Saddleback View neighborhood lies across 1-5 to the west while Marbury Park neighborhood is to the north. Office/professional uses are located to the east, and located south across 41" Street is the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 office building and other uses. The Project is also one block away from the relatively new Nineteen01 multifamily project at the corner of First Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. Figure 1 shows the location of the Project Site. Figure 1: Project Site Source: Google Maps According to the Developer this is the City's Metro East Mixed -Use ("MEMU") Overlay Zone, as well as its Active Urban District. The MEMU zone was created in 2007 by the Santa Ana Planning Commission to foster the development of more active commercial and residential projects. The zone encourages the construction of modern and urban architecture, with plentiful open space. As shown in Figure 2, the 576,000 square foot (gross building area) Project would result in the construction of 644 market rate multifamily units, 15,200 square feet of ground floor retail space, and two seven -story parking structures with a combined 1,318 spaces. Both buildings contain similar amenities. The eastern structure, building A, would host 318 units, 580 parking spaces, and retail space of 9,600 square feet. Five courtyards checker this building's outdoor open space. The western structure (building B) would host 319 units and 638 parking spaces. The building would also have 5,600 square feet for retail on the ground floor. Just outside of the building would be open space divided into four courtyards, an Emergency Vehicle Access lane ("EVA"), a small dog run, and a park looking out on the 1-5 Freeway. Between both buildings would be a resident park and paved pedestrian walkways leading to 4th Street and Parkcourt Place. Figure 2: Site Plan Source: KTGY Group Inc., Arnel & Waterford Property Co. Figure 3 presents a rendering of the project as currently proposed: Figure 3 The proposed 644 unit market -rate project includes 39 studios (6 percent of all units), 326 one - bedroom (51 percent), 284 two -bedroom (39 percent), and 31 three -bedroom (5 percent) units. Figure 4 exhibits the unit mix: Figure 4 Central Pointe Unit Breakdown Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 3 BR Studio Source: KTGY Group Inc., Arnel & Waterford Property Co. RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS Property Tax Revenue All property taxes in the state of California are levied at a rate of 1 percent. The City's share of the 1 percent property tax levy is 19.4%, as provided by the County of Orange ("County") Auditor - Controller. The Developer provided RSG with the Project costs that consisted of $42 million for land, and $203 million for hard and soft costs. This $245 million adjusted for inflation over the construction period, would amount to an assessed valuation of $279 million at buildout. To accurately portray the effect of the Project to the City, property tax revenues presented in this report are net of any existing revenues. The existing site is currently valued at $5.5 million. When adjusted for inflation over the construction period the value is $6 million, providing the City an estimated $11,691 in year 2023 absent the construction of the Project. The new development would provide $541,438 to the City in that same year. Therefore, the net new property tax revenues to the City would be $529,747 at buildout. Table 3 NET NEW PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Central Pointe, Santa Ana At Buildout Existing Assessed Value $ 6,026,240 Proposed Project Assessed Valuation' 279,091,931 Net New Value $ 273,065,691 City Property Tax Rate 19.4% Annual Estimate Existing Property Tax Revenues $ 11,691 New Property Tax Revenues $ 541,438 Net New Property Tax Revenues $ 529,747 Source: County of Orange Auditor Controller, RSG, Inc. Inflated pursuant to the construction schedule To project future property taxes, RSG assumed 2 percent inflation on property tax revenues over the 25-year projection period, resulting in $10.3 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) in net new property tax revenues for the City General Fund. Property Tax in -lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee Revenue Established in 1935, the Motor Vehicle License Fee ("MVLF") was essentially a tax on vehicle ownership. It is collected by the State annually when vehicles are registered and was historically allocated to cities and counties based upon a statutory formula. In 2004, during the State's budget crisis, about 90 percent of each city's MVLF revenue was replaced with property tax revenue, and cities in particular began to receive an allocation of property tax from the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ("ERAF") in an amount equal to what they would have received in MVLF under an older MVLF allocation formula. Under current law, the property tax in -lieu of MVLF revenue increases based on assessed value growth in a jurisdiction, so estimated revenues are based on changes in assessed value created by the Project. Based on the City's 2019-20 secured property tax roll, the total assessed value of all Property in the City is $26.3 billion. When adjusting for inflation during the construction period, the Project's net new assessed valuation ($273 million) increases the City's assessed value by 1.06 percent. The MVLF increase from the Project is calculated from the percent increase in assessed value. This gives us $346,150 in estimated In -Lieu MVLF revenues at build -out (see Table 4). As depicted above, the City is expected to receive $6.8 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) in In -Lieu MVLF revenues through 2048. Table 4 PROPERTY TAX IN -LIEU OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES Central Pointe, Santa Ana 2019-20 City Assessed Value $ 26,369,891,977 Project Assessed Value' 279,091,931 City Assessed Value with Project 26,648,983,908 Increase in Assessed Value 1.06% Santa Ana 2019-20 VLF 32,705,877 Santa Ana VLF with Project 33,052,028 Annual Estimate Property Tax In -lieu Revenue $ 346,150 Source: County of Orange Auditor Controller, RSG, Inc. Inflated pursuant to the construction schedule Utility User Tax The City assesses a utility user tax of 5.5 percent on electricity, gas, water, and telephone revenues generated within Santa Ana. Utility costs were estimated by RSG based on a review of similar projects and utility costs in Orange County. Residential utility expenditures were assumed to be: $104 per month for phone, $75 for electricity, $23 for gas, and $38 for water. This amounts to $3,260 annually in 2020 dollars. From the Developer's estimates of 15,200 square feet of retail, RSG was able to use US Energy Information Administration ("EIA") estimates to extrapolate commercial utility expenses. Retail establishments average around $1.50 per square foot in energy expenses, amounting to $22,797 annually for the Project. Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates that utility user tax revenues generated by the Project, reduced to account for a partial year, would be an estimated $91,766 at buildout. This adds up to $1.9 million (net present value, discounted at 4 percent) over the 25-year projection period (see Table 2). Table 5 showcases the Utility User Tax at buildout below. Table 5 UTILITY USER TAX REVENUE Central Pointe, Santa Ana Energy Expenditures per Household $ 3,260 Occupied Households 581 Total Residential Energy Expenses $ 1,894,998 Total Commercial Energy Expenses' $ 22,797 City Tax Rate 5.5% Full -Year Buildout Revenues $ 105,479 Partial -Year Buildout Revenues $ 91,766 Sources: US Energy Information Administration, RSG, Inc., ESRI BAO 'EIA estimates of $1.50 per SF for Retail Sales Taxes The Project is expected to increase sales taxes through both the new businesses and new residents. The methodology and assumptions for both differ but are necessary for accuracy. Resident -Derived Sales Tax To determine the resident share, RSG obtained average annual household expenditures for households within a 1-mile radius of the Project from ESRI Business Analyst. By adjusting the household expenditures based on taxable and non-taxable sales, RSG estimates that each household would spend an average of $17,836 at buildout. Based on experience with previous projects in the City, an estimated 60 percent of those expenditures would be subject to Santa Ana's sales tax. The State and County sales tax receive 6 percent and 0.75 percent of taxable sales, respectively. In addition, the City levies its own sales tax at a rate of 1 percent. In 2018, Santa Ana voters approved an additional sales tax of 1.5 percent that would then decrease to 1 percent in 2029 until sunsetting in 2039. RSG took this increase into consideration when analyzing the affects the new residents would have on the City's General Fund. Using ESRI's Business Analyst Online software, RSG was able to estimate the amount of taxable expenditures the average new household would make in the City. That number was then multiplied by the number of occupied households (581). This provided an estimate of total taxable sales of $6.2 million. From there, the taxable sales were multiplied by both the City's base tax rate and the Measure X additional rates (1 percent and 1.5 percent). Therefore, the residential derived sales tax revenue from the base tax rate is an estimated $62,205 at buildout. The additional tax from Measure X would yield $93,307 at buildout and decrease to $74,276 in 2029 (adjusted for 3% inflation) before ceasing in 2039. Table 6 RESIDENT -DERIVED SALES TAX REVENUE Central Pointe, Santa Ana Households and Sales at Buildout Average Household Taxable Expenditures $ 17,836 Occupied Households 581 Percent within Santa Ana 60% Total Taxable Sales $ 6,220,479 City Share of Sales Tax 1 % Measure X (2018) Additional Sales Taxl 1.5% Resident -Derived Sales Tax Revenues Annual Estimate (Base Rate) $ 62,205 (2018 Addition) $ 93,307 (2029 Decrease to 1 %) $ 74,276 Source: ESRI BAO, City of Santa Ana 'Measure X additional sales tax decreases from 1.5% to 1 % in 2029 Business -Derived Sales Tax The Project includes 15,200 square feet of retail space. The new businesses would generate sales taxes separate from the new residents. Since the Developer does not yet know the exact tenants that would fill the space, RSG estimated an average of $250 of sales per square foot for the space. As a result, the retail businesses would generate taxable sales of $3.8 million at buildout. RSG estimates the base sales tax revenues at buildout to be $41,524. Table 7 below presents this information. In addition, Measure X would generate $62,285 for that year as well. However, in 2029 Measure X revenues would decrease to $51,069 before being eliminated altogether in 2039. Table 7 BUSINESS -DERIVED SALES TAX REVENUE Central Pointe, Santa Ana Sales at Buildout General Retail $ 3,800,000 City Share of Sales Tax 1 % Measure X (2018) Additional Sales Tax' 1.5% Business -Derived Sales Tax Revenues Annual Estimate (Base Rate) $ 41,524 (2018 Addition) $ 62,285 (2029 Decrease to 1%) $ 51,069 Source: California State Board of Equalization, RSG, Inc. ' Measure X additional sales tax decreases from 1.5% to 1 % in 2029 For the City base rate, combined resident and business sales taxes at buildout would be an estimated $90,244. Measure X combined taxes would be $135,366. Both are adjusted for inflation during the construction period and for the partial year at opening. This provides for a 25-year total of $1.8 million from the base rate and $1.8 million from Measure X (net present value, discounted at 4 percent). Business Tax The City assesses a business tax on retail stores and residential property management companies. Table 8 below showcases the new revenues from the Project. Retail business taxes are assessed based on annual sales while management company business taxes are assessed based on unit count. The combined business tax revenues are an estimated $24,048 at buildout, or $493,901 over 25 years (net present value, discounted at 4 percent). Table 8 BUSINESS TAX REVENUES Central Pointe, Santa Ana Multifamily Residential Tax $ 24,739 Retail Tax 2,902 Full -Year Business Taxes at Buildout $ 28,786 Partial -Year Business Taxes at Buildout $ 24,048 Sources: City of Santa Ana, RSG, Inc CITY EXPENDITURES RSG estimated the additional population that would move into the Project to estimate the total added expenditures to the City General Fund for servicing the new residents. Consistent with other recent analyses prepared by RSG on projects in Santa Ana, RSG assumed that each studio would house 1.25 residents, each one -bedroom unit would house 1.75 residents, each two - bedroom unit would house 3.25 residents, and each three -bedroom unit would house 4 residents. Overall, this works out to an average household size of 2.41 residents per unit, which RSG considers reasonable for this particular Project. RSG estimates at full occupancy the Project could hold 1,550 residents. Taking into account that a small percentage of the units will normally be vacant due to turnover, we estimate the fiscal impacts based on residents' time spent in the City. This is done by calculating the full-time equivalent (FTE) residents, defined as those who spend a vast majority of their daily consumption in Santa Ana. The assumption being that new residents who work out of the City, do not consume products in the City during the time they are gone. RSG gathered data from the US Census and ESRI Business Analyst Online to estimate the FTE residents of the Project. Approximately 13 percent of Santa Ana residents work within Santa Ana, which, in effect means that the City is servicing these resident -employees 100 percent of the time. Another 37 percent of Santa Ana residents work outside the city. Assuming the residents that work outside of the city are outside City limits from 9 am to 5 pm, Santa Ana is servicing these residents approximately 73 percent of the time. The city's remaining residential population (about 51 percent), is serviced by the City 100 percent of the time. Accounting for all residents and employees based on the percent of time spent in the city, the Project would generate a daily (24/7) population of 1,399 persons. RSG identified variable costs, as opposed to fixed costs, by department in the City of Santa Ana FY 2019-20 Adopted Budget. Variable costs are City expenditures that increase or decrease based on the resident and employee population. The City Manager and City Attorney offices, for example, are fixed costs that would not vary based on population, but the Police and Fire departments would vary based on population. With that said, RSG estimates expenditure increases of $353,986 during the first full year of operations. Over a 25-year projection period, the Project would add $7 million in City expenditures (net present value, discounted at 4 percent). Table 9 SUMMARY OF RECURRING CITY EXPENDITURES' CITY OF SANTA ANA Central Pointe, Santa Ana Current City Project -derived Total City Percent City Department Expenditures2 City Expenditures Expenditures3 Increase City Manager's Office $ 2,708,440 $ $ 2,708,440 0.00% Non -Departmental & Interfund Transfers 61,098,660 61,098,660 0.00% Clerk of the Council Office 1,682,560 50 1,682,610 0.00% City Attorney's Office 3,219,780 3,219,780 0.00% Personnel Services 2,490,360 148 2,490,508 0.01% Finance & Management Services 9,671,190 671 9,671,861 0.01% Bowers Museum Corporation 1,473,430 - 1,473,430 0.00% Parks, Recreation and Community Services 26,836,790 4,560 26,841,350 0.02% Police Department 131,568,820 223,291 131,792,111 0.17% Fire Services 45,640,920 95,156 45,736,076 0.21% Planning & Building Agency 13,227,380 71 13,227,451 0.00% Public Works Agency 13,155,830 - 13,155,830 0.00% Community Development Agency 3,353,520 - 3,353,520 0.00% Total in FY 2020-21 $ 316,127,681 $ 323,947 $ 316,451,627 0.10% Total in 2023-24 353,986 t For this analysis, RSG identified departmental costs in the City of Santa Ana FY 2019-20 Budget that are variable costs, as opposed to fixed costs. Variable costs are expenditures by the City that increase or decrease based on the residential and employee population in the City. For example, City Council and Human Resources salaries and wages generally are fixed costs that do not vary based on population. Meanwhile, the Fire Services and Parks & Community Services departments will likely experience service cost increases due to the added population. 2 Current expenditures are based on adopted expenditures in the City of Santa Ana's FY 2019-20 Budget. 3 Sum of current City expenditures and project -derived City expenditures. Assuming project opened in 2020-21. Sources: City of Santa Ana, RSG, Inc., US Census Bureau EMPLOYMENT Development and ongoing operation of the Project would generate employment opportunities, add labor income to the market area, and add value to the gross regional product. For this analysis, RSG used the IMPLAN model to measure the economic impacts of the Project using County -wide data. IMPLAN is an input-output analysis software tool that tracks the interdependence among various producing and consuming sectors of the economy. According to MIG, Inc., the creators of IMPLAN, the software measures the relationship between a given set of demands for final goods and services and the inputs required to satisfy those demands. IMPLAN publishes countywide data on an annual basis; this analysis utilized the most recent available County of Orange dataset (2018) to calculate direct, indirect, and induced impacts. The IMPLAN inputs are investment (development costs) and gross business operating income of the Project and the resulting outputs are economic impacts, including employment generation, labor income, and gross regional product. Jobs are the primary impacts calculated by IMPLAN. RSG analyzed both temporary and permanent economic impacts. For temporary construction impacts the Developer's Project costs exclusive of land costs were used ($203 million). From there construction costs were divided based on the gross building area for the between multi- family (97 percent) and non-residential (3 percent) components. For permanent impacts, the estimated sales from the residential complex, and the retail space were used. IMPLAN breaks down the resulting employment and other effects into three categories: direct, indirect, and induced: • Direct Effects — Refers to the direct effects that occur on the Project site may result from development costs and operational sales revenue. Indirect Effects — Changes in sales, jobs, and/or income within the businesses that may supply goods and services to the Project. Indirect effects do not occur directly on the Project -site but are an indirect effect to surrounding or related businesses. Induced Effects — Regional changes resulting from additional spending that may be earned either directly or indirectly from the Project. RSG utilizes the FTE conversion of total employment generally preferred in Public Policy. FTE employment numbers, as opposed to residents, present total employment through the lens of hours worked; summarizing then dividing by how many 40-hour work weeks are generated by the investment. The IMPLAN analysis concludes that the temporary construction component of the Project would result in 1,300 direct FTE jobs, 117 indirect FTE jobs, and 544 induced FTE jobs the majority of which would be in Santa Ana. The permanent impacts attributed to the Project are 69 FTE jobs related to the operations of both the residential building itself, as well as the retail component of the Project. This includes 48 direct, 8 indirect, and 13 induced jobs to the region. Table 10 outlines the aforementioned FTE jobs generated by the Project. Table 10 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT (FTE) 4th and Cabrillo Temporary (Construction) Jobs Direct 1300 Indirect 117 Induced 544 Subtotal 1961 Permanent Jobs Direct Indirect Induced 48 8 13 Subtotal 69 Total Temporary & Permanent Jobs Direct 1349 Indirect 125 Induced 556 Total 2030 Source: IMPLAN In closing, it is our privilege to assist The Concord Group and your client Arnel & Waterford Property Company with predevelopment activities on this project. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments pertaining to the findings of this report. Sincerely, James Simon, Principal APPENDIX THE CONCORD GROUP Project Name/ Manager/ Address Broadstone Arden Alliance 1951 E Dyer Road Santa Ana 92705 The Charlie Alliance 3630 Westminster Avenue Santa Ana 92703 APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Year Floorplans Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf 335 26% 7% 5 0 / 1.0 584 $2,095 $3.59 5 2020 7% 1 0 / 1.0 744 $2,405 $3.23 7% 0 / 1.0 864 $2,856 $3.31 7% 2 0 / 2.0 1,009 $3,345 $3.32 2% 4 1 / 1.0 1,000 $3,410 $3.41 2% 5 1 / 1.0 907 $2,825 $3.11 2% 2 1 / 1.0 956 $2,880 $3.01 2% 5 1 / 1.0 689 $2,381 $3.46 2% 5 1 / 1.0 745 $2,496 $3.35 3% 2 1 / 1.0 770 $2,575 $3.34 2% 2 1 / 1.0 782 $2,551 $3.26 2% 1 / 2.0 1,215 $3,056 $2.52 7% 5 2 / 2.0 1,089 $3,205 $2.94 7% 5 2 / 2.0 1,087 $3,115 $2.87 7% 3 2 / 2.0 1,109 $3,250 $2.93 7% 5 2 / 2.0 1,077 $3,200 $2.97 7% 2 2 / 2.0 1,184 $3,375 $2.85 7% 2 / 2.0 1,189 $3,595 $3.02 7% 4 2 / 2.0 1,239 $3,400 $2.74 7% 3 2 / 2.0 1,284 $3,355 $2.61 1% 5 3/ 2.0 1,454 $3,915 $2.69 1 % 3 / 2.0 1,956 $4,631 $2.37 228 13% 9% 5 0/1.0 523 $1,840 $3.52 4 2019 2% 2 0/1.0 651 $1,895 $2.91 1 1 % 1 / 1.0 681 $1,995 $2.93 3% 1 1 / 1.0 684 $2,015 $2.95 22% 6 1 / 1.0 696 $2,055 $2.95 2% 5 1 / 1.0 844 $2,230 $2.64 2% 3 1 / 1.0 860 $2,300 $2.67 6% 5 2 / 2.0 997 $2,455 $2.46 6% 5 2 / 2.0 1,041 $2,530 $2.43 18% 8 2 / 2.0 1,052 $2,670 $2.54 6% 4 2 / 2.0 1,066 $2,680 $2.51 6% 2 2 / 2.0 1,079 $2,765 $2.56 4% 5 3 / 2.0 1,236 $3,230 $2.61 4% 5 3 / 2.0 1,239 $3,305 $2.67 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 1 of 5 THE CONCORD GROUP APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/ Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Nineteen0l 261 90% 3% 1 1 / 1.0 770 $1,915 $2.49 Greenwood & McKenzie 5 2016 3% 1 / 1.0 773 $1,925 $2.49 1901 E 1 st St 16% 2 1 / 1.0 774 $1,905 $2.46 Santa Ana 3% 1 / 1.0 795 $1,950 $2.45 92705 6% 1 / 1.0 826 $2,030 $2.46 2% 1 / 1.0 848 $2,090 $2.46 2% 1 / 1.0 860 $2,110 $2.45 2% 1 / 1.0 864 $2,125 $2.46 2% 1 1 / 1.0 890 $2,200 $2.47 3% 1 / 1.0 948 $2,455 $2.59 3% 1 / 1.0 967 $2,385 $2.47 2% 1 / 1.0 974 $2,397 $2.46 3% 1 2/ 2.0 982 $2,500 $2.55 0% 2/ 2.0 1,034 $2,665 $2.58 2% 1 2/ 2.0 1,058 $2,550 $2.41 0% 2/ 2.0 1,081 $2,375 $2.20 0% 1 2/ 2.0 1,085 $2,775 $2.56 7% 1 2/ 2.0 1,122 $2,580 $2.30 6% 2/ 2.0 1,380 $3,050 $2.21 4% 1 2/ 2.0 1,142 $2,655 $2.32 9% 2/ 2.0 1,156 $2,659 $2.30 5% 2/ 2.0 1,180 $2,714 $2.30 0% 1 2/ 2.0 1,193 $2,750 $2.31 2% 1 2/ 2.0 1,195 $2,705 $2.26 2% 2/ 2.0 1,260 $2,885 $2.29 2% 1 2/ 2.0 1,265 $2,895 $2.29 1% 2/ 2.0 1,284 $2,959 $2.30 0% 2/ 2.0 1,391 $3,068 $2.21 1% 2/ 2.0 1,476 $3,120 $2.11 2% 2/ 2.0 1,639 $3,468 $2.12 2% 1 2/ 2.0 1,712 $3,415 $1.99 2% 2/ 2.5 1,760 $3,663 $2.08 2% 1 3 / 2.0 1,510 $3,465 $2.29 0% 3 / 2.0 1,632 $3,456 $2.12 2% 1 3 / 2.5 2,020 $3,865 $1.91 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 2 of 5 THE CONCORD GROUP APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/ Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Amalfi 542 95% 12% 0/1.0 584 $2,035 $3.48 Irvine Company 3 2014 5% 1 / 1.0 552 $2,090 $3.79 16000 Legacy Rd 4% 3 1 / 1.0 681 $2,095 $3.08 Tustin 3% 1 1 / 1.0 695 $2,195 $3.16 92782 5% 2 1 / 1.0 730 $2,295 $3.14 12% 1 / 1.0 741 $2,320 $3.13 8% 2 1 / 1.0 746 $2,165 $2.90 12% 5 1 / 1.0 751 $2,145 $2.86 7% 3 1 / 1.0 760 $2,195 $2.89 5% 1 / 1.0 800 $2,295 $2.87 3% 1 / 1.0 813 $2,325 $2.86 4% 1 / 1.0 906 $2,525 $2.79 2% 2 1 / 1.0 955 $2,595 $2.72 2% 2 / 2.0 963 $2,500 $2.60 9% 4 2 / 2.0 1,021 $2,495 $2.44 8% 9 2 / 2.0 1,095 $2,530 $2.31 Residences on Jamboree 381 96% 1 % 1 0 / 1.0 662 $1,970 $2.98 UDR 5 2017 17% 1 0 / 1.0 692 $1,995 $2.88 2801 Kelvin Ave 10% 1 / 1.0 687 $2,144 $3.12 Irvine 3% 1 / 1.0 698 $2,214 $3.17 92614 11% 1 1 / 1.0 701 $2,124 $3.03 https://www.udr.com/orange-county-apartments/irvine/the-I 8% 1 / 1.0 757 $2,224 $2.94 10% 3 1 / 1.0 762 $2,014 $2.64 1 % 1 / 1.0 782 $2,319 $2.97 7% 1 2 / 2.0 1,063 $2,724 $2.56 3% 2 / 2.0 1,108 $2,789 $2.52 20% 2 2/ 2.0 1,147 $2,979 $2.60 1 % 2 2 / 2.0 1,165 $2,699 $2.32 2% 2 / 2.0 1,284 $3,099 $2.41 4% 3 3/ 2.0 1,426 $3,499 $2.45 2% 3 / 2.0 1,503 $3,599 $2.39 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 3 of 5 THE CONCORD GROUP APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/ Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Skyloft Apartments 388 19% 8% 0 / 1.0 571 $2,531 $4.43 Legacy Partners 5 2019 1 % 1 / 1.0 690 $2,628 $3.81 2700 Main St 4% 1 / 1.0 712 $2,658 $3.73 Irvine 17% 1 / 1.0 733 $2,698 $3.68 92614 10% 1 / 1.0 749 $2,747 $3.67 3% 1 / 1.0 762 $2,797 $3.67 1 % 1 / 1.0 780 $2,812 $3.61 3% 1 / 1.0 781 $2,813 $3.60 3% 1 / 1.0 784 $2,829 $3.61 1 1 % 1 / 1.0 836 $2,555 $3.06 1% 1 / 2.0 1,039 $3,840 $3.70 1 % 2/ 2.0 1,019 $3,083 $3.03 2% 2/ 2.0 1,095 $3,168 $2.89 11% 2/ 2.0 1,132 $3,363 $2.97 1% 2/ 2.0 1,137 $3,817 $3.36 6% 2/ 2.0 1,162 $3,623 $3.12 5% 2/ 2.0 1,185 $3,479 $2.94 3% 2/ 2.0 1,188 $3,499 $2.95 1% 2/ 2.0 1,217 $3,473 $2.85 3% 2/ 2.0 1,222 $3,513 $2.87 2% 2/ 2.0 1,248 $4,100 $3.29 1 % 2/ 2.0 1,296 $4,212 $3.25 2% 3 / 3.0 1,438 $4,391 $3.05 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 4 of 5 THEE CONCORD GROUP APPENDIX A SURVEY - APARTMENTS SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, ORANGE AND TUSTIN MAY 2020 Occ./ Project Name/ Year Floorplans Manager/ Units/ Built/ Units Bed/ Unit Base Rent Address Elev. Reno. Mix Vac. Bath Size $ $/sf Anaheim / Orange AMLI Uptown Orange 334 93% 3% 1 0 / 1.0 570 $2,101 $3.69 AMLI 4 2016 3% 2 1 / 1.0 626 $2,241 $3.58 385 S. Manchester Ave 4% 1 1 / 1.0 711 $2,233 $3.14 Orange 4% 1 / 1.0 716 $2,416 $3.37 92868 3% 1 1 / 1.0 745 $2,484 $3.33 3% 1 / 1.0 748 $2,485 $3.32 4% 4 1 / 1.0 802 $2,267 $2.83 4% 1 / 1.0 816 $2,300 $2.82 3% 1 / 1.0 823 $2,320 $2.82 3% 4 1 / 1.0 829 $2,216 $2.67 3% 1 / 1.0 837 $2,238 $2.67 3% 1 / 1.0 840 $2,238 $2.66 3% 1 / 1.0 857 $2,275 $2.65 3% 1 / 1.0 862 $2,278 $2.64 3% 1 2 /2.0 978 $2,717 $2.78 3% 2 /2.0 993 $2,760 $2.78 4% 1 2 /2.0 1,002 $3,214 $3.21 4% 2 /2.0 1,010 $3,220 $3.19 4% 1 2 /2.0 1,047 $2,883 $2.75 4% 2 /2.0 1,049 $2,626 $2.50 3% 1 2 /2.0 1,050 $2,890 $2.75 3% 2 /2.0 1,054 $2,900 $2.75 3% 2 /2.0 1,063 $3,186 $3.00 3% 2 /2.0 1,122 $3,299 $2.94 4% 3 2 /2.0 1,131 $2,874 $2.54 3% 2 /2.0 1,133 $2,890 $2.55 1% 2 /2.0 1,142 $2,900 $2.54 1% 1 2 /2.0 1,147 $2,988 $2.61 1% 2 /2.0 1,175 $3,050 $2.60 1 % 2 /2.0 1,211 $3,556 $2.94 1 % 2 /2.0 1,236 $3,304 $2.67 1 % 3 /2.0 1,404 $3,655 $2.60 1% 3/2.0 1,431 $3,710 $2.59 Eleven 10 260 93% 21% 2 0 / 1.0 515 $2,103 $4.08 Piceme Residential 5 2018 5% 1 / 1.0 665 $2,200 $3.31 1 1 10 W. Town and Country Rd 23% 0 1 / 1.0 737 $2,387 $3.24 Orange 20% 1 / 1.0 811 $2,596 $3.20 92868 7% 0 2 /2.0 1,027 $2,826 $2.75 2% 2 /2.0 1,357 $3,600 $2.65 3% 1 1 / 1.0 819 $2,596 $3.17 19% 0 2 /2.0 1,199 $3,175 $2.65 20233.00 RecComps: Comps Page 5 of 5 THE CONCORD GROUP APPENDIX B SURVEY - RETAIL LEASES ORANGE COUNTY AND LOCAL THREE-MILE TRADE AREA JANUARY 2017 THROUGH JULY 2020 - 3.5-YEARS Building Lease Map Year Sign Rate Key Shopping Center City Street Address Built Elev. GLA Suite / Tenant SF Date Type Rent 4th Street / Irvine Blvd Corridor - Grand Ave to Prospect Ave Creekside Plaza Santa Ana 2321 E. 4th St 2003 is 8,818 Country Caf6 (#A) 1,200 Dec-18 NNN $30 Suite D 1,500 Oct-17 NNN $30 Average: $30 B7 17400 Irvine Blvd Tustin 17400 Irvine Blvd 1968 is 17,600 Medical (#M) 1,100 Aug-20 FSG $29 Medical (#F) 2,256 Aug-20 FSG $29 Average: $29 - 2000 E. 4th St Santa Ana 2000 E. 4th St 1982 3s 34,080 Suite 350 1,663 Oct-19 FSG $26 Suite 110 1,327 Apr-19 FSG $25 Suite 202 1,470 Feb-19 FSG $25 Suite 304 2,074 Nov-18 FSG $25 Suite 320 2,270 Sep-18 FSG $23 Average: $25 - 17772 Irvine Blvd Tustin 17772 Irvine Blvd 1973 2s 16,325 Suite 102-8 145 Sep-19 FSG $25 Suite 102-1 245 Dec-19 FSG $25 Average: $25 - 17671 Irvine Blvd Tustin 17671 Irvine Blvd 1972 2s 32,777 Suite 112 237 Sep-17 FSG $24 - 1901 E. 4th St Santa Ana 1901 E. 4th St 1974 3s 39,699 Suite 312 1,622 Dec-19 FSG $23 Suite 350 1,572 Aug-19 FSG $23 Average: $23 Mixed -Use Analogs #A.nts Pinnacle at MacArthur Place Santa Ana 31 E. MacArthur Crescent Dr 2001 4s 253 MF Suite 107 1,714 Nov-19 NNN $30 Suite 105 941 Jul-19 NNN $30 Suite 101 1,143 Apr-19 NNN $30 Suite 106B 869 Oct-18 NNN $30 9Round (#108) 1,428 May-18 NNN $30 Braizen Sandwiches (#102) 1,126 Aug-17 NNN $30 Average: $30 - Pinnacle at Fullerton Fullerton 229 E. Commonwealth Ave 2004 4s 192 MF End Cap 875 May-19 NNN $33 Suite A 2,526 May-19 NNN $30 Heere Tea (#E) 1,888 Jul-18 NNN $30 Average: $30 Cabrtilo Park Way Amagansn Way f] - Arna9anse[Way 4magaTs� aeneta Wa f y a n ib v Weath.+ry Ln �wrn ey Eama ri Helen Estocka r E ElemerearySchool enmz, or Vrn .A A- Columbus Y Tustin Park E 4th St Call forma Department ' Consdlado de Vexico Irvine Blvd Irvine Blvd Irvine Blvd 0 � ❑f-fraosporlalion.- . m t e � z ; e paEm Sr � z F3 � ' CID m _ m E First St E First St W First St Wtlrir5t St V W First St E 1st SI Grunch Fit F First St + Y — Peppertree m 3'e —Park 3 Santa Ana Zoo � - W 2rM 5< = W a 2nd Sty E 2nd'il — - Temporaniyclo d r - aonvresl � A 3rd st E 3rd St saint Jeanne De � � E Chestnut Ave Lestonnac School i E Main SS �1 AAnin Ct _ Mao data 20 50oftr F AAain Terma of Ct Con-aa_:r. ap owner uae R.—a—error Source: CoStar 20233.00 RecComps: Leases THE CONCORD GKOU P APPENDIX C w� �� •�� iii a t� -.;; .+ nl +tti II� i � .. illl%�i 00 i 4 . 1111 it i'ii'►..+ t III �ll111ii11 ® 1 11111t4 it 4 .. ;: ` it jElll E ` ',11t1Ili 11 n }� ■ A It it A II 4 R lllHil$ 1i IIi iII .... 1` 1i.� II IIIIgIqI .. ... ..... .a Emerging Trends in Real Estate .......................................................................................... United States and Canada 2020 Urban Land pwc institute Chapter 3: Property Type Outlook early innings." But we can see the potential impact. Robotics will likely reduce the size of organizations and reduce the amount and type of real estate required. "Businesses will continue to get smaller due to technology and robotics. The most desirable talent in the future will be knowledge based and will need `omni- channels' to work across an organization and drive alignment across functions." We need to better understand how people are using space to really make a difference. Al will allow continual learning of how we use space, resulting in increased use of space. In the words of one interviewee, "Place plus space drives human behavior. We know this can enhance people's lives, improve productivity, improve mental states, improve health, and improve happiness." In the future, "space will shift from reacting to predicting work patterns," such as where to park based on your first meeting location of the day, or automatic desk reservations, both based on your digital calendar, or even voice -activated or sensor technology noting whether your meeting is over in the reserved conference room and now available to the next user. Despite excitement surrounding integrated technology and interconnected building systems and big data, one interviewee pointed out that "there is a continued disconnect of focusing on the long-term possibilities before solving today's realities." People are still challenged "to get the technology that we already have to work —to start a video conference call, share content, or collaborate virtually," but acknowledged that office environments that are responsive and predictive will inevitably be in our future as technology continues to be developed. Retail "When you're in the middle of a storm, you're not quite sure when it's going to end," said one interviewee who oversees leas- ing for a large portfolio of regional shopping centers, continuing, "Turning on a dime is tough when undergoing the kind of shift this industry faces." The shifting retail picture is notably more complex than other property types. The integration of new concepts, formats, chan- nels, and inventory management systems all cloud retail's future, as does a broader economy -wide shift from goods to services. As a result, traditional shopping centers are transforming into "consumer centers" with a new mixture of uses. Another con- sumer need met: Kohl's announced this summer that its stores will be Amazon return centers —and they will package and send back items for free. The era of "one size fits all" seems to be ending. Shopping cen- ters now have the ability to become hyper -customized, due in Exhibit 3-13 Retail Investment Prospect Trends ................................................................................... li Urbanlinigh-street retail* i S ti Lifeslylelentertainment centers Neighborhood/community � —shopping flpping centers A---k ., ^` s Outlet centers' Power centers 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Source: Emerging Trends in Real Estate surveys. *Fourth year in survey. Retail Buy/Hold/Sell Recommendations Neighborhood/community shopping centers Urban/high-street retail Lifestyle/entertainment centers Outlet centers Power centers -j 3s.o Regional malls Buy Hold So 50.5% 51.8 50.3 49.2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2020 survey. Note: Based on U.S. respondents only. Opinion of Current Retail Pricing over Fairly priced' Neighborhood/community 26.0%W shopping centers Lifestyle/entertainment 34.5 centers Outlet centers 39.0 Power centers Regional malls 64.6% Urban/high-street retail 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2020 survey. Note: Based on U.S. respondents only. Emerging Trends in Real Estate® 2020 69 part to advances in technology. These make it possible to tailor merchandising and engage with brands, uniquely targeting individual and local preferences. The Good News There are bright spots within the sector: some interviewees are noticing stabilized rents and strong leasing activity across a wide spectrum. Some see retailers at an expansionary inflec- tion point. As one respondent representing research services at a large commercial brokerage firm indicated, "Over the past several years, many retailers have directed their capital invest- ments toward digital platforms.... Now, with more competitive omni-channel strategies, they could be poised to proceed with needed reinvestment in their physical footprint." Shopping center owners have also become more creative about filling spaces and taking opportunities to creatively remake centers into hybrid formats that incorporate new ele- ments and experiences. As one interviewee involved in research services noted, "We've gotten through a 'use evolution' where landlords are no longer simply seeking to fill plain -white -vanilla boxes." A commercial real estate investment adviser noted, "This was not the case just two to four years ago." Said another involved retail market researcher, "This is creative destruction, or rationalization, where the death of one use brings about the rebirth of another." This rebirth responds to generational shifts in spending. As baby boomers edge closer to retirement, they are spending less on goods and directing more of their purchases toward medical needs, dining, and experiences. And millennials, as one real estate adviser noted, "also seem to be looking for less 'stuff' and more experiences." On the other hand, generation X consumers have entered "full -on family mode," spending more like past gen- erations on children and homes. One expert indicated that "while this increase in spending has been delayed compared to previ- ous generations, they are one of the stronger cohorts right now." What's Growing Tenant turnover requires shopping center owners to learn about whole new classes of tenants. Never before have there been as much appetite and need to experiment with new uses to build traffic. Even the best -performing assets will require significant future capital investment to reach a stabilized mix with a broader array of uses. A new crop of retailers have recognized the importance of phys- ical stores and they are slowly building out a brick -and -mortar footprint. Within top -tier assets, online brands are expanding further into brick -and -mortar spaces while legacy brands waver. As one representative of a large REIT indicated, "They are com- ing in a meaningful way and expanding beyond their initial 'high street locations.' But, diversifying our mix from weaker stores into a new collection of brands takes time." It was also noted that the process for deal -making has become longer and property net operating income (NOI) can lag in the interim. New experiential and entertainment uses, centered on one -of -a -kind activities, such as art, amusements, or food, are continuing to push the boundaries of what is supportable in shopping centers. Costar Group reports that the share of space devoted to restaurants, fitness centers, and entertainment has doubled over the past 10 years, while the share of apparel space continues to decline. "Ever -higher thresholds seem to be achievable, especially where there is a substantial influx from tourism," said one respondent in real estate services. Related to the trend toward experiential and entertainment uses is an ever-growing food and beverage category. There have been noticeable increases in food uses across retail venues, including food halls, which now seem ubiquitous in some areas. Not surprisingly, several respondents pointed to a potential glut in the food category (and more specifically food halls). However, there seems to be consensus that increases in food uses are likely. A trend toward healthier and more convenient food options also is evident as an alternative to conventional fast food. A third and growing component within shopping centers today is the increasing presence of fitness, health, and wellness uses. They may take the form of gyms (both boutique and value), but also high -end workout equipment dealers. Related to health and wellness, medical offices and clinics also are rapidly expanding their presence. A last area attracting widespread attention has been the introduction of coworking and shared office space within malls. Despite a flurry of fairly recent announcements over the past year or two, this phenomenon is still considered to be in its infancy and shows signs of strong growth potential. As one developer contact noted, "The idea is here to stay, although there could be a shakeout." Shopping centers have built-in amenities to support them, including unused space, parking, complementary food uses, and perhaps even a gym or workout facility. "It's a win/win," said one mall operator. 70 Emerging Trends in Real Estate® 2020 Chapter 3: Property Type Outlook Promising Subsectors Certain classes of assets continue to capture interest, most notably class A super -regional centers, grocery -anchored neighborhood centers, and urban high street locations. As a real estate investment analyst noted, malls are a "mixed bag," with the field essentially divided between top class A malls and "everything else." The top assets tend to be better occupied, providing more favorable returns. "The 'flight to qual- ity' continues where 'must -have' assets are becoming stronger." These are the centers where almost all categories perform well, and not only luxury brands. There also are opportunities in owning daily needs —driven neighborhood and community centers. These can be anchored by food -and -beverage or service uses, particularly in walkable neighborhoods and well -located infill projects. Many interview- ees see strong prospects for future growth, especially with grocery anchors that are visibly making investments in their businesses and building an online platform. That platform can help keep centers relevant despite online grocery sales. While online grocery sales currently represent a very low share of total grocery sales in the United States (thought to be only 1 to 2 percent), one real estate services consultant stated, "This is an overlooked risk in the U.S.," suggesting that we not be compla- cent about the potential impact. Said another retailer contact, "This is a thing. It's the future. But, it's almost impossible to make money at it at this point." Most believe that it still will be several years before a meaning- ful proportion of grocery sales move online, and physical stores will continue to play a role in distribution. Grocers in the United States do appear to be approaching it in a disciplined way, and the severe disruption that has occurred that has in other chan- nels seems less likely to occur in grocery. The Clouds As in previous years, retail real estate lies at the bottom in comparison with other property types, both in terms of invest- ment and development prospects (exhibit 3-1). Retail real estate remains challenged as the sector continues through a transfor- mation. Most interviewees concur that reducing the number of physical stores is a "good thing" and alleviates the overabundance of retail space in the United States, which needs to be rationalized or absorbed by future population growth. More closings and a "tough slog" appear to be on the horizon: according to data from Coresight Research as of June 2019, U.S. retailers have announced over 7,000 store closures this year, more than all of 2018 (which saw about 5,900 closings). The net effects are mitigated by store openings (approximately 3,000 so far in 2019, compared with just over 3,200 openings in 2018), but the result is a reduction in the number of physical stores. What's Declining Several conversations discussed an "expanding void in the middle," noting that consumers are trading up to luxury goods and experiences, or down to value and off -price. Said one expert, "The middle is getting smaller. At the lower end is a value play, and higher end a luxury play. The gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' is growing." Another important factor repeatedly mentioned was a lack of reinvestment by many retailers. Whether brought on by high debt loads after corporate buyouts or a general lack of capital, companies have been unable to reinvest in aging assets and maintain competitiveness. The greatest disruption is in mall -based retail, particularly lower - tier class B and class C assets. Many agree that a good number of regional malls will disappear entirely, and that this is needed: one expert in commercial real estate services suggested that this is not as much a "decline of malls" as a "decline in `super- fluous' malls." Still, suggestions that as many as three -fourths of shopping malls (roughly 900 of today's approximately 1,200 malls) could close seem highly exaggerated. A few experts suggest that department store mainstays are now all but obsolete. Their one-time role as a source for discovery and product research has been replaced by online browsing. Other interviewees still see relevance in the depart- ment store sector; however, it will be much smaller in size and number of units. Similarly, inline apparel shops are weakening as other sectors strengthen. The exhibit on page 72 illustrates a notable shift away from apparel toward other uses: over a 10-year period, apparel's share of gross leasable area (shown along with gen- eral retail, including department stores) has declined from 36 percent in 2007 to less than 29 percent in 2017. These categories' weakness may extend across price points. One retailer interviewee pointed out, "The overabundance of Emerging Trends in Real Estate® 2020 71 space extends across channels and even discounters could experience 'rightsizing' and future consolidation." Virtually every retailer will be required to adapt and change, resulting in both winners and losers. This fundamental shift needs to occur, although we cannot overlook the importance of physical stores in providing opportunities to discover and interact with retail brands. Technology and Flexibility One universal theme among interviewees is the unrealized opportunity that landlords and tenants have to share information about their business, including the vast amount of customer data each is now able to collect. Observed one shopping center investment adviser, "Technology will be a differentiator that fur- ther reshapes retail in the future, especially in how 'big data' will help retailers understand their customers and their behavior." Using analytics to enhance customer experiences will define winners and losers in the coming years. Increasingly, retail- ers are relying on technology to anticipate consumer needs, fine-tune selections, and smooth pain points in the purchase process, thereby creating differentiating guest experiences. Some have suggested that the digitally native online retailers have more to give here and, thus far, have been more transpar- ent. There remains a perception that more traditional "legacy retailers" are more guarded about sharing insights. All believe that it is in our best interest to be more transparent and look for new mechanisms to better value physical stores and the role they play in a consumer's path to purchasing. "Clearly, the old metrics don't work anymore," noted one inter- viewee working in leasing for a developer. "We need to find other ways to value the importance of physical stores." A retail insights researcher said, "The era of percentage rent is dead." There also is evidence that we may be seeing progress in terms of lease flexibility. As one interviewee from a real estate ser- vices firm noted, "Landlords seem much more willing to accept shorter and more flexible contracts now." One specific future trend is unfolding in digital payments, rapidly moving toward an era of frictionless retail. As Amazon Go pioneered the experience of shopping without checkouts, it is considered to be only a matter of time before other retailers fol- low suit (and customers come to expect it). It will likely become the norm in a relatively short period of time, moving us closer to where, as one retailer noted, "Shoppers will be able to get what they want, where they want it, and how they want it, regardless of channel or format." Exhibit 3-14 Share of Shopping Center Gross Leasable Area Leased by Tenant Type, 2007 versus 2017-30 2018 ......................................................................................................................................................................... . 2007 2017-30 2018 General retail General retail Health and fitness and apparel and apparel 20.8% 36.1% Health and fitness 28.6%OWN /13.0% ' Restaurants and bars � Restaurants 5.5% and bars 1 7.8% Discounter / 9.9% / Other' 35.5% Other' 32.0% Discounter 10.8 /° Source: Costar Realty Information Inc. 'Includes entertainment as well as drug and other miscellaneous retail stores. 72 Emerging Trends in Real Estate® 2020 AC0M Imagined. Delivered. City of Santa Ana Review of Market & Fiscal Impact Analyses for Mixed - Use Development on 4' and Cabrillo Final Report October 22, 2020 Economics General Limiting Conditions AECOM devoted the level of effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) consistent with the time and budget available for the Services to develop the Deliverables. The Deliverables are based on estimates, assumptions, information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with Client and Client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in data provided by the Client, the Client's representatives, or any third -party data source used in preparing or presenting the Deliverables. AECOM assumes no duty to update the information contained in the Deliverables unless such additional services are separately retained pursuant to a written agreement signed by AECOM and Client. AECOM's findings represent its professional judgment. Neither AECOM nor its parent corporations, nor their respective affiliates or subsidiaries ("AECOM Entities") make any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods contained in or used to produce the Deliverables. The Deliverables shall not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client. The Deliverables shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from AECOM. Possession of the Deliverables does not carry with it any right of publication or the right to use the name of "AECOM" in any manner without the prior express written consent of AECOM. No party may reference AECOM with regard to any abstract, excerpt or summarization of the Deliverables without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the Deliverables, or any use of the Deliverables not specifically identified in the Agreement between the Client and AECOM or otherwise expressly approved in writing by AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or use. The Deliverables were prepared solely for the use by the Client. No third party may rely on the Deliverables unless expressly authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a formal reliance letter. Any third party expressly authorized by AECOM in writing to rely on the Deliverables may do so only on the Deliverable in its entirety and not on any abstract, excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon the Deliverables is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility for such use, strict compliance with this Agreement and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, changes in market conditions, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behavior of consumers or competitors and changes in the Client's policies affecting the operation of their projects. The Deliverables may include "forward -looking statements". These statements relate to AECOM's expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "plan," "project," "will," "should," "seek," and similar expressions. The forward -looking statements reflect AECOM's views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of the Deliverables and are subject to future economic conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in the Deliverables. These factors are beyond AECOM's ability to control or predict. Accordingly, AECOM makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in the Deliverables will actually occur or be achieved. The Deliverables are qualified in their entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Prepared by: AECOM AECOM 401 West A Street Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92101 aecom.com Copyright © 2020 by AECOM All rights reserved. No part of this copyrighted work may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of AECOM. Table of Contents 1. Summary of Findings............................................................................................ 5 2. Assessment..........................................................................................................6 Appropriatenessof Methodology....................................................................................................................................6 Multi -Family Market Analysis..........................................................................................................................................6 RetailMarket Analysis....................................................................................................................................................6 Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis............................................................................................................................8 3. Appendix............................................................................................................ 12 Figures Figure1: Retail Vacancy................................................................................................................................................7 Tables Table1: Mixed Use Projects..........................................................................................................................................7 Table2: Retail Leakage/Surplus....................................................................................................................................8 Table 3: Net Supportable Retail Demand Model............................................................................................................8 Table 4: Adjusted Fiscal Revenue Estimate for Sales Tax..............................................................................................9 Table 5: Adjusted Fiscal Expenditure Estimate............................................................................................................10 Table 6: Adjusted Fiscal Revenue and Expenditure Estimates....................................................................................10 Table 7: 25-Year Recurring Adjusted Fiscal Impact...................................................................................................... 11 Table 8: Retail Demand Model for the Project Site.......................................................................................................12 1. Summary of Findings At the request of the City of Santa Ana ("City"), AECOM has conducted an independent review of a report ("Report") prepared for Arnel Development Co. by The Concord Group ("TCG") titled Market & Fiscal Impact Analyses fora Mixed -Use Development in Santa Ana, CA (4th & Cabrillo Park Dr). Arnel Development Co. (the "Developer") has proposed a mixed -use project ("Project") for a site in the City with 644 apartment units and 15,200 square feet of commercial space. The Project, located at 411 & Cabrillo Park Drive, is to be located in the MEMU (Metro East Mixed -Use) Overlay District in the City of Santa Ana. The Developer engaged TCG (in association with a second firm RSG) to "conduct market and fiscal feasibility analyses for the project" in order to "identify the highest and best use for the site" and "demonstrate the financial viability of the development." AECOM's findings are summarized below. 1. The Report presents strong evidence for the market feasibility and fiscal impacts of the Project, but it does not clearly establish the highest and best use or financial viability of the Project. 2. The Report's conclusions about support for multi -family residential Market are substantiated by market data. The rents represent the higher end of the potential range but are reasonable based on location, proposed amenities, and unit mix. 3. The Report's retail market analysis concludes that 15,200 retail square feet is supportable in the market based on an assessment of three comparable mixed -use developments. AECOM supplemented this analysis and found further evidence to validate the potential range of supportable retail for the Project. However, neither the Report nor AECOM's analysis can fully forecast whether long-term retail demand patterns may fundamentally change as a result of the pandemic. 4. The estimates for potential property tax, utility users' tax, and business taxes apply commonly accepted methodology, and the estimates are validated in the Report's analysis. 5. In estimating potential sales taxes, the Report assumes different retail capture rates and retail sales yields than used in comparable studies. However, an alternate analysis prepared by AECOM using the adjusted input assumptions validates the Report's estimates, which are slightly lower —and therefore more defensibly conservative —than those calculated in the alternative.' 6. The Report's estimate of City fiscal expenditures that would result from the Project appears low. The Report estimates that on a pro-rata basis, the fiscal expenditure for each member of the service population is approximately $250, while AECOM in a separate report recently estimated such costs at $480 per service population member. Applying the AECOM pro-rata measure results in an estimated 104 percent increase of fiscal expenditures resulting from the Project. 7. Net fiscal revenue is the difference between estimated fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures. Applying AECOM's adjusted input assumptions for calculating fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures results in a net present value net fiscal revenue estimate of $10.3 million, which represents a decrease of $5.7 million from the $16 million estimated provided by the TCG Report. 8. The Report's estimate of the Project's economic impacts on employment in the Region use IMPLAN input- output modelling for both the construction and stabilized buildout stages of the project. AECOM reconstructed the model and found no significant deviations in results. ' While not material to overall sale tax estimate, the TCG Report, in Tables 2, 6, and 7 show an inconsistency that should be explained if intended or corrected if in error. This inconsistency is discussed further in the analysis below. 2. Assessment Appropriateness of Methodology In the preamble, the Report states as its goal to "identify the highest and best use of the project under current MEMU zoning and demonstrate financial viability of the development." Identification of highest and best use typically involves comparison of multiple potential land uses using proforma analysis to estimate potential project returns or residual land value. Determination of financial viability may also rely on proforma analysis to estimate Net Operating Income (NOI) and development costs. While the Report features multiple exhibits that demonstrate key inputs and parameters that could be incorporated into proforma analysis, no such additional analysis is conducted to test for highest best use and financial viability. Multi -Family Market Analysis The Multi -Family Residential (MFR) market analysis clearly demonstrates potential achievable rents for the units proposed in the project. The Report's assumptions and data are consistent with previous analysis conducted by AECOM of the residential market, and the Report's conclusions are supported by the analysis. The rents, absorption rates, vacancies, and unit mixes presented in the comparative analysis are broadly representative of the competitive market area. While the proposed rents represent the upper range for the market areas examined, they may be justifiable by the desirable location and the quality of proposed amenities. The Project unit mix, which emphasizes 1-BR units (51 percent) and 2-BR units (39 percent), appears to be optimized to take advantage of market area trends, which indicate that smaller units command higher rents (on a square -foot -basis) and achieve lower vacancy rates than 3-BR units. Retail Market Analysis The City is particularly interested in the potential for the Project to include retail space to support the mixed -use nature of the MEMU land use designation. The proposed Project currently contains 15,200 square feet of retail space, and the Report justifies this quantity through arguments regarding Project location, general retail market trends, and comparison with other established mixed -use projects. AECOM has supplemented this analysis with retail leakage/surplus analysis and a retail demand model and concurs that under normal market conditions,15,200 square feet is supportable. However, as the long-term market impact of COVID-19 on retail performance is not known, caution regarding retail expansion is warranted. The Report features a comparison with three existing mixed -use projects in Orange County that highlight the potential difficulty the Project may face attracting and retaining retail tenants. Two of these comparison projects, which have a similar walkability score as the Project, show vacancy rates of 70 percent and 56 percent. However, such rates are not typical for retail in Orange County, as indicated by Figure 1, which shows retail vacancies fluctuating between 2.5 percent and 6.5 percent between 2006 and 2020 in Orange County and within the 3-Mile Radius surrounding the Project. While the comparison projects illustrate the potential difficulties of sustaining retail tenants in mixed -use projects, the general retail market in Orange County has remained stable in the recent past. Figure 1: Retail Vacancy Retail Vacancy for 3-Mile Radius and Orange County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 -3-Mile Radius Orange County Source: Costar There are three other mixed -use residential and retail projects in the development pipeline with program retail ranging from 6,000 to 24,290 square feet contributing 1.4 percent to 3.5 percent of total Gross Building Area (GBA). The Project's 15,200 square feet of retail space represents approximately 2.6 percent of GBA, which falls within the range of both pipeline projects and similar projects under development within a half mile of the Project's site, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Mixed Use Projects Comparison of Mixed -Use Projects Under Development within Half -Mile of the Project Project Name Project Adress Dwelling Units Total GBA (SF) Retail Space (SF) %Retail Madison 200 N Cabrillo Park Dr. 260 186,000 6,500 3.5% AMG First Point 2112 & 2116 E. First St. 552 700,000 10,000 1.4% Elan 1600 E. First St. 603 650,000 20,000 3.1 % Project 4th and Cabrillo 644 576,000 15,200 2.6% Source: Costar, City of Santa Ana, AECOM Retail leakage/surplus analysis offers another perspective on retail potential. Leakage/surplus analysis compares estimated potential retail spending with estimated actual retail spending to determine whether there is a variance. A surplus variance, where estimated retail spending exceeds estimated demand, indicates the area is drawing retail spending from outside its boundaries, whereas a deficit variance suggests retail "leakage" where residents are leaving the area for retail spending. Leakage can indicate an undersupply of retail space and a potential opportunity for retail development (although not always: if substantial retail supply exists just outside of the boundaries of an area showing leakage, then new supply within the area risks oversupplying the market and diluting sales). AECOM conducted a retail leakage/surplus analysis for both the City of Santa Ana and the 2-Mile Radius2 around the site and found that both geographies capture a significant surplus of retail spending. While the surplus is a net benefit to the City, which benefits from the resulting sales taxes, it also suggests the area is already well supplied and may not have capacity to absorb much more. While the new on -site residential population will help absorb some of this demand, the proposed retail also needs to be unique and differentiated enough to continue to draw shoppers from outside the area to avoid diluting the performance of existing retail supply. Table 2 shows that the 2-Mile Radius has a 2 AECOM uses standard geographies for retail demand assessment, typically a half mile and 2-mile radius around the site that represent the immediate opportunities for pedestrian traffic and a short car ride respectively. retail surplus of over $640 million in sales, while the City of Santa Ana has a surplus of approximately $1.2 billion in sales. Table 2: Retail Leakage/Surplus 2-Mile Radius Retail Leakage/Surplus Anlysis Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplus Number of (Retail Potenital) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Retail Trade $1,124,811,711 $1,655,118,799 -$530,307,088 -19.1 895 Food & Drink $124,997,520 $235,536,446 -$110,538,926 -30.7 395 Total $1,249,809,231 $1,890,655,245 -$640,846,014 -20.4 1,290 City of Santa Ana Retail Leakage/Surplus Anlysis Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplus Number of (Retail Potenital) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Retail Trade $2,311,832,197 $3,452,949,815 -$1,141,117,618 -19.8 1,606 Food & Drink $255,926,740 $405,314,351 -$149,387,611 -22.6 646 Total $2,567,758,937 $3,858,264,166 -$1,290,505,229 -20.1 2,252 Source: ESRI, AECOM As a final test of supportable retail supply, AECOM prepared a retail demand model that quantifies supportable retail based on a region's demographics, socio-economic trends, and the current development pipeline. The model assumes capture rates for residents and employees based on their proximity to the site and data on retail spending patterns. Based on current demographics and projects in the development pipeline, the model estimates the Project could support between 10,000 and 21,000 square feet of retail space. This indicates that the 15,200 square feet currently proposed falls well within the range of supportable retail at the site. The calculation of net supportable square feet, as shown in Table 3, is based on an estimate of total supportable square feet less the approximately 40,890 square feet of retail space in several mixed -use projects currently proposed or under construction within a half mile of the Project's site. An extended table showing the model's assumptions is found in Appendix A. Table 3: Net Supportable Retail Demand Model Retail Demand Model Net Supportable Retail at 4th and Cabrillo Total Supportable Current Pipeline Net Supportable High Scenario ($350/SF) 61,500 40,890 21,000 Low Scenario ($425/SF) 50,600 40,890 10,000 Source: ESRI, BLS, LEHD, Costar, California DOF, ICSC, AECOM These findings support TCG's analysis in the Report and offer validation that the proposed 15,200 square feet of retail could be supported under normal market conditions. Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis The Report estimates fiscal impacts on City's General Fund that may result from the Project. Fiscal impacts are comprised of fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures. Fiscal revenues considered by the Report include Property Tax, Property Tax in -Lieu of VLF, Sales Tax (Direct and Indirect), Utility User Tax, and Business Tax, while fiscal expenditures include Police, Fire, Parks/Recreation/Community Services, Finance & Management Services, Planning & Building Agency, Personnel Services, and the Clerk of the Council. Property Tax Estimated Property Tax revenues are based on an estimate of assessed value of the Development at full buildout. This approach to property valuation is widely accepted and suitable for the Project in its current stage of development. The estimate of Property Tax in -lieu of VLF uses a proportional approach, in which estimated Project assessed value is compared to Citywide assessed value, and the proportional increment of new value is applied to the previous year's Property Tax in -lieu of VLF payment to estimate the new incremental tax revenue. This is a common and generally accepted estimation methodology. Sales Tax Estimates for indirect Sales Tax rely on several assumptions regarding household/employee spending habits and the City's capture of this spending. The Report estimates a City capture rate of 60 percent of taxable spending for new households. Capture rates in comparable studies from AECOM (2018), Economic and Planning Systems (2016) and Keyser Marston Associates (2018) show a range from 25 percent to 50 percent with greater capture rates for developments near the commercial center of larger cities. Precedents from other studies suggest that the 60 percent capture rate for new households may be high considering the Project's central in Orange County with numerous shopping centers in neighboring jurisdictions. A more conservative and defensible capture rate would be between 30 percent and 40 percent. The estimate of taxable sales for households is within the range of several data sources. The Bureau of Labor Services Consumption Survey for the Los Angles Metro Area estimates taxable sales of approximately $22,000 per household in the region, while ESRI estimates approximately $18,000 for the City. Because of the small average size of the households projected to occupy the principally 1-BR and 2-BR dwelling units, the Report's approximate annual household spending of $17,800 is a reasonable estimate. For the business -derived sales tax, the Report assumes a rate of $250 per square foot of retail space to estimate total sales. According to an eMarketer survey of retail locations in Southern California, sales per square foot averaged $436 in 2018 with a median of $322. Consequently, assuming a higher sales tax rate may be defensible. The Report shows inconsistency in the sales tax estimates as indicated in Table 2 and Tables 6 and 7 of the Report. Table 2 in the Report, which shows a cashflow analysis representing the 25-year net new recurring fiscal impact projections of all estimated revenue streams and expenditures, lists the base rate sales tax at buildout at $90,244 and the Measure X sales tax at $135,366. These figures are consistent with the concluding text on page 42 of the Report that summarizes the fiscal impacts of sales tax. However, Tables 6 and 7 in the Report and the accompanying text show a combined $103,700 for base rate sales tax at buildout and $155,550 for Measure X sales tax at buildout. These measures are approximately 15 percent higher than the measures shown in the cashflow analysis in Table 2 of Report on which the net fiscal revenue calculations are based. In a final version of the Report, TCG should explain this discrepancy if intended or correct it if an error. In order to test the impacts of observations above about different input assumptions for calculating fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures, AECOM prepared an alternate estimate that assumes $350/square foot in retail sales and a capture rate of 40 percent. In addition, to explore whether the data discrepancy discussed above might also have a meaningful impact, AECOM prepared an alternate version of the Report's estimate: as shown in Table 4 below, "Report" represents TCG's base estimate, which uses the cashflow shown in the Report's Table 2. The "Report Alternative" estimate is based on the sales tax measures shown in the Report's Tables 6 and 7. The results of these alternate calculations show the Report's original estimate to be the lowest and most conservative, with a net present sales tax value (NPV at 4% discount rate) of approximately $3.6 million. The AECOM alternative, with a higher sales yield per square foot but lower capture rate, is higher at approximately $4.1 million. Finally, the Report Alternative is highest at approximately $4.3 million. From this, it may be concluded that the Report's original finding is defensible but that higher Project fiscal revenues may be achievable. Table 4: Adjusted Fiscal Revenue Estimate for Sales Tax Fiscal Impact of Sales Tax Assumptions 25-Year Recurring Sales Tax (NPV at 4% Sales Tax Base Rate' Sales Tax Measure X' Total Sales Tax' Discount Report2 $90,244 $135,366 $225,610 $3,640,360 Report Alternative $103,700 $155,550 $259,250 $4,298,055 AECOM $99,584 $149,376 $248,960 $4,127,459 (1) Annual revenues at first year of buildout of the Project (2) Cash Flow Analysis from Table 2 in the Report (3) Derived from Tables 6 and 7, based on the methodology described in the Report (4) Assumes 40% capture rate for Project residents and $350 per square foot for Project retail space Souce: TCG, RSG, AECOM Utility User, Franchise and Business Taxes The Report estimates Utility Users Taxes based on household data for phone, electricity, gas, and water expenditures for Project residents and Energy Information Association (EIA) estimates of utility expenditures for retail properties for the Project's retail space. Business Tax estimates are based on annual sales of the retail future retail tenants and business activities of the property management company. These are acceptable methodologies, and the predictions are in line with assumptions made in comparable studies. Fiscal Expenditures The Report applies a standard pro rata fiscal expenditure for the service population of the Project (which is derived from commuting patterns of the City's residents and workforce. Based on estimated demand for City services from people living and working in Santa Ana (with demand adjusted to reflect time spent in the City as it varies between full-time residents and in -commuters), the Report estimates a service population of 1,399 persons for the Project. This methodology is a standard practice and widely accepted for general planning purposes. The Report estimates that City expenditures for the service population would result in an increase of approximately $354,000 for the first full year of buildout, or approximately $253 per person. This estimate is based on the City budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 and considers whether expenditures are variable versus fixed costs. The estimate excludes costs such as the City Manager's office and City Attorney's Office but scales up services such as the Police and Fire Departments. AECOM recently conducted a series of fiscal analyses for the City that adopted a similar approach that combined budgetary and demographic analysis with interviews with City staff. The most recent report (March 2020) estimated a pro-rata expenditure of $487 per member of the service population. The AECOM estimate represents an increase of $234 over the Report's estimate, a variance that if applied to the overall estimate has a substantial impact on the Gross Expenditures and Net New Revenues from the Project. Using the same assumptions as the Report in calculating the rolling 25-year impact (Net Present Value at a discount rate of 4 percent), AECOM estimates fiscal expenditures at approximately double of that estimated by the Report. The results of these estimates are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Adjusted Fiscal Expenditure Estimate Pro Rata City Expenditure Estimates Total Annual 25 Year Net Service Expenditures at Recurring (NPV Population Pro Rata Share Buildout at 41/6) Report 1,399 $253 $353,986 $7,026,724 AECOM (2020) 1,399 $487 $681,313 $14,354,016 Source: US Census LEHD, ESRI, Santa Ana 2019-20 Adopted Budget, AECOM This adjusted fiscal expenditure estimated carries over to the estimate of Net New Revenue. As shown in Table 6, estimated adjustments to annual fiscal revenues (sales tax) and expenditures result in net new fiscal revenues of approximately $540,000 compared to $890,000 for the first year of buildout out. As shown in Table 7, estimated adjustments to fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures result in a net present value estimate of $10.3 million, compared with the Report's estimate of $16 million. Table 6: Adjusted Fiscal Revenue and Expenditure Estimates Adjusted Annual Fiscal Impacts at Project Buildout Sales Tax at First Year Fiscal Expenditures at First Net New Fiscal Revenues at Buildout Year Buildout First Year Buildout Report' $225,610-$353,986 $891,096 AECOM $248,960-$681,313 $540,418 (1) Assumes Sales Tax cash flow analysis from Table 2 in the Report Source: TCG, RSG, AECOM Table 7: 25-Year Recurring Adjusted Fiscal Impact 25-Year Recurring Net New Fiscal Impacts (NPV at 4 4 discount rate) 25 year Recurring Fiscal Revenues Report' $23,109,060 AECOM $24,679,077 25 year Recurring Fiscal 25 year Recurring Net New Expenditures Impact I(1) Assumes Sales Tax cash flow analysis from Table 2 in the Report Source: TCG, RSG, AECOM $7,026,724 $14,354,016 $16,082,335 $10,325,061 Economic Impacts The Report only considers the impacts on employment for the "Region," which is not specified (but is likely to be Orange County). The Report derives an estimate of construction phase jobs from construction costs. The estimate of permanent jobs is derived from rate assumptions that associate employment with retail square footage and dwelling units. The analysis uses IMPLAN software that draws on data from several local, state and federal sources, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the California Department of Finance. This software package is used widely for estimating economic impacts across a wide array of industries and economic settings. To test the estimated economic impacts shown in the Report, AECOM conducted a parallel IMPLAN input/output analysis using the Report's inputs for Project construction costs and full-time positions. The outputs of AECOM's model were close to those of the Report and validate the Report's employment estimates. 3. Appendix Table 8: Retail Demand Model for the Project Site Estimated 4th and Cabrillo Capture of Household Retail Expenditures 1/2 Mile Radius 2 Mile Radius' Current BuildoutZ Currey BuildoutZ Current Households 2,216 4,271 35,204 35,746 37,420 40,017 On-Site3 0 612 0 0 0 612 Site Capture(%) 7.5% 7.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Off -Site 2,216 3,659 35,204 35,746 35,204 39,405 Site -Capture(%) 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Median HH Income $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 HH Retail Expenditures4 $15,125 $15,125 $15,125 $15,125 $15,125 $15,125 Estimated Household Sales Capture $1,675,850 $3,461,281 $13,045,282 54,700 $13,246,127 55,272 $13,045,282 60,600 $16,707,408 61,172 Employees 5,900 5,900 On -site 48 48 0 0 48 48 Annual Expenditures5 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Site Capture (%) 5.0% 5.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Off -site 5,852 5,852 54,700 55,272 60,552 61,124 Annual Expenditures5 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Site Capture (%) 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% Estimated Business Sales Capture $852,288 $852,288 $3,938,400 $3,979,606 $4,790,688 $4,831,894 Total Estimated Retail Capture $2,528,138 $4,313,569 $16,983,682 $17,225,733 $19,511,820 $21,539,302 Supportable Retail SF($350/SF)6 7,223 12,324 48,525 49,216 55,748 61,541 Supportable Retail SF ($425/SF)s 5,949 150 39,962 40,531 45,910 50,681 (1) 2 Mile Radius is exclusive of 1/2 Nile Radius to avoid double counting (2) Assumes stable occupancy of all know n current development pipeline (3) Assumes 95% Occupancy of the Project (4) BLS assumes 20%-30% of median income is spent on all retail categories, site capture adjusted for retail type (5) Based on ICSC data for average workday spending for office/retail workers, excluding transportaiton, grocery, and warehouse expenditures (6) Gross supportabel retail before adjustment for retail developmentin the current pipeline Source: ESRI, BLS, LEHD, Costar, California DOF, ICSC, AECOM 4W THE CONCORD GROUT IV MEMORANDUM To: City of Santa Ana From: THE CONCOIRI® GkOUIP Date: October 22, 2020 Re: Viability of a Grocery Store and Market Optimal Scale of Retail for the 4th and Cabrillo Project in Santa Ana, CA In August 2020, The Concord Group ("TCG") completed a highest and best use analysis for the 4th and Cabrillo project in Santa Ana. It was TCG's conclusion that the current plan set forth by the developer, which includes 644 apartments and 15,200 square feet of retail, is the highest and best use for the property. Per preliminary feedback from the Planning Commission, we understand the City would like further explanation with regards to two key conclusions in the analysis: 1. A grocery store is not supportable on site; 2. The +/- 15,000 square feet of retail planned is the maximum marketable retail square footage that the project can support. Grocery Store A grocery store is not viable in the project. Grocery stores require: (1) a high degree of marketing visibility; (2) high density of nearby rooftops with strong incomes; and (3) and convenient accessibility. 1. With regards to point 1, the project possesses attractive visibility along 4th Street, with up to 30,000 cars passing by the site daily. However, with regards to points 2 and 3, the project fails. 2. The density of rooftops and associated incomes is insufficient to attract a grocery tenant. Within a one -mile radius of the project, there are only 9,800 households, with incomes well below the County median. 3. Only in the most urban settings (ie. downtown Los Angeles, Santa Monica), will grocery operators consider structured parking for their shoppers. Grocery shoppers seek "easy in / easy out" accessibility. The large amount of surface parking required for a grocery store would render the mixed -use character of the project financially infeasible. Scale of Retail The current scale of retail planned for the project is the maximum that can be supported on the site. There are several marketing concerns limiting the market viability of more retail on site: 1. There is limited demand for new retail in the site's trade area. Over the last ten years, only 100,000 square feet of retail has been added, with no improvements to retail occupancy during the timeframe. 2. Secondly, successful, large-scale commercial shopping destinations require anchor tenancy — typically a grocery — which is not viable on site. Anchor tenants are the "draw" that attract consumers to the smaller, in -line tenant spaces. 3. Lastly, while mixed -use retail and residential is common in the most densely populated urban settings, a large scale of ground floor retail is not viable in a suburban setting. TCG surveyed three mixed -use projects in Orange County, with ground level retail footprints ranging from 8,500 to 14,000 square feet. Two of the three projects were considered distressed, with elevated rates of retail vacancy (54% and 70%). Like the subject, each mixed -use analog lacks an anchor tenant magnet to attract consumers. In summary, TCG considers the current land plan to be the highest and best use for the 4th and Cabrillo site. The above assignment was completed Michael Reynolds and David Prokopenko. Should you have any questions regarding the data or conclusions generated by the analysis, feel free to contact us at (949) 717-6450. CITY OF SANTA ANA October 2020 4th and Cabrillo Project 20233.00 130 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CENTRAL POINTE, 4t" St. & Cabrillo Park Sunshine Ordinance Meeting Meeting Minutes Date & Time: Thursday, August 15, 2019, 6:00 PM Location: Creekside Plaza, 505 N. Tustin Ave., Suite 243, Santa Ana, Ca 92705 Purpose: Community meeting in compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance for Central Pointe at 4th St. & Cabrillo Park in Santa Ana In Attendance: City Representatives: Vince Fregoso, Selena Kelaher, Scott Kutner, Mark McLoughlin Applicant: Sean Rawson and Consultant Team (KTGY/Architect, MJS/Landscape Architect and Debra Pember/Asst. Project Manager Members of the Public: 15 members were in attendance The meeting began at approximately 6:05 pm. Sean Rawson, the applicant, introduced himself and his team. He provided an overview of the proposed project with a power point slide presentation, illustrating the conceptual elevations, floor plans, finishes, amenities and open space. It was emphasized that this is only a conceptual plan at this time. This is the first opportunity to get public feed -back. The following information was shared, followed by questions and comments. • Project Zoning: The intent of the MEMU (Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District) was explained and how the project complies with the zoning. • Type of Project: 650 unit mixed -use residential project located in the Active Urban District. The mixed -use will include retail space on the first floors facing 4th Street. The project will create 500 jobs and bring $36 million to the City in short-term income. • Project has just recently been submitted to the City and no City feedback has been received since submittal. • Project Amenities: The Landscape Architect, Matt Jackson, described the green open space open to the public and some of the roof top amenities that will be available to the residents, such as pools, fitness and clubrooms. A dog park is also being planned for the residents. • Number of Units: Two buildings that total 650 luxury apartment units for rent, made up of studio units, one, two and some three -bedroom units. It was emphasized that this is conceptual as this point in time, until public and City feedback is received. Central Pointe, 41" St. & Cabrillo Park August 15, 2019 Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting Page 2 Questions, Comments, Answers: • Q. Target demographics? A. Millennial renters and empty nesters. Project will also comply with HOO (Housing Opportunity Ordinance). • Q. Will there be affordable units on site? A. Reviewed options that support HOO and which option to pursue is being considered and not yet determined. • Q. What types of businesses will occupy the retail component? A. Too soon to determine. Generally, the project needs to be built first and marketing for tenants will follow. • Q. When will the project be started? What is the time frame for completion? A. We just started the entitlement process, which could take 10 to 12 months. After project is approved, the construction document phase starts, which with plan check, could take 8 to 10 months and then 30 months to build out. • Q. Concern over dust impacts during construction. A. The EIR will identify all impacts and have specific requirements for mitigation. • Q. Parking concerns: 650 units is 1,400 cars; project will have 2-3 residents per unit. What is the parking? Concern over parking spilling over into the neighborhoods (like Mabury cul-de-sacs) where not enough parking currently exists. Need to increase parking ratio. Is there parking onsite? What about visitors parking? What about parking for the retail? A. Parking is 1.82 spaces per unit and is consistent with the zoning. There is a parking structure for each building; it's considered a wrap design. We're hearing your concerns and the parking will be further studied through the entitlement period. • Q. Concerns over traffic: Number of cars per unit; 650 units is 1,400 cars. Concerns with traffic using Mabury as a thorough fare to and from 1711 St. A. A traffic study is being done. Everyone's comments and concerns will be considered and addressed. • Q. Queuing going west on 4t" St. is already difficult. How will this affect that? A. An additional traffic lane is being added. • Q. Will there be consideration to add a bus route on 41" St.? Is it transit oriented? A. That's a question more for CalTrans. However, we are considering a shuttle service to/from the train station. • Q. Will there be a sound wall along the freeway side? A. We don't know yet. Those are details that still need to be worked out through the process. • Q. Utility poles, what's the status? A. They'll be undergrounded. Central Pointe, 411 St. & Cabrillo Park August 15, 2019 Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting Page 3 • Q. What is the roadway to west used for (on site plan)? A. That's actually a gated access for emergency vehicles only. • Q. What is the sidewalk width going to be around the project? A. Not sure exactly, but those details will follow. • Q. Will there be security on site? A. Some areas will be gated. • Q. How far was the outreach? 500' is not enough, doesn't cover everyone. Should consider reaching out to neighboring communities. One couple talked about how they found out about the meeting through "Next Door". When is next meeting? How was it posted? A. Rules were followed within the City's guidelines for Sunshine Ordinance. It was posted in the paper, meeting notices mailed and posted signs on the property. • Signs should also be posted at the Mabury curve. • Q. When is the next meeting? A. The next meeting with the community will be hosted after the traffic study is complete. • Q. What kind of landscaping is being proposed? (Desi) I don't like palm trees; they get tall and lose their value. I think you should plant pine trees; also wants boulders and some type of public art. A. Matt Jackson, project's landscape architect addressed the question. Tall, fuller type trees, vegetation will be placed along the freeway and other areas. However, typically, palm trees work well along storefronts or other commercial buildings, because they don't have a tendency to hide the signage. • Q. Could you please bring more displays? A. Yes, definitely. • Q. Will we be kept informed of all activities? A. Yes. • Q. Could we have the next community meeting at the Cabrillo Park, maybe the tennis court area? A. Yes, we'll work on that. • Additional comment: Desi stated his concerns, but added that "overall, likes the project". Meeting adjourned approximately 7:15 PM Z - q 20� 14 -^711 �. v _ � r e fA . RZ1.0 AA ��-76 -,X�,4icff Cllc olram 5Z5 C,-br7loss-41A 917ol IM-2-95 IS-oo W 32-3__ 51,nM _ AVIa C4V-'o 5 � L,11 A-10 a, , iq- 5 _ IBM ZVO. Wg5s ol s�e,c�s-cz.an.�l,.ck �s,s�esbnct.�_.L�.�_ EXHIBIT 4 jmf 1/05/21 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL APPLICATION NOS. 2020- 03 AND 2020-04 AND UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2020-04 AS CONDITIONED FOR A NEW MIXED -USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1801 EAST FOURTH STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, following a duly noticed public hearing, adopted a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2020-04, as conditioned, to allow the construction of a new mixed -use development consisting of 644 multi -family residential units and 15,130 square feet of commercial space at 1801 East Fourth Street ("Central Point Project" or "Project"). B. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-645, an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission can be made by an interested party, individual or group. C. On November 16, 2020, Rebecca Davis with Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), submitted Appeal Application No. 2020-03 pursuant to Section 41-645 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requesting that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission's decision based on the following reasons: The City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report or Tiered Environmental Impact Report for the project. D. On November 19, 2020, John Hanna, on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC), submitted Appeal Application No. 2020-04 pursuant to Section 41-645 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requesting that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission's decision based on the following reasons: Failure to adequately address affordable housing. Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 II. Failure to include qualified Santa Ana residents, veterans, graduate and/or certificate holders of the Santa Ana Unified School District and Rancho Santiago Community College District in the project's construction workforce. III. Failure to ensure the maximum amount of viable commercial development is provided. E. On January 19, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal Application No. 2020-03 and found that: In approving the Central Pointe Project, the Planning Commission found that it was adequately evaluated in the previously certified 2007 Metro East Mixed -Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR (collectively "MEMU EIR") prepared for the MEMU Overlay. SAFER contends that this was error, because the MEMU EIR "was a programmatic EIR, not a project -level EIR," asserting that the Project has never been analyzed under CEQA. While the MEMU EIR was a Program EIR, SAFER is nevertheless incorrect. A Program EIR is a type of EIR allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act that is used to evaluate a plan or program having multiple components or actions that are related either geographically, through application of rules or regulations, or as logical parts of a long-term plan. Subsequent activities called for by the Program EIR are compared against the Program EIR and, when consistent with the Program EIR, may be approved without the need for further environmental review. Once a project is approved, CEQA does not require that it be analyzed anew every time another discretionary action is required to implement the project. Quite the opposite, where an EIR has previously been prepared for a project, CEQA expressly prohibits agencies from requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR, except in specified circumstances provided in Public Resources Code 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Specifically, an agency may not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows that the project will have new or more significant impacts or that the project's significant impacts could be reduced by mitigation measures or alternatives that have not been adopted. As explained by the California Court of Appeal, "Section 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process." (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 788, 796.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly authorizes use of a "program EIR" to evaluate "a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project," and makes clear that program EIRs can be used to approve later activities within the scope of the program: If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Where environmental review has been conducted through a program EIR, CEQA requires further review only in limited circumstances which are specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 788, 802. Moreover, contrary to SAFER's assertions, "substantial evidence is the proper standard where ... an agency determines that a project consistent with a prior program EIR presents no significant, unstudied adverse effect." Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 174; see also Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 598, 611 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 ["[T]he fair argument standard does not apply to review of an agency's determination that a project's potential environmental impacts were adequately analyzed in a prior program EIR."].) The MEMU EIR studied the impacts of developing up to 5,551 residential units and 963,000 square feet of commercial development, and 690,000 of office development in the Overlay Zone. The Central Pointe Project, which consists of 644 residential units and 15,130 square feet of commercial space, is entirely consistent with the previously established development standards for the MEMU Overlay Zone, and thus, does nothing more than implement a relatively small portion of the larger project previously analyzed in MEMU EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the project covered by the MEMU EIR. Moreover, Central Pointe will not have new or more severe environmental impacts than those disclosed in the MEMU EIR and this is supported by substantial evidence. As described in the 2007 EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, the Active Urban zone was described as a highly urbanized environment with residential and commercial opportunities; the site was shown and designated with the Active Urban overlay in Figure 3-4; Table 3-1 listed the development standards for the Active Urban overlay; and Chapter 2 of the SEIR described modification to the MEMU development standards. As described in the Planning Commission staff report and Attachment 10 to the Planning Commission staff report, the Project is consistent with the MEMU overlay zone and the development standard for the Active Urban subzone. Accordingly, SAFER's assertions that Central Pointe "has never been analyzed under CEQA" and that the City was required to prepare a tiered EIR for the Project are incorrect. II. Health Risk Impacts - SAFER argues that an EIR is required to study alleged health risks to future residents of the Central Pointe Project. However, as explained by the California Supreme Court, "CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project's future users or residents." California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369, 392. Thus, impacts to future residents of the Project caused solely by existing environmental conditions are not required to be evaluated in a CEQA document. The City nonetheless required the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment to identify any impacts from developing a residential community near a major freeway. As noted in the Health Risk Assessment, the Project applicant has agreed to install and maintain MERV (minimum efficiency reporting value) 13 air filtration systems in the proposed multi -family residential dwelling units. Contrary to Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 SAFER's assertion, the Health Risk Assessment looked at both potential cancer risks and non -cancer risks and concluded that a less than significant impact to Project residents would occur. III. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts - SAFER takes issue with the methodology utilized in the MEMU EIR to evaluate GHG impacts, but SAFER failed to raise such issues before the MEMU EIR was certified, and it is too late to do so now. Further, while SAFER suggests that the MEMU EIR's analysis should only be applied to projects that will become operational through 2020, the Subsequent MEMU EIR was not prepared until 2018, and clearly indicated it was analyzing GHG impacts based on a 2040 buildout year. Because GHG impacts from the entire buildout of the entire MEMU Overlay, including the Central Pointe Project site, were already quantified and analyzed in the MEMU EIR, SAFER's assertion that a new CEQA document is required to analyze such impacts is incorrect. IV. As discussed above, when a project is within the scope of a previously certified EIR (including a program EIR), a lead agency may require a subsequent EIR only in one of the three situations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. As none of the three situations are met, including no new information that could not have been known when the MEMU EIR was certified, this comment is incorrect. Air Quality - SAFER alleges that the City was required to prepare a new CEQA document to evaluate alleged "impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer -causing chemical formaldehyde," and submits a report from Francis J. Offerman PE, CIH discussing such emissions. SAFER claims that because Mr. Offerman relies, in part, on a 2020 indoor air quality study, such alleged impacts constitute new information which "could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2007 MEMU EIR or the 2018 MEMU SEIR were certified." But Mr. Offerman's own CV (which was attached to the comments) shows numerous papers and presentations on the alleged risk of formaldehyde emissions from wood products that date prior to the MEMU SEIR, as early as 2010. In addition, Mr. Offerman's assertions regarding the alleged impacts of formaldehyde emissions from building materials do not rise to the level of substantial evidence, given that such emissions are already the subject of extensive regulation at both the state and federal level, including stringent emission limits that the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board have determined are protective of human health. Furthermore, Mr. Offerman's analysis appears to assume the same level of emissions will be present, year after year, Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 notwithstanding the fact that formaldehyde is readily biodegradable and complete degradation of formaldehyde can be accomplished in less than 30 days. Bird Collisions - SAFER argues that the potential for birds to be harmed by flying into windows constitutes "significant new information" requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, merely because new studies related to that issue and the extent of bird decline in general have come out in recent years. SAFER submits comments from ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph. D. The information submitted by SAFER contradicts its assertion that this is a new issue that could not have been raised prior to the certification of the MEMU EIR. Dr. Smallwood's own letter indicates that window collisions have been known to be one of the largest sources of human -caused bird mortality for years, and cites numerous studies attempting to quantity such fatalities going back to 1976. Thus, this alleged impact could have been raised prior to the certification of the MEMU EIR, and clearly does not trigger the need for further analysis under Section 15162. V. SAFER notes that the MEMU EIR Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) requires that the Project site be investigated for evidence of hazardous materials contamination "prior to issuance of grading permits," and argues that such measure improperly defers mitigation. But again, it is too late to challenge the adequacy of the analysis done in the MEMU EIR or the sufficiency of the mitigation measures adopted when the Overlay was approved. Moreover, SAFER has not identified any evidence that hazardous materials are present on the site, and even when contamination is known to exist, there is nothing improper about a mitigation measure that requires such contamination be investigated and remediated after project approval. VI. Senate Bill 743 enacted in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code 21099, directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new guidelines governing the evaluation of transportation impacts, and provides that upon certification of such guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by "level of service" and other similar metrics, shall generally not be considered a significant impact on the environment for purposes of CEQA. In 2018, OPR proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted, new CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 that identifies vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") — meaning the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project — as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project's transportation impacts. Though CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 took effect statewide on Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 6 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 July 1, 2020, Santa Ana, through Resolution No. 2019-049, elected to be governed by this section on the earlier date of June 18, 2019, and by the same resolution, adopted VMT thresholds of significance for transportation impact analysis under CEQA Irrespectively, however, CEQA Guidelines Section 15007 states that "amendments to the guidelines apply prospectively only," and that "if a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is set out for public review, the document does not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved." Thus, under the plain language of the Guidelines, any EIR that was publicly circulated prior to the City's earlier adoption of VMT analysis in 2019 — like the MEMU EIR -- is not required to include the VMT analysis now mandated by Section 15064.3. Moreover, the this determination is consistent with longstanding case law where the court explained that a responsible agency was not required to prepare a supplemental EIR to comply with a new statute requiring additional traffic analysis, noting "fairness and the need for finality" require that the adequacy of an EIR "be measured against those regulations in effect" when the EIR was presented for public review. Long Beach Savings & Loan Assn v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, 261 n.12. As discussed above, the MEMU EIR was not only publicly circulated, but certified long before the VMT requirements took effect. Accordingly, the requirements set forth therein are inapplicable to such EIRs, and any future project within the scope of those EIRs is not required to do a VMT analysis. As explained above, where a project is within the scope of a previously certified program EIR, "no new environmental document is required" unless the project will have "new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects" than were disclosed in the program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15168(c)(2). SAFER nonetheless argues that a subsequent EIR must be prepared because the MEMU EIR disclosed certain unavoidable impacts. SAFER is incorrect. As explained by the Court of Appeal: To hold that a project -specific EIR must be prepared for all activities proposed after the certification of the program EIR, even where the subsequent activity is `within the scope of the project described in the Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 7 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 program EIR' ... would be directly contrary to one of the essential purposes of program EIR's, i.e., to streamline environmental review of projects within the scope of a previously completed program EIR. Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.AppAth 214, 239 [explaining, in a case involving a program EIR that disclosed significant and unavoidable impacts, "CEQA does not require the Department to engage in a public process when it determines whether the impacts from a site -specific project were addressed and adequately mitigated in the program EIR. And if the Department finds the impacts were addressed, it need not prepare a new environmental document at all"]. Since, the Central Pointe Project is within the scope of the MEMU EIR and will not have any new or more severe impacts than those disclosed therein, the City is not required to prepare a new CEQA document. F. On January 19, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal Application No. 2020-04 and found that: The Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) Chapter 41, Article XVI I I.I was amended on September 1, 2020. While previously, Section 41- 1902(b)(4) applied the HOO to any new project in an overlay zone site plan permitting residential land uses, the recent amendments remove this reference. As amended, the HOO now only applies when a residential project which proposes a residential density above the General Plan permitted density (Sections 1902(a) and (b)). The Central Pointe Mixed -Use project is consistent with the General Plan District Center land use designation. No General Plan Amendment is required for the Project. Therefore, the HOO does not apply. II. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-1607, entitled "Deviations from density bonus and affordable housing provisions," applies to projects seeking a density bonus or waivers and modifications from development standards. The project does not seek a density bonus and complies with the development standards of the Metro East Mixed -Use overlay zone. III. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 8 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes will occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR and SEIR was certified as complete, shows the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or SEIR, significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or SEIR, or mitigation measure measures are applicable to the project. As stated in the Planning Commission staff report, presentation, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-38, none of these findings are applicable, and therefore the Project does not require subsequent environmental review. IV. The Planning Commission's responsibilities include decisions regarding land use and zoning as prescribed by ordinance. There is no City ordinance regarding community workforce agreements for private development projects. V. The Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay, Active Urban subzone permits mixed -use development. The project proposes 644 residential units and 15,130 square feet of commercial space. The Metro East Mixed - Use Overlay does not require a minimum amount of commercial square footage for a mixed -use development. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project and reviewed by the City's Public Works Agency. The recommendations of the study will be implemented with the construction of the project. Section 2. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the Planning Commission's decision on the Project, and Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04, hereby finds and determines that the Planning Commission's decision was not made in error, that the Planning Commission's decision was not an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 3. The City Council hereby further finds, determines, and declares as follows: Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-01 (SCH No. 2006031041) and Subsequent EIR No. 2018-15, the City Council finds that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Project has been determined to be adequately Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 9 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 evaluated in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-01 (SCH No. 2006031041) and Subsequent EIR No. 2018-15, as per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. All mitigation measures in EIR No. 2006-01 and SEIR No. 2018-15 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be enforced and apply to the proposed project. In addition, a traffic impact analysis dated July 30, 2020 was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan which analyzed the Project's impacts on 25 intersections. The off -site improvements listed the Traffic Impact Analysis shall be implemented. A health risk assessment (HRA) dated June 2, 2020 was prepared by Urban Crossroads to identify any impacts from developing a residential community near a major freeway. The HRA finds that a less than significant impact to project residents would occur due to the Project's proximity to a major freeway. Specifically, none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring subsequent environmental review have occurred, because: A. The Project does not constitute a substantial change that would require major revisions of the MEMU EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. B. There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be developed that would require major revisions of the MEMU EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. C. New information of substantial importance has not been presented that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MEMU EIR was certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i) that the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the earlier environmental documentation; (iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the Applicant declined to adopt such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed previously would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the Applicant declined to adopt. Further, the City Council finds that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, that the Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development is consistent with Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-01 (SCH No. 2006031041) and Subsequent EIR No. 2018-15 including allowable land use, planned density and building intensity, and geographic location analyzed in the program EIR. All mitigation measures in EIR No. 2006-01 and Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 10 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 SEIR No. 2018-15 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be enforced and apply to the proposed project. Section 4. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 5. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby denies Appeal Application No. 2020-03 and Appeal Application No. 2020-04, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2020-04 as conditioned. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above -said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for City Council Action dated January 19, 2021, and exhibits attached thereto, and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: �W, 7g, -f.4, John M. Funk Sr. Assistant City Attorney , 2021. Vicente Sarmiento Mayor Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 11 of 12 jmf 1/05/21 AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2021-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on 12021. Date: Clerk of the Council Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 12 of 12 Sheet Index 10 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com WATERFORD k' H ii P f_ 8 i 1 ( 0 tii P% 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 General: G-001 Cover Sheet G-011 Project Summary G-021 Site Photos and Context Exhibit Civil: C1.0 Site Plan - Existing Conditions C2.0 Site Plan - Improvements C3.0 Site Plan - Offsite Improvements C4.0 Site Plan - Utility C5.0 Site Plan - Tentative Parcel Map Dry Utility: 1 of 1 Dry Utility Composite Landscape: L.1 Concept Landscape Plan L.2 Great Lawn Park Enlargement L.3 Activated Corner Plaza Enlargement LA Building A Rooftop Enlargement L.5 Building B Rooftop Enlargement L.6 Courtyard Enlargements L.7 Courtyard Enlargements L.8 Courtyard Enlargements L.9 Landscape Imagery L.10 Preliminary Plant Palette And Notes L.11 Landscape Lighting Plan Architectural: A-101 Architectural Site Plan A-102 Open Space Exhibit A-103 Shadow and Shade Analysis A-111 "Building A" Building Code Analysis A-112 "Building A" Exiting Analysis A-121 "Building B" Building Code Analysis A-122 "Building B" Exiting Analysis A-211 "Building A" Exterior Elevations A-212 "Building A" Exterior Elevations A-221 "Building B" Exterior Elevations A-222 "Building B" Exterior Elevations A-310 "Building A" 1st Basement Floor Plan A-311 "Building A" 1st Floor Plan A-312 "Building A" 2nd Floor Plan A-313 "Building A" 3rd-5th Floor Plan A-317 "Building A" 7th Floor Plan A-318 "Building A" Roof Plan A-320 "Building B" 1st Basement Floor Plan A-321 "Building B" 1st Floor Plan A-322 "Building B" 2nd Floor Plan A-323 "Building B" 3rd-5th Floor Plan A-327 "Building B" 7th Floor Plan A-328 "Building B" Roof Plan A-401 Building Sections A-501 Enlarged Floor Plans - Unit Plans A-502 Enlarged Floor Plans - Unit Plans A-503 Enlarged Floor Plans - Unit Plans A-601 Renderings A-602 Renderings A-603 Renderings A-604 Renderings A-605 Renderings A-606 Renderings A-701 Color & Material Board Trash Management: T-0.1 Reference Building Site Plan T-0.2 Building A & B Staging Plan T-0.3 Trash Staging & Truck Maneuvering T-0.4 Sequential Bin Movement T-1.0 Trash Collection Room Core 1 - Building A T-1.1 Trash Collection Room Core 2 - Building A T-1.2 Trash Collection Room Core 1 - Building B T-1.3 Trash Collection Room Core 2 - Building B T-1.4 Retail Trash Collection Room - Building A T-1.5 Retail Trash Collection Room - Building B T-2.0 Chute Details T-2.1 Chute Details Supplemental Fire Protection: F-1 Title Sheet, Notes, Details, and Building Data F-2 Fire Master Plan and Section COVER SHEET SHEET INDEX n-001 VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Central Pointe is a proposed mixed -use development, located at the intersection of 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive. The Project consists of 644 apartment units and approximately 15,200 sf of commercial space that fronts onto 4th street. "Building A" and "Building B'I are proposed, both are made up of 5-story mixed - use components,7 levels of parking structure with 1 level of subterranean parking, and rooftop amenities atop the garage. For Fire Protection related information, please .see F-1 and F-2 ZONING SUMMARY Site Description: Land -Use Designation: Zoning: Development District: Gross Site Area Net Site Area Total Dwelling Units Net Density District Center P/OZT1 Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Active Urban District ± 8,35 Acres ±8.03 Acres Iti►lr11J ± 80.2 D U/AC Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Compliance: Section 4 Development Standards 4.1 Permitted Land Use Multi -Family Residential, Retail and Service 4.2 Maximum Number of Stories No Maximum Height; Minimum 3 Stories Req'd 4.3 Min Dev. Site Area 1 Acre 4.4 Permitted Frontages Shop Front (4th Street) Forecourt (Cabrillo Pwky & Park Ct PI) 4.5 Publically Accessible Open Space See A-102 for project compliance 4.6 Private/ Common Open Space See A-102 for project compliance 4.7 Building Setbacks Building to Street: 1.0ft Max. to public ROW 4.8 Parking And Access Minimum of 2.0 spaces (See Parking Summa Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <69 ri' A 'I' ER )k O R d i P [ 'S i i. 11 . t . PRIVATE STORAGE SUMMARY 0 0 m 'L 250 CUBIC FEET STORAGE z z c� a CLOSET- MINIMUM 4' X 8' J DIMENSIONS m coo 1st Floor 10 10 20 2nd Floor 12 1.2 24 3rd Floor 12 12 24 4th Floor 12 12 24 5th Floor 12 12 24 7th Floor 272 272 544 TOTAL 330 330 660 D D w w a a- W W 0 0 V) �A N Q M CD PARKING SUMMARY z � W U Q. U W Q. Ln Required Parking � J ~ J Per MEMU Sec. 4.8 (A)(3)(C) W d 1.2 2.0 Space per residential unit inclusive of guest parking and 2.00 644 1288 nonresidential uses. 1288 Required Parking CENTRAL SANTA ANA, CA POINTE # 2019-0129 M co V1 CL z Cn CA W W- z W W noU a � J - `� ❑ 0: e� W LAU U W V) J O x LA U W 0 CL c� Proposed Parking 1 > Qa �; OV-) CL V) ASSIGNED GARAGE 1,030 1008 10 12 22 2.1% > 2% OK UN -ASSIGNED GARAGE 270 256 6 8 14 5.2% > 5% OK UN -ASSIGNED ON -GRADE 18 16 2 0 2 11.1% > 5% DK TOTAL PROPOSED SPACES 1318 1280 18 20 38 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 BUILDING SUMMARY Unit Mix Levels Total Units GSF Ratio Type GSF 1 21 3 4 5 Plan 0-1 518 3 4 4 4 4 19 9,942 s f 3.0% Plan 0-2 543 4 4 4 4 4 20 10,860 sf 3.1% Plan 1-1 683 26 24 24 24 24 122 83,326 sf 18.9% Plan 1-2 726 32 36 36 36 36 176 127,776 sf 27.3% Plan 1-3 778 0 0 1 1 1 3 2,334 sf 0.5% Plan 1-4 752 4 4 4 4 4 20 15,040 sf 3.1% Plan 1-5 750 1 1 1 1 1 5 3,750 sf 0.8% Plan 2-1 1,066 15 23 34 34 34 140 149,240 sf 21.7% Plan 2-2 1,148 8 8 8 8 8 40 45,920 sf 6.2% Plan 2-3 1,071 12 14 14 14 14 68 72,828 sf 10.6% Plan 3-1 11274 5 5 5 5 5 25 31850 sf 3.9% Plan 3-2 1 1,3391 0 01 21 21 2 6 80341 sf 10.9% 110 123 137 137 137 560,800 gsf 100% 644 Total Units 870.8 sf ave unit site "BUILDING A" Commercial Building Area: ±9,600 sf Unit Mix Levels Total Units GSF Ratio Type GSF 1 2 3 4 5 Plan 0-1 518 0 1 1 1 1 4 2,072 sf 1.2% Plan 0-2 543 3 3 3 3 3 15 8,145 s f 4.6% Plan 1-1 683 10 9 9 9 9 46 31,418 sf 14.2% Plan 1-2 726 18 20 20 20 20 98 71,148 sf 30.2% Plan 1-3 778 0 0 1 1 1 3 2,334 sf 0.9% Plan 1-4 752 2 2 2 2 2 10 7,520 sf 3.1% Plan 1-5 750 1 1 1 1 1 5 3,750 sf 1.5% Plan 2-1 1,066 7 11 18 18 18 72 76,752 sf 22.2% Plan 2-2 1,148 4 4 4 4 4 20 22,960 sf 6.2% Plan 2-3 1,071 5 6 6 6 6 29 31,059 sf 8.9% Plan 3-1 1,274 4 4 4 4 4 20 25480 sf 6.2% Plan 3-2 1 1,339 0 0 1 1 1 3 4017 sf 0.9% 54 61 70 70 70 286,655 gsf 100 325 Total Units 882.0 sf ave unit size "BUILDING B" Commercial Building Area: ±5,600 sf Unit Mix Levels Total Units GSF Ratio Type GSF 11 2 3 4 5 Plan 0-1 518 3 3 3 3 3 15 7,770 sf 4.7% Plan 0-2 543 1 1 1 1 1 5 21715 sf 1.6% Plan 1-1 683 16 15 15 15 15 76 51,908 sf 23.8% Plan 1-2 726 14 16 16 16 16 78 56,628 sf 24.51a Plan 1-3 778 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sf 0.0% Plan 1-4 752 2 2 2 2 2 10 7,520 sf 3.1% Plan 1-5 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sf 0.0% Plan 2-1 1,066 8 12 16 16 16 68 72,488 sf 21.3% Plan 2-2 1,148 4 4 4 4 4 20 22,960 sf 6.3% Plan 2-3 1,071 7 8 81 8 8 39 41,769 sf 12.2% Plan 3-1 11274 1 1 1 1 1 5 6370 sf 1.6% Plan 3-2 1 1,339 0 0 1 1 1 3 4017 sf 0.9% 56 62 67 67 67 274,145 gsf 100% 319 Total Units 859.4 sf ave units i ze �000 PROJECT SUMMARY On -Grade 18 131 Flr 162 1st F I r 146 2nd Fir 182 ' 3rd Fir 182 CL 4th Fir 182 CO 5th Fir 182 a 6th Fir 182 7th Fir 64 1300 Total 644 Units -� 2.0 Spaces/ DU 07 Of r- 1288 Total On -Grade 9 131 Flr 81 1st F I r 73 2nd Fir 91 3rd Fir 91 a 4th Fir 91 0 5th Fir r 91 0 6th Fir 91 7th Fir 32 650 Total 325 Units a 2.0 Spaces/ DU s Ce 650 Total On -Grade 9 131 Flr 81 1st F I r 73 2nd Fir 91 3rd Fir 91 4th Fir 91 CO. 5th Fir 91 6th Fir 91 7th Fir L 32 650 Total bo 319 Units 2.0 Spaces/ DU 07 638 Total G-01 1 PARKCOURT PLACE 1. VIEW OF SOUTHWEST CORNER FROM FREEWAY OFF RAMP Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 3. VIEW OF EAST EDGE FROM ACROSS CABRILLO PARK DR. <w k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 2. VIEW OF SOUTHEAST CORNER FROM ADJACENT INTERSECTION. 4. VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER FROM ACROSS CABRILLO PARK DR. - 6. VIEW SOUTH FROM SITE OF FOURTH STREET 8. VIEW NORTH FROM SITE OF PARKCOURT PLACE CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 m r� 9 w cr 0 III FOURTH STREET KEY PLAN (1:200) O 5. VIEW OF NORTHWEST CORNER. 7. VIEW EAST FROM SITE OF CABRILLO PARK DRIVE 9. VIEW WEST FROM SITE OF THE SANTA ANA (5) FREEWAY SITE PHOTOS AND CONTEXT EXHIBIT G-V21 16 \ \ FF \ �\ ��1 4 142 \\ .84 \ \ 143X 6 kz� y \\ 3.62 � I \ 144. I n 140 \\ X NOTES 1. ANY PROJECT ADJACENT EXISTING DRIVEWAY WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH NEW STREETSCAPE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY STANDARDS (CITY DOWNTOWN THEME). 2. ANY STREET TREE REMOVAL WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ETAC). ABBREVATIONS AC ACRE HYD HYDRANT APPROX. APPROXIMATE NAP NOT A PART BLDG. BUILDING OHW OVERHEAD WIRE BW BACK OF WALK PL PROPERTY LINE CB CATCH BASIN PROP. PROPOSED C&G CURB & GUTTER R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY DWY DRIVEWAY SD STORM DRAIN ELECT. ELECTRIC SF SQUARE FEET ESMT. EASEMENT SS SANITARY SEWER EXIST. EXISTING SW SIDEWALK FF FINISHED FLOOR TC TOP OF CURB FL FLOW LINE TYP. TYPICAL FS FINISHED SURFACE LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CENTERLINE EXISTING PARCEL LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE XX.XX EXISTING ELEVATION XX.XX PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE ,.. FUSCOE III E N G I N E E R I N G 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 0 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.com Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com I I I tt I I I 146.0 kl� I142.35 I X 42.25 U41.84 IC3 I °" V n S ----------------------,- -�F-------- .----------- - -`�� ------ ---------------- -- u ---- n 1. o n © �N��� ---144 ----�4�C3---------------�E----- ---- --�/ X I or 1 4 4 4 X "DW H * W - 10"DW - x 10"D X X X 1a,.so 14238 142 X 142. 2 142.24 142.62 - 142.55 - 142;432 12"SS - ''12'SS 14�� -12"SS 12"SS - � '�- RT-RLA ' i2"SS- -r41ZSS--12."S�2-12"SS--12""SS-- 142.68 EXIST. C&G TO BE REMOVED 141 142 X 141.74 O 12 N 6 141(1� ._•- _ _ _ ------------- ----------------------- �_ I _ - -14 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 4 E� - - - - - - T�40DGP-- \I N \�PROP. PROP. PROP. PROP.' to `BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. � BLDG. . \ �EXCST. \/ 145.13 0.0 \ taXs X 145.1s ` 7 9' 32.1' 141. s \ 1 I .25 X 145.84 \ \\\ 27 .x + II \ FIST. �.-./� 146 144.60 \" P I B X _� �_ �45 PROP. I ❑ I I NI �S \ \ \ ,aria \ �� I cn BLDG. \ X �� / 141X 41.86 / J 44.83 \X 44.08 714,� 144.30 144.17 1 (D W x x 144 .07 \` ;� �� 143.86 \ z X l EXIST. T E 1 .12 X PROP. / 143.64 143.72 2 ~O \ 110 BE I \ \ \ BLDG. ,� J I REMOVED (TYP) \ AA 143.87 X C) \ 1 3 143.65 14 X 5 1 NAa143.74 NAA X \ \ \ \ �`�� 143.30 14.0 I 141X \ _ \ X yl/ \ \ \ \ 143.81 \ \ 143.20 143.58 X \ \\ \\ x \ 43X 6 143.2 X X >< l \ \ \ Q 143.5` w I 1 \ \ 43.43 \lI / �` � � I 144.23 � N \ \\ \ 142\ t EXIST. TREEEl .84 \ \ \ \ s, 14BE 3 X x r-r EMOVED ( P) I j� \\ 62 � '4 X � I \ \ \ \ \ \ PROP. PROP. I I I I I PROP. \ 143.39 BLDG. I \� X w ,4,X� o I 143.E > \ 7 \ \ C 1 ,2 PROF. LOT LINE OI Y I \ EXIST.\ \ 143.1 ^ d I \ 7 �\) \\ PROP. / \ \I a1X21 I \ \ ?j 1 a \ BLDG. x 142.77 \ \i \ \ J X\ \ T\ NY \ z6 / a \ \ 142.35 I I I \ \ X \ / I I E HDST.�} \ \ \ N 14 . 5 \ \ 142.73 1.7 142.35 \ \ 1 2.01 \ X \ 142.32 \- / �i 40. El \x 1 1.74 X 142.23 1427 \V\ �1q2 ���� \ X 142,24 4 / EXIST. TREE ills \\ \ \ 142.18 <J; 141135 1 WA'l ERFORD TO BE REMOVED ( P) J � x� PROP. I N BLDG. EXIST. ST. LI(� TI 140.76 �TO BE REMO D '1 x� I I \ \ I \ ~ 411 41.78 I lXJ 30 \ \,� \ , X 141. 18 \ X x5 / I I EXIST. C&G o XX I Et 14 .REMOVED 1 \ \ \ PL \ 141X 14 . 8 / 142.50 I J I N \ 43.29 \ X 142.26 J 1 ` \ X \ 140.77 X { \ 141.77 14.2 � X / I 1 \ 140.82 141.85 \ �14 / I El \ 20 Q X `1N. 4 .05 142.0s ? I \ ,a 14 5M \ 141.81 X x I EXIST. SD CB I I -t 43.7 n v.,.-- 141.36 X 141.8 �i X \ I \ _ 8.0I 32.0' I I \ -,rr� X 42.15 142.1 B 9 X PROP. 0 0.0' 1a X PROP. X X X \ \ BLDG. I 141.39 BLDG. - 141X2 142 - - 73 - -+ - - - - Cn it 1 I\� \,a 27 ,\ EXIST. PROP. I ^ 1a1.15 L PL EXIST. PROP. \ PL I I \\��- - - - - �_ - PL EXIST. CURB RAM U 40.77 >✓HR�Rk EXIST�M / X X X - - - - - - - - - - � TO BE REMOVED X D _ ,� TO BE REMOVEla - - \4XI T. DRY UTIL --------- - EXIST. TRAFFIC LIGHT EXIST. ��--=_ ` EXIST. EXIST. \.XIST. C&G-------- ---- EXIST. C&G EXIST. EXIST. SIGN TO BE RELOCATED - 18"DW 18"DW -,,, 18' -- 18' DW -- - HYD '\ DRY UT SD CB TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED HYD �TO BE 0 - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RELOCATED o O (TYP.) 144X 9 N ' 140.88 140.68 141.10 141.24 O ,� = 12 w- - -- 12"OW='F2"DW= 12"DW= ® 12"D�=o ® ��I2"DW i2"DW FOURTH STREET - - -00 - ,4.66 144.28 - 143. - �• - .96 14. - - - 142 �� - tb� 141.55 140.97 141.09 x 14I4.25 - - - - - - - x - - - - - - - 141.37 - - -X �C ti - - - - - - - 140.89 - - - - - - a - - X - 14374 EXIST. TRAFFIC LI ST. 140-r_ EXIST. EXIST. - - a �c _/-ST. LIG - - - - - - - - - - ST. LIGHT T140 Q.5 - - - - - - - +� ---- --�-- CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN July 20, 2020 142 / 14(51),Z 40' 0' 20' 40' SCALE: 1 " = 40' 141 14u.C1 X \\ n A \ 00 14S L'J 14 .55 1 145 27 14X1 1 X2 111.17 14228 I 4 74 1 73 43.2 V X 142 SITE PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS _J 144.3t X 15 X X \ 1 I - I I I I 1� II � I I II 143X 2 I I 1 II lI I II 1 I I I ' n 14 3: I 141.56 141.71 14+49 C1.0 \ - ----1144 44X - 14J 140 \ 144.X i 143,24 - - - - - - - - - o 143X f PARKCOURT PLACE X=4.0' W=A= ro PROP. - - - Vts 28.0' ROLLED CURB 79XISTIN 2.so STXII. - ---- --- --T. LI T �C--- F w 1n.u-� -- -�- -- -- - --- �- C \ - � \ �,, �,\ � •,. -.�,: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '� � � � .��� , \,a-��_�_ r \ �\ \ \== ==== M i NOTES \ \ \ 1. ANY PROPOSED DRIVEWAY, CURB, GUTTER, CURB RAMP AND/OR SIDEWALK \ TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY \ \ \ STANDARDS (PER THE METRO EAST PUBLIC REALM AMENITY PLAN). \ s \\ 2. THE SITE WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA ;A'\ IST. M r REGION ORDER NO. R8-2009-0030 DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (MS4 \ \� \ \ PERMIT). PRO 3. ALL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) RECOMMENDATIONS) WILL BE \ \ \ ?j \\ BLD . IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING PERMIT, SOLELY AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE. \ \ \ I 4. PROPOSED STREET TREES SHALL BE 24" BOX ® 35' ON CENTER ALONG FRONTAGE PER CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY STANDARDS ., (CITY DOWNTOWN THEME) AND APPROVED PLANS, AS NEEDED. \ �\ \ \� 5. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TOP OF THE "X" SHALL BE A MINIMUM 10-FT AWAY FROM ANY AND ALL UTILITIES. 6. UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN PRIVATE STREETS TO BE EXCLUSIVE ` \ \ UNDERGROUND, NON-EXCLUSIVE SURFACE, PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IN \ `\ ` FAVOR OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. �� \ 7. ANY STREET TREE REMOVAL WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IS \ \) \ r, `\\ SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION 1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ETAC). \ \ 8. NO GATES ARE PROPOSED ON THIS PROJECT AT ENTRIES AND PROPOSED GATE WILL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND COMMENTS. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS POINTS HAVE GATES SET BACK AT LEAST 60' Ai INA A V ABBREVATIONS �� v \ 142.18 \ AC ASPHALT CONCRETE FS FINISHED SURFACE ` \ X ACRE AC HYD HYDRANT 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ APPROX. APPROXIMATE OHW OVERHEAD WIRE \ BLDG. BUILDING NAP NOT A PART \ \ BW BACK OF WALK PL PROPERTY LINE C&G CURB & GUTTER PROP. PROPOSED 1 \ r \ A CLR. CLEARANCE R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY \ \ DWY DRIVEWAY SF SQUARE FEET 1 \ ESMT. EASEMENT SS SANITARY SEWER \ \ \ EXIST. EXISTING SW SIDEWALK, FF FINISHED FLOOR TC TOP OF CURB FL FLOW LINE TYP. TYPICAL \ LEGEND � V PL T. \ EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 9 \ \ \ \ `\ EXISTING CENTERLINE X \ XX.XX EXISTING EASEMENT LINE \ \ \ XX.XX EXISTING ELEVATION \ \ PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE \ 141d 9 2 PROPOSED SIGHT TRIANGLE 7� \ \4� PROPOSED CORNER CUT-OFF \ N� \ ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL �\ � oo 14.397 CIE''PROP. 50-F\T I CURB RETURN AND CURB RAMP / 4 4'. FUSCOE � � _ ��®� E N G I N E E R I N G 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 0 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.com Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com WA'l ERFORD 144.19 X R 144.28 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 I. T1 0 ON Ell o 0 - r . �r e *`ice FOURTH STREET SCHEMATIC DESIGN July 20, 2020 1 V s. Y s I V 1 1 �Vffii�%I4i0Ii� 1 ON 41& will �i■iiiiiii r �1 3611 0 ICI o iAD_-W- i -)S _3_0- - till. LIOHI - - `/ -U- - 30' 0' 15' 30' SCALE: 1 " = 30' A 0 0 ICI PROP E] M NI RI, 25.0 PROP. BLDG. N �� 14 X PROP. 25-FT y CURB RETURN `, 1 AND CURB RAMP_ � I � I EXISTING �1 ST. LIGHT �\ 40.0' I 9' 32.1' I 141. 6 14: � N 141.80 41.86 I I� J I X X II❑ II I I I I I j / I � I 4 .77 I I • � I I X I �� 42 \ 141.581 �ij 1 it I I I I 1#1. 8 ICI 1141.24 \X 1 1 I 11ElI� •JI �� j 1 I i t 1 I I II I I EXISTING I I `1X� ST. LIGHT w� I I �I I❑ DI o I I �0- 22 I I I Qi I X I _I 141. �I OJ I N JI I I i I 44.0' 1 32.0' I I I II J 1 I 140.76 �• ❑ X II I I II W.72 I XI III I 1 I I� 140�6 P. F 1 RI STOLIGHT 140.80 I I I Ii I I4X0 I I- �& P. I I I I I 1 0.7 X 140.3 (R A! 44. I' X a46.0, 1 � I I li LnILn N N 25.0' : '' 25.0' H-qui RO . 35- A, A, A, / CURB RETURN ROP� 9ND CURB RAMP ----- i 0 0 00 r7 SITE PLAN - IMPROVEMENTS 20 0 NOTES 1. ANY PROPOSED DRIVEWAY, CURB, GUTTER, CURB RAMP AND/OR SIDEWALK TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY STANDARDS (PER THE METRO EAST PUBLIC REALM AMENITY PLAN). 2. THE SITE WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION ORDER NO. R8-2009-0030 DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (MS4 PERMIT). 3. ALL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) RECOMMENDATIONS) WILL BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING PERMIT, SOLELY AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE. 4. PROPOSED STREET TREES SHALL BE 24" BOX PER CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY STANDARDS (CITY DOWNTOWN THEME) AND APPROVED PLANS. 5. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TOP OF THE "X" SHALL BE A MINIMUM 10-FT AWAY FROM ANY AND ALL UTILITIES. 6. UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN PRIVATE STREETS TO BE EXCLUSIVE UNDERGROUND, NON-EXCLUSIVE SURFACE, PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA. 7. ANY STREET TREE REMOVAL WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ETAC). ABBREVATIONS AC ASPHALT CONCRETE FS FINISHED SURFACE ACRE AC HYD HYDRANT APPROX. APPROXIMATE OHW OVERHEAD WIRE BLDG. BUILDING NAP NOT A PART BW BACK OF WALK PL PROPERTY LINE C&G CURB & GUTTER PROP. PROPOSED CLR. CLEARANCE R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY DWY DRIVEWAY SF SQUARE FEET ESMT. EASEMENT SS SANITARY SEWER EXIST. EXISTING SW SIDEWALK FF FINISHED FLOOR TC TOP OF CURB FL FLOW LINE TYP. TYPICAL LEGEND - - EXISTING PROPERTY LINE - EXISTING CENTERLINE - EXISTING EASEMENT LINE XX.XX XX.XX EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE PROPOSED SIGHT TRIANGLE -%� PROPOSED CORNER CUT-OFF 0 PROPOSED FULL DEPTH AC PAVEMENT 143.24 X n ,� NONE KIi■aCl,l1i:iiiiLN ONa -- W m o 142.82 t- � ------ --- x m 142 142.38 'PARKCOURT i I[L PLACE ■■■■iiiiiirii�i■ii■■■�ii►� �.-� i►�:iiii�i� ■■i■i!��i:'�a��■:� 0 _T Ow 010.0�1 U momm',a �� - � �) •a ,��, ICI V � p `�!-� _ _°� 4 w IMRV llgw r - - �� � � ; ■_� I■I■ ��/%III�j�III//jli� = IIII//j/I��III�,I - iiL� ■ ■■ 01■ II/%„II/%„/I//jI///I = i�II//jl��/I/%� jjlN jll//jI = I -A OR ���I% = I�IIII gyp► �! ' ` �I -� iii!;iiiii�iiiii,;ii=:iii,,;iiiii: ,ice �ii�i% = v!go; /i./.�:�II_�:� I�:�iI%!/� = jII/ I//�' //. II • I/I/%, - 18. ►III I �i�I� �,:,�;, `� � �\\\ •_�u w_ _ IIII'./ /ii ,i/ Wi r I I i I I � Ell III■■11■ == I `� _-� - - IIL'■■III■ I ---- - ■I - L � �\" ,_=lllllhiill!I!!!!I!Illliillllllllllllllliii!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!f�� ■ _ _ /IIII _ - - %%%IIII - ►IIII���� �/I� IIII � IIIIIIII'/I �IIII/I ,I/yI/ // � � III ,I� =_ ��� II/I ,II��I/I� = II�IIII��jII /�j/IIII ,,II,I� ;►/I� op NORNMER N FS N 140.14 FS 10.0 w e. 140.37 FS N 140.17 I FS 140.28 FS 140.08 % FS FS o N N 14017 V FS 140.43 120.58 FS I F N 140.23 110.38 FS 1.5% 1N 1 10) 1 11 LCS 10) 11 Q)1 11 Nl 0 % 7TC 140.09TC 139.68TC 139.74TC 0 3% 139.77TC 139.83TC 140.26TC11 8T 0 0 6"CF 6"CF 0"CF 0"CF 20.0' 0"CF 9.0' 0"CF 20.0' 6"CF 611CF ENTRY DETAIL SCALE: 1 "=10' ■ ,,. FUSCOE III E N G I N E E R I N G 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 0 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.com Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com WATERFORD N R U 1' h R I) C 0 11 1' _l 1 a � ij ❑�'I I I tt 146 I II 1 as 29 14155 145 27 I 14 .31 X 151 15.07 II X II r ❑ I :1 0 PROP. SIGNALIZED 45.25 145.10 INTERSECTION I I I PRQP. CROSSWALK X x ,aXa 60 V I 1 145.b7 1 1 5.33 TRANSITION PROP. CROSSWALK _ I x 146 - - - -L PROP. ADA _ i 11.84 -- X - ---- 141.90 144.36 142 X 142.12 / _ 143.31 143.75 14a X X X _'lam X X 142.34 ro `' - - 84 ----------------- - _ 143.85, 15 43.17 X 7 X X 4a 17 ~ N 0---------- "' PROP. 25-FT I �\ c 4� n CURB RETURN P X AND CURB RAPROP. ADA RAMP \1 - II� P. PROP. ' I BLDG. I w EXISTING ) a ST. 100' 40 P 0' I I PRP. CROSSWALK 1 • II ITION LEFT TURN POCKET 32.1 Jj 143.68 14413 I I ¢ I - -► ., . BLDG 143 8 14 72 144.22 43.2 X 143.78 E• 1 141.67 i I I 14 1 14374 1 142 89 .2, 43.8 14379 1113 0 0 142.70 142JIS I�� ■i � i Nis �, � is � • 11 � _ � �_ ��ip►0'vo 11 , � r � 11 • ■ -- ■ I�►=jam `r �/ V :, ` ,_ :. \ :. �FIN �uullll..� I i�dII�I�.•Lb� ���11111� i �i� iii��lll ����illllllllllliiilllliiilllllllllllii�����liiilllllllil'llllllllllllliliiiiiii ������� I� 'C 0 RO . P OP. 0 - - --- - - -- PROP. 0-FT, CURB RETURN _ A' PURB RETURN \ AND CURB RAMP `4 PROS . PROP GIrr - -- -- G ST. uG 14 -PDW1Ps _ DWYP J�d� u Irr C&G ROP. j CND CURB RAMP \ 0 140 i O \ c6 - , 00 t0 O - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 t0 144... 14088 140.88 , 141.1 � _ FOURTH STREET c 144.28 25 - © 14374 140.17 LL.::j -X - - - _------140 - ISTING ISTING (STING TRAFFIC LIGHT rr iir_ur CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN July 20, 2020 -EXISTING ST. LIGHT 40' 0' 20' 40' SCALE: 1 " = 40' EXISTING TRAMC LIGHT 141.63 X 14, �1 143 5f I I ,6 I I �n 14 143.19 143117 , 43.3" I / I C30 l �®r141.71 14'��78 '®1 141.86 X X x X ° 141.56 141X 1 x 141.30 14+49 - - SITE PLAN -IMPROVEMENTS (OFFSITE) 0 NOTES 1. ALL NEW FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCE NS-26-70 FOR FAT, OIL AND GREASE (FOG) CONTROL PROGRAM. 2. THE BMP'S SHOWN ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN ARE ONLY PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE REVISED OR MODIFIED AS NECESSARY UPON COMPLETION OF THE WQMP. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE GRADING PERMIT, THE APPROVED GRADING/UTILITY PLAN SHALL INCORPORATE ALL REQUIRED STRUCTURAL BMP'S. 3. THIS SITE WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION ORDER NO. RS-2009-0030 DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (MS4 PERMIT) 4. DEMAND CALCULATIONS FOR SIZE DETERMINATION OF DOMESTIC, IRRIGATION AND FIRE SERVICE WATER METERS TO BE CONFIRMED IN FINAL DESIGN. 5. SEPARATE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE/METER SHALL BE USED TO IRRIGATE ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPES OF 1,000 SQ. FT. AND RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPES OF 5,000 SQ. FT. OR GREATER. LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER METER OF PROPER SIZE SHALL BE DESIGNED TO SUPPLY THE PROJECT'S LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL UTILIZE WEATHER BASED IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS "SMART TIMERS" AND ROTATING NOZZLES FOR POP-UP SPRAY HEADS. 6. ABANDONMENT OF ALL SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS FROM THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE REMOVED TO THE SEWER MAIN. 7. ALL UTILITY PIPE SIZES TO BE CONFIRMED IN FINAL DESIGN. 8. INSTALL DOUBLE CHECK VALVE AND BACK FLOW PREVENTER FOR THE FIRE SERVICE AND THE LANDSCAPE WATER METER PER THE GRADING AND THE STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. ABBREVATIONS AD AREA DRAIN LAT LATERAL CB CATCH BASIN MH MANHOLE DCDA DOUBLE CHECK MWS MODULAR WETLAND DETECTOR ASSEMBLY SYSTEM DW DOMESTIC WATER OHW OVERHEAD WIRE EXIST. EXISTING PROP. PROPOSED FW FIRE WATER SD STORM DRAIN HYD FIRE HYDRANT SS SANITARY SEWER IRR IRRIGATION WM WATER METER LEGEND SS — EXISTING SEWER LINE DW — EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER LINE SD — EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE — G — EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD WIRE ss PROPOSED SEWER LINE DW— PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE PROPOSED FIRE WATER LINE FW - PROPOSED AREA DRAIN LINE - "''1I FUSCOE E N G I N E E R I N G 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 0 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.com Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com WA'l ERFORD — 18"DW ---t18"DW 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN July 20, 2020 FOURTH STREET 40' 0' 20' 40' SCALE: 1 " = 40' V OW I E. r< ✓ V \­� \_� `3, _ �� L td/ I I \ — — — — — — — {XI ' -- M`TO T. TRAFFIC EOH `E� EXIST DW EXIST. SS MAIN - 1o 2"DW=r 12"DW 12"D, MAIN w (OCSD) �2"DW O 000 C EXIST. EXIST. 10'SS 10'SS 10'SS 10'SS 10'SS SS MH SS MH EXIST. ST. LIGHT / b EXIST. SS MAIN (OCSD) SITE PLAN - UTILITY C4.0 NOTES 1. ANY FUTURE DIVISION OF LAND WILL HAVE TO MEET ALL STANDARDS REQUIRED AT THAT TIME INCLUDING SUBDIVISION, GENERAL PLAN, ZONING AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS. 0aaaky5weUR AC ACRE HYD HYDRANT APPROX. APPROXIMATE NAP NOT A PART BLDG. BUILDING OHW OVERHEAD WIRE BIN BACK OF WALK PL PROPERTY LINE CB CATCH BASIN PROP. PROPOSED C&G CURB & GUTTER R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY DWY DRIVEWAY SD STORM DRAIN ELECT. ELECTRIC SF SQUARE FEET ESMT. EASEMENT SS SANITARY SEWER EXIST. EXISTING SW SIDEWALK FF FINISHED FLOOR TC TOP OF CURB FL FLOW LINE TYP. TYPICAL FS FINISHED SURFACE LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CENTERLINE EXISTING PARCEL LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE XX.XX EXISTING ELEVATION XX.XX PROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINE PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED BOUNDARY his FUSCOE E N G I N E E R I N G 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 0 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.com Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com WA'l ERFORD CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 FOURTH STREET -- ---- - - - - - - SCHEMATIC DESIGN July 20, 2020 40' 0' 20' 40' SCALE: 1 " = 40' -------------------- ---------------------------------------- SITE PLAN -PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP C5.0 GENERAL NOTES: 1. DRY UTILITY POINT OF CONNECTION EXHIBIT IS FOR DESIGN STUDY AND CONFLICT CHECK ONLY. UTILITIES SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED BASED ON THIS EXHIBIT. REFER TO RESPECTIVE UTILITY FINAL DESIGN(S) FOR SPECIFIC INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS EXIST (TO BE F (T KICIA/ on E: I I EXISTING CONDUIT � o b � O — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------------------ I- - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOURTH STREET EXISTING VAULT no C)n OI O� m r®1 00 0 `o, --------------- (D-- ----------------- LEGEND ELEC. PULL BOX 1o1 ELEC. TRANSFORMER PAD O u ELEC. PAD TUB -STYLE 1 ELEC. VAULT ELECTRIC CONDUIT ® WORKING CLEARANCE ® WINDOW CLEARANCE CONCEPTUAL For Design Study Only FIRESIDE • see sheet L.8 EVA GATES DINNER PARTY • see sheet L.8 Vow CONNECTED PARK TRAIL --- - • picnic tables • boulders Ell • benches • meandering walk • synthetic turf k -' THE SOCIAL • see sheet L.8 NEW MASONRY SOUND ~ UD WALL _ TLV r FITNESS BUILDING B ROOFTOP • see sheet L.5 GAME PROMENADE • corn hole • ping pong • sculptural benches • picnic tables • boulders THE HANGOUT • see sheet L.7 EVA GATES *STREET TREES TO BE INSTALLED AS 24" BOX SIZE PER THE CITY STANDARDS & APPROVED PLAN, AS NEEDED • STREET TREES TO BE 35' O.C. ALONG THE PROJECT FRONTAGE, INCLUDING DEEP ROOT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, PER CITY STANDARDS. CONTACT THE TREE SECTION SUPERVISOR (714)647-3337 FOR TREE SPECIES & FOR NUMBER AND SIZE OF REQUIRED TREES REPLACEMENTS L A N D S C A P E ARCH ITECTURE E - ate F, Mal 5 R ' � r E r WATERFORD Pit0 P E11'ry cnsLp,ti,I t CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA 4 T H STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 SMT TREES 30'0_C_ BUILDING A THE BACKYARD • see sheet L.6 GREAT LAWN PARK • see sheet L.2 PUBLIC PLAZA • see sheet L.6 '_ FITNESS J - ry-) BUILDING A ROOFTOP • see sheet L.4 1' Cf PUBLIC PLAZA • see sheet L.6 CLUBROOM ALE:1"= I30' CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN II I I 0' 15, 30' 60' RIDE SHARE PICKUP ENTERTAINMENT GARDEN • see sheet L.7 ACTIVATED CORNER PLAZA • see sheet L.3 RETAIL PLAZA • outdoor dining g • pottery • specimen tree L 0 1 FIRESIDE • firepit • movable furniture • built-in bench r� ■ r i I ..r y° BUILDING B t "r. ROOFTOP GREAT LAWN • turf lawn • architectural mounding • specimen tree I r' y}- _ ■ PING PONG II Y •.I1 ` / L ML I I I L A N D S C A P E ARCH ITECTURE WATERFORD Pit0 P E11'ry cnsLp,ti,I CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA TRASH STAGING / RIDE - SHARE PICKUP & DROPOFF BOCCE BALL COURT 17, -..:.� �•� II a -- — ;.fit'-�+.; .'.4•5 j• II =1S` -- - :i I ,ice.. _ •' — — — c��• •• ^r•.' .. •. i. +•ice; }^' I• .— � .N1i *� PAVILION I • lounge seating • farm style tables • specimen tree CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 BUILDING 'A' ROOFTOP DIRECT ACCESS PATIOS I-- M 0 k6: �I 7T6+n O 6 ALE:1"= I10' GREAT LAWN/ PUBLIC PARK II I I 01 5' 10, 20' ENLARGEMENT BOARDWALK • tree allee • boardwalk pavers ENTRY SIGNAGE • specimen tree • ArrhitPrNral nlanting RIDE SHARE PICKUP L02 i I L L A N D S C A P E ARCH ITECTURE rJ 0 <W WATERFORD Pit0 P E11'ry cnsLp,ti,I -T 1 1 1 V 1 I L L 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA R FTA I I P CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 THE LAWN • synthetic turf • matching height palms • built-in seat wall Q • fixed seating and umbrellas r w • ping pong table o � •corn hole • festival lights 0 m Q U OUTDOOR DINING PLAZA • specimen tree • table and umbrellas • low wall • pottery PLANTING IN VIEW TRIANGLE TO BE MAINTAINED AT 24"HEIGHT MAXIMUM SCALE: 1/8" = 1._0" ACTIVATED CORNER PLAZA III I I 0' 4' 8' 16' ENLARGEMENT L03 SPLASH • 20' X 60' lap pool • lounge chairs • sunning lawn with cabanas • 10' X 20' spa • lush planting FIRESIDE • firepit • lounge seating • festival lights • specimen tree THE HANGOUT • outdoor kitchen • shade trellis • communal dining tables • festival lights • pottery L A N D S C A P E ARCH ITECTURE WATERFORD Pit0 P E11'ry cnsLp,ti,I CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 ALE:1"= III 10' BUILDING A ROOFTOP ENLARGEMENT - I I 0' 5' 10' 20' CROSS FIT LAWN L04 THE HANGOUT • outdoor kitchen • shade trellis • communal dining tables • festival lights • pottery FIRESIDE • firepit • lounge seating • festival lights • specimen tree L A N D S C A P E ARCH ITECTURE CLUBROOM <W WATERFORD Pit0 P E11'ry cnsLp,ti,I 0 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA FITNESS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 ALE:1"= III 10' BUILDING B ROOFTOP ENLARGEMENT - I I 0' 5' 10' 20' FITNESS LAWN LOUNGE LAWN • synthetic turf • firepit • ping pong table CABANAS SPLASH • 20' X 60' lap pool • lounge chairs • sunning lawn with caba- nas • 10' X 20' spa • lush planting L05 • seatwall with dining • festival lights • bbq • lounge seating • resident security gate I U En I u 'A' THE BACKYARD L A N D S C A P E ARCH I T E C T U R E <W WATERFORD Pit0 P E11'ry cnsLp,ti,I • lush planting • lounge lawn • firepit • resident security gate B' GARDEN LOUNGE CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 • firebowl with seating • group dining • bbq • festival lights • resident security gate C' OUTDOOR ESCAPE SCALE: 1" = 10' III I I 0' 5' 10' 20' PUBLIC PLAZA • seating • specimen tree • festival lighting 42, PRIVATE ' PUBLIC 61 COURTYARD ENLARGEMENTS w a L06 • group dining • bbq • resident security gate ' D ' F 0 0 D I E L A N D S C A P E ARCH I T E C T U R E PRIVATE � PUBLIC WATERFORD Pit0 P E11'ry cnsLp,ti,I PUBLIC COURTYARD • seating • specimen tree • festival lights • lounge lawn • ping pong • lounge furniture E' ENTERTAINMENT GARDEN CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 • outdoor kitchen with sit-up bar • shade trellis • fireside lounge seating • dining beach F'THE HANGOUT • hammocks • specimen tree • firepit • festival lights • resident security gate ALE:1"= III 10' COURTYARD ENLARGEMENTS I I 0' 5' 10' 20' L07 _ _:j- ..-...:j-L j-.. 'G' THE SOCIAL � H I IBM A G L A N D S C A P E ARCH I T E C T U R E <W WATERFORD Pit0 P E11'ry cnsLp,ti,I • outdoor kitchen • large communal tables • game and lounge lawn • festival lights • resident security gate H' DINNER PARTY CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 • firepit • large lounge furniture • decomposed granite • lush landscaping • resident security gate I ' FIRESIDE ALE:1"= III 10' COURTYARD ENLARGEMENTS I I 0' 5' 10' 20' L08 %I 1 1 916 S; V. r ■ 1 r JTII .• �L+. r_'3 7 7 I 1 r - r F ■ L . I L r -MMM �■ f mi I i ' r - - - -' immm .� Jr A; 10 AA 11110111 AV In AV IL OMNI&- - v� inw... pm 1 � R L - y _ F " AIF "� rff ,1 1 � y L JLT ' . �A� m - — �L - I r � ` = Y ILL k _ r 'y r7'S 3rN. - �.. ip Ap f x- 1 u Y 5 r _ 1 1 , L• • • J - ' h - _ •1 ' 1 r • ■ _ _ ■ L ti � II 4 , �ii-' 'y �y � , 1 , t _ I fi r J r'•'•} L til• R. 1 •.'tilr 1 ' 1 - 1 �r'r. ■�'{ �_ r }' 1 rL as I Irmor r.T T ti■ .1 Z_ 1 1 •1 1•'y •, ti 1 F• 1 I q Ed r _Ily Je s_ o- r y - = F I CENTRAL POINTE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN LANDSCAPE IMAGERY SANTA ANA, CA JULY 20TH, 2020 ■ WATERFORD L A N D S C A P E IPit 0pEe'ry �0%LP,%,� ARCH ITECTURE L A N D S C A P E ARCH I T E C T U R E PLANT PALETTE NOTES: THIS PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT A TYPICAL SAMPLE OF THE PROPOSED PLANTS BUT DOES NOT INDICATE THE EXACT SPECIES WHICH WILL BE DEVELOPED ON THE DETAILED PLANS. WUCOLS NOTE: WUCOLS, WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES, IS A UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PUBLICATION AND IS A GUIDE TO THE WATER NEEDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTS. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS: 1. LANDSCAPE TO BE DESIGNED TO CONFORM WITH THE CITY OF SANTA ANA COMMERCIAL AREA LANDSCAPE STANDARDS SEC 41-372(d). 2. PLANT MATERIALS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND DEAD MATERIAL REPLACED AS SPECIFIED IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CODE SECTION 41-609. 3. CONSTRUCT STREET LIGHTS EVERY 125' PER CITY STANDARDS AND APPROVED PLAN, AS NEEDED PER THE CITY STANDARDS AND THE APPROVED STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING: THE FOLLOWING MEASURES WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT TO CONSERVE WATER: 1. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA GUIDELINES FOR WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPES. 2. THE ESTIMATED APPLIED WATER USE ALLOWED FOR THE LANDSCAPE AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAWA CALCULATION. GENERAL PLANTING NOTES: 1. MAINTAIN SHRUBS AT 24" HIGH INSIDE OF VEHICULAR LINE OF SIGHT. 2. SECURITY PLANTING MATERIALS WILL BE UTILIZED ALONG WALL AND PROPERTY LINES AND UNDER VULNERABLE WINDOWS. 3. ROOT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL TREES WITHIN 5' OF ANY HARDSCAPE SURFACE. POLICE DEPARTMENT SECURITY NOTES: ADEQUATE LIGHTING OF PARKING STRUCTURE, CIRCULATION AREAS, AISLES, PASSAGEWAYS, RECESSES, and GROUNDS CONTIGUOUS TO BUILDINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED with LIGHTING of SUFFICIENT WATTAGE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ILLUMINATION TO MAKE CLEARLY VISIBLE THE PRESENCE OF ANY PERSON ON or ABOUT THE PREMISES DURING HOURS OF DARKNESS and PROVIDE A SAFE, SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL PERSONS, PROPERTY, and VEHICLES ON -SITE. LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. ALL LANDSCAPING MUST MEET THE STANDARDS SET BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY DROUGHT PLAN. 2. ALL SYNTHETIC TURF MUST MEET THE CITY OF SANTA ANA'S STANDARDS FOR SYNTHETIC TURF. 3. THE DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN SIDEWALK AND TREES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 4. LANDSCAPING ON4TH STREET, AND PARKCOURT PLACE SHALL BE DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPE PER THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PARKWAY GUIDELINE FOR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS. 5. A LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDING IRRIGATION, IA TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL CONFORM TO THE COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS, CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. GRAFFITI NOTES: 1. ANY GRAFFITI PAINTED OR MARKED UPON THE PREMISES OR ON ANY ADJACENT AREA UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE LICENSEE(S) SHALL BE REMOVED OR PAINTED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BEING APPLIED. STREET TREE NOTE: 1. ANY STREET TREE REMOVAL WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ETAC). THEREFORE, PROVIDE TO THE CITY OF SANTA ANA A LETTER REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING STREET TREE(S) THAT CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY WILL PRESENT THE INFORMATION TO THE ETAC COMMITTEE FOR ACTION (SEE EXHIBIT C). 2. ALL STREET STREETS SHALL BE 24-INCH BOX AT 35 FEET O.C. ON THEORETICAL STREET, INCLUDING DEEP ROOT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, PER CITY STANDARDS. 3. INSTALL 24-INCH BOX STREET TREES PER THE CITY STANDARDS AND APPROVED PLAN, AS NEEDED. VATERFORD pxr��a>�t'r ti• cus�p,ti±, t CENTRAL SANTA ANA, CA POI NTE PRELIMINARY CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA PLANT PALETTE THE OBJECTIVE OF THE OVERALL LANDSCAPING CONCEPT IS TO PROVIDE A DISTINCT VISUAL IMPRESSION AND BUILDING IDENTITY, SOFTEN THE URBAN EXPERIENCE, PROVIDE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF AESTHETIC STANDARDS COMPLIMENTED BY THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS THAT WILL ASSURE AN ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG ITS RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS. SUCCESSFUL STREETSCAPES ARE A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE BUILDING DESIGN AND THE LANDSCAPED EDGE OF THE STREET DISTINGUISHING 4TH STREET, CABRILLO PARK DRIVE AND PARKCOURT PLACE THROUGH DISTINCTIVE LANDSCAPING, STREET TREE SPACING AND LIGHTING. THE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CONCEPT FOR THE SITE WILL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE MOST EFFICIENT AND CONSERVING MEANS TO DISTRIBUTE IRRIGATION WATER AND PROVIDE THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY WITH THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND DISTRIBUTION. THE PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE IS DESIGNED TO UTILIZE A MAJORITY OF WATER -CONSERVING PLANTS GROUPED BY WATER NEEDS. I1:1aIMII161T 1h[el»_1►1ANMANII1:11_1W_��y: IIto] I: 10RK416]►yiI»/_1►kVITA II:Mil Iwall 96y_l01kOV_1►F-11 EVEN I: 1:Zto] 06y: I:,y/-AfI[Q 01I►yiI: r_��IJSol *ITIT1II:[to] 6yh]: I:LEI[A 0117010040 M 0a1►1%1&y1y/�yato] l�01 TREES Botanical Name 4th Street. Proposed Pinus canariensis Proposed Pyrus Kawakamii Cabrillo Park Drive Existing Platanus racemosa Proposed Platanus racemosa Parkcourt Place Common Name Canary Island Pine Evergreen Pear California Sycamore Ri7P- 36" box (24" box min) 36" box (24" box min) 24" box Proposed Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 24" box Proposed Pyrus Kawakamii Evergreen Pear 24" box Proposed Lagerstroemia indica Crape Mrytle 24" box For tree species and for number and size of required tree replacements contact the Tree Section Supervisor at (714) 647-3337 Proiect Entry Drive: Cupressus sempervirens Magnolia g. 'Little Gem' Olea europeae 'Swan Hill' Phoenix dactylifera 'medjool' Pinus piney Quercus virginiana Setback Trees Italian Cypress Little Gem Southern Magnolia Fruitless Olive Medjool Date Palm Italian Stone Pine Southern Live Oak 24" box 24" box 48" box 18' bth 36" box 36" box Cupressus sempervirens 'Stricta' Italian Cypress 24" box Ficus nitida Indian Laurel Ficus 36"/48" box Jacaranda acutifolia Jacaranda 36" box Magnolia g. 'Little Gem' Little Gem Southern Magnolia 24" box Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree 24" box Olea europeae 'Swan Hill' Fruitless Olive 48" box Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine 24" box Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine 24"/48" box Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 24" box Tristania conferta Brisbane Box 24" box Residential Courtvards and Rooftop Area Arbutus x 'Marina' Hybrid Strawberry Tree 24" box Bismarckia nobilis Bismark Palm 36" box Brachychiton populneum Bottle Tree 24" box Chorisia speciosa Floss Silk Tree 36" box Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat 24" box Erythrina coraloides Naked Coral Tree 36" box Ficus 'Green Gem' Ficus columns - Hedge 24" box Geijera parviflora Australian Willow 36" box Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade 24" box Juniperus torulosa Hollywood Juniper 24" box Lagerstroemia hybrid Crape Myrtle 36" box Magnolia g. 'Little Gem' Little Gem Southern Magnolia 24" box Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree 24" box Melaleuca nesophila Pink Melaleuca 36" box Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas Tree 36" box Olea europeae 'Swan Hill' Fruitless Olive 48" box Pinus torreyana Torrey Pine 36" box Platanus x acerfolia 'Bloodgood' Plane Tree 36" box Prunus c.'Bright 'n Tight' Compact Carolina Cherry 15 gal. Prunus c. Vesuvius Purple -leaf Plum 24" box Pyrus calleryana. 'Aristocrat' Ornamental Pear 24" box Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak 36" box Rhus lancea African Sumac 24" box Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree 36" box Tristania conferta Brisbane Box 24" box GENERAL PLANTING NOTES: 1. MAINTAIN SHRUBS AT 24" HIGH INSIDE OF STREET AND DRIVEWAY LINE OF SIGHT. 2. ROOT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL TREES WITHIN F OF ANY HARDSCAPE SURFACE. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 SHRUBS and GROUNDCOVERS Botanical Name Large shrubs (minimum 5 Agave attenuata 'Nova' Arbutus unedo Feijoa sellowiana Photinia x fraserii Leptospermum lavigatum Tecoma stans Westringia fruiticosa Common Name size at 3' o. c. Medium Shrubs (minimum 5 aallon size Foxtail Agave Strawberry Tree Pineapple Guava Red -tipped Photinia Australian Tree Tree Yellow Bells Coast Rosemary Callistemon 'Little John' Dwarf Bottlebrush Bougainvillea species Bouganivillea Dianella species Dianella Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily Grevillia species Grevillia Hemerocallis hybrids Evergreen Daylilies Hesperaloe parvifolia Red Yucca Pittosporum species Mock Orange Raphiolepis indica species India Hawthorn Rosemarinus 'Tuscan Blue' Upright Rosemary Salvia greggi Autumn Sage Salvia leucantha Mexican Sage Bush Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Low Shrubs and Groundcovers (minimum 1 aallon size Asparagus d. 'Myersii' Foxtail Aspargus Arctostaphylos species Manzanita Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush Carissa M. 'Horizontalis' Natal Plum Carex species Sedge Ceanothus g. 'Horizontalis' Carmel Creeper Festuca o. glauca Blue fescue Mahonia repens Creeping Mahonia Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum Limonium species Statice Pittosporum 'Golf Ball' Golf Ball Kohuhu Rosmarinus o. prostratus Dwarf Rosemary Accent/color shrubs (minimum 5 Aeonium x floribundum Anigozanthus species Aloe species Agave species Cycas revoluta Dasylirion wherlerii Furcracea mediopicta Hesperaloe parvifola Muhlenbergia species Rosa floribunda on size Aeonium Hybrid Kangaroo Paws Aloe Agave Sago Desert Spoon Mauritius Hemp Red Yucca Deer Grass Floribunda Rose Line of Sight Note: Maintain shrubs at 24" high inside of Line of Sight at street intersections. UTILITY SCREENING NOTES: ALL ABOVE -GROUND UTILITIES INCLUDING BACKFLOW DEVICES AND TRANSFORMERS WILL BE SCREENED WITH A DENSE PLANTING HEDGE TO MITIGATE VIEWS OF THE UTILITIES FROM THE PUBLIC REALM AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ORDINANCE. FIRE ACCESS NOTES: TREES FOUND WITHIN THE FIRE LANE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THE MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 13'-6" FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS. PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE AND NOTES L.10 PARKCOU RT PLACE 0 • O LIGHTING CONCEPT: THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING CONCEPT IS TO PROVIDE LEVELS OF LIGHTING SUFFICIENT TO MEET SAFETY AND ORIENTATION NEEDS. WITHIN PUBLIC AREAS LIGHTING WILL BE WARM COLORED AND UNOBTRUSIVE. LIGHT SOURCES WILL BE TUNGSTEN, METAL HALIDE OR LED. LIGHTING SOURCES FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND PAVED AREAS WILL BE CONCEALED AND THE LIGHTING INDIRECT NOT VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC VIEWPOINT. LIGHT SOURCES SHOULD BE DIRECTED SO THAT IT DOES NOT FALL OUTSIDE THE AREA TO BE LIGHTED. ALL EXTERIOR SURFACE AND ABOVE -GROUND MOUNTED FIXTURES WILL BE SYMPATHETIC AND COMPLIMENTARY TO THE ARCHITECTURAL THEME. PHOTOMETRICS TO BE PROVIDED BY ELECTRICAL CONSULTANT. EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND SYMBOL TYPE/TECHNIQUE: LOCATION: BOLLARD PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS e COURTYARDS / ENTRY / FIRELANE • 12, HT POLE FIXTURE WILL NOT PRODUCE OFF -SITE GLARE STREET LIGHT STREET ^� FIXTURE WILL NOT PRODUCE OFF -SITE GLARE OVERHEAD FESTIVAL MINIMUM 12' ABOVE FINISH SURFACE 0 0 0 o LIGHTING BUILDING MOUNTED - TO BE SELECTED BY SCONCE ARCHITECT METAL TRELLIS STRUCTURES / ��II�■ II��� I CEILING LIGHT ARCHITECTURE. FIXTURE WILL NOT PRODUCE OFF -SITE GLARE L A N D S C A P E ARCH ITECTURE O O <w WATERFORD pit0pER'ry cnsLp,ti,I U E Ll 0 o O ° 0 O O ° 0 o 0 0 f t o °° - - O O O O ; O O O 3 O O r O O �> ;J CENTRAL P SANTA ANA, CA OI NTE i O O O • 4TH STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 O O O O O 0-0 \J ° o ° o O O O `\ el"37 - � Oo Oo Oo -- ° I o ° a • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCALE: 1" = II 30' LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN II I 0' 15' 30' 60' Loll Gates to be secured at night by building staff, typ.-- - - - Resident Parking Gate, Typical of both buildings. See A-311 & A-321 7 Level Parking Structure with Rooftop Amenities, Typical - - Leasing Lobby/ Offices/ Mail Room, Typical of Both Buildings ----- Architecture+ Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <69 1WATERFORD P x 0 1' 1. R f i i 0 SI P A N V Residential Amenities Located at Rooftop ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- I } � 5-Story Mixed -Use Wrap Building I --------------- I Io I I I I I I iV I I I I 4' Dedication I 10' Max. Setback I I l l Trash pick-up location . Assumed Lot Line to calculate allowable openings of adjacent buildings per CBC chapter 7 1 I � II 1 Long Term Bike Parking- 1 space per 4 units proposed, typical of both buildings V I I- ✓ I Ride share pick-up location, see landscape drawings I I I I I II Fire alarm panels are to be located in the main lobbies of both buildings P7 Resident Move -In and Commercial Loading Area controlled - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - - ------ Commercial by property management. See A-311 & A-321 Fourth -Street- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - at Ground with 3 Stories of Residential Above \� 1 \ n„I 1 i CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 E9 0 15 30 60 SITE PLAN NOTES 1. THIS ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN IS PROVIDED FOR OVERALL SITE REFERENCE AND LOCATION OF ITEMS INCLUDED IN THIS SET OF PLANS. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY SITE IMPROVEMENTS. SEE PLANS BY CIVIL ENGINEER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 2. THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION'S DEPARTMENTS USE ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE, SEE PLANS PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEER FOR EXACT BUILDING LOCATIONS, CURBS, STREETS, DRIVEWAYS, UTILITIES, GRADING, SITE ACCESSIBILITY, BUILDING LOCATION, SETBACKS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. SEE PLANS PREPARED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR SIDEWALKS, POOLS, HARDSCAPES, LANDSCAPES, FENCING, ETC. 3. THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE METRO EAST MIXED -USE OVERLAY MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SITE AND PROJECT RELATED IMPACTS. THESE IMPACTS SHALL BE ASSESSED AND MITIGATED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME ACCORDING TO TABLE 4-1. 4. FINDINGS FROM FUTURE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS RELATED TO THE SITE'S PROXIMITY TO THE FREEWAY SHALL BE ASSESSED AND MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED INTO THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. 5. FOR SITE PLAN RELATED FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ITEMS, REFER TO FIRE PROTECTION SHEETS. 6. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER DRAWINGS FOR ALL PROPERTY LINES AND EASEMENTS, BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED. 7. REFER TO LANDSCAPE & CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING, IRRIGATION, DRAINAGE, WALKWAYS, PATIOS, SITE LIGHTING INFO AND FOR THE COMMON AREAS. 8. FOR THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S SITE PLAN. PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN CBC CHAPTER 11AAND 11B. 9. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR LOT LINE DIMENSIONS. 10. BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE BUILDING IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, 4" HIGH MINIMUM AND WITH A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 0.5" -CBC SECTION 502.1. SEE FIRE PROTECTION 11. ALL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) RECOMMENDATION(S) WILL BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING PERMIT, SOLELY AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE. ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A-1 01 o Run 2223 SQ. FT. \ \ \ Cc \ \ \ \ 335, Lineai \ 31596 CP ®AN N \ � v \ o Architecture + Planning • 888.456.5849 ktgy.com WATERFORD o - -I 4 - o ® A oo © tx --- 0 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 Publicly Accessible Open Space: Gross Site Area ± 8.35 Acres Net Site Area ± 8.03 Acres Requirement: 52,468 sf required 15% of net site area Proposed: (Area shown hatched) PAOS Area (sf) Y Shopfront 9,984 how 4A Y • • 3,696 Forecourt Al 43703 �r■�rr��ir■��r�r���rr�■rrr■�rr��rrr■err■fir■ cis •Forecourt• Linear.• • 1925 rr Q . 1597 � � .-oil I �: - . MILs- P. 1. --------------------------------------------o---------- --- - - - - - o - - - - - - -o - - - - - - o CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 0 20 40 80 Note: 15,727 sf of Central Park not counted toward required PAOS I Private/ Common Open Space: Requirement: • Requirement #1: 57,960 sf • Requirement #2: Total Req'd: Proposed: 90 sf per unit (644 units) 18,188 sf 5% of Total Site Area for non-residential uses 76,148 sf Open Space Area (sf) Priv. Open Space Ave. ±77sf per DU 49,588 Courtyard Al 4,038 Courtyard A2 2,511 Courtyard A3 2,579 Courtyard A4 1,597 Courtyard A5 1,925 Courtyard 131 2,635 Courtyard B2 1,920 Courtyard B3 2,362 Courtyard B4 3,354 Dog Run 2,223 Roof Deck A 15,961 Roof Deck B 151961 Total Proposed ±1069654 Legend Publicly Accessible Open Space Note: During Conceptual/ Schematic Design phases, the quantitative data in this exhibit are approximate. OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT y.. ------------- !Iql?�---------------------------------------- VIP ------ ------`-��-------------------pp--------------------------------- -. --------------------------------------------------- -------- �------------------------------------------------r-------------- Summer Solstice (June 20th) - 9:00am ----�°----------=------- ---®-----------------------PED------ - - ---------------------------- �---------------------------------- - ------- ------__---`-----_"------------------`n ----------------------- Winter Solstice (December 21 st) - 9:00am Architecture + Planning • 888.456.5849 ktgy.com NVATERFORD 1 f � _ 1 7 1 1 I 1 1 r I � � 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 + ® I I t i r - 1 1 I ! I r I I L1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 _ 1 1 I , 1 i I ! I 1 1 1 7 t � I f f 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 e 1 ❑ I r 1 1 1 I , I I r I I 1 e 1 I � 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 r I 1 1 1 1 CM ___ -----------------------------------------I P- ----- -------_- ■'------------------- p----------------------------------�� ._ ----rnrrrr-----nn---------------------'------------------------------ Ca MM -----•-•----------------------•-----r-----------------r------r------------•-cm ITF Summer Solstice (June 20th) - 12:00pm c ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _ I CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 f � 1 UI� 1 � 1 � 1 I Winter Solstice (December 21 st) - 12:00pm CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 dM' 1 1 ' 1 , r , ' I 1 � 1 1 1 1 �i■ ylrq yVai] llc, (lull il/ nkf.r.7 r- Ill l• NINON Kr■MEN m[7i1 Summer Solstice (June 20th) - 3:00pm Winter Solstice (December 21 st) - 3:00pm SHADOW & SHADE ANALYSIS �j IIIIIIII -s n IIIIIIII �j �T.�■,IIIIIIII �I�a IIIIIIII, �ITI 1 IL I � Illliiii i� ■, � �IIIIIII11 Imuu Imuu - - ■ FIRE AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN - LEVEL 8 FIRE AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN - LEVEL 3 THRU 5 FIRE AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN - LEVEL 2 FIRE AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN - LEVEL 1 W AREA "l0" 8652 SQ. FT. [ r - AREA ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA ANALYSIS SUM OF RATIO FOR SEPARATED MIXED OCCUPANCIES ACTUAL ALLOWABLEAREA MULTI -STORY TOTAL BUILDING MIXED OCCUPANCY, OCCUPANCY MIXED USE & CONSTRUCTION BASE ALLOWABLE FRONTAGE AREA HEIGHT AND PER STORY (SF) INCREASE - Sa ALLOWABLE AREA MULTISTORY SUM OF AREA CLASSIFICATION OCCUPANCY TYPE AREA (SF) FRONTAGE INCREASE AREA INCREASE STORY ("Aa") PER CBC BUILDING LEVEL 131 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 8 (GROSS) BUILDING OCCUPANCY LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 RATIOS (<=2) (CBC 302) (CBC 508) CBC TABLE 506.2 INCREASE CBC 506.2.1 506.2.3 (X2) AREA CBC 506.2.4 At + [Ns x If] PARKING GARAGE NOT TAKEN FIRE AREA "12" 8-2 NONSEPARATED TYPE IA UL 0 N/A N/A UL UL 22627 SQ FT. 31498 SQ FT. 31498 SQ FT. 31498 SQ. FT. 31498 SQ. FT. 31498 SQ. FT. 31498 SQ. FT. 36632 SQ FT. 248249 SQ. FT. NOT TAKEN FIRE AREA "13" A-3 NONSEPARATED TYPE IA UL 0 N/A N/A UL UL 11434 SQ FT 11434 SQ. FT. SINGLE OCCUPANCY BUILDING IF=305.33 554-0.25] 30 30 NOTE FIRE AREA "1" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 IF=[0.30] 1 0.30 NOT USED USED 31200 2 62400 SF 11910 SQ. FT. M SQ FT. 0 11910 SQ. FT. t1910 SQ FT. 11910 SQ. FT. 59549 SQ. FT. IF=0.30 X FIRE AREA 1 THRU 5 & 9 THRU 12 ARE SINGLE OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDING. FIRE AREA "2" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 50855 SO. FT. 5085 SQ, FT. 5085 SQ FT. 5085 SQ FT. 50855 SQ. FT. 25423 SQ. FT. FIRE AREA 6 THRU 8 ARE MIXED OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDINGS. THE SUM OF RATIO FOR SEPARATED MIXED OCCUPANCIES ARE CALCULATED BELOW: FIRE AREA "3" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 7167 SQ. FT. 7167 SQ FT, 7167 SQ FT. 7167 SQ FT. 7167 SQ FT. 35836 SQ. FT. FIRE AREA 6 - 1st FLOOR FIRE AREA 7 - 1st FLOOR Aa = {[6,325/ 29,280] + [3,625/ 59,570]) < 1.0 Aa = {[4,194/ 28,320] + [5,973/ 58,830]) < 1.0 FIRE AREA "4" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 0 NOT USED USED 24000 2 48000 SF 4269 SQ FT. 4269 SQ FT. 4269 SQ FT. 4269 SQ FT. 4269 SQ FT, 21344 SQ. FT. Aa = {0.22 + 0.061 < 1.0 Aa = {0.15 + 0.10) < 1.0 NOT TAKEN X Aa = 0.28 < 1.0 (COMPLIES) Aa = 0.25 < 1.0 (COMPLIES) FIRE AREA 8 - 1st FLOOR FIRE AREA "5" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 7507 SQ FT. 7507 SQ FT. 7507 SQ FT. 7507 SQ FT. 7507 SQ. FT. 37536 SQ. FT. Aa = {[7,080/ 25,200] + [1,164/ 56,425] + [2,477/ 58,645]) < 1.0 Aa = {0.28 + 0.02+.03) < 1.0 FIRE AREA "9" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 0 NOT USED USED 24000 2 48000 SF 4461 SQ FT. 4461 SQ FT. 4461 SQ FT. 4461 SQ FT. 4461 SQ FT 22307 SQ. FT. Aa = 0.33 < 1.0 (COMPLIES) NOT TAKEN X MIXED OCCUPANCY AREA - TOTAL BUILDING AREA CALCULATION: Aa = {Actual Area (1st Fir) / Allowable Area (1st Fir)) + {Actual Area (2nd Fir) / Allowable FIRE AREA "10" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 8715 SQ FT. 8652 SQ. FT 8652 SQ FT 8652 SQ FT 8652 SQ FT. 43325 SQ. FT. Area (2nd Fir)) + {Actual Area (3rd Fir) / Allowable Area (3rd Fir)) + {Actual Area (4th Fir) / Allowable Area (64th Fir)) + {Actual Area (5th Fir) / Allowable Area (5th Fir)) < 2.0 FIRE AREA "11" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 0 NOT USED USED 24000 2 48000 SF 8033 SQ. FT. 8033 SQ FT 8033 SQ FT. 8033 SQ FT. 8033 SQ FT. 40166 SQ. FT. THE TABLE BELOW ILLUSTRATES COMPLIES FOR MIXED -OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDINGS PER CBC 506.2.4 NOT TAKEN X SUM OF THE RATIOS <2.0 MIXED OCCUPANCY BUILDING R-2 24000 0.22 USED US USED 29280 29280 NOT 29280 SF 6325 SQ FT 6327 SQ FT 9946 SQ FT 9946 SQ FT. 9946 SQ FT. 42490 SQ. FT. "6" R-2 0.22 SQ. FT. 0.22 SQ. FT. 0.34 SQ. FT. 0.34 SQ. FT. 0.34 SQ. FT. FIRE AREA "6" SEPARATED TYPE IIIA IF=[0.22] 1 IF=0.22 APPLICABLE M 55500 0.22 NOT USED NOT USED 595M 59570 SF 3626 SQ FT 3625 SQ. FT. FIRE AREA M 0.06 SQ. FT. RATIO PER FLOOR <1 0.28 SQ. FT. 0.22 SQ. FT. 0.34 SQ. FT. 0.34 SQ. FT. 0.34 SQ. FT. 1.51 SQ. FT. R-2 24000 0.18 NOT USED USED 28320 NOT 28320 SF 4194 SQ FT 4192 SQ FT. gmSQ FT gm SQ FT. gmSQ FT 35724 SQ. FT. "T' R-2 0.15 SQ. FT. 0.15 SO. FT. 0.32 SQ. FT. 0.32 SQ. FT. 0.32 SQ. FT. FIRE AREA 7" "0.1 SEPARATED TYPE IIIA IF=8] 1 IF=0.18 APPLICABLE M 55500 0.18 NOT USED NOT USED 58830 58830 SF 5973 SQ FT. 5973 SQ. FT. FIRE AREA M 0.10 SQ. FT. RATIO PER FLOOR <1 0.25 SQ. FT. 0.15 SQ. FT. 0.32 SQ. FT. 0.32 SQ. FT. 0.32 SQ. FT. 1.36 SQ. FT. R-2 24000 IF=160.33/539-0.25] 30/30 0.05 NOT USED USED 25200 25200 SF 7080 SQ FT 7506 SQ FT 9618 SQ FT. 9618 SQ FT 9618 SQ FT. 43439 SQ. FT. R-2 0.28 SQ. FT. 0.30 SQ. FT. 0.38 SQ. FT. 0.38 SQ. FT. 0.38 SQ. FT. IF=[0.05] 1 NOT M 55500 0.05 NOT USED NOT USED 56425 56425 SF 1164 SQ FT. 1164 SQ. FT. FIRE AREA "8" M 0412 FIRE AREA "8" SEPARATED TYPE IIIA IF=0.05 APPLICABLE B 85500 0.05 NOT USED NOT USED 86925 86925 SF 2477 SQ. FT. 2477 SQ. FT. B 0.03 SQ. FT. RATIO PER FLOOR <1 0.33 SQ. FT. 0.30 SQ. FT. 0.38 SQ. FT. 0.38 SQ. FT. 0.38 SQ. FT. 1.77 SQ. FT. 119484 SQ. 106609 SQ. 117259 SQ. 117259 SQ. 117259 SQ. FT. FT. FT. FT. FT. TOTAL TYPE IA BUILDING AREA TOTAL TYPE IIIA BUILDING AREA 259683 SQ. FT. 421=12IM8176 SQ FT. 680062 SQ. FT. Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <m NV A "1 E R FORD PKOVIRIS i U 11 E' % N 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 . GROUP PE*J,C BELO t I - t I O quP OPEN O B€LO I LI LI )1 F(�AREA "4" L 4269 SCJ. FT- I CODE ANALYSIS DATA 1. USE AND OCCUPANCY CLAS IFI CAT 10 N (CRC CHAPTER 3) OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION fcar3o2l R-2 S-2 B A-3 M LEASING OFFICE FUNCTION OF SPACE APARTMENTHOUSE PARKING GARAGE /MAILROOM ASSEMBLY (ROOF DECK) RETAIL EXITING REQUIREMENTS fc6cck,al SEE SHEETS xxxx AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM NFPA 13THROUGHOUT PER CBC 903.3.1.1 2. BUILDING HEIGHT AND AREAS (CBC CHAPTERS) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OCCURS IN TYPE IIIA OCCURS IN TYPE IA OCCURS IN TYPE IIIA OCCURS IN TYPE IA OCCURS IN TYPE IIIA ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA jC&C TABLF 5f]E.2J SEE SHEET A-111 M'in Type. IIIA UL in Typn IA UL 85' in Type IIIA 85' in Type IIIA ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE PLANE fr3c5cs.if without are aincrease without area increase PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE PLANE SSTORIES in Type IIIA UL in Type IA ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE lcsrscr.nJ UL EiSTURIES in Type IIIA SSTUR]ES in Type IIIA without area increase without area incrcasn. 7570RIES ABOVE GRADE PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE 55TORIES in Type IIIA 1STORY 1 STORY 15TORY 1STORY BELOWGRADE NONSEPARATED OCCUPANCIES OCCURS IN TYPE IA (CBC 508.3) UNLIMITED S-2 to A-3 S-2 to A-3 SEPARATION OF OCCUPANCIES [CBC TABLE 50a.4] ft-2 to M: 1-HR NONE REQ'D Bta M: 1-HR I NONE REQ' D I M to B: 1-NR R-2 to B: 1-HR B to R-2: 1-HR M to R-2: 1-HR NO N-SF PARATF D DCCU PANIC IFS NON-SFPRRATFD OCCU PRNCIFS 3, TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND RRE-RESISTANCE RATING FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS [CBC CHAPTER 61 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE IA TYPE IIU4 PRi MARY 5TRUCTURAL FRAME fcRrs� C w e,ro sec ?b:J A. COLU Y HS REOU"RE FI RER.ES STANCE RATED PH OTECT ON ON A-L SI DES FOR THE FULL CCW E.114 LENGTH. I NCLUD ING CON N:CTI ON5 B. IR I YA3'r STRUTURAL FRAh1E 111EM BE PS OTH ER THAN COLUMNS TiAT SUPPOP.T MORE TAM TWO FLOPS CF.. ONE FLOD3 AJD R.00? D3 SU?PORT A LOAD-6EARI MC :AL OF. A NG`JLOA D- BEAP.I HC'WALL IMC E-HAN-5405TOHIES. SHALLHA:EFIRE- P.E515-ANCEPAT 10PROTECTICTJONALL 5IDISFCRTHEFI-LLIENGHTINCWDING 3{NC} 1 CONNECTIONS C.LDAO- BEARING STRIY_TJRAL KI MBERS LC"TE❑ wITHIN Tr.[ 9VF9 OR'J:AL_5 CR OUTSIDETHE BUILDING SHALL 3E PP.OVIDEU ::'ITH THE HIGHEST FIRE -H ESISTANCE PAT-D PHDTEMON E4SEO ON HUILDI Nu ELEMENT. RATING FORE}-EP.I OR BEAR. ING V:AL--S 01"E"IE1I01'-59ALL PROTECTION OrTIED CRJ F I'E SEPARA i-_1N DISTAr,CE 3 BEAR(N G WALLSE}CTERi O R FIR-) 3[NC} 1 BEARING WALLS -IN TEHIOR FIRESEPA RATIO N ❑I STANCE 15 GREATER -HAN 3a - NO FIRERESSTAN�ERATING IS 1 _ I-R j REQUIRED. INC OR FRT} N OV 3FARI NG WALLS AND PARTITIONS-FXTFRIC R fti'C'.�5'E 5C21 G O NON3EARING WALLS AN❑PARTITIONS -INTERIOR INC OR FRT} ` 1 FLOOR CONSTRUC-ION AND ASSCUCIATE SECONDARY MEWBER5 ROOF CON STRUCTI0 N A N 7 ASSOCI ATE S ECONOARY MEMBERS 1-1'2 1 4. FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTION FEATURES (CBC CHAPTER 7 ] - IN TYPE IIIA FIRE WALLS (c3cxr 7o5) 3-HR FIRE BARRIERS fcvrs,.: rD7y 2-HR I NTERI OR EXIT S7AI RWAY$ fCBCSEC ID232] SHAFTENCLOSURE KSCSEC723i 2-HR EXITPASSAGEWAY fcErestciu24j3 2-HR FIRE PARTITIONS (SEPARATION WAI.:.S FOR CROII= R-2, P. CORRIDOR WALLS) [CnC.sFC maJ 1-HR HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLIES KuCEC l,tJ 1-HR CODE ANALYSIS BUILDING A A-1 11 NT. EXIT STAIR 2 INT. EXIT STAIR 6 1 NT. EXIT STAIR 3 INT. EXIT STAIR 7 INT. EXIT STAIR 4 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" INT. EXIT STAIR 1 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EXITING -LEVEL THRU 5 LL ITING - ROOF DECK EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 13.5" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 481. EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 13.5" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48" INTERIOR EXIT -STAIR 6 EGRESS OPENING W DTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 11 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 40" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 45.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 48" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 13.5 PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 75 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 15" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 75 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 22.5" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48" EGRESS STAIR IDTH ANTS 200 EGRESS WI H PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 60" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 60" IA c I/\//\/\ EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 60" PR POSED STAIR Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 103:q Pc,_ 1/2. No A _a 5"XP"\ OCCUPANCY FITNESS 4042 SF/50 EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 13.5" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 13.5" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48" INTERIOR EXIT STAIR 7 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH (GARAGE) TOTALOC PANTS200 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCU 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 40" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 45.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 48" + + + + I+ + + + + + + + + + + I+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + INTERIOR E) STAIR 5 EGRESS OPENING WIDT TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 40" OPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 45.5" NV A -1 E R FORD 11 EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TAL OCCUPANTS 200 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 60" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 60" � IIIIIIII 0, EGRESS OPENING WIDTH (RES) TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH (GARAGE) TOTAL OCCUPANTS 75 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 15" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS S T IOCCUPANTS 120 R S WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 ED STAIR WIDTH 36" RO SED STAIR WIDTH 48' EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" HORIZONTAL EXIT EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 64 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 12.8" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL CUPANTSIL_ 65 GRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 13" ROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" ROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 13.5" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48" _� I RESIDENTIAL I 943 SF / 200 I Cal O I I I I I u C C SECTION 1026 AND CBC SECTI N 1026.2 2HR FIRH BARRIER , PROVIDE STANDPIPE AS R QUIRED PER CBC SECTION 905 AND IY w PER CFC SECTION 905.4 #2 DGQA_3UPA;. CLUBROOM ' �a 4113SI115 , -� w REFUGE AREA OF THE HO IZONTAL EXIT PER CBC SEC. 1026.4 otal occupant load entering: III W O % Q lubroom deck: 64 x 3 sq. ft. per occu ant P lei~ lubroom: 65 x 3 sq. ft. per oc upant m l °o= 87 sq. ft. refuge area required NW 02 sq. ft. refuge are provided to OTAL OCCUPANT LOAD m �o N Q 2 P LOSURE 0 POOLISPA -1560 SF/50 = OCCUPANTS 0 POOL DECK - 5587 SF/15 = 373 OCCUPANTS TOTAL OCCUPANTS IN POOL ENCLOSURE = 405 OCCUPANTS _ CLUB ROOM CLUBROOM - 4143 SF/15 = 277 OCCUPANTS RESIDENTIAL 798 SF / 200 RESIDENTIA RESIDENTIAL 1148 SF / 200 II �O rn IJ � EGRE S PE TH TOTALOCCUPAN S 38 EGRESS WIDTH R OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPEN NG WIDTH 7.6" PROPOSED OPE ING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DO WIDTH 36" 49'-9" RESIDENTIAL 543 SF / 20pryI0_ O 1 INT. EXIT STAIR 2 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCU PANTS 38 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" II■ .0 ■ d► EG ESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCC PANTS 38 EGRESS W TH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" PROPOSE OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSEO DOOR WIDTH 36" INT. EXIT STAIR 3 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 312 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 62.4" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH 67" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 72" INT. EXIT STAIR 7 12T-10 1 /2" :E BETWEEN EXITS E NING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS wo I Ir �� .■ �ILi�L'L911 's �"i• P ME - - �� • (III I IIIIIIIILl.1i•• �� J , •• , -a oba I0•� 2. ■r r I � I � - EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 DIsrANOE E -- OPENING WIDTH 54.8 SED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 67" I Om ROP 72" ED DOOR WIDTH RESIDENT ®ESIIDDENTIAL I 12T4 SF/ � s R32IDEN zl Q I INT. EXIT STAIR 4 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 45 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" z^ .EN EXITS EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" IN III _r r■�J I� I� I�-' . INV �1 f•�I II IL�ILI III - JI L�JI r . ■ • � � I If•!� A �". ' r�171 I frl 1 .I� i' L 1 1 nn n � �I ' � -noun - � , � � � - �•- 1 1maul ,z r■ _ [•]I■Jr ��.":�::_�;��. J 11111111 \ \ � � ST[JKA(iE a65y{290 Leasing and EXIT RETAIL V 1146IESIDENTI 1 eRESSENTIAL (TENANT IMPROVEMENT) II OD II T l EXIT I 1049 F/ 300 EASING26SF/20 FC 2 EXITS PROVIDED 3 1 EXIT Q 3 LO.dI�NO 736SF1300 ' = Retail 9568 SQ. FT. Gross I I 91 I T_4B 9 Mall and 4 O3 E j I I RESIDENTIA 1086 SF 1200 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL STORAGE T 1068 SF / 200 r- 1088 SF / 200 Parcels € b T T I 1 PEA=12� J O ESIDENTIAL T80 SF 1300 0-.F/2N) 6 O I O EXIT � 300 - D r EXIT m I m SCHARGE E IT I DISCHAR D I I DISCHARGE r I - - - - - - - J I r ----- ----- ----- --------- 236- - - T�otat aderri�' ES I DENTIA RESIDENTIAL 543 SF/200 O-------------EXff _J 752 SF 200 O 0 EXIT 3� INT. EXIT STAIR 5 J - - - -40'-2" DEAD END CORRIDOR INT. EXIT STAIR 1 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 83 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 16.6" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 374 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 74.8" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 91" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 96" EXITING - LEVEL 1 (GROUND FLOOR) / 0 CLUBROOM DECK -2482 SF/15 =166 OCCUPANTS gan FITNESS ITERIOR EXIT STAIR FITNESS- 4042SF/50=81OCCUPANTS EGRESS OPENING WIDTH EGRESS STAIR WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EGRESS OCCUP 0.3 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 40" REQUIR STAIR WI TH 60" PROPOSED OPENING WIDT D STAIR WIDTH 60" aRnpnSED DOOR WI 48" NOTES CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 336 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 67.2" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 67.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 72" INT. EXIT STAIR 8 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 40" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 45.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 48" _ T _ ORIZONTAL EXIT nng L--�� ----- the horizontal exit from bldg. A: TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 308 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 47.6" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 61.6" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 62" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 9" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" 24 + 14 = 38 x 3 sq. ft. per occ. 114 sq. ft. refuge area required 1,269 sq. ft. refuge are provided Total occupant load entering the horizontal exit from bldg. B: 24+41=38 x 3 sq. ft. per occ. 114 sq. ft. refuge area required HORIZONTAL EXIT 1,118 sq. ft. refuge area CBC SECTION 1026 AND CBC SECTION 1026.2 provided 1. PROVIDE STANDPIPE AS REQUIRED PER CBC SECTION 905 AND PER CFC SECTION 905.4 #2. 2. REFUGE AREA OF THE HORIZONTAL EXIT PER CBC SEC. 1026.4 ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS EXIT PLAN LEGEND THE ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS SYSTEM CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING: O OCCUPANT LOAD OF SPACE A. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE -SAME AS PATH OF EGRESS (INDICATED IN LEGEND ABOVE AND EXIT AND OCCUPANT LOAD (XX = OCCUPANT LOAD) "EXIT", "EXIT "TO SHOWN BY SYMBOL: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1. PROVIDE TACTILE AND BRAILLE ROUTE", AND EXIT EXIT" SIGN. REFER TO 23 & 27/AD-31.1 FOR PLACEMENT LOCATION XX INFORMATION. B. ELEVATOR IS NOT REQUIRED AS A PART OF ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS PER CBC 2. IN, ADDITION, IN GROUP A OCCUPANCIES, PROVIDE A SIGN WITH SECTION 1009.2.1, EXCEPTION 1 (A FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER CBC THE OCCUPANT LOAD AS INDICATED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE SECTION 903.3.1.1 IS PROVIDED WITH A HORIZONTAL EXIT). NEAR MAIN EXIT OR EXIT -ACCESS DOORWAY IN THE ROOM. AN AREA OF REFUGE IS NOT REQUIRED CBC SECTION 1009.6 EXIT EXIT DISCHARGE DISCHARGE C. INTERIOR STAIRWAYS: INTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL COMPLY WITH 1009.3 EXCEPTIONS 2 CPET - XX'-X"COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL &5. AREAS CALCULATED L = XX'-X" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE S-2 EXITING REQUIREMENTS: - BASED ON CBC TABLE 1004.1.2: (200 GROSS SF) PER OCCUPANT - - PATH OF EGRESS AND COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL - TRAVEL DISTANCE PER CBC TABLE 1017.2 400 FEET w/ FIRE SPRINKLERS PER CBC (AND ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS) 903.3.1.1 - COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL PER CBC TABLE 1006.2.1: S-2 = 100 FEET w/ FIRE AREA INCLUDED IN COURTYARD OCCUPANT LOAD ® SPRINKLERS PER CBC 903.3.1.1 CALCULATION. ALL AREAS NOT INCLUDED ARE PLANTERS AND CIRCULATION. AREA OF REFUGE PER CBC 1026.4 R-2 EXITING REQUIREMENTS: - BASED ON CBC TABLE 1004.1.2: (200 GROSS SF) PER OCCUPANT - TRAVEL DISTANCE PER CBC TABLE 1017.2 250 FEET w/ FIRE SPRINKLERS PER CBC TYPICAL EGRESS DOOR WIDTH 903.3.1.1 REQUIRED DOOR AND OTHER EGRESS COMPONENTS WIDTH (CBC 1005.3.2 ) - COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL PER CBC TABLE 1006.2.1: R-2 = 125 FEET w/ FIRE SPRINKLERS PER CBC 903.3.1.1 OCCUPANT LOAD x 0.2" = REQ'D WIDTH OF EGRESS COMPONENTS TYPICAL EXIT STAIR WIDTH DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1007.1.1 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH (CBC 1005.3.1) OCCUPANT LOAD x 0.3" = (REQ'D STAIR WIDTH) EXITING ANALYSIS BUILDING A A-1 12 L H 0 effl°Ub •®� \ / \ o -- A A "13" vv • ® \ 0 114 SQ. FT. o , ILt / / e ® b FIRE AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN - LEVEL 8 - =�A. -� -- _ �••� FIRE AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN - LEVEL 3 THRU 5 FIRE AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN - LEVEL 2 439E I I L---- FIRE AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN - LEVEL 1 ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA ANALYSIS SUM OF RATIO FOR SEPARATED MIXED OCCUPANCIES ACTUAL ALLOWABLEAREA MULTI -STORY TOTAL BUILDING MIXED OCCUPANCY, OCCUPANCY MIXED USE & CONSTRUCTION BASE ALLOWABLE FRONTAGE AREA HEIGHT AND PER STORY (SF) INCREASE - Sa ALLOWABLE AREA MULTISTORY SUM OF AREA CLASSIFICATION OCCUPANCY TYPE AREA (SF) FRONTAGE INCREASE AREA INCREASE STORY ("Aa PER CBC BUILDING LEVEL B1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 8 (GROSS) BUILDING OCCUPANCY LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 RATIOS (<=2) (CBC 302) (CBC 508) CBC TABLE 506.2 INCREASE CBC 506.2.1 506.2.3 (X2) AREA CBC 506.2.4 At + [Ns x If] PARKING GARAGE S-2 NONSEPARATED TYPE IA UL NOT TAKEN 0 WA WA UL UL 22627 SQ FT. 31498 SQ FT. 31498 SQ. FT. 31498 SQ. FT. 31498 SQ FT, 31498 SQ. FT. 3" SQ FT. 36632 SQ FT. 248249 SQ. FT. A-3 NONSEPARATED TYPE IA UL NOT TAKEN 0 WA WA UL UL •1.1434 SQ FT. 11434 SQ. FT. SINGLE OCCUPANCY BUILDING FIRE AREA "1" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 6154 SQ FT. 6164 SQ, FT, 6153 SQ FT. 61M SQ. FT. 6153 SQ. FT 30776 SQ. FT. NOTE FIRE AREA 1 THRU 9 ARE SINGLE OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDING. FIRE AREA "2" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 6919 SQ FT. 6919 SQ FT. 6919 SQ FT. 6919 SQ FT. 6919 SQ FT. 34594 SQ. FT. NOT TAKEN FIRE AREA 10 AND 11 ARE MIXED OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDINGS. FIRE AREA "3" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 4713 SQ FT. 4713 SQ FT. 4713 SQ FT 4713 SQ FT. 4713 SQ FT 23565 SQ. FT. THE SUM OF RATIO FOR SEPARATED MIXED OCCUPANCIES ARE CALCULATED BELOW: NOT TAKEN FIRE AREA 10 - 1st FLOOR FIRE AREA 11 - 1st FLOOR IF=153.67/511-0.25] 30/30 FIRE AREA "4" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 IF=[0.05] 1 0.05 NOT USED USED 25200 X 2 50400 SF 9019 SQ FT. 9014 SO. FT. 9014 SQ FT 9014 SQ FT. 9014 SQ FT. 45075 SQ. FT. Aa = {[6,627/ 25,540] + [4,396/ 56,6101 + [2,408/ 87,210]} < 1.0 Aa = {[2,378/ 24,000] + [4,396/ 55,500]} < 1.0 Aa = {0.26 + 0.08+.03} < 1.0 Aa = {0.10 + 0.08) < 1.0 Aa = 0.34 < 1.0 (COMPLIES) Aa = 0.18 < 1.0 (COMPLIES) IF=304.91/519.16-0.251 30/30 FIRE AREA "5" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 IF=[0.33] 1 0.33 NOT USED USED 31920 X 2 63840 SF MM SQ FT. 10689 SQ FT. MM SQ FT. MINI SQ FT. 10689 SQ FT. 53445 SQ. FT. I F=0.33 MIXED OCCUPANCY AREA - TOTAL BUILDING AREA CALCULATION: FIRE AREA "6" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 6472 SQ FT. 6472 SQ FT. 6472 SQ FT. 6472 SQ FT. 6472 SO. FT. 32360 SQ. FT. Aa = {Actual Area (1st Fir) / Allowable Area (1st Fir)} + (Actual Area (2nd Fir) / Allowable Area (2nd + {Actual Area (3rd Fir) / Allowable Area (3rd Fir)) + {Actual Area (4th Flr) / FIRE AREA "7" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 8131 SQ FT. FT 81M SQ. FT. 8131 SQ FT. 8131 SQ FT. 8131 SQ. FT. . . 40653 SQ FT Allowable Area (64th Fir)) + {Actual Area (5th Flr) /Allowable Area a (5th Fir)) < 2.0 THE TABLE BELOW ILLUSTRATES COMPLIES FOR MIXED -OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDINGS PER CBC 506.2.4 FIRE AREA "8" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 8783 SQ FT. 8673 SQ. FT. 8664 SQ FT. 8664 SQ FT 8664 SQ FT. 43447 SQ. FT. - SUM OF THE RATIOS <2.0 FIRE AREA "9" R-2 TYPE IIIA 24000 NOT TAKEN 0 NOT USED USED 24000 X 2 48000 SF 4461 SQ FT. 4461 SQ FT 4461 SQ FT. 4461 SQ FT. 4461 SQ FT. 22307 SQ. FT. MIMED OCCUPANCY BUILDING R-2 24000 IF=160.33/516.75-0.25] 30/30 0.06 NOT USED USED 25440 25440 SF 6627 SQ FT 6991 SQ FT 9215 SQ FT. 9215 SQ. FT 9215 SQ FT. 41263 SQ. FT. R-2 0.26 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.36 SEPARATED TYPE IIIA IF=[0.06) 1 NOT FIRE AREA "10" M 55500 0.06 NOT USED NOT USED 6661p 56610 SF 4396 SQ FT. 4396 SQ. FT. M 0.08 FIRE AREA "10" IF=0.06 APPLICABLE B 85500 0.06 NOT USED NOT USED 87210 87210 SF 2408 SQ FT, 2408 SQ. FT. B 0.03 RATIO PER FLOOR <1 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.36 1.70 R-2 24000 0 NOT USED USED 24000 NOT 24000 SF 23M SQ FT. 2378 SQ FT. 6269 SQ FT. 6269 SQ FT. 6269 SQ FT. 23563 SQ. FT. R-2 0.10 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.26 FIRE AREA "11 " SEPARATED TYPE IIIA APPLICABLE FIRE AREA "11" M 5.MM 0 NOT USED NOT USED 55500 55500 SF 4396 SQ FT. 4396 SQ. FT. M 0.08 RATIO PER FLOOR <1 0.18 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.26 1.06 117042 SQ. 106102 SQ. 112198 SQ.LFT. 112198SQ. FT. FT. FT. FT. TOTAL TYPE IA BUILDING AREA TOTAL TYPE IIIA BUILDING AREA 259683 SQ. FT. 402246.76559338 SQ FT 661929 SQ. FT. Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <z 9 NkrATERFORD P 14 n I• I. r. I t C 0 M P A N V CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 6m IF CODE ANALYSIS DATA 1. USE AND OCCUPANCY CLAS IFI CAT 10 N (CBC CHAPTER 3) OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION (rsc3a2) R-2 S-2 B A-3 M LEASING OFFICE FUNCTION OF SPACE APARTMENTHDOSE PARKI NG GARAGE /MAILRDOM ASSEMBLY (ROOF DECK) RETAIL EXITING REQUIREMENTS fC6C(H'T0) SEE SHEETS xxxx AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM I NFPA 13THROUGHOUT PER CBC 903.3.1.1 2. BUILDING HEIGHT AND AREAS (CBC CHAPTER 5) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OCCURS IN TYPE IIIA OCCURS IN TYPE IA OCCURS IN TYPE IIIA OCCURS IN TYPE IA OCCURS IN TYPE IIIA ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA (rf;r rastE 506.2) SEE SHEET A-111 85' in Type IIIA UL in Type IA UL 85' in Type IIIA 85' in Type IIIA ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE PLANE lcsrsOs.TJ without area inrmasr. without ama incur.Ts PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE PLANE S STORIES in Type IIIA UL in Type IA ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE (cer501.4) UL 6 STORIES in Type IIIA SSTORIES in Type IIIA without areaincrease without area increase 7 STORIES ABOVE GRADE PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE 5STORIES in Type IIIA 1STORY 1 STORY 1STORY 15TORY BELOW GRADE NONSEPARATED OCCUPANCIES OCCURS IN TYPE IA (CBE 508.3) UNLIMITED S-2 to A-3 S-2 to A-3 SEPARATION OF OCCUPANCIES (CBC TABLE 50a.4) R-2 to M: 1-HR NONE REQ'D Bto M: 1-HR NONE REQ'D M to B: 1-HR R-2 to B: 1-HR B to R-2: 1-HR M to R-2: 1-HR NON-SFPARATF❑ OCCU PRn1CIF5 NON-SFPRRATF❑ C]CCUPRNCIFS 3. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (CBC CHAPTER 61 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE IA TYPE IIIA PROAARYSTRUCTURAL FRAME :eyes=cz01x:- .'.-CC.0 V 45 3=4! I -_=.3=.3_S ST6 YL: 34T_J 13 vT::T CY v4 A_ j J_>=C2 TH: FL1__C7_UVY_E11GT= YC_UU \G iCYY5CT CYS �3 VA 2'riT=L-Tia+A_=:.','._-`.-!.:3E 35 �;T-.-R THAY C�:L `li I-.T cj­2TT Y:A.-:.3 A`1v3 v.:J? E.'.R4.-,'1:--_ V1R:-HAY ",VC STyi :5. 5-:._. -A:E _ 4E- R_5szvc_R r:a=3crEcrvv YA- ,Iaa=oRr-=-u._.:Yc-T rla! zvc 3INQ 1 -EA? Y6 STR.U_TVRAL VE SE?S _01-T-D\4 T- t T-E S?-rO3 4':4__-s OR. CUTi17=TFF-BU 7YG5-A!_ 3= �RC+7=7 V: T-T-= 'Gi=-T-3=R=i15TAYC ' A_5 OR E'iT_?_0; ;v'-- PR.C_Cr:.Y 3..__J N F R:>E AAA- :1 0 iT.^NC_ 2 3 _ IR - I BEARING WALLS -EXTERIOR 3INQ 1 BEARING WALLS -INTERIOR FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS GREATER-HAN W-NO 1 FIRE_ RES STANCE RATING IS FR_ ) REQUIRED. [NC ORFRT} N0NBEARINGWALLS ANDPARTITIOINS -EXTERIOR 0 [] N0NBEARINC WALLS AN PARTITIONS -INTERIOR [.NC OR FAT} 2 1 FLOOR. CONSTRUC-ION ANDASSOCIATE SECONDARY MEMBERS 1-2/2 1 RDDF CON STRUCTI u N AND ASSOCI ATF S FCONOARY NIF MBERS 4. FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTION FEATURES (CBC CHAPTER 7 ] - IN TYPE IIIA FIRE WALLS (c3cxr 7c5) 3-HR FIRE BARRIERS !curs.•: ro7? 2-HR I NTERI OR EXIT$7AI RWAY$ fCBCSEC ID232] SHAFTENCLOSURE KSCSEC723i 2-HR EXITPASSAGEWAY lruc5tcio24j] 2-HR FIRE PARTITIONS (SFPIA RATION WAI.:.S FOR cRcu= R-2. & CORRIDOR WALIs) lcsc.src ma) 1-HR HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLIES KUC5Er III) 1-HR CODE ANALYSIS BUILDING B A-121 INT. EXIT STAIR 3 INT. EXIT STAIR 4 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH EGRESS OPENING WIDTH EGRESS OPENING WIDTH EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 22 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 60 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 HORIZONTAL EXIT REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 4.4" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 12" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7•6" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MI 3.5" T EXIT PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" TOTAL OCCUPANTS 22 PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" 45 PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH INT. EXIT STAIR 2 I RES NTIA REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 4.4" TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 I RESIDENTIA I 2SF/2o ESIDENTIA PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" EGRESS OPENING WIDTH i 752 SF/200 ESIDENTIAL EGRESS STAIR WIDTH 274 SF/20o 1274 SF/200 HORIZONTAL EXIT EGRESS STAIR WIDTH I a � TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 I a � EGRESS OPENING WIDTH (RES) TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 I PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 40" I TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 I EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 I EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 I HORIZONTAL EXIT PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 45.5" TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 I REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" I REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 11.4 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 60" L - - CBC SECTION 1026 AND CBC SECTION 1026.2 L PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 48" 30'-7" - - EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" 3 1. PROVIDE STANDPIPE AS REQUIRED PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" DEAD END CORRIDOR z PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48'I PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 60" I RESIDENTIAL DEAD END CORRIDOR I RESIDENTIAL REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6 I a RESIDENTIAL 683 IF 1200 PER CBC SECTION 905 AND PER CFC PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH I RESIDENTIAL 683 IF /200 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" 41'-S" 30'-7" 726 SF/200 36" 726 IF 1200 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" DEAD END CORRIDOR -- -__- a SECTION 905.4 #2. PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" _ 2. REFUGE AREA OF THE HORIZONTAL EGRESS OPENING WIDTH PROPOSEDDOOR WIDTH 36" RESIDENT EGRESS OPENING WIDTH 1066 SF/2 0 EXIT PER CBC SEC. 1026.4 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 296 - ESIDENTIAL REST ENTI ITOTAL OCCUPANTS 066IF1200 - I HORIZONTAL EXIT EGRESS OPENING WIDTH (GARAGE) O I Total occupant load entering the horizontal 222 RESIDENTI 683 F/200 9 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EXI ESIDENTIAL RESI TAIL O ESIDENTIAL INT. EXIT STAIR 1 CBC SECTION 1026 AND CBC SECTION 1026.2 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 75 G83SF/2RESIDENTIAL exit from building A: EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 fia36F/20 SF/200 I m, 6F/200 RESIDENTIAL a RESID TIAL 683 SF 200 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 59.2" 38 FROM VE 4 J� fi83SF/200 1. PROVIDE STANDPIPE AS REQUIRED O II ,07, 6F 0 28 + 29 = 54 x 3 sq. ft. per occupant REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 44.4" 0 1T0`T' EGRESS OPENING WIDTH EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 I r gE1v4EE" PER CBC SECTION 905 AND PER CFC -++ E 6 162 sq. ft. refuge area required PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 67" Nce I TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 SECTION 905.4 #2. REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 15" E I e ~� ml I 11297 sq. ft. refuge are provided PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH o}s1P --UIIIII a 2. REFUGE AREA OF THE HORIZONTAL CPET-78 6 L-,8o'-s" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 72" I EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" L Total occupant load entering the horizontal PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 4 " „6' 9' 'EXIT - I- ♦ -� 1 - L=,52'-3" L-95 0 PET- -2" 9 T EXIT PER CBC SEC. 1026.4 L - - J HR FIREWALL - 683SF/200 I exit from building B: 22 zz R FIREWALL 1 � I REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 3g" RESIDENTIAL Total occupant load entering the horizontal exit from building A: O I RESIDENTIAL �' 29+28=54 x 3 sq. ft. per occupant EGRESS OPENING WIDTH 68`1 200 oV a PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" p g 9 I RESIDENTIAL I RESIDENTIAL I RESIDENTIAL I I3 683 SF 200 162 sq. ft. refuge area required TOTAL OCCUPANTS 4 683 SF 1200 28 + 29 = 54 x 3 sq. ft. per occupant RESID 265E/200 48 IF 1200 274 RESIDE 265F/200 L RESIDENT L PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36° EGRESS STAIR WIDTH 200 O © O 849 sq. ft. refuge area provided 200 O ©, 114a SF /2 0 162 sq. ft. refuge area required a II s EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 RESIDE L a II 1,297 sq. ft. refuge are provided TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 RESIDENTIAL I EGRESS OPENING WIDTH 683 /zoo I I O seasF/too EWALL _ T,AI R 5 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 54.8" 4 EwALL _ EGRESS STAIR WIDTH Total occupant load entering the horizontal exit from building B: EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 4 _ L TOTAL OCCUPANTS 60 - r -0 SIDENTIAL PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 67" 1p DENTAL TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 29+28=54 x 3 sq. ft. per occupant REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 60 T I ENIN WIDTH EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 162 sq. ft. refuge area required s PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 72" o I I s L EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 60" I TOTAL OC 38 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 12" 051 849 sq. ft. refuge area provided A;r ,ti REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 11.4 RESIDENTIAL I RESIDENTIAL EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 0° RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL EGRESS OPENING WIDTH 7265F/200 4 RESIDENTIAL 1071 SF 1200 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" G� 7265F/200 4 RESIDENTIAL EXIT 1071 SF 1200 PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48" ---- ----- aI °715F/2°° s REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" _____ �o`P a r D71sF/20o zzz 6 TO LOCCUPANTS 22 PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 3g" 296 _ = y" - PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" �I �" - EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 �O RESIDENTIAL ti T SE eISFNz100 1066 IF 200 TI RE IDENTIAL o ♦ I PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" I REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 4.4" RESIDE ENTIAL RE8IDEN L ,0 SF/200 y1A RESIDENTI RESIDEN AL S ENTIAL RESIDENT L 8 ENTIAL RESIDENTIAL fi83SF/ 00 69 F/200 683 SF/ 0 RESIDENTIAL 1071 SF/2o ESIDENTIAL RESIDEN IAL RESIDEN L 6835F/ 0 83 F/200 683 IF 6 83 F/200 10]1 SF /200 RE IDENTIAL RESIDENT L RE ENTI m 6 1066 SF/2 O I I ]1 SF/200 I 3 ]265F/ 0 T z sF/200 RESID NTI 7265F/2 0 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" a a a II o `' O I O O I O EGRESS STAIR WIDTH a &�11, O II I 4RO OSED DOOR WIDTH 36" 167FIRE L� FIREW LTOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 I I IDISTANCE Bsmra9e smra9e E IT' - I- �- _ -I -e- I RESIDENTIAL EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0•3 'EXI- L 73 8 ' J I 726 IF / 200 �M�11 y1 a REQUIRE 11.4 s ` 5SFI 0 4A_Nrzqn V FA F M i ataTO �� I PROP SE T DTH 48" � �� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E I I I I I I I I I I I I I XIT I STORAGE E8IDENTIAL ' �� �� ESIDENTIAL '' 68F/200 $ RESIDENTI 1 SF/200 $ RESIDENTI 2 BOV © 4 a 83 TI 7265F/ 0 I I I I I I I I I I I © 4 a TI 726 SF/2 I I I I I TRASH RESIDENTIAL C RESIDENTIAL O 88 IF 1200 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1148 IF / 200 O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1148 IF 1210 RE8IDENTIAL r 4 a r- Q Q n p Q ® RE ENTIAL II RESIDENTIAL 4 a r- Q 0 n D Q 0 ® RESI ENTIAL II SF/200 O 10665F 120o© O I E7 T Ia _ - _ I< O I O TERMINA ION E T a RASH I� O I O I 347 SF - O NATION 1 NTIAL _ 9 w, N" a I L=231'-5" OIP_ °°O.a± Im I TIAL T9T y B a I L=231'-5�� O 2 r\ o.a± .fn} IJ 1- RESIDENTIAL 1071 IFF/200 / TOT C N I I RESIDENTIAL 1071 IF/200 r•r - - - - - - - - - - - - I 071 SF / 200 -� I I 071 IF / 200 -� - _ N CPET=113' O I N CPET=113' _ I - - - - I 4D I 6 I - - - DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS I --- - O v v TIAL r m m -- 6ISFN 00E6ISFSo N200 I • � � 1 � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ C I� I I I I I I I I I I I �N I I _ I I I 4 © RESIDENTI " 9ryCiC �6A O I� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 RESIDENTI c _ RESIDENTIAL B4.` b+ RESID I yl-7 II 1148 SF/20 RESIDENTIAL eF` O+ RESIDE I II 1148000 10668F/200 y 1068 SF 200 O. 518SF/200 CPET= '2" m I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 6 518SF/200 CPET=44'-" I I I I I I I I I I I I I GR I G IDTH I I 6 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL (C r I _ 6 518s3/200 rO I I� I 61T - 5185F/200 J O I T T PANTS bfl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___ R DENTIAL 3 I I I I I I I RE ENTIAL I O 3 FIREW � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIREW O 3 FIREW t I I I I I I I E RES WID H PE CC 0.2 I--- I 7zs Ill R FIREW o1 _ _ I I O oI R QUI D O ENIN IDT 1" I I -- O o_-_ Io I N . AIR 6 I I ' ® ®' ' . I ' I ' ' _ EGRESS OPENING WIDTH 0 0 0 CPET=47'-2" RESID TIAL r - - - ° - - - - - - - ° - - - - QP All Vlfl _ 5' ry RESID TIAL I I -- - - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - - - -- - - RESIDENTI Z]26SF/ 0 El I RESIDENTALPARKINGGARAGE I I IJ EGRESS OPENING WIDTH I I �R -- 726 IF JI I RESIDENTALPARK INGGARAGE I O IJ LOCCUPANTS 22 p �l 1 28806IF/200 I 26IF1200 28351 SF/200 PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" O a 1a I TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 ®/ - O 4 I 1a EG ESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 RESIDENTIAL a EXIT a 1066 IF 200 I L=280'6" TOT T R IDEN L t•?- L=280--6-s" - - ?•? RE IDENT L O 0 CPET=39'-10" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Itil _ L �83SF/20 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 CPET=39'-1" ♦ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �- - - - - I I eeesF/zoo IRED OPENING WIDTH 4.4" I 6 I R SIDENTIAL RESIDEN L RESIDE TIAL I_ RESIDENTIAL PARKING GARAGE SUMMARY I RESIDENT I L RESIDE IAL I- XIT RESIDENTIAL PARKING GARAGE SUMMARY 68F/200 683 SF/ 0 726 IF 200 I TOTAL OCCUPANTS-15012 EXITS= 7595 OCCUPANTS PER EXIT I 4 I STORAGE 693 SF/2 726 SF/ 00 TOTAL OCCUPANTS-14812 EXITS 74174 OCCUPANTS PER EXIT r 4 t t I I REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 1.6" I I 4rjg oo t w I EXIT I RO OSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" I 4 - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - - - - I --- FIRE LL I S a 4 0 - - - -- - -- -- - -- - -- -- -- - - -- - - - 70 3 LL 4 a B,°ra9° I o o a o 0 0 0 � PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" T sI°,age m - o 0 o a o OSED DOOR WIDTH 36" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I® _j I I a I® ® I I® ® I I I I I I I I I I I I Storage sl°ra9a FANRM PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" I 6I°'a9e I °o Exih �- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXI 191 S1F7�00 \ I RESIDENTIAL ' L r Eevat f I I I 2A 75 x 7288F/200 EXIT=1fi2�11" y LL� - - T~ ELObb r I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I /\ I a ♦ ___ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 20 I- 4SgTORA3pE0 L=1fi4'-1" L=233'-1" I- r I T EXIT L=128'-9" L=193'-fi' l/4 es7 40'- ESIDENTIAL I 4 � , 22 - e - EXIT I9 D END RRIDOR ]26 SF / 200 RETAIL 11 (TENANT IMPROVEMENT) 336 RESI ENTIAL I RE SFN IAL © © T -I- -I- � -e � � � � -II� - Leasing and II II II � ESIDENTIAL I I $ecu rity ESIDENTIAL I 148 SF / 200 I 2 EXITS PROVIDED MAIL 1{148 SF / 200 T RE TIAL ESIDENTIAL 3 a LEASING EXIT _I IJ 726 F/200 RESIDENTIAL 1066 SF / 200 1066 SF 1200 I O II I xa, 1049 SF / 300 I II loss sF /zoo © © © © © © 40,-2„ 6 I ]� aoa 4 © © © © r 6 O x O Os II II II I II II II II T r© J O I Retail I T 1g O EXIT I 3 II I II II I 1 O J O 6 D END CORRID O IT 5562 SQ. FT. Gross 3 4 aosF CPET=4 - RESIDENTIAL RE8IDENTIA I Mail and CPET=49- RESIDE T ESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL EXIT, 3 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 1066 SF / 200 1068 SF / 200 1066 SF / 20 T 10668F/20 I ' l I I S Parcels 1066 SF/2o I I � 1066 IF / 200 - RE8IDENTI 1066 IF / 20 CPET-102' O SH 00 1066 SF / 200 - > L- r Q ----- ----- O 6 m O loss sF/2o I O O O I - �- i EXIT r--1 EXIT DISCHARGE doom O ROfi61 SF'/Po0 I 0 6 I PET=119'-8" �- rT-STAIR 8 r O `EX` I i 13 I DISCHARGE 2T O I 43sF/too R sF TOOL -- - - - - - - -- ------------ a - -- ----- ---- ----- -- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- DISTANCE BE IT STANCE BE - - - EGRESS OPENING WIDTH I NT. EXIT STAIR 7WEENEXITS RESIDENTIAL EGRESSRESIDENTIAL EGRESS OPENING WIDTH - - __= J 7TNEENEXITS 356 7s2sF/zoo - ---------EXIT INT. T STAIR 6 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 EGRESS STAIR WIDTH O TOTAL OCCUPANTS P92 LL H EGRESS OPENING WIDTH 4 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH EGRESS OPENING WIDTH EGRESS OPENING WIDTH OPENING WIDTH EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 EGRESS STAIR WIDTH -- TH EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 TOTAL OCCUPANTS TOTAL OCCUPANTS --- EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 270 22 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 336 TOTAL OCCUPANTS TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 38 REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 58.4" EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 60'I EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.2 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 0.3 PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 67" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 54" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 4.4" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 67.2" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 71.6" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 7.6" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36'I PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 60" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 60" REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH 11.4'I PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 72" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 67" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 33.5" PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 67.5" L:::POSED OPENING WIDTH MI�96 91" EXITING -LEVEL THRU 5 PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 60" PROPOSED STAIR WIDTH 48" EXITING - LEVEL 1 GROUND FLOORPROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN.33.5" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 72" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 72' D DOOR WIDTH ° PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36' INT. EXIT STAIR 2 INT. EXIT STAIR 4 EGRESS OPENING WIDTH (GARAGE) EGRESS STAIR WIDTH EGRESS OPENING WIDT EGRESS TAI WIDTH TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 00 TOT LOCCUPANTS 20 EGRESS WID E R 0. R EGR SWIDTHPERTH 60" ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS EXIT PLAN LEGEND REQUIRED 0 I ED ST R WIDT 60' QUIRE OPENING 0" REQ ED STAIR WIDTH 60" PROPOSED 0 NING W 4 .5" PROP IR W H 60" P PENING IDTH MIN. PRO S WIDTH 60" PROPOSED D WIDT 8' II II I P P Q THE ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS SYSTEM CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1O OCCUPANT LOAD OF SPACE H I I © © GI°rage GI°rage 6I°rage 6I°rage EXIT AND OCCUPANT LOAD (XX = OCCUPANT LOAD) ESS OPENING WIDTH A112 EXas A. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE -SAME AS PATH OF EGRESS (INDICATED IN LEGEND ABOVE AND 1 • PROVIDE TACTILE AND BRAILLE "EXIT", "EXIT ROUTE", AND "TO �D3 .ty,18EN TOTAtCCUPANTS = N SHOWN BY SYMBOL: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ EXIT" SIGN. REFER TO 23 & 27/AD-31.1 FOR PLACEMENT LOCATION ST°RAG - EXIT EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP 136IF/300IT --- yl, II �� OX II I I DD A j� XX INFORMATION. REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH O I I NDr�F 3a I I B. ELEVATOR IS NOT REQUIRED AS A PART OF ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS PER CBC 2. IN, ADDITION, IN GROUP A OCCUPANCIES, PROVIDE A SIGN WITH © TRASH •=••:• �% ` SECTION 1009.2.1, EXCEPTION 1 (A FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER CBC THE OCCUPANT LOAD AS INDICATED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH MIN SECTION 903.3.1.1 IS PROVIDED WITH A HORIZONTAL EXIT). NEAR MAIN EXIT OR EXIT -ACCESS DOORWAY IN THE ROOM. PROPOSED DOOR WIDT 36" --- w aa9vtt9� Y yFOFe oa U - FITNES F -� 4042SIF ° �<<o'fi0 I i _ EXIT DISCHARGE RESS OPE !:_; B �� ay +- o\ I AN AREA OF REFUGE IS NOT REQUIRED CBC SECTION 1009.6 EXIT TOTAL OCCUPANTS 65 - _ I / DISCHARGE CLUBROOM - A RIER DECK_16s - - - ---- Q I EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUP ,CL°BROOM, I r__, C. INTERIOR STAIRWAYS: INTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL COMPLY WITH 1009.3 EXCEPTIONS 2 @I A�I4 FITNESS40I -- -- P I i _ - CPET = XX'-X"COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 1- olciCUPuBRoom °oL:46 i ENCLOSU I 171 & 5. _ L/ A -156 0 = 2 OCCUPAN S © PROPOSED OPENING WIDTH IN. 3.5"> 0 14 43;Fy,5 T 6 1 POOL! I _ \� I/ OOL DE K - 558 /1 373 OCCUP NT - - - N _ _ `i ! o x = AREAS CALCULATED L - XX'-X" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE PROPOSED DOOR WIDTH 36" 72Ny0y I �� = i-I L _ . I -li - - �\/ i TALO CUPAN IN OLENCLOS S-2 EXITING REQUIREMENTS: HORIZONTAL EXIT _ WI < Z A�I40 C - PATH OF EGRESS AND COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL CBC SECTION 1026AND CBC m�'�i W - - zi l " x - - - BASED ON CBC TABLE 1004.1.2: (200 GROSS SF) PER OCCUPANT om�.N I wl _ ! ►,I,.,�,, �.►.-;►.I,t,,�• , I I ? (AND ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS) 1. PROVIDE STANDPIPEA RE UIRED _ �I ! ���a►�'+►i-�'►�Q� Ort►!I�i�i�� - TRAVEL DISTANCE PER CBC TABLE 1017.2 400 FEET w/FIRE SPRINKLERS PER CBC w I +A.�,ro��i,�4t•Fn,�f� -��- .����� I 1 CLU R M PER CBC SECTION 905 ND ER CFC - - N I + + + ,� I -- i o1 903.3.1.1 o$ °� a �I -} -+� "} - C CLU RO-4143SF/15=277OCCUPANTS AREA INCLUDED IN COURTYARD OCCUPANT LOAD + + + + + + + + + + + i I N 905. �m �= QI w + + + + + + + + + + + ti DECK-2482 sFnS =1ss - COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL PER CBC TABLE 1006.2.1: S-2 = 100 FEET w/FIRE ® CALCULATION. ALL AREAS NOT INCLUDED ARE PLANTERS © 2. REFUGE AREA F TH ZONTAL 10 - I o7dul� .���1 + + + + + a + + + + 4 ❑ - - CCUPA TS SPRINKLERS PER CBC 903.3.1.1 EXIT PER CBC .4 I � s-�-c. � �-e-� yXo y I � AND CIRCULATION. p��� i + + + + + + + + + + I + �� e I Total occupant load entering: I � ! s��; l ( � I B o.� .� � � AREA OF REFUGE PER CBC 1026.4 P •• I FITN clubroom deck: �i4,x 3 sq. ft. per ccupant I I t' ���. _._._.ram, I i oPG� y5� o i I \� FITN S- 042 SF/50 = 81 OCCUPANTS R-2 EXITING REQUIREMENTS: clubroom: 6 3 s . ft. per o ► ! !� -'-� i �P�i l� --- °fe°e 387 sq. ft. refuge area required 3t°aga n PET=,2"'' -1y- N- =ter - I' �tv�o;P - BASED ON CBC TABLE 1004.1.2: (200 GROSS SF) PER OCCUPANT 3t°aga TRAVEL DISTANCE PER CBC TABLE 1017.2 250 FEET w/ FIRE SPRINKLERS PER CBC 602 sq. ft. refuge are provided ; � - 1 �5� P� L DB= v r �� � _ TYPICAL EGRESS DOOR WIDTH IROO�E 903.3.1.1 Elevator �I i I II li II I II COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL PER CBC TABLE 1006.2.1: R-2 = 125 FEET w/ FIRE REQUIRED DOOR AND OTHER EGRESS COMPONENTS WIDTH (CBC 1005.3.2 ) o © ITISTAIR 8 Lobbyir IT T IR 7 - II PENING WIDTH EGRESS STAIR WIDTH EGRESS OPE T EGRESS STAIR WIDTH SPRINKLERS PER CBC 903.3.1.1 OCCUPANT LOAD x 0.2" = REQ'D WIDTH OF EGRESS COMPONENTS A O 200 TOTAL N� L CU ANTS 00 TOTAL OCCUPANTS 200 TYPICAL EXIT STAIR WIDTH EGRE S WIDT PER CUP 0.2 E RESS WI I H PER I © II © II © II © II E SS WIDTH PER OC EGRESS WIDTH PER 0.3 REQUI NING WIDTH DSTAIRW 60" REQUIRED OPENING WIDTH 40" EQUIREDSTAIRWI H 60" DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1007.1.1 I I - - REQUIRED STAIR WIDTH (CSC 1005.3.1) .5" ROPO ED STAIR WIDTH 60" PROPO ED OPENING WIDTH MIN. 45.5" PROPOSED STAIR - TH 60" OCCUPANT LOAD x 0.3" _ (REQ'D STAIR WIDTH) K PROPOSED OORWIDTH 48" MR WIDTH NOTES 1 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 CENTRAL POINTE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN EXITING ANALYSIS • ktgy.com SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 JULY 20TH, 2020 BUILDING B A�l 22 ;r I■�IIl� ly■�Ir�■■I_■I�m oms j& ■ l AR ell lly � l t 1owl i :II � A uo SIGNAGE •-Fill r 0 0, K LEMBO I i�Igo I Z - - Lo■;� SIGNAGE .. SIGNAGE ln�m=�m-■� I - �:`-=&A ■17i w SIGNAGE __' wm Sol tJ lam _ �1 0 ■ L I Rip td jpq A- Mona _� 1 �Qp MR :II I I 0,1ANUO in Ali 0 0, "11 '1 =-` I lzpill r 0 0 NINE LL� ;u1L�1LJLJ—i I Lj =I L �m LE=mp� imw Li a LJL-J.1 �itmal�u LA 11� 11-ii L I I Room — NNE mm:2ff I 03BY 5"A w I k -IF T.O.P. --------------- L5 � � T L4 `6 ti L3 L2 T �' F oLl Architecture + Planning • 888.456.5849 ► ktgy.com Material Leaend 1. Stucco 2. Metal Siding 3. Fiber Cement Lap Sidi 4. Fiber Cement Panel 5. Metal Railing 6. Glass Railing 7. Vinyl Window 8. Storefront Glazing 9. Canopy 10. Masonry Veneer T.O. P. --------------------------------------------L5------ -------------------------------------------- L4 ------ - 0 L3 +1 L2 -------------------------------------------------- L1 PARKCOURT PLACE FOURTH STREET 1 Key Map n.t.s. LL 1. 4th Street Elevation (South) lid ==MIMI LL11 hJILL11 I 1 11 1! TFA ION "a EEO LL1r � LL '� � i_ iLL I -1-9� ION T ,Ej� u� Ju � � I� I III � �� L-u JL7 LL <Z 9 V f1 T E R FORD 1401,1 1" L l (031PAM3- CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 E4) 0 8 16 32 2. Freeway Frontage Elevation (West) "BUILDING B" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-221 SIGNAGE SIGNAC71: ...r i :II i:ls MIMI "a I NEI 7C immmi: I.CjBBY Ji : Amue r" ..I WRIJITIND Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <z 9 NVATERFORD k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 E6 0 10 20 40 L8 — — — — 72'-9" FF II I 17 ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING A - 1 ST BASEMENT FLOOR 61'-6" FF L6 51'-3" FF _ L5 41'-0" FF _ L4 30'-9" FF _ L3 20'-6" FF _ L2 10'-3" FF _ L1 0'-0" FF B1 A-31 0 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <z 9 NVATERFORD k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 0 10 20 40 L8 — — — — 72'-9" FF II I 17 ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING A - 1ST FLOOR 61'-6" FF L6 51'-3" FF _ L5 41'-0" FF _ L4 30'-9" FF _ L3 20'-6" FF _ L2 10'-3" FF _ L1 0'-0" FF B1 A-311 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com < 9 NVAT F R FORD k' FL i i p f_ 8 4 1 { 0 li VA % l CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 0 10 20 40 L8 — — — — 72'-9" FF II 17 ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING A - 2ND FLOOR - 61'-6" FF L6 - 51'-3" FF _ L5 41'-0" FF _ L4 30'-9" FF _ L3 20'-6" FF _ L2 10'-3" FF _ L1 0'-0" FF B1 A-312 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com WATE<w R FORD PKOVIRIS { U %1 i' % 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 2 0 10 20 40 ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING A - 3RD to 5TH FLOOR L8 72'-9" FF" L7 61'-6" FF L6 51'-3" FF L5 41'-0" FF 30'-9" FF L3 20'-6" FF L2 10'-3" FF 0'-0" FF B1 A-313 0 a Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com r� ,-1 --- --1 r----- I r, Fan Fan Rm. — Rm. , --- - - --- --- ---I bil--- --- ---� J o ±6.0% Slope Q'_O" �Typ. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- _ o 0 o — _ — Pool Equipment RESIDENT STORAGE 272 UNITS Pool and Spa Vault Fan Rm. M-1207MUM, HIMEMMINIM, PIRRIMMUM, HIREMMINIM, PIRRIMMIN, HE <z 9 NVATERFORD k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 1 _ i■ ��■.k�;M;7— I j4 Is 11 MINIM-1 MIWMMIWIH- I I I I 0 10 20 40 = A OW Ili L8 ------ 72'-9" FF II I 17 - 61'-6" FF L6 51'-3" FF L5 41'-0" FF L4 30 -9 FF _ L3 20'-6" FF _ L2 10'-3" FF _ L1 0'-0" FF 131 ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING A - 7TH FLOOR A-317 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <z 9 k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 E6 0 10 20 40 L8 — — — — 72'-9" FF II I 17 ISO. KEY ROOF PLAN BUILDING A 61'-6" FF L6 51'-3" FF _ L5 41'-0" FF _ L4 30'-9" FF _ L3 20'-6" FF _ L2 10'-3" FF _ L1 0'-0" FF B1 A-318 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <69 NVATE R FORD P H 0 P f. H i t C 0 %1 e' _l N 5 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 Eer 0 10 20 40 L8 ----- 71'-9" FF I � I L7 61'-6" FF ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING B - 1ST BASEMENT FLOOR L6 51'-3" FF L5 41'-0" FF L4 30'-9" FF L3 20'-6" FF L2 10'-3" FF L1 0'-0" FF B1 A-320 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <69 NVATE R FORD P H 0 P f. H i t C 0 %1 e' _l N 5 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 z •T_ CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 i I I I 0 10 20 40 L8 ----- 71'-9" FF I � I � I I L7 61'-6" FF L6 51'-3" FF L5 41'-0" FF L4 30'-9" FF L3 20'-6" FF L2 10'-3" FF _ L1 0'-0" FF 131 ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING B - 1ST FLOOR A-321 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <z 9 NVATERFORD k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 i i I I I I 0 10 20 40 L8 — — — — 71'-9" FF I I I I I I 17 61'-6" FF L6 51'-3" FF L5 41'-0" FF L4 30'-9" FF L3 20'-6" FF L2 10'-3" FF L1 0'-0" FF 131 ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING B - 2ND FLOOR A-322 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <z 9 NVATERFORD k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 I I I I 0 10 20 40 L8 — — — — 71'-9" FF I I I I I I 17 61'-6" FF L6 51'-3" FF L5 41'-0" FF L4 30'-9" FF L3 20'-6" FF L2 10'-3" FF L1 0'-0" FF 131 ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING B - 3RD-5TH FLOOR A-323 19 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <z 9 k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 I I I I 0 10 20 40 L8 ---- 71'-9" FF I � I L7 61'-6" FF ISO. KEY BUILDING PLAN BUILDING B - 7TH FLOOR L6 51'-3" FF L5 41'-0" FF L4 30'-9" FF L3 20'-6" FF L2 10'-3" FF L1 0'-0" FF B1 A-327 19 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com <z 9 NVATERF0RD k' H i i P F. a l l { 0 ti P i 1 1 CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 I I I I 0 10 20 40 ISO. KEY L8 ---- 71'-9" FF � � I L7 61'-6" FF ROOF PLAN BUILDING B L6 51'-3" FF L5 41'-0" FF L4 30'-9" FF L3 20'-6" FF L2 10'-3" FF L1 0'-0" F F 131 A-328 PARKCOURT Pl Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com NVA'1'ERFORD P FL ii V f_ 8 4 1 { 0 1t v i% 1 BUILDING A FOURTH ST. 1. Site Section (111:30'-011) 1 � PAoRKCOURT PLACE � o C FOURTH STREET Key Map n.t.s. 1 BUILDING B BUILDING A 2. Site Section (1 99:30'-019) CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 BUILDING A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 3. Building A Section (1 ":20'-091) SECTIONS L9, A-401 0 1 N 0 _1 r M Plan 0-1 Studio 518 SQ. FT. Plan 1-2 1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom 725 SQ. FT. Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 34'-011 <z 9 NVATERFORD k' H i i P F. 8 1 1 { 0 ti P i 1 1 0 coI N _I a cy Kitche Plan 0-2 Studio 516 SQ. FT. CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 24'-311 Living/ Sleeping L__-] 9'-6 1 /2" Deck 52 SQ. FT. ,7 Bathroom k 0 1 I WIC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 _1 r co 24'-211 Plan 1-1 1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom 683 SQ. FT. Plan 1-3 1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom 942 SQ. FT. 0 2 4 8 24'-311 12'-41' 0 Deck ' 59 SQ. FT. Livir Dining Bedroom I. WIC LL Hall 11W/D1 LI J I I I OI Kitchen olo I I I L _ - -J1Coats " Bathroom L 0 g 7in Plan 1-4 1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom 752 SQ. FT. ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS STUDIO & 1 BEDROOM UNITS A-501 n Al-911 N 1 ti N F-1 ■ C) 1 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com Bedroom i li WIC -------------- llll� Bathroom L Foyer WATE<w R FORD PKOVIRIS { U %1 i' % 1 1 38'-5 1 /2" 13'-1011 N ' Deck 72 SQ. FT. Living Room Dining Kitchen o;o I I --------------- M. Bedroom M. Bathroom V Lin CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 0 1 co Plan 1-5 1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom 831 SQ. FT. Plan 2-2 2 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom 1148 SQ. FT. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 0 2 4 8 45'-091 Plan 2-1 2 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom 1,066 SQ. FT. Plan 2-3 2 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom 1071 SQ. FT. ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS 1 AND 2 BEDROOM UNITS A-502 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com F-1 1:1 M. Bedroom I -------------- I II II II WIC �I II �I �I I, ❑1 L M. Bathroom C) 0 --------- -I -- Foyer <w NVATERFORD k' H i i P F. a l l ( 0 ti P i 1 1 42'-2" Deck 64 SQ. FT. Living Room Dining N 1�D Bathroom F- -1 IW/Di Hall ❑❑_�:: I I I I I I I I Coat I I 0 0 0 0 L II I I I I I I I Kitchen 010 of o I I I I I I I I CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 Bedroom 2 [-1 .. E Bedroom 3 co 1:1 Plan 3-1 3 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom 1284 SQ. FT. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 1-1 M. Bedroom M. Bathroom 0 r-1 FC) 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN Foyer �Vvp X 42'-2" -- 11 - 1:1 0- Living Room ------- I I I I I I Kitchen Dining Hall I I T \I / Bathroom G o [D�o f r__= 00 oas ❑ _ _ ❑ - ❑ ❑ ---J 0 2 4 8 1-1 15'-10" Deck 156 SQ. FT Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 1:1 0 N Plan 3-2 3 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom 1391 SQ. FT. ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS 3 BEDROOM UNITS A-503 ` ,� Y _ - �',r .�ti- �' - - :',F_s-_. - -_ ;a. - .•I- }�- -:Xr � _ - r k• w!t- •fit.,-. k ioo� - F""'r -�•' n ' ' .'S-� ._�.L r `mac"' w � r• �' ,. - - '� - �l v . .- , Xv _ ri 1. t-k7.. _ 1 - is f _ L� j ' }. - �'.. R - �'�r•ri S`:�•n t.K\r - a An. � try �F �: -'•. r4 � l'7 � .. - 177 .. tip' J, -�_ i��.. _ _ _ _ .,.�wr� �� �a,.`�•�_>'- �, - � �� �' � ,ij•i e.�.Ar • },� -_��_ - _ _'_• - ,�~ �� •'�_ - _ R� x �A. '? •�• ��'`i `�1 T r—� �� �► _ ' Y,R•.: ti� � � +� � .t �i ..' y � _� -<< � L fit. � etQ. ..� ��. -..�rr- _-- _ �� z, _ - _� �� �" a -yj.� �. � � .�'?�• Win.00I. _ r 'fib• •,•�.r" �-r r - ;• -� , ��p�� _"� �1�::.~ _ - � ;� '', ..t�i � � � � :?� !,s�S:� .'�+•. 'tire .j" _ �: k r'� Y_.'-4e � ?;.. _ �i ` � �. � r ..� � � '3„`g?�1 4-•. _ .! 'y ��5,���i� — - - ► � - - - 'c "'a"� _ y _ �}�A-+R7.�1� • .Z err` �J � -t _ ��� ke- vro NIIII - x�:,* A.C. - •�. _ .. ..- .` IN + � �• � _ - K2•i •` IL � �ryr _ - "- � �i� - _ _ L Ir IL I- :s;;'• ��� ' 'ate° _y :� '� �:: � � ...-. ,"�} I ; ; i+ _ rr or L 777 i L. 'r� �Y� _.9 .l •�i a 4 *� L 'L. �c.� � - ,:. ' - � __j._ - — ter• \' . t ' r. "• fr _ f 4 �► 4110 NX tag Al 40 \ `{• � _ ��r } ��` �r -'L• 5��� Y.4 '-R xA �E � � I.,-". "'.�n �; - r '�� � - - !� r � -P.� - r-" `4 _ •"� �x � dOI �t .mil-.W� --- .r..J.�-.~.• ,. �►r s N '+ �'`:=s ,'���II ` , +fit �� • �, ��� � �. �r. �` � . �- ., i'S°�' ; �'.. _I'U�I " jai' � � "� �� -' - :e� blL lb POI kL 40 SOW _PW •y Ions 14 Lk ARNIL : AN1• MA a 10 � 9AU loll LE I Centrp� I ointe M Awl I Ah, cl A meet -Aux 'RA Ch m 7 LN" MOVE OW rT- or r � Tw VIM" ?4p I 71 'v ir MAW JIM- r ARNEL W M I MUO M 0 ERK '-'NTRAL lkm ERK CENTRY ':.." Sim ka K is T iENDERINGS iP ATW QTDGGT rDr)NITA(--G _ -• - � - - iiiii�iiinii •-- -..__ --' �-- "- . r t ... x �,. _-_ _ _ • .. _..,, - , � - - - - ,q• ace � W OF Re R •�' I. �i 'il.i � -r --� � '•. >� - _ -= - .sly � � �S' � i ? - - '•.�,« - - --- - 1 � --. • .. _ _ � - '-�--}�:r -- :'�.~.�•.a _ _ :�.".. - - _ - � _ � .. ... ��- _ .. _ -..:c :a.�:._�{ - _ '-'1 •'..�:: � .-ems . _ - T. � - - "�*J� ��' tau I � _. -.� �."�• 1,41 arm I ..� -- - -- — — �' Y '� - - .���.� � - • ray' •.u: _ --��' - - - _ i " �,�:.' �Y-'i'r;"'}x< . _ — I)�II ` � ''�' ��■r � - -- — - _ r 7 �' ia� : y, .. - .��=•'4_r. - - -�1` �.v-..� •'_ °''��:: • � !�.� � N •� _ • �']'.� '� x'3 � FLy ..i. _� ilillLf ^.�� T � _ �i ■ �•� - — ■! � ' - I 1 .. 7 li �, , =` ± _ , ��Y.• _ ..i i.�.. - - r.'l� �b _ - _+ W,2f '.� _ r = "� •`Y _ ..-�r..yr\%F� - ���--' �. V ah - `g: .. .' r� •ry l• .\n wY l.n•. ♦•' lr:� 1It 1 J ■ — �� _ ..- — - L, '• '. _I' - - - - .. - '4 _. l� - i_L _n' '�^.r � fw_ •R�"`71 '�.-�. .Y. 'l, 1 • ��.L� �,i * �� � - .. � .� lip Not&, MIR 71 6.1 17- �=• - :'`„^.�•i. � t F I r - _ .0 a !+•x+�,.. -.?tip" - '. r .. ...� Nip w �v�3 ~�- -- � •'F'� � -�. •I -- _ • J. "• • - ., _ •...Aar. I Ilil -� s � �}`' _• •�- �.Z., � �• - � I � 4 I *b:+7.' ' - �'2 `a� - - a s - ypC�v,r;�. •^_ ... - -� �, .: -�, :i`- �j� - E• - _=_, _ � _ i �'�Jf _ I v 7. , k I++III ��� - r jII ,� V' rr. !' �_ apr �- _ "It • ,,.•: - `j"�n _ 'f.'�" 1•_+.. �•: i� .� �� •, ��r• •` ZV •.- I - - - - � --- - J ''�c:. !' f � , fir• t ��r. 56 bt da 1� Architecture + Planning < '1>1�\ STAN1• iENDERINGS J ZIA/ n1Z QnnlZTnQ onnQn{{TV y� .. rs� A� entral 10 ��,���■ ���� - ��■��� moon -22 1 p �.... � _._&-A • fir. � ••,.... - r= .,:... _. - �.. If's ER . EntTRAL x.:... f SHIN ��!''_ PI' OUN� -- -- �' f� AUSHN MMF i I 'rr yj :1 Pff '{' 6 ANM ��_,� Pam. ' -. .. -;: ;-_ - •i �I r �' is-� `- J�+r .. -. :. _ . -: - - - - may. .).,..- _ - .:S �} - r. -_y - _ •�;.• _!� - 01 fo pw I` Al f •lv ,;. r �'� ... •:. ` - -:�r-• ":.dam;- w' �. .. 'r -an •.r _ f• v R S i 7 • a t• I 1 P ,y A A , it felm Ilse IN �ytY i.4T ARNII �s 1 III I I f �—.44 I I � e. ■ �I I����11I I JIM I � ,r r � � I � � � � _ �1T °r' %r �ry • �` 'J�~ �'r� _ .. — �r.. ... � ,a,'• y� 'r ,. - - - � �• �_' +1 ��> - � f :ill 7�,� - - _ - ^�4 +��'e5 _ 'fir^ i'ti:' C �;^ �. .f` t 1 _ j�•Tyi - .. -' r•. L I • I'INTORINO 1'1iVTORiNO a - . � �- r �• � �- �_ a• J' .Wii~ - S F. -�i i�.;€ � ,. - - - .. "��" �' � I � `� , •f � I '�'1r • � _. k'".. r. �cs.; t �.,...a._,. 6w �' _ ! ^ �'�t. � .- •"••` - � 1. _ �yj�4' � , III �'. k m rr - Ik . _ r fir• : i i � T, l.• - �rg I ii I ti - r Yi a. 4 i { 1� •� 'jai' I _ L r . _ Fier iw -f - •Y_y%r., ' ` G i - Y l . J4 .7IM1 11J i - i . .�•''. MY ,lj� +W Y �.• � • � Yam, i� �- �.- .i �i- .:d. •� L 4 t;Ll - by �n _ • a`• 8� I I r ar T- I l t= 1 - � 'd' "' _ •yam 'ti. .w g-•N' rc'8, �=;3�-�'n _+�� -rMs - - -� _. :. -- •J:' "x: i-+i —t �• w+ ■" ' �. _ eels ��� � - - �. _ .. -_ .. _ _ _. - - _ .� ,. , ..•..�' .. - -_ •, 1' � r •�- ��A m u• AN I '_E:i1L L, Mir ARNEL N M A m uo 0 JE:- A41 Jec MA a 0 10 -1. r t-7 7 w .. - / . I ,_�� ,_:�, , ,,L . - . __� %,, - .. 1% . � I . - . " 'k . - M - , ,1'. . . ­1 - / - . _,�____ I . -.-5 - - , "', - , I 1 7�7% 11 .. I t X ,,- I la� "A � . . � 4 . , r'' 0111N - 4- i..-, A - 11.1# . , . � t', I _�* � 11 I . . . � - . . f - . ,�_111_ .- - Y-'Wt*l . -,Fz- (frv, __ �., f . . .., -4 11 I -1 - - .. � , -,-,. k' � . . . .. . � - 41� , " .. . 1. - )6 - . A - '7.? , V t" - 4 , k -* I.I., - i.,.,1 .N� *, �- - 1w-� ,A 1.)t x.A p, r ).�t A1_r _. - r.- ­.� . I I, . ___ . , .- '' - I ­_..... �,._ . -A , - . , , or� � - , ., �� .�- . .( , . i .. Ift . - .. � I.- . , Jil � . .. - -, -, - . . ��-, - , " � - . , I . . � -- . ..; - - - - I .. I . .z :. 11�' � ,%.� it � . � .� . t ,e� I ;Ioo) - I I-_ ? . � . . � -1 �. - .. . I . , ,W-� . . I ­ ;�� �4 ,. - -_ f . 7r, ,�;,, - - - .. . . I , I -, . -.1., W - -- .e .. 11 . . '" . , . . - . I ..' oi . � . I , 4%;�,( 1 4 � . .. ----_,----__ i, I .� . . . � __ - ____�i - 7� e!" . I' . . - . - . ., ..--...- ... I , __ , r . . - j .. . . . I- . I , ,,_ I I --,,,. . , - , ,now I - Tr VVI. . - - 4.'-!• -.--; � . ­, .- -, ... - I . . ". k s - -­,w - -,V , " ,...- ---". . - . iv 7 - - . ,�.m . ,,, . ; --l- -� � , . "N. _��' - j I - I . ., - . I .. �v �_ , ... . I . I � . 1� � I , - - __... � - __ . ­_ .. 1, ., -I- . . , .. - - . . � I ,,� - . - . . I . . . -d � 6 .. I " --------- I L-4 _� 0__ . I- ,!O" . , ". - ^. . . - - - . . . 4, 4 -'%� -.- _... . I t . I - i - --..;--. •'" - I , ." T. I I '. . , - . . . , kv . . I . .� . I ... ... . . �. .- . i i 11 1, I �._ , - .. - . . fft -_ . -- I I , I - . - . " I . .-a 3. ft. t� _.,.�. m , --t . . . . � - . '. .. , . I 9 " . , I %.IN - - %--.. 1. - . , .. . I ­- . % . � ,4. , . 1, -1 . . J . . , , - , .. el . . - - � : lfiz., - . f �_ - '% I - . . �,;._ 0:... . .. , . ." ,f , , . �, d _. I , - .1 - I � 4�1, " . wot . . . . . -1 I%# . . � , . . � k - -, , , - --- i " - _15� - . I - I . � . , . - -.0 � - -, � ... I - - I - � , m � �,��-.-� . � I - " - - -egad' rl ;�� 7-4- " � � ."., ��'.,7 - . . I .. . �­ �1 ,.- a'g`i 1� 4 . �_ . - _t*,--" rt9t q I , -V -W,--IF * 0., ,'!�,,W,%,� z,, ,,��.o7 I . - . , ,.I:1 -, _,. __ ., 1 .... i � A��T. APLN . " - . ,,�-^,� .� .. ,; . . . - A, :-, . - , " - - -IV ...- - ., .., - •lk � .; � . � I - . I . - . . , - , '- - . � �.� '0_1 - - . , .140, : I ,��, . ,.� . *.�� _.. . � .1 - - 1, v � _. . , n . LAAkimm, �-, I- !; I - 7 , - .�,,�4,�W.11".. - . ,- .. . I - . . . . . . . , .. �C.,.;��_ _. - - . 7 IV - - _. - : . - � .0 ,� I r .. - , L-��-.-, .---� I v . . - " '. - 1. --,. , ., . "�' . . - :� , , �;, - 4" ­ - . � -, . ­ * Y , ,..im.� .. - -, .- - f-, . . • � _.. - i - I ,� I I - . .1 4 . 4" IF . . - - I . . 4. . , - . , - .. ..... I � 1 ,,, , _1 . � � . - - . w � � I . , . - - - . . .• , - � I . . . . . c � . , � , . . . - t_ I .. . � 7 . . ,� . - . - . c . 1, 11 . �. ­� ,-,, - I ,...-- '. 1, ­ � - . . . - . � ...� . "� ! . - �,;� - .- I , . - � . - , , � . . I A . - - '.. ., . , -.11 -0 � ,­ ._.� . � � . - - I . : �._ ­-, !,P --.-,- - - ..- - - -2. �: . , , , , , � . 11 . , , -AL. , : i , , , - . � __- - . � I . 1� - ..� . - - , - �, , - 4 , - i � . I , t_ #�' . - - . - - :, ,4 ,�r. . I . ,.,. " . . - - - �� . . . -i,7�-i�. . .. ,,, !';'i'-•1 I. , ; , , , - . ,17�,"4� .- - ".. 4 , : _: - , � . - - 'L. . 11 , Plfl. ..• ., . . �;� � . , :�. " 11 tj�, * - -, -;v' , . - . . -I;- . - --- _� . - ��I,>,. '. , - � . , .,. A . . ." . - I - ' . z.4 . . ,� _ - I -0 -4., ,_ , 'w_- . , . , , .1. . - �`.. . ,f - .. I i , - lot= , - � jlr��.', - " .- pr ' '.,, I . .. I - , , 4 - : , - - I -1 . - 11 I. . . - - I . .. .. . . . � .,-,. . -_ - � � ., -•OW 'Id V. I , - - - .. . . .. - _vre A I ­ r1f R In 1p 1� IIK4---.,. . . 7 .1 .. - - - I r,-.----.-- -•_ . -, . A ^A� I At � - .• - I . . , . �Z"w ) ;, w�-r - . '. . . . . . 11% � A ,,I:T� �, " . I � .. ,:- � . ­., Ll- - -1-1 ... 13 . - , . 1. - - I __ F. - _�. _1 . I ... ... , � :�V�4.�,Z.,� . . , - - �� / . . , - - .. - I . I V 14 I I r _- - - V 1 1 I _;�A .0 - - .1 - .. �3�, W, - ;lr . . I . I t . . -�� . 4. � ,:I, 11 __ . . - �; , ; �.­ - . . . 4, , - 4 I " I _1 I .. .. . " - , .. . � - . - �__ . � ,�",..it, I k, - - - . . . - i k - .11 N 1. I . --- . - p A f ; � , - .;.... . . . . . . , . : I . - 1. . , - li� . . ,� , w �k . . " . . ,­ � . - p .2' P ,-, r� ,,��,,- - . p . . . .f . I . . - -_ . . I - .. I 4 'C . . 11 .A '. ;,U' . - , . __ � � I ( i t -.� " " .� - " O . 11 I OQ -a" - 04 .. I b., I / �_ If .. ix-, , _. - I . , . . . . !Ml ' 0 "' J. - e - I 'I 11 - . . , _� ( , I , I fol .1 -11 - I _�f' ,r, � " - . 4 , - . rW� : % . ... . . � ... , � � �,m, - . . - ... . , ___w k -"' . .. r, I . . .11 1myr, \ - , - .. . . . .11 vp "Wo , . - , .. I . . .1, .. '.. . . . ., III - __ : - � � 0-.Ik- - .. - - _________r_."�;. ... .. . - I I• . � . I - , ­F!­t'"TPry�-�r,rT ... . . '.. . il- - I - 1=7 - . =0- ,__vTrW1 . . - A ..... ...., . - t= . , - f.l. •jvm•Fs . - - - ,-: �. � .. . . , . I �ir __ ... I 1", . -1 . .., . % . .1 $ 0 '. - - - - - _ML - _11p, 1. ...: :. 0 . I . - - ­ . - ... . . , � . . . . . - , " I . . S. .- . - ..,., ... . I I- " r I - - - I 1. . . . .. . . 31 .. . .1 � I- I . ­.. m 1. I . . I . . . . . . . . . . . .10 .. ... . . . �:• .1 , - I . . I . - . .. . ,�'-,�;,, . . Mil, I , . . ,,,,- . 'A. :.. - ��.. .� . . �,fil* - :, , �11T __ ... I , � ..,;., ,,�----m' . I i " ,�;. i 11 - I . _,-�--, I . . / A.... .i. .; - I . w . - . : . . ; I . i . . - ' .t-o,kO!7"74'..,i.1kp_!_1". , - ,�. �, _., I - . ... ... -I I., i 1. .. I ..., . i . , . : . . irl I � .. f . . - _­ . ., , , , Vs � . ..,d:,.. - - r . - - F . - 4- ".. , . , . . . '. ., �, 11, • " , "• - - r . . . - .,­"7� 1 . I I -_ . I . _,� _T4". . .. li - . . .- - , . , . . .. . 'j'. . Y;i-, . , on, , ;.., . - . . . . �.. I . . .. . .. . . . I - . . . . I ... - .1 - � , . O I '(��.t, r . � ' . I . � ... � , , I . - . . - I . . . . . .1 .. - I . . , .)�- . / I - . . . . I . - - ... . _. 1. .. . , , - . . . . . . , � . � , . . , . .. . � ­­­- . . . ..'�. w - I%.. ,.Ij - - I . ­. , ,.": _ .. .. I .. " , .. . . I ., . . "r , -��,.,,,,� Y6,t�;� ,z ,:,: . - I .. . . . . " ..'...., .1 . I . . .. , _. � - - . ,� I . - - : . . _� - ____ - , t4�� . I , , r I . �r��O%.�� . . , I . , ! � - �, fiv,j 1. . k, H , I r ­ . , .. "-,., .� ... . / .. , - -1. i 1/ 1 . _ l���������� - 0- - - -_�---tip` q-.'- I7ti-r... - A1 xt4lb;p LI-- �. i,[-, '�.... 'ti -�,. ," -,. . . � ..- ;_OA .11 -.s-4 -.- -0 I7L1� j.* ,_.. ��a .. __ 2 .1 . �- - ::, %. L _ -- I - ; _ "'. V_.N� 1 'A ,,-,V 001_` 4Ajw-I_ C* _,C�_ _- ; ,;b! � . -1 !`. . - - , - - - - � - -I, - , .46'�,. .,,IL- - , . - I �',t� �- L- . � I . -. -,� -. . . 7-- w9LL-, . - . , . I I A- - , , . . - . .- . I . . . . J, .. , ... . a_ � �._ I ..... . I %Q4 .. I I I— � - I (I I __ _. 2- i .. j - - I . 4: t 4 I 1 . 1w . ........ - - I ik I - '. I s , ., � '. , - 9 I 5 : I .1, 1; N ,% " 1i . . 'V� , , ... . � . . , --,-, , . I I _�- - . ,.\1 : . V - 'It. j I . � - -1 .. 1. % . . , , , . ..I . .. . I . . . , . . � , . !,:r�- /_P �­ -' - - - I .. 11 - __ - I . . - _J __ .. 7.... .- . . , . . , I . - .. :. :, - � I . . . , . - . I . _,- . . - . - . . I . I - � I �-- 11 . lim 11 Oil . w ! No i � .11 I i a . � - ..I 4 " _. . . . I . .,vzV . I - 1.. � . -- ,-���Z-,��4- j m, - . 4--- I . ... ., � 1-1 I - ,.'. ..- . .. r -, 4- 1 , � - . ��'.. - ­ . . '! � ..It- - - �c - -.1" . . I ., `- � . ..__ I ... se lr� . -. , . ­�Az .,,*ve,_.___ - , � N, , }-fit * _-.", - _,w � 1% . ...", - , .1 . I , - . - � �t�'.- - . k ... - - __ .. 11� - . . .. j�! - _4�*­ .7 - � It � - . . . k . . . . . , 'N -� !p -- T '. � ��- - . I - �, ­ ;;, 01 - . . -, . - . . . . . .. ., :� . W..r I" - - .r.. . ,• �7.,� 1 �', .1. - . . .. � �r,��. - r ­ �•- . � .1 . __ . . - I .- _%, - W�Z4, �� �� 1w - . I - 4 ". - � .1 . .�. ,7?� . . ........ - - - A . - � �� __ . .. �, - . I .. ­... - . ! I _L - I .1 ----- . . ' I- 4, � - . . rr_'l � .. ":-L, -, - 'W .. �. . . ., . � . _.. ii . I I '. -.1, .- . I . 0 .z . . . � 1 � . I ,Z.. . I . � _. � �, . .. 11 � - - . .v, . . . ..;. - � ; .,. . - .. - -.4- 1 - - . "e. I. .1 I ­. . ,_ . , .- _. -.!,- , �-, I % 'I, .� - - . �.x ,X-r. , - �', . -4 . '­ - - . . . I '�).,�. ..w 1,� - � ,•. - .... , . I , ,� :'r - - � - , . I �L�,,� .1 �_ ... ...- - 21 t, , . I .: -1 I -. . A . I , . . ..,..%: I . . . - , , ! . I I - .1 ,,,�'P. - , - - . . . � , -'r . � e.,.!. 1 14 1 1 ... .1. . ... I 11 t - - Mir a I - . . � T r..j .. ='H91 1411 ...... I.. OF. LA; . . ­., - � I I ... 7 , .- � .- � c 4 , , , � , � � i ., -'I . N .1 �,M,-� - Z*1 .,..'� -:`% I . "P fir", : . . . ­�, - -1 ­7!_ , , - - � , _. , , . .. t, - . X� - ­ 'L . , --N,� � - - - -,O;.. - - ,,- - 0�. ; - . . '&, .. - - , mzz V_ �., '... , -,r,, _p � .�, 5 -1- . ,, -Rfare: N,k,-.. , 1. ...q"--.,,. .",-P `VN'4WI- 1 ., , I - , I ... -U.Ur' }.. . -7 ,. - - - . . - . , _,� I - . .. r -1- - I I 0 . . , ) .... ;. 11 t : I . . . . "�, \.�rw ",'�� ).. - . , �-, IV. , . . . . . - . �. .1 , _. - - �_ _i_ -. r- �-I %rN 1-1.-!tI F _ , _Z� `l,A­N, p _�,, �:u; - - .- .%..-.. �,­% L-%.-: I i.-. rl.­.A. M L-:,L ,,-% - AF--- I - - I . I .. - - ­4 _Z�1: " , - - . . " . . ,;q;X ". , - - . 0 �, f__9 �', . -, - �� -,I .- . .� ". . - , , .�,- - � -,,. . _­ .. '. . - - ­ - - _;�� " � , �-,-4 . , . . I . � - - �e . - T � . " - _� � , "., - - . , . - .. .-. . . - a . w ;� , F�� &-,,- -y , - :. - - 11 11 � 1 I .,� '. 1. . - .. . ..� �_ , _'. . i - - R, I � � . , .. I - . I . . -Nft! - I I _k .. ,, -7-� L� _ . ZM - - -!4 _"V�_ - , V . � . I %. .p - � -- I � .,;. wi'­ '...., , , --,A . .1 T,7 : - - ., , , . ., - - v . ,v.�,4_ -,- -14'. " - I , . . -, '. I I . rye., . M . � � ,-.,- A .. - - � I I k� -, .".t., Q .. i K'::',. -#-!��;, _- - - - . ... . � - . .- `­ I- ­ ... I i' 3 -4 I . . I . - - . . . - . 1. .,�.k,�. , - I , . - 0 1 .� . . . . . . -: .�, - - I I -, .., i,.-. - ,% -.Pri. , -, , . , I . .. . . . . . - , 1 . � 4,kkj- I I .. . .. I . ,.;�.. . ., . . . . - � "., ­ .- . ')7- .. � f-� .� , mr. , - � . : 1::.. . rm; , I w­. I - I � - ia� - , I .. .... . . . I - . . " _'i%��_,. I ­ . . : _�__' , I ICN i . - . I., . ­.. . - 1. .. . . - . . - . . . L I . . ± , . ., .. - ,­(.4 - ,,;: - .� -1 , , .L �', 'r. . �._��A�_.,-_, I I - 15� _k L � . _. . . I .�. - i� " - - - •� � . A,?" - 7 1 . � . . . I I . , j - . � r,�q��,, , I .. . _.t:� �. - , .z�, . iw -�4LN��', ,� _. . 4- . . "i . I _, . 11 . '. , . , , 0 - . . . ­_ - '. . , 11 .. ,'. -- . I . . .1 I --:. ., - . rw� - '.12 , . . __ , -:1LQ,-, C, ,;;�� - ,�j, �­ _ . . . lm'.cwl.q­�'t. , � , W�4 V, � . . '. .. .. ;, , - .11 . - . � i,. . - . ,: . � - 1� - -_ . '11�_.� , ._.41F. . ...I: . I - __1 �� .*" � .� �A � I-, � - - - .. ... .7.. ,� - i, - -- . . - -�r -.1 , `1: _�; - r, - -7 . . ", - .. . '.!�, .- .� - ". I 1, -,. - � . ,.�, - . - . . I . . , I . - � 1. " w . . �-,,; , ; & , , .. ��,_, � .�, .. � ...- � .. . _. i - - . 'S-. - - . e -.; I . , . . . __ ­ ,,�', ,j - r � �� 1, . , - I - . I 0, - . . . - ��� ­�._ - . . - - . r . .. 74 ­ I � ,:.. .. . I , ! . 4 , .� . . Z" � I '... _-­ - " . - 7.. - ',� :­W . • -1 , . . , 56; -ff:. X I . I , � _. . _' r. .11 - . __ ­:th,re. -___­�'! .. .. .. "'�. - n � - 7� .�, I.. . ". - - .1 . , WSKII I ,- - . .� .11 44, - I �_ . -1 . � . . - _:�61 . : ��. .. I _1 __ . , I - . . - � I ca - - ., - . , . - ..., I , . . - - . 1� . - . . . , i _. , �; . - - .,-. " . . �_ , , -, . 1' - , " ' .1 . � - �_ - I . le �, _4r, A, I.. .. .1 '- . .: . ". . -:. - - I . . - - - .. , - , I I - - . 'rt, I - , - - L .. r 11, 'i �_--�.' , . - . , - ; ,,,, �. ... r,W. . K . . ' A - - 1, . . . . . - ,,.. ",­ - . . 7 . - . �: - '. - I . �... - , , w .. - . . � . . . .1 4 - : , . - 1. - . I -• , - -S, . -I.. , 1. I I . . ' .; .. . � . � : . 1;96.L- . , W I -, �i "•. . . k : - 7 .- . ---,E . 1 : . . W � . - . I _,� , , ; .1 ,,, - .."k . ., I . ,.-. - . . . .. F ., � % J., - � t, I - . -'A�: � ,� . .% k . , . ... . . - . � , "r. <, : - � . : , . - . . W, . r . . - - . ,v,' -, '. 1. - " - - , I .• . - - I j . . , . I I . " 17 - I, - , . . .. '. - ;f- - ,�,, :;;i<._ . .. f, , .. - - ., & , F!: 4 1 ; - ! I . . 7 _1_A__ �, , . #I - - � , -' -..-- " . - - .1 - I .- . .. - - -, . �_, k, r - ) - - - -, , . � i" - - d z - 2 .. .. I - , - 7r, , p "­_ , a i I � . , I I . ... . , -1 _0._",:z j O.-M , % I .-.,..-.. I- !"., m ,_1 1.1. . � . I . . . . . AL' ­+_ . ­ ... I -.0 . . , - I , " ­_ . W. - .. . � . .,X . - - - � -_ . - - . _. . I + - .", --I- 41 . I It. I . 44, - - . , , . �� I* I - .. , - J, . I'-�-,.,'_ " -1/1" . . ... . � - , . . - .;'� I- .1 , - 1, Jl� .­ e. I 1�!,�O. . �,.t O., *A I - � . . . . .1 . , . I .. ., .��. . .0 . . . I- .. : - - 'f,, , "") � . , I I - ­ . I.. - �A-� ., A'. : , I . r - i . . - . .5..,& .. % - - N "94 , I I; . - A - .., . V, .. v 4 I I . Is . I I . I I .1 . m . . - - . -41 - 14 - . \ . . - ,. -_ f ..,A t, I . ok ...$ .It .1 4 � $ 4 "I ; - 0 . . ... L I T -,7.-I ­,gN _1�1� -, , , . . '�'L.'- "*,:: � , , - f� - .. . . . I , � . ... I? . . . . w I .,. . - . IV, , I . . .--. . �.,l . � b, v "g� - , - - . - - V. . . . - - :??L. I . I - . . . . $1 � .- ,;. - , i _. - ," �, _1 * I.' -1 ,11 .11 .1� . .1 � ,f.., ��v so v .. :-, , . � ___ I ., ... r . 1 , � � , -1 - - . . - . - . : ,��--_._A _bm . . :; . 7,-, -1 - i. I . , , dwp. ­ _� Al I �.'� . . -4 � - . ­ :,t..;�', .. , , , .. , 1. . 1- ,4w . - .- . --- - __� 4 1 , -Np-- . , I . I - �j �"'� -, 'O - I �. �, I . . .:I . ---) -i - . . 4F . L . I i44 - - . , I , # A . . .1 -1 . 11 I lv�_ � 1 ,$�__ 1 - ', 7,­ , ;, . hL, , N I �Iw - . I ... � /' . r - . � _. I .. - 4 0 . J I - 1P , P � � . . I I I . - . I . 1, . . - )&.. ,I � �.�, .. . . ,� , � 4V t . , I . . . I .. - .. . I -1; . . . - 4 - . .10 A. . - . , . % I , 6 - . , lfi,� - % I - if... . . -14, ,4 1, , , , . . ... �1 I ki. � -0 , -*V ". 11 % - I ; _f 11 b . " - , , rf;� ,,;-, I I , - . . , I . � p � � . . - kv . . - .0 I . - .. . ,�,Iui - 1�1. . . . . , , � .. .. .. ,(1'4.. 1; 1 41 ii I � .. __ - - .. I . t,.: . I . . . - . . r . ,4. . . .1 , -1 �.�� �Ll 'L 'I - . r . . . - I 1� 11 - - " I - , __ V - -w- . i 19 ' , � , Af,� , . , . 1� ­... . I L. ,- . . ;. f. 1� �,,.._i * I '. . . - .. ;�i ,�� I . ­_ __.,��- Pr, I - 6- . - � I.. - , .i .... . .� 4� I... , , . . , I - . . . . ca L, . I . . . Vill" I- , � I - q - - - - 4 , - "� , -io . I I _. �­ . . -, , . , 7- A " . -1 I r____, , I . _. � - d Y'. � ,_ - , � . � P" .. \-!.�,, , A . .,� . - ... �, , - . . .. --.=- . . I I - , ....:.,-A-, - It . '. . . A'. / - . - - I .1 - f . . . - -• . �.. - . . . . . . . . . . .. i � _�_ -I . . . . -djmmm� , - .,.. ... , . , , I . r, 11 - . - �r­ - ,L",, ., � . .... "' It ,A , I - ____ -1 4 1 , . ,,, , - � . � It � I � . . '� L, , 1 . � . i . NV,�­ . r .. , . . . .�. . � - .. " . I . . . ... . . . . , v. . -i , - !�, - i �. - � 1� )- - . .. . __ -D - s r . ­­_­ . '11 . .. . .. . . .. - , .1 I I low- .1 . - ; " __ - .- . - I . . - . IT ix . . . - ... . . . - _ . - - .....-,- - . ,_�� 'T ­ 1; . . . - . A.Iv - - . 11P , . � 1­1 ­_,�M;r . - ,4 il ... - I- ,,�77 ""111-177777 .1 -.: - . �. .1 . lr_� - __ _. . . - . .. _. . . . I r,".. '�� 17 '. ..... _. PRF.�� ., ;pm.. .. I . . -_ "JV I . t , , " �: I , .. . . . - . . .. 17 , -1 v -1 , .... . .. ; - - �, 11 -f I/ - . . I . .. . . . . , .... � . . . - - - � . - ... - :�_ .:1 ... �­., - . . . % . .. . I . . . 1. . . .- . _, . ". .z�, � 1. 1". - - 4. i . �, - I , - . _. - 1: � , .. I - . . . - . ;.. .. �, . � . I 1; ,:, . .. . . - I _._�, ,�� - . ... � . .. % . - . . - , 1. .11 . . - .. I . . I , . I ; . : I .". .., . .... . - - . .4 . , .. - . . .. . .. . . � - ." _.. L., . 0.1. . . . . 1 . . . . 4. ..� , /� ......... ;z ..,e " ..A - . . I � . : . ./ .1 . . . . . '7""r . .. .. - I -1.. ,1.� - �, -- .- - - . I .., ... . � _. ' - I ; __ . _4 . , - . I . - I .1 . - I iii� .- . v F, -I... 1, ,;- .. . .r ; . I - 1. : .. - . I - ������ll,, ARNEL M STANUO X /; 1-%A A I I 1-% 1-1 1.1 ; V% IN A 1-% A A I V% 4- k 1-% I ; &-% 1-% 1-% L- O '-% L- I Z 0 Z j, .�.� I , , s�, � , . . 0 - . I . . L. :, rp -.� - .. : . 6 . :i �.. j , .: . / - ., . . � , ­4'�� 1. , I . . .. . L . .� .. : ,�. , , ,:�� i . . . . . __ . . . - . Po . 1, . I . I � , , - i.... . .-, - .. . : . ,­�z / ; � . � ,....,. ..., . ..- . . r' . : � ., - . i .. . - . - - - . , . . . ... . ., .,.. - - I.. _i�' . . . . � IN a, I. v 1. STUCCO 1 7. FLAT METAL PANEL X �4 l Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 2. STUCCO 2 8. FLAT METAL PANEL NVAT F R FORD P FL ii F' f_ 8 4 1 { o 1t v i% 1 3. SIMULATED WOOD FIBER CEMENT SIDING 9. FROSTED GLASS RAILING CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 4. LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT SIDING 10. VINYL WINDOWS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 5. PANEL SIDING FIBER CEMENT SIDING 11. ALUMINUM FRAME STOREFRONT 6. PANEL SIDING FIBER CEMENT SIDING 12. STONE VENEER COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD A-701 ICONSULTANT : AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM415.292.5400 RFOR IAI946080 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT S'BROW @TRASHMANAGE.COM nrr 1-%A nr -rA el CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 0 16 32 64 SEE PAGE T1.0 SEE PAGE T1.1 BUILDING SITE PLAN LEVEL 1 TYPICAL T-Om 1 A e�l 11 '� �.� ©1© 0 0 I � I i I o of I I � I �❑° 11 ICONSULTANT: AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM41 292 5 OORFOR IAI94608 890 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT SBPOW @TRASHMANAGE.COM I 1 71-4 Mw E I ® I y y y y I aim PI . III �1_1_I Ni, III,1111 1 COMMERCIAL STAGING NOTE: HAULER TO PULL BINS OUT OF TRASH ROOMS, SERVICE AND RETURN TO TRASH ROOM. NO GATES PROPOSED IN APPROACH OR DRIVE ISLE. APPROACH TO STAGING AREA IS COMPLETELY UNOBSTRUCTED. CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 0 I in i YYu"iyu".�� i 1 N I DINO � ��m CD N SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 6'-C" P % Io %ol lis � ILI ! I O�` lllmmlml :'M I I I I 0 16 32 64 RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION SCHEDULE BUILDING A + B TOTAL SERVICE 3CY WASTE 3CY RECYCLING TOTAL M 8 8 T W T F S S 4 8 8 4 8 SEE PAGE T0.3 FOR TRUCK MANEUVERING PATTERNS BUILDING A & B STAGING PLAN LEVEL 1 T-002 SETUP IN THE MIDDLE (INITIAL BIN SETUP). 2. TRUCK TO BACK UP WITH EMPTY BIN. 3. TRUCK TO PULL FORWARD WITH EMPTY BIN AND PLACE. 4. TRUCK TO BACK UP AND POSITION ITSELF TO PULL FORWARD. 5. TRUCK TO PULL FORWARD AND REPEAT PATTERN UNTIL ALL BINS ARE SERVICED. SEE PAGE T0.4 FOR EXACT BIN MOVEMENT PATTERN. FRONT LOAD VEHICLE ENTRY (INITIAL BIN PLACEMENT) ICONSULTANT: AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM41 292 5 OORFOR IAI94608 890 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT SBPOW @TRASHMANAGE.COM CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 ITSELF FOR 3 POINT TURN. 7-9. TRUCK TO CONDUCT 3 POINT TURN 10. TRUCK TO PULL FORWARD AND EXIT. SEE PAGE T0.4 FOR EXACT BIN MOVEMENT PATTERN. FRONT LOAD VEHICLE EXIT (POST -PICKUP BIN PLACEMENT 35ft SPU Front End Loader Overall Length 35.000ft Overall Width 10.1 ft Overall Body Height Min Body Ground Clearance 13.50ft 1.371 ft Max Track Width 8.000ft Lock -to -lock time 6.00s Empty Weight 35,840lbs Gross Weight 58,000lbs Service Clearance 24ft Inner Wheel Base 15.33ft 0 16 32 64 TRASH STAGING & TRUCK MANUVERING LEVEL 1 TYPICAL T-003 ICONSULTANT: AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM41 292 5 OORFOR IAI94608 890 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT SBROW @TRASHMANAGE.COM CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PLACEMENT OF EMPTY BINS BY DRIVER POST COLLECTION. I I I I 0 4 8 12 SEQUENTIAL BIN MOVEMENT LEVEL 1 TYPICAL nif T-004 HOT/COLD - HOSE BIB 6"W x 12"H CURB (TYP.) 120V 15A SERVICE— OUTLET. (TYP) T-0" EXIT 1 -3 AIR DOOR COMPRESSOR z------------------ - 8'-0" ROLL -UP DOOR I I DISCONNECTS - \ F 3CY NARROW g SPARE WASTE COMPACTOR CONTAINER 3CY NARROW SPARE RECYCLING COMPACTOR CONTAINER 3CY NARROW SPARE RECYCLING COMPACTOR CONTAINER 2'-2%" FROM CENTER OF CHUTE TO ELEVATOR w E S J ��w o CD �w STACKED POWER PACK(2) 3CY NARROW RECYCLING COMPACTOR ❑ CONTAINER ELECTRIC PALLET JACK ODOR CONTROL ROW L OR R Rhl 2'-10% \ I I N � w T-0" EXI DOOR CHUTE MASTER A-500 ° 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC CONTROL STEEL PLATE W/ DIAMOND = J OPENING ELECTRICALLY TREAD AS WALL PROTECTION COMPACTORS 1° INTERLOCKED ALONG THIS WALL. CD THRU-WALL INTAKE DESIGN ISSUE #1. DOOR SEE NOTE 18 0 BUILDING A TRASH COLLECTION ROOM CORE 1 (2) SELF CLC 15x AUTO OPENING I PER CBC 71 ICONSULTANT : AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM415..292.5 00 RFORNIAI946080 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT S'BROW @TRASHMANAGE.COM REDUCED TO 6". DESIGN ISSUE #2. UPPER VESITBULE LEVELS 02-07 (TYP CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 30" CHUTE CHUTE DISCHARGE - DOOR, SEE NOTE 14 APOLLO MODEL A500 -- COMPACTOR, (2) TOTAL 3CY NARROW TOWABLE M CONTAINER n (2) 30" GALVANEAL CHUTE 1'-34" FROM EDGE OF CHUTE TO WALL �Lo 2 -8 11 I- O W i - N FRONT VIEW 2'-10%" SECTION A -A 4'-6" WASTE 1 1:14V y11l,4[e3 SECTION B-B SIDE VIEW V -U TOP VIEW 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC OPENING ELECTRICALLY i INTERLOCKED i THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR SEE NOTE 18 O U �o� wiz L O w ��_a_ 0 TRASH ROOM LEVEL 1 84" FROM EDGE OF CHUTE TO WALL A500 COMPACTOR FRONT VIEW. BIN NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. (TYP) H ROOM LEVEL 1 3'-7" A N I 3'-1' REAR VIEW 3CY NARROW CONTAINER DETAILS 0 2 4 8 SHEET NOTES: RESIDENTIAL TRASH TERMINATION ROOM 1. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS PART OF 2HR FIRE -RATED TRASH CHUTE SHAFT - RESTRICTED ACCESS. 2. FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR. 3. WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH -GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF. 4. INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL NON -CONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB AROUND THE COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PACKS. INSTALL STEEL PLATE WITH DIAMOND TREAD BACKING ALONG WALL WHERE INDICATED FOR WALL PROTECTION. 5. 8'-0" ROLL UP DOOR AND 3FT EXIT DOOR. 6. ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/FT PER 2016 CBC. 7. (2) 30" GRAVITY CHUTE WITH COMPACTORS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. PROVIDE 3CY NARROW FL COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR WASTE & 3CY NARROW FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER FOR RECYCLING. CHUTES SHALL TERMINATE AT 5'-9" AFF. 8. PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE STACKED & FLOOR -MOUNTED. (2) 5HP 3-PHASE, 208/230/460V. 30A DISCONNECTS60" AFF. 9. MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. MUST ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING CONTAINERS AND WASHING CHUTES. REQUIRES 120V 15A DEDICATED SERVICE. 10. AC: 2HP CHUTE AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE FLOOR -MOUNTED. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 11. OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 12. HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. 13. PROVIDE ELECTRIC PALLET TRUCK FOR TRANSFERRING CONTAINERS. 40001b CAPACITY; TURNING RADIUS: 45.5". REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 14. CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR: TYPE -A, HORIZONTALLY INSULATED SLIDING -STEEL DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165 F FUSIBLE LINK. 15. 5HP 3PHASE, 208/230/460V FOR THE POWER PACKS REQUIRED. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES: 16. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE -RATED WITH 1 HR FIRE -RATED DOOR; 5-0" MIN REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS - RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. PROVIDE (2) SELF CLOSING, 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOORS TO DISPOSE TRASH AND RECYCLING INTO COMPACTORS PER CBC 713.13.1. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS SUPPLIED BY MCP. SEE DETAIL 1T2.0. 17. CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD -WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES. 18. PROVIDE 18X18 SIDE HINGED, AUTOMATIC OPENING, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOORS THAT DISPOSE INTO CONTAINERS PER CBC 713.13.1. SEE DETAILS 2/T2.0. 19. PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND SQUARED FLOOR OPENINGS AT WOOD -FRAME CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE DETAIL 9/T2.0 FOR ANCHORING AND MASON BRA -RED SOUND ISOLATION PAD ASSEMBLY. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES, DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 2. OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES. DESIGN ISSUES: 1. SINCE COMPACTOR WILL GET CLOSE TO WALL AND NO ROOM TO MOVE IT AWAY,STEEL DIAMOND TREAD AS WALL PROTECTION WHERE INDICATED IN LIEU OF CURB. 2. MOVED WALL ATTACHED TO INTAKE DOOR TOWARDS 3FT EXIT DOOR BY 638" IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR CHUTE FOOTINGS. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM CORE 1 BUILDING A T-1 00 HOT/COLD -A I' HOSE BIB s (2) SELF CL( 15x AUTO OPENING I PER CBC 71 CHUTE MASTER CONTROL A-500 ODOR COMPACTORS CONTROL \ 6"W x 12"H CURB (TYP.) W, CY SPARE 3CY SPAREF PARE 3CY WASTE ✓ASTE WASTE CLING COMPACTOR OMPACTO COMPACTOACTOR CONTAINER ONTAINER CONTAINERAINER 3CY SPARE RECYCLING COMPACTOR CONTAINER T-0" EXIT DOOR ELECTRIC I PALLET JACK STACKED POWER PACK(2) DISCONNECT 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET. (TYP) F I 6'-0" ROLL -UP DOOR 1 I I AIR COMPRESSOR 3CY RECYCLING COMPACTOI CONTAINER BUILDING A TRASH COLLECTION ROOM CORE 2 UPPER VESITBULE LEVELS 02-07 ICONSULTANT : AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM415..292.5 00 RFORNIAI946080 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT S'BROW @TRASHMANAGE.COM 2'-2%" FROM CENTER OF CHUTE TO ELEVATOR 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC OPENING ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR SEE NOTE 18 3'-0" EXIT DOOR 7F A -A LAiv CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 30" CHUTE CHUTE DISCHARGE— \ DOOR, SEE NOTE 14 APOLLO MODEL A500 COMPACTOR, (2) TOTAL 3CY NARROW TOWABLE CONTAINER Lc) (2) 30" GAI 2'- 8 W FRONT VIEW 2A V/8" SECTION A -A SECTION B-B SIDE VIEW / V -U TOP VIEW 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC / OPENING ELECTRICALLY / INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR SEE NOTE 18 M LEVEL 1 FROM E OF -E TO kLL -OMPACTOR FRONT BIN NOT SHOWN -ARITY. (TYP) OM LEVEL 1 N i 3'-1" REAR VIEW 3CY NARROW CONTAINER DETAILS SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 0 2 4 8 SHEET NOTES: RESIDENTIAL TRASH TERMINATION ROOM 1. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS PART OF 2HR FIRE -RATED TRASH CHUTE SHAFT - RESTRICTED ACCESS. 2. FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR. 3. WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH -GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF. 4. INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL NON -CONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB AROUND THE COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PACKS. INSTALL STEEL PLATE WITH DIAMOND TREAD BACKING ALONG WALL WHERE INDICATED FOR WALL PROTECTION. 5. 6'-0" ROLL UP DOOR AND 3FT EXIT DOOR. 6. ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/FT PER 2016 CBC. 7. (2) 30" GRAVITY CHUTE WITH COMPACTORS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. PROVIDE 3CY NARROW FL COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR WASTE & 3CY NARROW FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER FOR RECYCLING. CHUTES SHALL TERMINATE AT 5'-9" AFF. 8. PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE STACKED & FLOOR -MOUNTED. (2) 5HP 3-PHASE, 208/230/460V. 30A DISCONNECTS60" AFF. 9. MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. MUST ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING CONTAINERS AND WASHING CHUTES. REQUIRES 120V 15A DEDICATED SERVICE. 10. AC: 2HP CHUTE AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE FLOOR -MOUNTED. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 11. OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 12. HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. 13. PROVIDE ELECTRIC PALLET TRUCK FOR TRANSFERRING CONTAINERS. 40001b CAPACITY; TURNING RADIUS: 45.5". REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 14. CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR: TYPE -A, HORIZONTALLY INSULATED SLIDING -STEEL DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165 F FUSIBLE LINK. 15. 5HP 3PHASE, 208/230/460V FOR THE POWER PACKS REQUIRED. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES: 16. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 1HR FIRE -RATED WITH 1HR FIRE -RATED DOOR; 5-0" MIN REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS - RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. PROVIDE (2) SELF CLOSING, 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOORS TO DISPOSE TRASH AND RECYCLING INTO COMPACTORS PER CBC 713.13.1. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS SUPPLIED BY MCP. SEE DETAIL 1 T2.0. 17. CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD -WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES. 18. PROVIDE 18X18 SIDE HINGED, AUTOMATIC OPENING, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOORS THAT DISPOSE INTO CONTAINERS PER CBC 713.13.1. SEE DETAILS 2/T2.0. 19. PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND SQUARED FLOOR OPENINGS AT WOOD -FRAME CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE DETAIL 9/T2.0 FOR ANCHORING AND MASON BRA -RED SOUND ISOLATION PAD ASSEMBLY.POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES, DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 2. OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES. DESIGN ISSUES: 1. MOVED WALL ATTACHED TO INTAKE DOOR TOWARDS 3FT EXIT DOOR BY 638" IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR CHUTE FOOTINGS TRASH COLLECTION ROOM CORE 2 BUILDING A T—1 ol AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT \ o / \ �o w \ y z Elfw� 2'-2%" FROM CENTER OF CHUTE TO ELEVATOR 2'-10%° N 120V 15A SERVICE -- OUTLET. (TYP) 3'-0" AIR EXIT COMPRESSOR DOOR T------------------ I 8'-0" ROLL -UP DOOR I I J DISCONNECT 3CY NARROW 3CY NARROW STACKED POWER SPARE SPAF RECYCLING RECYCLIN PACK(2) COMPACT R COMPACTC CONTAINER=T CONTAINE ELECTRIC PALLET JACK F.D B-B , 3CY NARR W 3CY NARRO ODOR SPARE SPARE WASTE WASTE CONTROL I COMPACT R COMPACTO CONTAINE CONTAINER 3CY RECYCLING COMPACTOR CONTAINER 3CY WASTE COMPACTOR 3'-0" EXIT CONTAINER DOOR47 HOT/COLD HOSE BIB 6"W x 12"H CURB (TYP.) a 30" CHUTE CHUTE DISCHARGE - DOOR, SEE NOTE 14 APOLLO MODEL A500 COMPACTOR, (2) TOTAL 3CY NARROW TOWABLE CONTAINER 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC ,', OPENING ELECTRICALLY A-500 STEEL PLATE W/ DIAMOND CHUTE MASTER INTERLOCKED Q COMPACTORS CONTROL TREAD AS WALL PROTECTION THRU-WALL INTAKE �o o ALONG THIS WALL. DOOR SEE NOTE 18 o ~ DESIGN ISSUE #1. 84" FROM `J EDGE OF CHUTE TO WALL BUILDING B TRASH COLLECTION ROOM CORE 1 CONSULTANT : AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT 1900 POWELL STREET, SUITE 890 EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94608 P: 415.292.5400 F: 415.292.5410 SBROWN@TRASHMANAGE.COM A500 COMPACTOR FRONT VIEW. BIN NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. (TYP) TRASH ROOM LEVEL' g _F CLOSING, IBH 2 8 N OATIC NG DOOR, 0 BC 713.13.1. N ­1 -IN V'8 lA REDUCED TO 6". DESIGN ISSUE #2. UPPER VESITBULE LEVELS 02-07 (TYP) CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 FRONT VIEW 2'-10%" 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC OPENING ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR SEE NOTE 18 Fa=V�_ 00 o c� Ow °e I O TRASH ROOM LEVEL 1 ,<zw J SECTION A -A o Cl- CD 4'-6" (2) 30" GALVANEAL CHUTE 1'-34" FROM EDGE OF CHUTE TO WALL �co RECYCLING WASTE SECTION B-B SIDE VIEW REAR VIEW / V -U TOP VIEW 3CY NARROW CONTAINER DETAILS 0 2 4 8 SHEET NOTES: RESIDENTIAL TRASH TERMINATION ROOM 1. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS PART OF 2HR FIRE -RATED TRASH CHUTE SHAFT - RESTRICTED ACCESS. 2. FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR. 3. WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH -GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF. 4. INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL NON -CONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB AROUND THE COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PACKS. INSTALL STEEL PLATE WITH DIAMOND TREAD BACKING ALONG WALL WHERE INDICATED FOR WALL PROTECTION. 5. 8'-0" ROLL UP DOOR AND 3FT EXIT DOOR. 6. ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/FT PER 2016 CBC. 7. (2) 30" GRAVITY CHUTE WITH COMPACTORS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. PROVIDE 3CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR WASTE & 3CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER FOR RECYCLING. CHUTES SHALL TERMINATE AT 5-9" AFF. 8. PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE STACKED & FLOOR -MOUNTED. (2) 5HP 3-PHASE, 208/230/460V. 30A DISCONNECTS60" AFF. 9. MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. MUST ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING CONTAINERS AND WASHING CHUTES. REQUIRES 120V 15A DEDICATED SERVICE. 10. AC: 2HP CHUTE AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE FLOOR -MOUNTED. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 11. OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 12. HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. 13. PROVIDE ELECTRIC PALLET TRUCK FOR TRANSFERRING CONTAINERS. 4000Ib CAPACITY; TURNING RADIUS: 45.5". REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 14. CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR: TYPE -A, HORIZONTALLY INSULATED SLIDING -STEEL DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165 F FUSIBLE LINK. 15. 5HP 3PHASE, 208/230/460V FOR THE POWER PACKS REQUIRED. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES: 16. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE -RATED WITH 1 HR FIRE -RATED DOOR; 5'-0" MIN REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS - RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. PROVIDE (2) SELF CLOSING, 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOORS TO DISPOSE TRASH AND RECYCLING INTO COMPACTORS PER CBC 713.13.1. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS SUPPLIED BY MCP. SEE DETAIL 1T2.0. 17. CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD -WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES. 18. PROVIDE 18X18 SIDE HINGED, AUTOMATIC OPENING, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOORS THAT DISPOSE INTO CONTAINERS PER CBC 713.13.1. SEE DETAILS 2/T2.0. 19. PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND SQUARED FLOOR OPENINGS AT WOOD -FRAME CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE DETAIL 9/T2.0 FOR ANCHORING AND MASON BRA -RED SOUND ISOLATION PAD ASSEMBLY. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES, DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 2. OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES. DESIGN ISSUES: 1. SINCE COMPACTOR WILL GET CLOSE TO WALL AND NO ROOM TO MOVE IT AWAY,STEEL DIAMOND TREAD AS WALL PROTECTION WHERE INDICATED IN LIEU OF CURB. 2. MOVED WALL ATTACHED TO INTAKE DOOR TOWARDS 3FT EXIT DOOR BY 638" IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR CHUTE FOOTINGS. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM CORE 1 BUILDING B T-1 02 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC OPENING ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR SEE NOTE 18 11 a -1 WIN '111 M' wu_. 1; ploo i 2'— 1 O% " ICONSULTANT : AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM415..292.5 00 RFORNIAI946080 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT S'BRow @TRASHMANAGE.COM 3CY NARROW RECYCLING COMPACTOR CONTAINER 2'-22' FROM CENTER OF CHUTE TO ELEVATOR A-500 COMPACTORS 3CY NARROW WASTE COMPACTOR CONTAINER 6"W x 12"H CURB (TYP.) - CHUTE MASTER CONTROL ODOR CONTROL r 3CY NARROW 3CY NARROW SPAR E SPAR E WASI E WASI E COMPACT R COMPACT R CONTAINER CONTAINER 3CnNRRCW S Sp a YCLI G COMPACTOR CONTAINER ELECTRIC PALLET JACK 3CY NARROW SPARE RECYCLING COMPACTOR CONTAINER STACKED POWER co ° PACK(2) DISCONNECT 120V 15A SERVICE i OUTLET. (TYP) r i 6'-0" ROLL -UP DOOR 3'-0" EXIT DOOR AIR COMPRESSOR BUILDING B TRASH COLLECTION ROOM CORE 2 NA/ 1 1'l \A/AI I T/ VA/AI l _F CLOSING, SBH VIATIC NG DOOR, BC 713.13.1. UPPER VESITBULE LEVELS 02-07 (TYP) CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 HOT/COLD HOSE BIB 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC OPENING ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR SEE NOTE 18 2'-10%" 30" CHUTE �� 7—Ar O cD Zw El I O ¢�¢ W Q e c� O TRASH ROOM LEVEL 1 SECTION A -A (2) 30" GAI 2 —8 i - N FRONT VIEW SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 SECTION B-B *1111MAJIATE I u I TOP VIEW CHUTE DISCHARGE ,- DOOR, SEE NOTE 14 APOLLO MODEL A500 COMPACTOR, (2) TOTAL 3CY NARROW TOWABLE - CONTAINER =ROM OF E TO ALL -OMPACTOR FRONT BIN NOT SHOWN _ARITY. (TYP) DM LEVEL 1 N i REAR VIEW 3CY NARROW CONTAINER DETAILS 0 2 4 8 SHEET NOTES: RESIDENTIAL TRASH TERMINATION ROOM 1. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS PART OF 2HR FIRE -RATED TRASH CHUTE SHAFT - RESTRICTED ACCESS. 2. FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR. 3. WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH -GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF. 4. INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL NON -CONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB AROUND THE COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PACKS. INSTALL STEEL PLATE WITH DIAMOND TREAD BACKING ALONG WALL WHERE INDICATED FOR WALL PROTECTION. 5. 6'-0" ROLL UP DOOR AND 3FT EXIT DOOR. 6. ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/FT PER 2016 CBC. 7. (2) 30" GRAVITY CHUTE WITH COMPACTORS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. PROVIDE 3CY NARROW FL COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR WASTE & 3CY FL NARROW COMPACTOR CONTAINER FOR RECYCLING. CHUTES SHALL TERMINATE AT 5-9" AFF. 8. PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE STACKED & FLOOR -MOUNTED. (2) 5HP 3-PHASE, 208/230/46OV. 30A DISCONNECTS60" AFF. 9. MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. MUST ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING CONTAINERS AND WASHING CHUTES. REQUIRES 120V 15A DEDICATED SERVICE. 10. AC: 2HP CHUTE AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE FLOOR -MOUNTED. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 11. OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 12. HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. 13. PROVIDE ELECTRIC PALLET TRUCK FOR TRANSFERRING CONTAINERS. 40001b CAPACITY; TURNING RADIUS: 45.5". REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 14. CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR: TYPE -A, HORIZONTALLY INSULATED SLIDING -STEEL DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165 F FUSIBLE LINK. 15. 5HP 3PHASE, 208/230/460V FOR THE POWER PACKS REQUIRED. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES: 16. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE -RATED WITH 1 HR FIRE -RATED DOOR; 5-0" MIN REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS - RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. PROVIDE (2) SELF CLOSING, 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOORS TO DISPOSE TRASH AND RECYCLING INTO COMPACTORS PER CBC 713.13.1. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS SUPPLIED BY MCP. SEE DETAIL 1T2.0. 17. CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD -WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES. 18. PROVIDE 18X18 SIDE HINGED, AUTOMATIC OPENING, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOORS THAT DISPOSE INTO CONTAINERS PER CBC 713.13.1. SEE DETAILS 2/T2.0. 19. PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND SQUARED FLOOR OPENINGS AT WOOD -FRAME CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE DETAIL 9/T2.0 FOR ANCHORING AND MASON BRA -RED SOUND ISOLATION PAD ASSEMBLY. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES, DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 2. OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES. DESIGN ISSUES: 1. MOVED WALL ATTACHED TO INTAKE DOOR TOWARDS 3FT EXIT DOOR BY 638" IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR CHUTE FOOTINGS. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM CORE 2 BUILDING B T -1 03 ICONSULTANT : AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM415..292.5 00 RFORNIAI946080 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT SBROW @TRASHMANAGE.COM BUILDING A RETAIL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM SIDE VIEW 69 899 PLAN VIEW FRONT/REAR VIEW 3CY LOOSE CONTAINER DETAILS CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 "%.J I / <.V LV HOSE BIB SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 00 Lc_� SHEET NOTES: CENTRAL TRASH COLLECTION AREA 1. CENTRAL TRASH COLLECTION AREA IS 2HR FIRE -RATED - RESTRICTED ACCESS. 2. FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR. 3. WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH -GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF. 4. INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL NON -CONCRETE WALLS. 5. 4CY CONTAINER FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. 3CY CONTAINER FOR COMPOST. 6. OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 7. HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES, DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 2. OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELYOF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES. 61UL VILVV PLAN VIEW 4 b FRONT/REAR VIEW 4CY LOOSE CONTAINER DETAILS 0 1 2 4 RETAIL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM BUILDING A T-1 04 r l l.J I/ %..lJ L V HOSE BIB L0 BUILDING B RETAIL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM 6 899 SIDE VIEW REAR VIEW BUILDING A RETAIL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM ICONSULTANT : AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM415..292.5 00 RFORNIAI946080 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT SBROW @TRASHMANAGE.COM CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 SHEET NOTES: CENTRAL TRASH COLLECTION AREA 1. CENTRAL TRASH COLLECTION AREA IS 2HR FIRE -RATED - RESTRICTED ACCESS. 2. FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR. 3. WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH -GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF. 4. INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL NON -CONCRETE WALLS. 5. 4CY CONTAINER FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. 3CY CONTAINER FOR COMPOST. 6. OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS. 7. HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL -MOUNTED 60" AFF. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES, DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 2. OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELYOF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES. Nut vitvv PLAN VIEW 4 b. FRONT/REAR VIEW 4CY LOOSE CONTAINER DETAILS 0 1 2 4 RETAIL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM T-1 05 NOTES: 1. INTAKE DOOR AND TRIM SHALL BE REMOVED FOR DOOR MAINTENANCE. 2. BOTTOM HINGED DOORS ARE SELF -CLOSING, NOISELESS, AND SELF -LATCHING. UL CLASSIFIED 90 MINUTE FIRE -RATED DOOR AND FRAME ASSEMBLY AND A TEMPERATURE RISE OF 250 F MAX IN 30 MINUTES. 3. MAX OPENING FOR INTAKE DOOR IS 14" FROM FACE OF FINISHED WALL. 4. 2019 CBC - 1113-404.3.5 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES, AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP. 5. 2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS. r � � I I I I I I I I (WITHOUT TRIM) MECH BOX COVERTOP 4 5. 25 . PLAN VIEW ' CHUTE INTAKE DOOR 1 J GROUND & 8-21 FLOORS NOTES: 1. CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD -WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES. 2. INTAKE DOOR NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 2HR FIRE -RATED WALL_ PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) TAPE INTERIOR OF CHUTE SHAFT_ TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKS A36 FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, SEE PLAN LIGHT RED OPEN (WHEN IN USE) BUTTON ELEVATION VIEW El BOX- 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, NORMALLY CLOSED LOW -VOLTAGE ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOOR SATIN CHROME PULL HANDLE W/ THUMB LATCH ISOMETRIC VIEW GE 23" FROM F.O. WALL I 2HR FIRE -RATED WALL I PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) I I I COAT CHUTE W/ SOUNDCOAT GP-1 OR KINETICS KDC-E-162; MATCH THICKNESS OF METAL I I I ANCHOR BOLTS W/ NEOPRENE GROMMETS. r-PROVIDE ON BRA RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS BELOW I I DISCHARGE LEVEL 4._6. 5 CHUTE AIR AND SOUND ISOLATION NOTES: 1. REFER TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT LISTED. $ FLOOR FRAME ANCHORING ANCHORING WILKINSON TYPE -A, B-LABEL CONSTRUCTION 90 MINUTE FIRE -RATED, ROLLING FIRE ENCLOSURE DOOR W/ 165 F. FUSIBLE LINK, SHOWN IN CLOSED POSITION NOTES: 1. INTAKE DOOR AND TRIM SHALL BE REMOVED FOR DOOR MAINTENANCE. 2. SIDE HINGED DOORS ARE SELF -CLOSING, NOISELESS, AND SELF -LATCHING. UL CLASSIFIED 90 MINUTE FIRE -RATED DOOR AND FRAME ASSEMBLY AND A TEMPERATURE RISE OF 250 F MAX IN 30 MINUTES. 3. 2019 CBC - 11B-404.3.5 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES, AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP. 4. 2019 CBC - 11 B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS. 30° (fy') r I THRU-WALL I r 8 / ROUGH OPENING ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW (WITHOUT TRIM) 18x18 SIDE HINGED, AUTOMATIC OPENING ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED INTAKE DOOR A J RED OPEN SATIN CHROME PULL BUTTON HANDLE W/ THUMB LATCH ELEVATION VIEW ISOMETRIC VIEW (WITH TRIM: 16 GA. 430 S.S.) THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR SCALE: %" = V-0" 02FLOOR1 NOTES: 1. PROVIDE HIGH PRESSURE CHUTE WASHDOWN NOZZLE. 2. FILL SANITATION TANK WITH CONCENTRATED DISINFECTING SOLUTION. THE SYPHON HOSE SHOULD REACH THE BOTTOM OF THE SOLUTION CONTAINER. TO FLUSH WITH CLEAR WATER, TURN HANDLE TO THE ON POSITION. FACTORY SETTING OF THE PROPORTIONING VALVE IS FOR 50-GALLONS PER GALLON OF DISINFECTING SOLUTION. 3. NOTE THAT THE ACCESS DOOR AND D & S UNIT ARE SHOWN OUTSIDE OF CHUTE SHAFT FOR CLARITY. ALL WASHDOWN EQUIPMENT WILL BE INSTALLED WITHIN CHUTE SHAFT, ABOVE THE HIGHEST INTAKE. (1) D & S UNIT PER CHUTE. 4. 2019 CBC - 11B-404.3.5 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP. 5. 2019 CBC - 1113-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS. 6. SUPPLIED BY VENDOR - INSTALLED BY PLUMBER. PLUMBING SCHEMATIC LEGEND: 1. 3/4" DOMESTIC HOT WATER INLET WITH VACUUM BREAKER. 2. QUARTER -TURN GATE VALVE (SHUT-OFF AND BYPASS), (2) TOTAL. 3. PLUMBING DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND INSTALLATION BY OTHERS. 4. 24-VDC SOLENOID VALVE (OPTIONAL). NOT NEEDED FOR MANUAL OPERATION. 5. D & S UNIT: 1-GALLON CONTAINER, MOUNTING BRACKET, AND PROPORTIONAL VALVE AT REMOTE LOCATION. 6. FLUSHING SPRAY HEAD BELOW CHUTE VENT. 7. FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT HIGHEST INTAKE, LOWEST INTAKE, AND EVERY OTHER FLOOR BETWEEN - CONNECTION BY OTHERS. 8. SIDE -HINGED, UL RATED 90 MINUTE B-LABEL ACCESS DOOR. 9. SATIN CHROME PULL -HANDLE. G FIRE SPRINKLER DETAILS AND CHUTE SANITATION UNIT SCALE:3/8"= t'-o^ v AT HIGHEST INTAKE SHEET NOTES: 30" 0 CHUTE DETAILS 1. CHUTE MATERIAL: GALVANIZED STEEL. 2. ALL WALL ASSEMBLIES ENCASING THE CHUTE SHAFT SHALL BE 2HR FIRE -RATED. 3. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION NOT RELATED TO ATM'S SCOPE OF WORK PER AGREEMENT. 4. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FROM ARCHITECT. 2. ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR DISCREPANCIES. ICONSULTANT: AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM41 292 5 OORFOR IAI94608 890 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT SBROW @TRASHMANAGE.COM ASTM A307%6-18UNCx1 CAP SCREW W/ STANDARD WASHER & NEOPRENE - GROMMET, (1) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY A36 FLOOR FRAME SEE PLAN PROVIDE MASON BRA -RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS BELOW FRAME FRAMING BY OTHERS (S.S.D.) SIMPSON SPAX#6Wg" PANHEAD ZINC SCREW, (4) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY TYPE III & V FLOOR CONNECTION CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR BY OTHERS SCALE: %2" = V-0" 2HR FIRE -RATED WA[ PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D A36 FLOOR SUPPO FRAME, SEE PL SCALE: 02" = V-0" \ SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 NOTES: 1. ATTACHMENT OF ALL BLOCKING, CURBS, AND OTHER ROOF COMPONENTS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF MANUFACTURER. 2. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL WORK BY OTHERS. VENT CAP W/ CURB FLASHING 3 CHUTE VENT AT ROOF LEVEL WOOD FRAME & ROOF ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS (S.S.D.) 2 1 4 3 2 1 I I J 5 I D & S UNIT (NTS) - - - - INSTALLED BEHIND F.O. WALL - - - - - - - - - - ^� I I I g I I I I l_------------1 15x15 ACCESS DOOR(NTS) INSTALLED BY HUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX OPENING FROM CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ERECTING WALL O. WALL, SEE DETAIL 2/- & NOTES 4 & 5 FOR EIGHT REQUIREMENTS RE -RATED WALL ;HEDULE (S.A.D.) 34" SQ. OPENING 2HR FIRE -RATED WALL BY OTHERS, TYP (S.A.D.) SHOWN FOR CONTEXT ONLY SCALE: %" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1. 2019 CBC - 1113-404.3.5 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES, AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP. *WHEN CALCULATING 2. 2019 CBC - 1113-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH NUMBER OF FIRE ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE SPRINKLER HEADS FOR REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 EVERY OTHER FLOOR POUNDS. ALWAYS START WITH HIGHEST LEVEL 2HR FIRE -RATED WALL FIRE SPRINKLER PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) HEAD AT HIGHEST LEVEL OF BUILDING LEVEL 5 TAPE INTERIOR OF CHUTE SHAFT TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKS COAT CHUTE W/SOUNDCOAT LEVEL 4 GP-1 OR KINETICS KDC-E-162 MATCH THICKNESS OF METAL *FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT EVERY A36 FLOOR SUPPORT OTHER FLOOR LEVEL 3 FRAME, SEE PLAN LEVEL 2 FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT LOWEST LEVEL OF BUILDING LEVEL 1 EXAMPLE OF BUILDING VERTICAL HAN SECTION VIEW II I' II II CHUTE SHAFT AT INTAKE 7 TYP RESIDENTIAL 3/4" CONDUIT FOR AIR 1 ' -1 1 3/4 „ COMPRESSOR V EMT TO POWER ICD RECYCLING 6y4" 4" DOORS. 314" EMT TO WASHDOWN SOLENOID ABOVE HIGHEST �y INTAKE. L MASON BRA -RED MOUNT 2'- 6 TYP. (4)REQUIRED INSIDE FRAME 3'-0" MIN. SHAFT WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION FOR 30" CHUTE 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED ICD-2000 PNEUMATIC ASSIST INTAKE DOOR, 14" MAX OPENING BB A36 L1y2"x1y2"e, x 41" FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT 30" CHUTE TYP WATER LINE FOR WASHDOWN RISER IF NOT PROVIDED ABOVE HIGHEST INTAKE (SIZING BY OTHERS) SPRINKLER RISER (SIZING BY OTHERS) FINISH WALL LINE 2HR FIRE -RATE[ PER SCHEDULE (: TAPE INTERIOR OF I SHAFT TO PRI ODOROUS AIR COAT CHUTE W/ SOUN[ GP-1 OR KINETICS KDC MATCH THICKNESS OF A36 FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, SEE c OPP HAND PROVIDE BLKG AS REQ'D FOR CONTINUOUS FIRE RATING AT FLOOR ASSEMBLY, S.S.D. 2HR FIRE -RATED WALL PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) NO CONTACT BTWN GYP BOARD, FRAMING & CHUTE. SEAL GAP W/ FLEXIBLE ACOUSTIC RATED FIRE CAULKING AT PENETRATION �4 THROUGH WALL & SHAFT, ALL AROUND Op CHUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX OPENING FROM F.O. WALL, SEE DETAIL 2/- & NOTES FOR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FIRE -RATED ACOUSTIC FLEXIBLE SEALANT i TYP RESIDENTIAL LEVEL SCALE: %" _ RE -RATED WALL ;HEDULE (S.A.D.) NTACT BTWN GYP ), FRAMING & CHUTE. 'AP W/ FLEXIBLE 3TIC RATED FIRE :ING AT PENETRATION 1GH WALL & SHAFT, tOUND CHUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX OPENING FROM F.O. WALL SEE DETAIL 1/- ATED ACOUSTIC ILE SEALANT 2-HR SHAFT SECTION BB AT CENTER WITH SQUARE OPENING TIMBER CONSTRUCTION 11 SCALE: 9" = V-0" CHUTE DETAILS T-200 NOTES: 1. REFER TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT LISTED. ASTM A307%6-18UNCx1 CAP SCREW W/ STANDARD WASHER & NEOPRENE - GROMMET, (1) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY A36 FLOOR FRAME SEE PLAN BRIDGE -BEARING QUALITY NEOPRENE DUCTILE IRON HOUSING PROVIDE MASON BRA -RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS BELOW FRAME Li 4 CONC SLAB WHERE OCCURS ($.S.D.) NOTES: 1. SEE DETAIL 1/- FOR CHUTE INTAKE DOOR INFORMATION. 2. SEE DETAIL 9/- FOR ADDITIONAL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING INFORMATION. 3. ANCHOR FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ATONE END AS SHOWN. OTHER SIDE OF FRAME TO REST ON TOP OF FLOOR AT INTAKE WALL. SEE PLAN FOR LAYOUT OF CHUTE SHAFT. ASTM A3073%" CAST -IN -PLACE ANCHOR BOLT (2) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACOUSTICS REPORT 1" x 1"x"ANGLE STIFFENERS TACK WELI _ 4 TO INSIDE POUR RING a U a STIFFENERS REMO' PRIOR TO CHUTE INSTALLATION TYPEIFLOOR CONNECTION FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING SECTION VIEWS ICONSULTANT: AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT AMERICAN PM41 292 5 OORFOR IAI94608 890 92.5410 TRASH MANAGEMENT SBROW @TRASHMANAGE.COM CENTRAL POINTE SANTA ANA, CA # 2019-0129 NOTES: 1.ALL HARDWARE PLATED 2.REFER TO MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT INCLUDED aow,8„E" aEIII ­N.TR",I,",. aE"�sEMa. va.TraE 0 MASON BRA -RED MOUNT � FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING 12 PLAN VIEWS SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 20TH, 2020 SHEET NOTES: 30"0 CHUTE DETAILS 1. CHUTE MATERIAL: GALVANIZED OR GALVANEAL 16G STEEL 2. ALL WALL ASSEMBLIES ENCASING THE CHUTE SHAFT SHALL BE 2HR FIRE -RATED. 3. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION NOT RELATED TO ATM'S SCOPE OF WORK PER AGREEMENT. 4. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FROM ARCHITECT. 2. ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR DISCREPANCIES. 1/2" HOLES FOR %" ANCHOR BOLTS (2) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY ------- -------------------- i V I i \ U I � � �) O 5 � I ----- 1 O — - 1 i j ) EDGE OF 34" FLOOR j A36 L1Y2"x1Y2'xY4x33 1/4" OPENING: TYPE I FLOOR SQ. FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME TYP EDGE OF 30" CHUTE 12g GALV. SHEET METAL I i i I SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" ---------------------------- 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED PNEUMATIC ASSIST INTAKE DOOR 14" MAX OPENINC A36 L1Y2"x1Yz'"1 33 1/4 SQ. FLOOR SUPPOR- FRAME TYI WATER LINE FOR WASHDOWN RISER IF NOT PROVIDED ABOVE HIGHEST INTAKE, SPRINKLER RISER 4' CONDUIT FOR AIR COMPRESSOR FINISH WALL LINE ,A-RED MOUNT (4) REQUIRED SCALE: % = V-0" CHUTE DETAILS SUPPLEMENTAL T-201 FIRE LANE SIGN DETAILS PARKING ENFORCEMENT LETTER VICINITY MAP NTS MARCH 2, 2020 NOTICE F1RE LANE 4 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY NO PARKING IN NO 1 FIRE AUTHORITY ROAD c FIRE MASTER PLAN AREAS MARKED AS 2 PARKING 5 IRVINE, CA 92502-0125 :AtA"WENCONCEPTUAL FIRE LANE 1 RE: PARKING PLAN: OCFA SR279393 FORTOLA PARR - SANTA CENTRAL OIN EFORCEMENT ANA, CA ANTA ANA VIOLATING VEHICLES VIOLATING VEHICLES CENTRAL POINTESANTAANA WILL BE CITED 2 WILL BE CITED ORTOWED AT OR TOWED AT 3 OWNER'S EXPENSE OWNER'S EXPENSE POLICE DEPT. CVC 22500.1 THE FIRE LANE PARKING ENFORCEMENT PLAN FOR THE ABOVE REFERENCED IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: ALL FIRE LANES WITHIN SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND IN NO EVENT SHALL PARKING BE PERMITTED ALONG ANY PORTION MABUO PARK (714) 245-8665 3 CVC 22658(a) OF A STREET OR DRIVE THAT REQUIRED FIRE LANES OR ANY AREA DESIGNATED AS A FIRE LANE FOR TURN -AROUND OR CVC 22500.1 CVC22658A DRIVE THROUGH PURPOSES. = LOGAN f; - 18" 12" THE PROJECT DEVELOPER SHALL ADOPT REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES $ SANTA ANA CA FIRE LANE ALONG THE STREETS, ROADS AND OR DRIVES WITHIN THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE LAW. ° � ENTRANCE SIGN FIRE LANE IN FURTHERANCE THEREOF, THE PROJECT DEVELOPER, THROUGH ITS OFFICERS, COMMITTEES AND AGENTS WILL 1 NO PARKING SIGN ESTABLISH THE "PARKING" AND "NO PARKING" AREAS WITHIN THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22658.2 OF E 4th St & Cabrillo Park OCFASR279393 THIS SIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT ALL FIRE LANE n ENTRANCES WITH LANES MARKED BY EITHER L RED CURBING PER DETAIL OR SIGNS. SIGNS THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE AND ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY GUIDELINES. THE LAW SHALL BE ENFORCED THROUGH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS BY ALL LAWFUL MEANS, INCLUDING, WRITTEN WARNINGS, CITING, LEVYING FINES AND TOWING VEHICLES IN VIOLATION. =-- - Or, Santa Ana, CA 92705 SHALL BE NO SMALLER THAN EIGHTEEN (18) N INCHES WIDE BY THIRTY (30) INCHES HIGH. FIRE LANE SIGN MOUNTING LEGEND THE PROJECT DEVELOPER WILL CONTRACT WITH A CERTIFIED PATROL AND TOWING COMPANY TO REMOVE VEHICLES THAT VIOLATE NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. FIRST TIME VIOLATORS WILL RECEIVE A WRITTEN WARNING AND WITH THE WORDS "FIRE LANE" SHALL BE BOLD WHITE REFLECTIVE ON RED O1 SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS, THE VEHICLE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TOWING. THE VEHICLE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE BACKGROUND, (2-3/4) INCHES IN HEIGHT. FOR ALL COSTS INCURRED IN REMEDYING SUCH VIOLATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION TOWING COST, CITATIONS FIRE LETTERING SHALL BE BOLD RED ON WHITE REFLECTIVE O BACKGROUND, (1-3/8) INCHES IN HEIGHT. AND LEGAL FEES. LANE COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION LETTER OCFA FIRE MASTER PLAN NOTES (1-1-17) LETTERING SHALL BE RED ON WHITE REFLECTIVE 4 O BACKGROUND, (1) INCHES IN HEIGHT. MARCH 2, 2020 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS: ING SHALL BE BOLD, CONDENSED WHITE REFLECTIVE 4 LETTERNG ON RED BACKGROUND, (2) INCHES IN HEIGHT. N O LETTER. 1OCFA SITE INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE SCHEDULE ALL FIELD INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE. INSPECTIONS CANCELED AFTER 1 LETTERING SHALL BE BOLD, CONDENSED RED ON WHITE PARKING O REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND, ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY 1 FIRE AUTHORITY ROAD P.M. ON THE DAY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED DATE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RE -INSPECTION FEE. CALL OCFA INSPECTION SCHEDULING AT (714) 573-6150 (2) INCHES IN HEIGHT. 2. A LUMBER DROP INSPECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO BRINGING COMBUSTIBLE SHALL BE BOLD RED ON WHITE REFLECTIVE IRVINE, CA 92502-0125 MATERIALS (OR COMBUSTIBLE FIXTURES AND FINISHES FOR STRUCTURES OF OLETTERING BACKGROUND, (1-3/8) INCHES IN HEIGHT. NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION). ALL-WEATHER ACCESS ROADS CAPABLE OF 12" DEPTH OF SIGN SHALL BE 18 INCHES FROM STANDARD CURB AND 24 INCHES O WITH ROLLED CURB L CENTER OF POST. SUBJECT: COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION LETTER: OCFA SR279393 CENTRALPOINTE -SANTA ANA, CA SUPPORTING 68,000 LBS., TOPPED WITH ASPHALT, CONCRETE, OR EQUIVALENT SHALL BE IN PLACE AND HYDRANTS OPERATIONAL AT TIME OF LUMBER DROP INSPECTION. 3. FOR PROJECTS WITH FUEL MODIFICATION, A VEGETATION CLEARANCE INSPECTION IS EVA MANUAL ACCESS GATE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS TUNNEL DETAIL DDDDDDD� D FIRE LANE O HEIGHTAREA SHALL BE AND 5"-0" NIALLI OTHER AREAS. NO PARKING SIGN ION PLAN SERVICE REQUEST NUMBER TO SREQUIRED PRIOR TO A LUMBER CROP HEDULE EPECTION. USE THE FUEL THE VEGETATION CLEARANCE INSPECTION. SERVICE 4. PHASED INSTALLATION OF FIRE ACCESS ROADS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS OBURY DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 24 INCHES AND REBAR, A 3 C THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT THIS PROJECT SHALL INSTALL ALL REQUIRED PAVED FIRE NOT COVERED BY THE FEES PAID AT PLAN SUBMITTAL. CONTACT INSPECTION CONCRETE FOOTING, OR ANOTHER METHOD TO PREVENT AT EVA GATE REMOVAL OF THE SIGN IS RECOMMENDED. FOOTINGS FOR ACCESS ROADS THAT MEET O.C.F.A. GUIDELINES PER THE APPROVED PLANS. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS AND WATER SCHEDULING TO ARRANGE FOR ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS THAT MAY BE NEEDED AND MANUAL GATE NOTES. FIREFIGHTER ACCESS TUNNEL NOTES: SIGNS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PER ANY FEES THAT MAY BE DUE. INTERIOR COURTYARD (AT GRADE) 1. The outer entrance to the tunnel shall front on a fire lane. THE LOCAL JURISDICTION'S REQUIREMENTS. SUPPLY FOR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE APPROVED PLANS AND SHALL MEET ALL FIRE 5. AN ORIGINAL APPROVED, SIGNED, WET -STAMPED OCFA FIRE MASTER PLAN SHALL BE 1. SECURED NON -AUTOMATED VEHICLE GATES OR ENTRIES ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 2. Tunnels shall be a minimum 10 feet wide and, where possible based on the height of the story the P g ry Y FLOWS REQUIREMENTS, PRIOR TO ANY COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS BEING DELIVERED FOR AVAILABLE ON -SITE AT TIME OF INSPECTION. 6. ACCESS ROADS AND HYDRANTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND REMAIN CLEAR OF SHALL UTILIZE AN APPROVED KNOX PADLOCK WHEN ° ° ° ° ° ° ° CONSTRUCTION. OBSTRUCTIONS AT ALL TIMES DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. AREAS WHERE REQUIRED BY A FIRE CODE OFFICIAL. 0 0 0L 0 0 0 ����/ pass through, at least 10 feet tall, but no less than 8 feet. PARKING IS NOT PERMITTED SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AT ALL TIMES. OBSTRUCTION 2. OPENINGS FOR BOTH INGRESS AND EGRESS OF VEHICLES D ELLING ° ° ,w, ° ° ° DW LUNG UNITS ° ° °Z ° ° ° UNITS 3. Doorways and gate openings in the path of firefighter travel to, through, and from the tunnel shall OF FIRE LANES AND HYDRANTS MAY RESULT IN CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF INSPECTIONS. SHALL BE 20' MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH AND AS APPROVED BY 20' MINIMUM ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °� v ° ° provide a minimum 44-inch clear width after accounting for doorjambs, door hardware, and other NOTE: 7. TEMPORARY FUEL TANKS OF 60 OR MORE GALLONS SHALL BE REVIEWED, INSPECTED, ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY. THE VERTICAL ° ° , , ° ° ° °Lu ° ° ° obstructions. A FIRE LANE SIGNS AND SHALL MEET AND PERMITTED BY THE OCFA PRIOR TO USE. CLEARANCE SHALL MAINTAIN 13'-6" HEIGHT. 1-HR 1-HR B SPECIFICATIONS PER O.C.F.A GUIDELINES AND 8. THE PROJECT ADDRESS SHALL BE CLEARLY POSTED AND VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC FIRE 3. THE MINIMUM INSIDE TURNING RADIUS IS IT, WITH AN CORRIDOR o 0 0� 0 0 o CORRIDOR 4. Where the tunnel intersects with corridors or other interior spaces, doors shall be provided to SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DESCRIBED THEREIN. ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION. KNOX BOX LANE OUTSIDE RADIUS OF 38' FOR THE APPROACH TO THE GATE. ° ° v, ° ° ° completely separate the tunnel from those spaces in a manner that provides an uninterrupted path ° ° ° ° ° ° p Y P P P P p ADDITIONAL FIRE LANE MARKINGS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION 9. ALL GATES IN CONSTRUCTION FENCING SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH EITHER A KNOX OR BREAKAWAY PADLOCK. No 4. ACCESS GATES SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION 3 v v W v o° of travel through the tunnel from one end to the other. DEPENDING ON FIELD CONDITIONS. 10. BUILDINGS OF FOUR OR MORE STORIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH STAIRS AND A PARKING AND SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OCFA GUIDELINE B-09. 5. INSTALL SUB KNOX PADLOCK AND FIRE LANE NO DWELLING °'A �_ � ° ° ° DWELLING UNITS A AC° o 0 o UNITS 5. Every courtyard shall have at least one tunnel that provides a straight path of travel between the fire >O STANDPIPE BEFORE REACHING 40 FEET IN HEIGHT. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: -KEYED - PARKING SIGNS ON BOTH SIDES OF GATE. SEE FIRE SIGN ° ° ° ° ° ° ° lane and the courtyard. Slight offsets are allowed provided that the dimensions and configuration of ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Y 9 P 9 FIRE LANE SIGN MOUNTING DETAIL 11. FIRE LANE WIDTHS SHALL BE MEASURED FROM TOP FACE OF THE CURB TO TOP FACE OF THE CURB FOR FIRE LANES WITH STANDARD CURBS AND GUTTERS AND FROM EVA ACCESS GATE DETAIL DETAIL FOR SIZE AND MATERIAL. the path and location of doors, gates, stairs, and other features facilitate passage of firefighters P g P 9 9 FLOW -LINE TO FLOW -LINE FOR FIRE LANES WITH MODIFIED CURB DESIGNS (E.G., ROLLED, NOT TO SCALE 6. GATE APPROACH SETBACK SHALL BE 56' MINIMUM PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09. BUILDING EXTERIOR (AT GRADE) PLAN VIEW carrying a 35' ladder. Other tunnels shall provide the shortest route feasible between the fire lane RAMPED, ETC.. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY THAT ALL APPROVED PUBLIC WORKS OR GRADING DEPARTMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS OR PRECISE Q3 INSTALL FIRE LANE NO PARKING SIGN (ACCESS WALKWAYS FROM FIRE ACCESS ROADWAY TO EXTERIOR OPENINGS) and courtyard but, when permitted by the fire code official, may not be required to accommodate RED CURB DETAILS PREMISES IDENTIFICATION & ADDRESSING GRADING PLANS CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM STREET WIDTH MEASUREMENTS PER THE APPROVED OCFA FIRE MASTER PLAN AND STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN OCFA GUIDELINE ON BOTH SIDE OF GATE movement of a ladder. B-09 FOR ALL PORTIONS OF THE FIRE ACCESS ROADS. 6. Landscape and hardsca a features such as trees, shrubs, light poles, raised planters, walls, fences, P p 9 P P PREMISES IDENTIFICATION CBC 501.2, CFC 505.1 12. PERMANENT, TEMPORARY, AND PHASED EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT AN IMPOSED LOAD OF 68,000 LBS. AND and gates near the openings to the tunnel shall not hinder or delay movement of firefighters carrying PAINT THREE POSSIBLE CONFIGURATIONS OF BUILDINGS OR UNITS WITHIN A BUILDING MAY EXIST AND ARE IDENTIFIED SURFACED TO PROVIDE ALL-WEATHER DRIVING CAPABILITIES. 13. FIRE LANE SIGNS AND RED CURBS SHALL MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN OCFA a ladder. RED 9F AS FOLLOWS: FREESTANDING BUILDINGS, MULTI -UNIT BUILDINGS, OR MULTI -BUILDING CLUSTERS. COMMON TO ALL GUIDELINE B-09 AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DESCRIBED THEREIN. ADDITIONAL FIRE 7. Where there is an elevation change between the fire lane and courtyard, code -compliant ramps or ��� 8„ CONFIGURATIONS ARE THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTIONS A THROUGH E BELOW. PROJECTS MAY ALSO BE LANE MARKINGS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION DEPENDING ON FIELD CONDITIONS. j stairs with a minimum clear width of 44" between handrails shall be provided. Only straight run �� 9��ti� SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC ADDRESS AND WAYFINDING SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE LOCAL 14. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL HAVE A "BLUE REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKER" INDICATING lo'-O" stairs shall be provided; no stair returns are allowed along the path of firefighter travel. a MINIMUM DWE LING D ELLI G JURISDICTION'S MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE OR SECURITY CODE, WHICH MAY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE THEIR LOCATION PER THE OCFA STANDARD. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY MARKERS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. AERIAL TRUCK LADDERING DETAIL UNITS UNITS FIRE -RESISTANCE 8. Tunnels shall be separated from adjacent construction by minimum 15. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE LOCATED AND BE OF A COLOR AND SIZE SO AS TO BE RATED ASSEMBLY PER CBC 720.1 OR2-hour fire barriers and 2-hour ceilin /floor assemblies. g U.L. FIRE RATING g a CLASSIFICATION - Interior doors opening into the tunnel shall be minimum 90-minute rated self- or automatic -closing • ___? I REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THIS GUIDELINE. FOR PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF IRVINE, PLEASE SEE IRVINE UNIFORM SECURITY CODE, SECTIONS 5-9-516.B & C AND SECTION 5-9-517L. FOR PROJECTS LOCATED IN SRA LAND,9. PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY FROM WHICH THE BUILDING IS ADDRESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OCFA GUIDELINE B-09. WAYFINDING SIGNS, WHEN REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL AHJ, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS OF THAT AGENCY. NOTES: ROOF P PLEASE SEE FSR ARTICLE 3 IN GUIDELINE B-09A FOR ADDITIONAL ADDRESSING REQUIREMENTS. WHEN WAYFINDING SIGNS ARE ALSO REQUIRED BY THE OCFA, THEY MAY BE DESIGNED 1. INDICATES AERIAL TRUCK LADDERING ACCESS assemblies. Doors may be equipped with mag-holds, but other door stops are not allowed. PAINT WEDGE CURB A. APPROVED NUMBERS OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON THE FRONT ELEVATION OF ALL NEW OR TO LOCAL AHJ REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED THAT SUCH STANDARDS FACILITATE LOCATION OF STRUCTURES, SUITES, AND DWELLING UNITS BY EMERGENCY PERSONNEL. POINTS; NO CLOSER THAN 20', OR FARTHER THAN 10. Wall and ceiling finishes within the tunnel shall be non-combustible. Where allowed by CBC/CFC RED EXISTING BUILDINGS IN SUCH A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD ON 16. ACCESS GATES SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION AND SHALL BE IN 40' FROM BUILDING TO FIRE ACCESS ROAD PER Chapter 8, floors may be carpeted. '9F COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 5 OF THE CFC AND OCFA GUIDELINES. OCFA GUIDELINE B-09. SECTION VIEW 11. Tunnels are permitted to be used for other purposes provided that the use does not obstruct the p P P P �'tiF 8" WHICH THE PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED. ADDRESSES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WHERE THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL 17. APPROVED ACCESS WALKWAYS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL REQUIRED OPENINGS AND 2. SEE SHEET F-2 FOR LOCATIONS (ACCESS WALKWAYS FROM FIRE ACCESS ROADWAY TO EXTERIOR OPENINGS) clear path required or otherwise interfere with use of the tunnel for emergency purposes. P q g Y P P ti �q9 OF BEING OBSTRUCTED BY SIGNS, AWNINGS, VEGETATION, OR OTHER BUILDING/SITE ELEMENTS. AN ADDRESS ALL RESCUE WINDOWS. 18. VEGETATION SHALL BE SELECTED AND MAINTAINED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ALLOW LEVEL 5 12. At least one standpipe outlet shall be provided in the courtyard when hose -pull from fire apparatus `c MONUMENT AT THE VEHICLE ENTRANCE OR OTHER LOCATION CLEARLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO ALL HYDRANTS, VALVES, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS, PULL STATIONS, EXTINGUISHERS, SPRINKLER RISERS, ALARM CONTROL PANELS, RESCUE in the fire lane to any portion of the inner fagade within the courtyard exceeds 200'. ROAD MAY BE PROVIDED IN LIEU OF AN ADDRESS ON THE STRUCTURE WHERE ONLY A SINGLE BUILDING WITH A WINDOWS, AND OTHER DEVICES OR AREAS USED FOR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES. 13. If standpipes are required, an outlet shall be provided at the opening of the firefighter tunnel(s) into=1=1 •• 1= SINGLE STREET ADDRESS IS PRESENT AND NO OTHER STRUCTURES ARE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FIRE LANE VEGETATION OR BUILDING FEATURES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ADDRESS NUMBERS OR INHIBIT THE FUNCTIONING OF ALARM BELLS, HORNS, OR STROBES. the courtyard and at other approved locations as required b the fire code official so that hose -pull PROVISION OF2-HRCONSTRUCTIONOFWALLS,FLOORSANDCEILINGEXCEEDS Y PP q Y P PAINT RED SERVING THAT STRUCTURE. 19. DUMPSTERS AND TRASH CONTAINERS LARGER THAN 1.5 CUBIC YARDS SHALL NOT BE STORED IN BUILDINGS OR PLACED WITHIN 5 FEET OF COMBUSTIBLE WALLS, OPENINGS LEVEL 4 MINIMUM OF 1-HR FIRE RESISTANCE RATING PER CBC 1023.3 WITH MATERIALSAS to all portions of the courtyard is less than 150' as measured from the fire apparatus or standpipe P Y pPSYSTEM. 6" ROLLED CURB B. THE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND. OR COMBUSTIBLE ROOF EAVE LINES UNLESS PROTECTED BY AN APPROVED SPRINKLER PERMITTED BY THE BUILDING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, AS SUCH, CBC TABLE 720.1 AND/OR U.L. FIRE RATING CLASSIFICATIONS OFFER VARIOUS ASSEMBLIES SATISFYING outlet. 2-HR FIRE RESISTANCE RATED FLOORS AND WALLS. C. THE NUMBERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OR MORE IN HEIGHT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20. ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED FIRE MASTER PLAN OR APPROVED SITE 14. The standpipe shall be Class I, interconnected to the sprinkler or underground system, and able to 6" STRUCTURES/DUPLEXES, OR INDIVIDUAL UNIT NUMBERS IN MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND 6 PLAN, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ROAD WIDTH, GRADE, SPEED HUMPS, TURNING THE FOLLOWING WALLS ASSEMBLIES RADII, GATES OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS, SHALL REQUIRE REVIEW, INSPECTION, AND (CBC TABLE 720.1 SAMPLING ONLY FOR TYPICAL R-OCCUPANCY be pressurized via a fire department connection, if not automatically pressurized to a minimum of INCHES OR MORE FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES OR THE PRIMARY BUILDING ADDRESS OR ADDRESS RANGE APPROVAL BY THE OCFA. LEVEL 3 CONSTRUCTION) ARE BASED UPON: 100 psi via a fire pump serving the sprinkler system. POSTED ON MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. THE 6-INCH NUMBERS SHALL HAVE A ONE -INCH STROKE 21. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS APPROVAL OF ANY INFORMATION OR PROJECT CONDITIONS OTHER THAN THOSE ITEMS AND 1. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION (SIMILAR, SINCE DISSIMILAR CONSTRUCTION 15. The standpipe ma be wall mounted or standalone. If standalone, it shall be located no more than WOULD REACT DIFFERENTLY IN SEISMIC EVENTS AND STRUCTURAL Y AND THE 4-INCH NUMBERS SHALL HAVE A11/2-INCH STROKE, OR AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE, WHICHEVER IS REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 AND RELATED PORTIONS OF THE 20' MINIMUM 2. DURABISETTLELITY EXTERIOR INSTEAD OF INTERIOR ASSEMBLY 18" from the edge of a primary walkway in the courtyard in a position where it is immediately visible ( ) = = - � III=III=III=III MORE RESTRICTIVE. BUILDING SETBACKS, ELEVATION, AND LANDSCAPING CAN AFFECT THESE MINIMUM SIZE 2016 CFC AND CBC. THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOT STATED HEREIN UPON EXAMINATION OF ACTUAL SITE AND PROJECT CONDITIONS OR 40' MAXIMUM A. TABLE 720.1(2) ITEM 15-1.6: and accessible to firefighters. Access to and use of standpipes shall not be hindered by planter = REQUIREMENTS. DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2X6 FIRE -RETARDANT -TREATED WOOD STUDS INTERIOR SIDE: 2-LAYERS 5/8" TYPE GYP. BD. walls, vegetation, or other features; 18" clearance shall be provided on all sides. The standpipe STANDARD CURB D. ADDRESS NUMBERS MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY THE LOCAL PROJECT -SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 22. AN UNDERGROUND PIPING PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC LEVEL 2 BDTERIOR SIDE: CEMENT PLASTER OVER 1-LAYER 5/8"TYPE x GYP. shall be provided with a permanent, durable sign stating "WET AUTO STANDPIPE" or "WET JURISDICTION'S SECURITY CODE. WHILE NOT REQUIRED BY THE OCFA, ILLUMINATION OF ADDRESSES IS FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM OR FOR A PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEM. A SEPARATE PLAN SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED. B. TABLE 720.1(2) ITEM 15-2.2: 2X4 STEEL OR WOOD STUDS MANUAL STANDPIPE" as applicable in a color that contrasts with the background, preferably red RECOMMENDED TO FACILITATE RAPID LOCATION OF A SITE OR BUILDING. 23. AN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE OCFA FOR REVIEW INTERIOR SIDE: 2-LAYERS 5/8"TYPE XGYP. BD. EXTERIOR SIDE: THIN VENNER BRICK OVER CEMENT PLASTER on white or vice versa. NOTE: CURBS ALONG ACCESS LANES SHALL BE PAINTED OSHA SAFETY RED OR "FIRE E. WHERE IT IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHICH STREET A BUILDING IS ADDRESSED TO (E.G., A BUILDING IS ACCESSED AND APPROVAL FOR PROJECTS CONTAINING A, C, E, F, H, I, L, AND R-4 OCCUPANCIES. A PLAN MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED FOR R-1 AND R-2 OCCUPANCIES OVER TWO STORIES OR 0®0 TABLE 720.1(2) ITEM 15-2.4: 2X4 STEEL OR WOOD STUDS EQUIVALENT. LANE NO PARKING" SHALL BE PAINTED ON TOP OF CURB IN WHITE LETTERING 3 INCHES HIGH AND SHALL BE SPACED 30'-0" ON CENTER OR ONLY FROM A STREET OTHER THAN THE ONE IT IS ADDRESSED TO; MULTIPLE MAIN ENTRANCES TO THE SITE, OR THOSE UTILIZING SPRINKLERS OR FIRE WALLS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE ALLOWED -SEE OCFA INFO BULLETIN 02-13. LEVEL 1 INTERIOR SIDE: 2-LAYERS 5/8"TYPE X GYP. ED. EXTERIOR SIDE: STANDARD BRICK UNITS. PORTION THEREOF. BUILDING ITSELF, FRONT DIFFERENT STREETS), THE NAME OF THE STREET SHALL ALSO BE IDENTIFIED AS PART OF 24. AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND LOCAL ORDINANCES, AMENDMENTS, AND GUIDELINES. 18' FOR I THE POSTED ADDRESS. SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN CFC 903.4, SHALL BE MONITORED _ _ OUTRIGGERS F. MULTI UNIT BUILDINGS SUITE/APARTMENT NUMBERS SHALL BE PLACED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PRIMARY BY AN APPROVED CENTRAL STATION. SEPARATE PLAN SUBMITTALS FOR THE SPRINKLER AND MONITORING SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED. ENTRANCE FOR EACH SUITE/APARTMENT AND ANY OTHER DOOR PROVIDING ACCESS TO FIRE DEPARTMENT 25. A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND LOCAL ORDINANCES, AMENDMENTS, AND GUIDELINES. A SEPARATE PLAN PERSONNEL DURING AN EMERGENCY. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL UNITS HAVING ENTRANCE DOORS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD SHALL, IN ADDITION, HAVE APPROVED NUMBERS GROUPED FOR ALL SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED. 26.STRUCTURES MEETING THE CRITERIA IN CFC 510.1 SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO SYSTEM. REFER TO CFC 510.2 THROUGH 510.6.3 AND ROOFTOP AMENITY DECK ILLUSTRATIONS NOT TO SCALE MOTORIZED GATE AT PARKING GARAGE ENTRY NOTES UNITS WITHIN EACH STRUCTURE AND POSITIONED TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD. DAS/BDA GUIDELINES PUBLISHED BY OC SHERIFF'S COMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION AND OCFA FOR TECHNICAL AND SUBMITTAL INFORMATION. A. ELECTRICALLY OPERATED GATES AND BARRIERS CFC 503.6 G. MULTI -BUILDING CLUSTERS - APPROVED NUMBERS OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON THE FRONT ADDITIONAL NOTES: NOTE: Z 1) IN THE EVENT OF LOSS OF NORMAL POWER TO THE GATE OPERATING MECHANISM, IT SHALL BE ELEVATION(S) OF ALL BUILDINGS THAT FORM THE CLUSTER. IF ALL BUILDING ADDRESSES ARE NOT CLEARLY THE FOLLOWING PLAN TYPE(S GENERATOR) SHALL BE DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: a) TANK AND/OR BATTERY PLAN FOR UPS SYSTEM IF THESE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE BUILDING A AND B ROOFTOP AMENITY DECKS PROVIDED BY MJS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR REFERENCE AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERRED TO A FAIL-SAFE MODE ALLOWING THE GATE TO BE PUSHED OPEN BY SINGLE VISIBLE OR LEGIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC ROAD SERVING THE STRUCTURES, AN ADDRESS MONUMENT SHALL ALSO APPLICABLE ONLY. FIREFIGHTER WITHOUT ANY OTHER ACTIONS, KNOWLEDGE, OR MANIPULATION OF THE OPERATING MECHANISM BEING BE PROVIDED AT THE ENTRY POINTS() TO THE SITE INDICATING THE RANGE OF ADDRESSES ACCESSIBLE FROM )))))) HOOD AND DUCT EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM cCONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN NECESSARY AND WITHOUT THE USE OF BATTERY BACK-UP POWER, EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW. THE MANUFACTURER'S THAT ENTRANCE. clTEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PLAN SPECIFICATION SHEET DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS METHOD OF OPERATION DURING POWER LOSS SHALL (I IT IS DETERMINED TCO PLAN IS NEEDED IT SHALL BE PROVIDED BE PROVIDED OR SCANNED DIRECTLY ONTO THE PLAN. SHOULD THE GATE BE TOO LARGE OR HEAVY FOR A SINGLE PER SEPARATE PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW WITH OCFA. FIREFIGHTER TO OPEN MANUALLY, A SECONDARY SOURCE OF RELIABLE POWER BY MEANS OF AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR OR A CAPACITOR WITH ENOUGH RESERVE TO AUTOMATICALLY, IMMEDIATELY, AND COMPLETELY OPEN THE GATE UPON LOSS OF PRIMARY POWER SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FAIL -OPEN OPERATION. A CAPACITOR, BUT NOT A BATTERY, MAY ALSO BE USED FOR FAIL -OPEN OPERATION WHERE THE GATE OPERATING MECHANISM DOES NOT BUILDING INFORMATION AND DATA SHEET INDEX HAVE A FAIL-SAFE MODE. BUILDING DESCRIPTION HEIGHT CONSTRUCTION AUTOMATIC FIRE SQUARE F-1 TITLE SHEET, NOTES, DETAILS AND BUILDING DATA a. A BATTERY MAY ONLY BE USED IN PLACE OF FAIL-SAFE MANUAL OPERATION WHEN THE GATE OPERATOR HAS A FAIL MODE THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY, IMMEDIATELY, AND COMPLETELY OPEN THE GATE AND KEEP IT OPEN -OPEN TYPE SPRINKLERS FOOTAGE - UPON REACHING A LOW POWER THRESHOLD, REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OF NORMAL POWER. =y -�s _ _ 2) THE GATE CONTROL FOR ELECTRONIC GATES SHALL BE OPERABLE BY A KNOX EMERGENCY OVERRIDE KEY F ___- __- -- __! - SWITCH (WITH DUST COVER). THE KEY SWITCH SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN 42" AND 48" ABOVE THE ROADWAY A RESIDENTIAL 41'-6"HIGHEST OCCUPIED GRADE III NFPA 13 429,379 SF F-2 FIRE MASTER PLAN AND BUILDING SECTION _ i SURFACE AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ACCESS GATE WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE ROADWAY. THE KEY (LEVELS 1 5) FLOOR LEVEL ABOVE - L - - SWITCH SHALL BE READILY VISIBLE AND UNOBSTRUCTED FROM THE FIRE LANE LEADING TO THE GATE. THE KEY OCFA APPROVAL STAMP _ -_ -_ SWITCH SHALL BE CLEARLY LABELED "FIRE DEPT." NON-COMBUSTIBLE _` -1,-= ' Fri 3) FOR ELECTRICALLY OPERATED GATES, THE TYPE OF REMOTE GATE OPENING DEVICE THAT WILL BE INSTALLED _ - - -5 SHALL BE NOTED ON THE PLAN. THE REMOTE OPENING DEVICE IS REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO THE KNOX KEY SWITCH. THE REMOTE OPENING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR USE BY OCFA ARE EITHER OPTICAL OR A PARKING GARAGE (LEVELS 1-7 + A SINGLE 72'-6" HIGHEST OCCUPIED FLOOR LEVEL ABOVE GRADE I -A NFPA 13 259,683 SF _ RADIO -CONTROLLED. OPTICAL SYSTEMS WORK THE SAME AS THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PREEMPTION SYSTEM BY USING THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE'S STROBE LIGHT TO OPEN THE GATE. THE RADIO -CONTROLLED SYSTEM OPENS THE GATE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL) -- -- WHEN THE EMERGENCY RESPONDER CLICKS THE RECEIVER ON AN 800 MHZ RADIO. A GATE SERVING AN INDIVIDUAL 72'-6" HIGHEST OCCUPIED - -_ Cif,lHH�1 _-------------- ----- - -- --- -- --- - j SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR DUPLEX IS EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT. A ROOFTOP AMENITY DECK FLOOR LEVEL ABOVE GRADE I-B NFPA 13 1 0354 SF • -_ _ 010P00H � __ --- - r,- _ �-- _ -__-- ____ �•A _ `y CURRENTLY R APPROVED GATE OPENING SYSTEMS INCLUDE CU 3M OPTICOM _ -A-U �1 r CLICK2ENTER* (SYSTEM SHALL BE CONFIGURED IN SINGLE -PULSE MODE WITH 1.5 SECOND TRANSMISSION B RESIDENTIAL 41'-6" HIGHEST OCCUPIED -- - - _ _- _ i (LEVELS 1 5) FLOOR LEVEL ABOVE GRADE III -A NFPA 13 482,246 SF -.- .• - _ __ -__ - - �. __ _ ;�- WINDOW) FIRE STROBE ACCESS PRODUCTS, INC. TOMAR 4 UPON ACTIVATION OF THE KEY SWITCH, THE GATE SHALL OPEN AND REMAIN OPEN UNTIL RETURNED TO NON-COMBUSTIBLE PARKING GARAGE 72'-6" HIGHEST OCCUPIED _ L_ D B I -A NFPA 13 259,683 SF )� - WZ - ---- -- - --- --- NORMAL OPERATION BY MEANS OF THE KEY SWITCH. WHERE A GATE CONSISTS OF TWO LEAVES, THE KEY SWITCH (LEVELS 1-7 + A SINGLE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL) FLOOR LEVEL ABOVE GRADE ,� - SHALL OPEN BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY IF OPERATION OF A SINGLE LEAF ON THE INGRESS SIDE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR - - THE WIDTH, TURNING RADII, OR SETBACKS NECESSARY FOR FIRE APPARATUS TO NAVIGATE THE VEHICLE ENTRY . J_ -- _ _ -_ _ _ _- F a - __ - - POINT. THE KEY SWITCH SHALL BE LABELED WITH A PERMANENT RED SIGN WITH NOT LESS THAN 1/2" CONTRASTING ) g ROOFTOP AMENITY DECK 72 6" HIGHEST OCCUPIED FLOOR LEVEL ABOVE GRADE _ IB NFPA 13 10,354 SF LETTERS READING TIRE DEPT' OR WITH A'KNOX' DECAL. FIRE FLOW INFORMATION & HYDRANT SPACING REQUIREMENTS B. GATE AND BARRIER LOCKS - GATE OR BARRIER LOCKS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THEIR INSTALLATION ON ANY NEW AND/OR EXISTING ACCESS GATE OR BARRIER. AUTHORIZATION FOR KNOX PRODUCTS IS PER 2017 OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 PROCESSED THROUGH THE KNOX BOX COMPANY WEBSITE AT WWW.KNOXBOX.COM. KNOX KEY SWITCHES AND KEY FIRE FLOW OF 3,000 GPM / 4 HOURS FOR THE LARGEST BUILDING OF 393,320 SF WITH TYPE III A BOXES SERVING ONLY VEHICLE GATES AND NOT BUILDINGS SHALL BE SUBMASTERED FOR USE BY BOTH THE FIRE AND SHERIFRPOLICE DEPARTMENT. CALL THE OCFA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SECTION AT 714-573-6100 FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE NEED FOR KEY BOXES OR SWITCHES. SEE SECTION 9.C.3 FOR INFORMATION CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM. HYDRANT SPACING REGARDING INSTALLATION OF KEY BOXES AND KEY SWITCHES ON PEDESTRIAN GATES AND BUILDINGS. REQUIREMENT IS 350 MAXIMUM BETWEEN HYDRANTS AND (3) HYDRANTS MINIMUM PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09. NO. REVISION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: MJS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIL: midi = m FUSCOE �I�,,, � ARCHITECT: Architecture+Planning 17911 Von Karman Ave, PREPARED BY: � - I r PREPARED FOR: TITLE: 1 0 N C E PT U AL CONCEPTUAL VVV FIRE MASTER PLAN CENTRAL POINTE DATE: 07/20/2020 SHEET: 507 30TH STREET E N G I N E E R I N G Suite20o O NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 P: (949) 675-9964 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com 302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 202 SAN W A T E R F 0 R D SANTA ANA, CA OCFA SR279393 F-1 Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 o fax 949.474.5315 CLEMENTE, CA 92672 F: i:neery roair�',r www.fuscoe.com (949)240-5911 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY of 2 Z a 0- a CO CO w of LL w I- Z O 0- Q Z w U Cl) 0) CM rn W 07 a LL 0 O C:\_drawings103-Firesafe Plan n i ng\Waterford Property ColCentral Pointe\Cad FileslCentral Pointe - Fire Master Plan.dwg ,Ryan Plot date: March 1, 2020 The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re -use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited. BUILDING SECTION VIEW A -A SCALE: 1 "=40' LEGEND CONCEPTUALNOTE: BUILDING SECTION PROVIDED BY KTGY ARCHITECTS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FIRE MASTER PLAN Q 0 PROPOSED FIRE LANE SIGNAGE AS INDICATED ON PLAN AND DETAILS SHEET F-1 z ROOFTOP B ROOFTOP A 0 CENTRAL POINTE AMENITY DECK LEVEL 7777 AMENITY DECK LEVEL 7 m I w EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT WITH BLUE MARKER SAN TA ANA, CA ® 6 LEVEL 5 , , LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 5 , LEVEL 5 a_ a_LEVEL e PROPOSED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH BLUE REFLECTIVE FIRE HYDRANT MARKER. MARKER SHALL BE PLACED 6" FROM CENTERLINE OF STREET OCFA SR279393 ti N LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 N ti co LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3 CABRILLO PARK DRIVE ® ® ® ® LEVEL 2 j LEVEL 2 ® ® ® ® ® ® LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SUB -KEYED KNOX BOX WITH 3-SETS OF ENTRY DOOR/GATE KEYS OR SUBKEYED KNOX KEY SWITCH. LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 SEE PLAN FOR DESIGNATION. o PAINT CURB RED WITH 'NO PARKING FIRE LANESTENCIL AT 30' O.C. PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 AND DETAILS SHT. F-1 ♦ - - -m0 150' HOSE PULL DISTANCE - MAXIMUM 6" MIN. BUILDING ADDRESSING O CONCEPTUAL FIRE MASTER PLAN SCALE: 1 "=40' ❑ 3 (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR FINAL DESIGN AND LOCATIONS) I o EXISTING APARTMENTS I I 0 INDICATES ELECTRIC GATE ENTRY TO PARKING GARAGE -NOT A PART- ° " C3 ® DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. o FINAL DESIGN AND LOCATION PER PRECISE FIRE MASTER PLAN. EXISTING PARKCOURT PLACE ® AERIAL TRUCK LADDER ACCESS TO BUILDING (BETWEEN 20' - 40' FROM ACCESS ROAD) — — -NOT A PART- \ / \ 13 M 2e � � 2e /� ♦ 2e ♦ > BUILDING FOOTPRINT 0 1 1 A I 5 1 �' ` ` ` " A Ab �, OPEN TO SKY COURTYARD 1 1 1 • • • • o 1 STAIRS ®I o: E5 ❑ " 26 f e ® e a ° GURNEY SIZED ELEVATOR Y 1 :_`Fels-,• r�`" 1 31b� it I I I INDICATES ALL-WEATHER ENGINEERED PAVED ALTERNATIVE SURFACE THAT 5 Q SHALL MEET OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 68,000 LB. VEHICULAR WEIGHT REQUIREMENT. I tt o _ ._.._...._....... I I PAVED DRIVE - NOT A PART OF FIRE ACCESS DOG PARK \ 2 _ " Alk I V Lr- " I NON-COMBUSTIBLE TYPE I -A PARKING GARAGE - NOT A PART OF FIRE ACCESS PROJECT BOUNDARPA B ♦ — I Z PROPOSED ROAD WITH ALL-WEATHER PAVED SURFACE MEETING OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 TO SUPPORT VEHICULAR LOADS OF 68,000 LBS WITH A ROAD BASE OVER SOIL " ()I PROPOSED FENC ❑ El_ I Z COMPACTED TO A LEAST 90% 2 ,.+ A _ _ A --- - ;:i.....K;.<:; 1 •. I UPI EXISTING PAVED DRIVE - NOT A PART OF THIS REVIEW WIjo c \ J • a • 11' 1a r \ 5 BUILDING B BUILDING B ;1 1 BUILDING I tt �, N �� N ���� , INDICATESO.C.F.A / LIN \ O - NON COMBUSTIBLE PARKING GARAGE i ; 1 - NON-COMBUSTIBLE PARKING GARAGE BUILDINGA I I T _ i � —REQUIRED TURNING RADII: � N i �% 20' WIDE PATH WITH 17' C \ NOT A PART OF FIRE ® I ;1 ® NOT A PART OF FIRE I 45' 25' 20 INSIDE AND 38' OUTSIDE Z� \ ACCESS 1 ACCESS e I FIRE DEPARTMENT 1 I I ° HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND M ,• M Y I 1 11 o 5 C PER OCFA GUIDELINE B 09 11 L7 A ®I F WAL OVE 1 • CONSTRUCTION NOTES \ I \ e II © I tt O INSTALL FIRE LANE ENTRANCE SIGN PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 AND DETAIL HEREON. \ ® © A I I 1 ® ® ® NI I I O INSTALL'FIRE LANE - NO PARKING' SIGN PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 AND DETAIL HEREON. EXISTING 'NO STOPPING AT ANYTIME' SIGN. NOT A PART OF THIS SUBMITTAL. T MAIN ® ® MAI I I O3 INSTALL FIRE LANE NO PARKING SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF EVA GATE ENTRANCES PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 AND DETAIL SHT. F-1. LOBBY 5 A In B ® 10 5 LOBB ,� — x �- IL r I ( ® INSTALL KNOX SUB -KEYED KEY SWITCH PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09. \ ® ® ® I O5 INSTALL SUB- KEYED KNOX BOX PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09. \ \ ® I 6 O INSTALL PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT AND BLUE FIRE HYDRANT MARKER. \ ❑ ❑❑ SH IC _ _ _ 8 ® �� MARKER SHALL BE PLACED 6" FROM CENTERLINE OF STREET. '°° ° ` °°°° °°° ° °° ° ` '° Mato O RELOCATE EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT AS INDICATED ON THIS PLAN. 26' $ °8 9 X I I FINAL DESIGN PER PRECISE FIRE MASTER PLAN. \ 2 5 EXISTING BUSINESS PARK INSTALL FIREFIGHTER ACCESS TUNNEL PEROCFAGUIDELINE B-09 REQUIREMENTS SEE DETAIL HT. F-1. \ \ } ® ® I -NOT APART- 9 INSTALL WET STAND PIPES WITHIN OPEN TO THE SKY COURTYARD. SHALL MEET 2017 OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 \ " 10 I REQUIREMENTS. ALL WET STAND PIPE OUTLETS SHALL BE IN LOCATIONS THAT FACILITATE THE USE (NO 9 MORE THAN 18" FROM THE PATHWAY), UNOBSTRUCTED BY LANDSCAPE OR ANY OTHER AMENITIES. STAND 5 ® ® I I I I I PIPES MAY BE FREE STANDING OR MOUNTED ON THE BUILDING. 2 4 6 1 1 e 20' 1 1 I 10 PAINT CURB RED WITH 'NO PARKING FIRE LANESTENCIL AT 30' O.C. PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 AND DETAILS SHT. F-1. \ 20'A%L — — \ Q 11 INSTALL ALL-WEATHER ALTERNATIVE PAVED SURFACE. SHALL MEET OCFA GUIDELINE B-09 TO SUPPORT VEHICULAR LOADS OF 68,000 LBS. FINAL DESIGN PER PRECISE FIRE MASTER PLAN. A O o INSTALL MANUAL ACCESS GATE PROVIDING 20' WIDE ACCESS AND 13'-6" VERTICAL CLEARANCE FOR FIRE 7 ^� / EXISTING FOURTH ST 7 2e DEPARTMENT ACCESS. INSTALL WEATHER RESISTANT SUB- KEYED KNOX BOX AT EVA GATE ACCESS _ -NOT�C P�CRT- — — — — — — _ — — — — POINTS PER OCFA GUIDELINE B-09. FINAL DESIGN PER PRECISE FIRE MASTER PLAN. \ PROJECT BOUN-DARY — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — 13 INSTALL DRIVABLE ROLLED CURB FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS. SHALL MEET OCFA GUIDELINE B-08 � - REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT VEHICULAR LOADS OF 68,000 LBS.. CURB SHALL BE PAINTED RED PER DETAIL SHT. F-1. FINAL DESIGN PER PRECISE FIRE MASTER PLAN. J — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — f� �� — — — 7 / — — — — — — �� — — — — — — — - o 0 EXISTING BUSINESS PARK a -NOT A PART- DRAWING SCALE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CIVIL: ���1 ARCHITECT: PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: TITLE CONCEPTUAL DATE: 07/20/2020 N GRAPHIC SCALE MJS LANDSCAPE =111k ARCHITECTURE = FUSCOE Architecture Planning ' ireS ' I FIRE MASTER PLAN SHEET: No. REVISION 0 40' 80, � 507 30TH STREET 1' 17911 Von Karman Ave, r Suite 200 CENTRAL P01 NTE E N G I N E E R I N G , af MMIIII NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 2�Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 W A T E R F O R D SANTA ANA, CA F-2 1 inch =40 ft. P: (949) 675-9964 Irvine, California 92606 CD ktgy.com 302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 202 SAN OCFA SR279393 tel 949.474.1960 C fax 949.474.5315 CLEMENTE, CA 92672 www.fuscoe.com (949)240-5911 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY OF 2 z Q J a_ 0-1 H Q W LL S:\Waterford Property Company\4th And Cabrillo\Email\Incoming\2020-03-02 Fire Master Plan PDF - CAD\Central Pointe - Fire Master Plan\Central Pointe - Fire Master Plan.dwg ,Jerry Canales Plot date: March 2, 2020 The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re -use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.