Agenda packet — Placentia City Council, September 3, 2024 (part 4 of 7)

483

ATTEST:

Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christian L. Bettenhausen, City Attorney
ATTACHMENT A: Map of Project Area
ATTACHMENT B: Amendment to Chapter 23.105, Specific Plan 5 Ordinance O-2024-05

Page 4 of 10 ends

484

ATTACHMENT "A"

MAP OF PROJECT AREA
Ordinance O-2024-05

Page 5 of 12 ends

485

ATTACHMENT "B"
Amendment to Chapter 23.105, Specific Plan 5
CHAPTER 23.105 SPECIFIC PLAN 5
Note
Prior ordinance history: Ordinances 86-O-118, 88-O-118 and 90-O-101. § 23.105.010. Location.

This specific plan shall encompass 19.13 +/- net acres at the northeast corner of Placentia Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue, 727 +/- feet south of Crowther Avenue and lying west of Placentia Storm Drain Channel, represented by the following specific plan area map:
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995; Ord. O-2019-05 § 3, 2019)
§ 23.105.020. Purpose.

The specific plan is intended to provide a site for retailers and businesses, which through the characteristics of their respective services offered, cater to the entire community. (Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
§ 23.105.030. Permitted uses for parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10.

All retail, business and office uses are permitted on these parcels as shown on Exhibit A attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and on file in the office of the city clerk, including but not limited to the following examples:
(1) Apparel stores;
(2) Appliance stores;
(3) Educational and training offices;
(4) Financial institutions;
(5) Food stores.

Ordinance O-2024-05

Page 6 of 10 ends

486

(6) General administrative offices;
(7) Health clubs;;
(8) Home improvement centers;
(9) Hotels with lounges;
(10) Medical and dental offices and clinics;
(11) Professional offices;
(12) Research and development including laboratories;
(13) Restaurants including drive -through facilities;
(14) Sales and service operations with or without light assembly and storage; (15) Small outdoor seating areas per Section 23.81.165; (16) Use conformity determination.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the planning commission of the city of Placentia may, upon application made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 23.87, review and determine whether a proposed use, not otherwise specified in this section, conforms to the intent and purpose of this chapter with regard to permitted uses and has characteristics similar to those uses listed in this section. The city administrator shall determine the number of plot plans to be submitted together with the application. The planning commission shall make the findings required by Section 23.87.040(1) and (2) in making any such determination.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995; Ord. 97-O-107 § 1, 1997; Ord. O-2010-09 § 5, 2010) § 23.105.040. Permitted uses for parcels 6 and 7.

The primary purpose of parcels 6 and 7 is hotel in nature. All retail, business and office uses listed in Section 23.105.030 shall be permitted. (Ord. 95-O-118, 1995) § 23.105.050. Permitted uses for parcels 9 and 11.

The purpose of these parcels is to provide a site for motor vehicle dealerships, and for other selected other commercial uses. Hospitality uses listed in Section 23.105.030 shall be permitted. General retail, financial, office, medical, and restaurant uses including drive - through facilities listed in Section 23.105.030 shall be permitted. On Parcel 9, a mixed - use project with up to 248 units shall be permitted.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995; Ord. O-2019-05 § 3, 2019)
§ 23.105.060. Uses subject to obtaining a use permit for all parcels. (1) Establishments that sell alcoholic beverages including on- and off -sale; (2) Uses similar to those permitted in Section 23.105.030 with special design characteristics which have the potential to adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood;
(3) Large outdoor seating areas per Section 23.81.165.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995; Ord. 97-O-107 § 2, 1997)
Ordinance O-2024-05

Page 7 of 10 ends

487

§ 23.105.070 Height.

Maximum allowable building height shall be seventy-five (75) feet. Rooftop amenities and architectural projections, such as and not limited to, clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, open space areas, fitness centers, are permitted to project sixteen (16) ft. above the maximum height limit if integrated into the overall design of the project and the maximum rooftop building coverage is limited to forty (40) percent of the rooftop floor area.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995; Ord. O-2019-05 § 3, 2019)
§ 23.105.080 Lot coverage.

Not more than eighty-five (85) percent of the net lot area shall be devoted to main and accessory building area, parking area or driveways except on those lots containing an auto dealership where one hundred (100) percent coverage shall be permitted. (Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
§ 23.105.090 Front yard setback.

Minimum front yard setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet. The front yard setbacks on Parcel 9 shall be 10 feet. All of the required yard area shall be landscaped and maintained, except for drive entrances.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
§ 23.105.100 Side yard.

Minimum side yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet when adjacent to public streets. Side yards adjacent to public streets shall be landscaped and maintained. All other side yards shall be a minimum of three (3) feet. Parking shall be permitted within the side yard setback except in areas designed for landscaping. Minimum side yard setbacks on Parcel 9 shall be 10 feet.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
§ 23.105.110. Rear yard.

Minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. A minimum of five (5) feet shall be landscaped and maintained. Minimum rear setback on Parcel 9 shall be 10 feet. (Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
§ 23.105.120. Distance between buildings.

The minimum distance between buildings shall be twelve (12) feet, except for buildings on parcels 9 and 11.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
§ 23.105.130. Walls and fences.

All fences shall be six (6) feet high chain link with one (1) inch private decorative slatting, color to be compatible with architecture of building. These fences shall occur along the southerly, easterly and northerly exterior property lines on parcels 1 through 7, as shown Ordinance O-2024-05

Page 8 of 10 ends

488

on Exhibit A attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and on file in the office of the city clerk.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
§ 23.105.140 On -site parking.

Parking shall be provided per Chapter 23.78 for all areas covered by the specific plan, with the following exceptions:
(1
(A) Parking for parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined to meet requirements. (B) Parking for parcels 3 and 4 shall be combined to meet requirements. (2)
Reciprocal parking shall be provided between parcels 1 and 2 and parcels 3 and 4. (Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
(3) Parking for a mixed -use project on Parcel 9 shall be shared between the retail and the residential units. Residential parking shall be one (1) space per dwelling unit for bachelor and one (1) bedroom units, one and one half (1.5) spaces per dwelling unit for two (2) bedroom units, two (2) spaces per dwelling unit for three (3) bedroom units, and guest parking at one (1) space per five (5) dwelling units, which quest parking shall be shared with the retail.
§ 23.105.150 Signs.

All signs shall be integrated with the design of the development and shall reflect the architecture of the building except those provided for in Section 23.90.160 (temporary advertising devices) and shall not be located in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and shall comply with all local building and electrical codes and their supporting structures shall be enclosed, structurally safe and maintained in good condition.
(1)
(A) Project entry monument signs shall not exceed four (4) feet in height and twenty-four (24) feet in length.
(B) Two project entry signs as shown on Exhibit B, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter, shall be permitted.
(2) Interior monument signs shall not exceed four (4) feet in height and ten and one-half (10.5) feet in length.
(3)
(A) Freeway signs shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height above freeway driving surface.
(B) Freeway signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in width. (C) Two freeway signs as shown on Exhibit B, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter, shall be permitted.
(4)
(A) Building tenant directory signs shall not exceed six and one-half (6.5) feet in height and five (5) feet in width.
(B) Seven (7) building tenant directory signs as shown on Exhibit B, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter, shall be permitted.

Ordinance O-2024-05

Page 9 of 10 ends

489

(5)
(A) Tenant identification signs shall meet the material and design criteria dictated by the sign specifications for the park.
(B) Each tenant identification sign shall not exceed one and one-half (1.5) square foot per lineal foot of building frontage on which the sign is located. (6)
(A) Truck door identification signs shall be attached to the building. No portion of any sign may project more than six (6) inches from the face of the building to which it is attached.
(B) Each truck door identification sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet. (7) Additional signs shall be permitted subject to the review and approval of the planning commission.
(Ord. 95-O-118, 1995)
Ordinance O-2024-05

Page 10 of 10 ends

490

ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Preface to Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. MND 2021-01, Initial
Study, MND 2021-01, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), Public Comments and
Responses, and Initial Study
Appendix
( http://www.placentia.org/index.aspx ?
NID=776)

Project Team

APPLICANT / OWNER

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
1000 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 510-8255
Contact: Gilad Ganish

RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECT

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
144 N. Orange Street
Orange, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860
Contact: Tobin Symmank

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

MJS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
507 30th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 675-9964
Contact: Matt Jackson

CIVIL ENGINEER
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
(949) 474-1960
Contact: John Olivier
UPDATED PLANS ON 05/20/24 & 06/05/24 WITH CHANGES TO
SHEETS G.1, G.1.1, A1.0, A1.2, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1, A4.0, A5.0, FMP-1, FMP-2, & FMP-3

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

VICINITY
MAP
COLLEGE BLVD.

SITE
Q
�FzP
57 Psi
NORTH
N.T.S.
w
0)
91 Q
wL
U
J

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Cover Sheet

AGENCY SUBMITTAL

PLACENTIA, CA
AUGUST 23, 2021
SHEET
INDEX
SHEET

DESCRIPTION
G1.0

COVER SHEET
G1.1

PROJECT INFORMATION - UNIT SUMMARY, PARKING
G2.0

CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES
A1.0

SITE PLAN
A1.1

OPEN SPACE PLAN
A1.3

EGRESS PLANS
A1.4

FIRE AREA PLAN
A1.5

FIRE ACCESS SITE PLAN
A1.6
FIRE ACCESS 3D MODEL
A2.0
BUILDING COMPOSITE PLAN - LEVEL 1 & 2
A2.1
BUILDING COMPOSITE PLAN - LEVEL 3 - 6
A3.0

CONCEPTUAL WEST & SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION
A3.1

CONCEPTUAL EAST & NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION
A3.2

BUILDING SIGNAGE
A3.3

BUILDING SIGNAGE
A3.4

COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
A4.0

CONCEPTUAL BUILDING SECTIONS
A5.0

CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS
L.1

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.2

RETAIL PLAZA ENLARGEMENT
L.3

POOL COURTYARD ENLARGEMENT
L.4

LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLAN PALETTE
L.5

IRRIGATION PLAN
L.6

LIGHTING PLAN
L.7

WALL AND FENCE PLAN
C.1

EXISTING CONDITION PLAN
C.2

CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN

REVISION LOG
NO.

DESCRIPTION
Date
1 ORIGINAL

08.23.2021
2 REVISION (6 -STORY GARAGE)

05.20.2024
2 3
4 5
Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.

G1.0
Scale
Job No.

Date
N/A
2021-204
05-20-2024

BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A 248 UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A
5 -STORY TYPE I I I -A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
SURROUNDING 6 LEVELS OF TYPE II -A PARKING STRUCTURE

GROSS LAND AREA
RESIDENTIAL GROSS AREA:

PARKING STRUCTURE GROSS AREA
TOTAL UNITS:

FAR (PARKING STRUCTURE NOT INCLUDED):

OPEN SPACE: 191 S.F. /D.U.

LOT COVERAGE:

CURRENT ZONING:
118,541 SQ .FT.
± 2.72 ACRES
250,681 SQ. FT.
132,017 SQ. FT.
248 UNITS

2.11 FAR
47,302 SQ. FT.
68% 80,653 SQ. FT.

SP -5

RESIDENTIAL
per CBC

AREA (GSF)
Definition
Level 1*
51,241
Level 2
47,022
Level 3
50,806
Level 4
50,806
Level 5
50,806

TOTAL GROSS AREA
250,681
Land Area (sf)
118,541
F.A.R.

2.11 *Note. I Pvel 1 include 2.703 c _ of cornme:micil USA. and 5,927 s.f. of Amenity use.

STRUCTURED PARKING
per CBC

AREA (GSF)
Definition
Level 1
22,1 1
1 Level 2
22,1 1
1 Level 3
22,1 1
1 Level 4
22,1 1
1 Level 5
Level 6
22,1 1 1
21,462

TOTAL GROSS AREA
132,017
Residential Multi -Family Building 05.20.24

UNITS PER LEVEL SUMMARY
LEVEL
STUDIO
1BR
2BR
TOTAL
S1
S 1 A
Al
Al A
A2
A2A
A3
A3A
A3B
A4
B 1
B 1 A
B3
5 6
3 4
1 5
3 8
5 1
1 10
4 2
53 4
6 3
4 1
5 3
8 5
1 1
10 4
2 53
3 6
3 4
1 5
3 8
5 1
1 10
4 2
53 2
6 3
3 1
5 3
8 5
1 1
10 3
0 49
1 5
3 2
0 6
5 6
4 1
1 6
1 0
40 -
29 15
17 4
26 17
38 24
5 5
46 16
6 248
Totals
44 136
68 -

11.7%

6.0%

6.9%

1.6%

10.5%

6.9%

15.3%

9.7%

2.0%

18.5%
-

6.5%

2.4%
100%

17.7%

54.8%

27.4%
Unit

DWELLJNG
Unit SF
UNIT
Qty.

INFO
%
SF TOT.*
S1
575
29 11.7%
16,675
S 1 A
534
15 6.0%
8,010
Al
638
17 6.9%
10,846
Al A
591
4 1.6%
2,364
A2
739
26 10.5%
19,214
A2A
676
17 6.9%
11,492
A3
715
38 15.3%
27,170
A3A
715
24 9.7%
17,160
A3B
701
5 2.0%
3,505
A4
759
5 2.0%
3,795
B 1
1,080
46 18.5%
49,680
B1 A
1,026
16 6.5%
16,416
B3
1,040
6 2.4%
6,240
Avg.
776
248
100.0%
192,567
* RESIDENTIAL UNIT NET AREA
AVG. SF
TYPE
SF
STUDIO
561
1 -BR
703
2 -BR
1064

BUILDING
- PARKING SUMMARY
TYPE
COUNT

PROVIDED
RATIO
STALLS
STUDIO
44 1.0
44 1 BR
136

1.0 136
2 BR
68 1.5
102
GUEST

0.20 50
TOTALS
248

1.34 332

LEASING
3 RETAIL 4/1000 sf 0.004 2,703 SF

TOTAL STALLS PROVIDED
335
*NOTE: Retail stalls are Shared within total Guest stall count

ACCESSIBLE STALLS

REQUIRED
STALLS
RATIO
REQ'D

RESIDENTIAL
332

0.02 7
RETAIL
1 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED
8 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED
8 NOTE: PROVIDE (1) VAN AC. STALL FOR EVERY 6 AC. STALLS PROVIDED (PER TYPE)

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

PRIVATE
Unit
O.S.

DECK
AREA
TOT.

AREA
S1
26 754
S1A
41 615
Al
26 442
AlA
44 176
A2
26 676
A2A
55 935
A3
28 1,064
A3A
65 1,560
A3B
65 325
A4
26 130
B1
26 1,196
B1 A
55 880
B3
122
732
TOTAL
9,485

EVCS PARKING
REQ'D
STALLS
(RESID.)
RATIO
REQ'D

RESIDENTIAL
.
335

0.1 33

TOTAL EVCS PARKING REQUIRED
33 TOTAL EVCS PARKING PROVIDED
33 NOTE: PER CBC 2022, 10% REQUIRED TO BE READY & 40%

REQUIRED TO BE CAPAPABLE

ALSO, THE REQUIRED EVCS STALLS ARE INCLUDED IN THE COUNT

TO MEET THE MINIMUM ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH THE
RESIDENTIAL AND LEASING PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

ENCLOSED AMENITY
SF

AMENITIES

LEASING/LOBBY
1,481
CLUB
1,444

FITNESS
1,085
FITNESS MEZ.
486

CO -WORK
874

MAIL/PARCEL
1,046
TOTAL
6,416
COMMERCIAL S.F.

RETAIL
2,703

OPEN SPACE
Provided - Common
37,817
Provided - Priv ate
9,485
ICS\�s\Il
47,302

BUILDING - PARKING PROVIDED
EV Ready
STD
Acc.

TOTAL
COMP.

SURFACE PKG
6 2
8 LEVEL 1
6 33
11 2
52 PARKING

STRUCTURE
LEVEL 2
6 36
11 2
55 LEVEL 3
6 37
11 1
55 LEVEL 4
5 38
11 1
55 LEVEL 5
5 38
11 1
55 LEVEL 6
5 39
11 0
55 TOTAL STALLS
33 227
66 9
335
10% 68% 20% 3%

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Project Information - Unit Summary, Parking Analysis

GENERAL DISCLAIMER
THESE CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ARE FOR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

REVISIONS MAY BE REQUIRED DUE TO FURTHER REQUIREMENTS, INVESTIGATION FROM GOVERNING AGENCIES AND BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND SURVEYS AVAILABLE. PLEASE REFER TO CIVIL SURVEYS, DRAWINGS AND EXHIBITS FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND MEASUREMENTS. PLEASE REFER TO THE

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS AND EXHIBITS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE PLANTING, IRRIGATION, DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS.

Architecture. G1.1
Design.

Relationships. Scale 0" = 00'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

PERSPECTIVES.DWG
N
0 O
N
0 o
0 0
0 U
0 5
2 w
U
Z
0 w
0 co
0 Q
I-
z
w
U
J
a_
w
a
0 I-
w
0 z
0 ozs
I-
z
w
0 a- Q
N a -
(NI O
o0
0 N_
o O
N Q
Mm
N
0 N
Q�
N
o
O -- -
2 AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST 1
VIEW ON PLACENTIA AVE LOOKING NORTHEAST 3

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
°NM
l�l
VIEW ON ORANGETHORPE AVE LOOKING NORTH 2
VIEW ON PLACENTIA AVE LOOKING SOUTHEAST 4

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Conceptual Perspectives

KEY MAP
3 N.i
NORTH
N.T.S.
2 ORANGETHORPE AVE
Architecture. 2.0
Design.

Relationships. Scale N/A
Job No. 2021-204
Date 08-29-2023
494

v
/
/
/
/
I
a
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
0 /
I)
/
/

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
F1 /
/
•

NOT A PART
t
i
i
0-
i
i

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Site Plan

SITE PLAN NOTES

1. THIS ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN IS PROVIDED FOR OVERALL SITE REFERENCE. THE LOCATION OF ITEMS INCLUDED IN THIS SET OF PLANS IS FOR AGENCY DEPARTMENT USE ONLY.

2. THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY, AS AN ARCHITECTURAL

PLAN FOR GENERAL LAYOUT AND IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY

3. FOR LOT LINE DIMENSIONS & HORIZONTAL CONTROL, SEE CIVIL

DRAWINGS

4. FOR HARDSCAPE AND ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS, SEE LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS

5. FOR PARKING GARAGE, SEE SEPARATE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE

6. FOR "FIRE LANE" DESIGN, SEE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

7. FOR PERIMETER FENCING, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

8. REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFIC SITE

REQUIREMENTS

9. ALL PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, AND BUILDINGS, EXISTING AND

PROPOSED ARE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN BUT MUST BE VERIFIED WITH

THE CIVIL PLANS

10. BUILDING SIGNAGE IS DESIGNED BY OTHERS AND INSTALLED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

11. SITE SIGNAGE IS DESIGNED BY OTHERS AND INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR.

12. SITE WALLS ARE DESIGNED BY OTHERS

13. DECORATIVE SITE LIGHTING IS DESIGNED BY OTHERS.

14. SURFACE WATER MUST DRAIN AWAY FROM BUILDING SEE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DRAINAGE DESIGN.

GENERAL NOTES

1. SEE SHEETS L1.0 - L4.0 FOR LANDSCAPE.

2. SEE SHEETS C1.0 - C2.0 FOR CIVIL.

LEGEND
INDICATES RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (5 -STORY)

INDICATES GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

INDICATES GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SPACE
INDICATES STRUCTURED PARKING (6.9 LEVELS)

VICINITY MAP
COLLEGE BLVD.

SITE
Q
O�
57 Psi
w
a
Q
w
U
Q
a
i
NORTH
N.T.S.
91 0
1"=30'-0"
NORTH
15' 30' 60'
90'
Architecture. A1.0
Design.

Relationships. Scale 1" = 30'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

COMMON OPEN
SPACE:
37817 SQ. FT.

COMMON OPEN SPACE

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
COVERAGE AREA:
80653 SQ. FT.

LOT AREA:
118540.5 SQ. FT.
=68.4%

LOT COVERAGE

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Common Open Space & Lot Coverage
1"=30'-0"
NORTH
0 15' 30' 60' 90'
Architecture. A1.1
Design.

Relationships. Scale 1" = 30'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 08-29-2023
496

/
/
//
/
/ /
/
/
0 /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
•
/
/
/
/
/
/
ai
/
/
/
/
/
/
•
•
8r
8r
8'
v5

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
//
/
/

NOT A PART
x

NARRATIVE

THE WRITTEN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS:

TRASH TRUCK ROUTING

TRUCKS WILL ENTER INTO THE PROJECT AT ORANGETHORPE AVE,

CONTINUE ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND UTILIZE THE DESIGNATED

TURN -AROUND TO HEAD SOUTH, PARK ADJACENT TO THE TRASH
STAGING AREAS AND COMMENCE OPERATIONS. AFTER COMPLETING PICK-UP, TRUCKS WILL EXIT THE PROPERTY AT ORANGETHORPE AVE.

TRASH ROOMS
SOLID WASTE:

A MIN. TOTAL OF THREE (4) 2 -CUBIC YARD TRASH BINS ARE
ANTICIPATED TO BE ON SITE WITHIN TRASH ROOM AT ALL TIMES FOR 3X A WEEK PICK-UP SCHEDULE.

RECYCLABLE:

A MIN. TOTAL OF (3) 4 -CUBIC YARD RECYCLE BINS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE ON SITE WITHIN TRASH ROOM AT ALL TIMES FOR 3X A WEEK PICK-UP SCHEDULE.

ORGANICS:

A MIN. TOTAL OF (3) 64 -GALLON ORGANIC CART ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE ON SITE WITHIN TRASH ROOM AT ALL TIMES FOR 3X A WEEK PICK-UP SCHEDULE.

DIMENSIONS FOR TRASH ROOM IS +/- 17'-4" X 25'-6" (444 S.F.);

COLLECTION WILL BE VIA RECYCLABLE AND COMPACTED SOLID WASTE

TRASH CHUTES LOCATED WITHIN ONE SEPARATE ENCLOSURE AT THE

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE AT EACH
RESIDENTIAL LEVEL. THE ONE TRASH TERMINATION ROOM WILL

PROVIDE FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLE AND ORGANICS BINS PER
DESCRIPTION AND FREQUENCY ABOVE.

TENANTS WILL NOT ACCESS THE TRASH TERMINATION ROOM DIRECTLY,

BUT THROUGH TRASH -CHUTE ROOMS LOCATED AT EVERY LEVEL OF THE BUILDING OFF THE RESIDENTIAL CORRIDORS.

THE TRASH CHUTES WILL CONTAIN A MECHANISM THAT WILL ALLOW

COMPLETE SHUT-OFF IN ORDER TO REMOVE / REPLACE THE BINS AS

THEY REQUIRE EMPTYING AND LIMIT ACCESS TO ALL OTHER FLOORS WHEN ANY ONE CHUTE DOOR IS OPENED. A PORTER WILL BE REQUIRED

TO MONITOR THE TRASH LEVELS THROUGHOUT THE DAY AS A PART OF DAILY DUTIES. A VEHICLE APPROPRIATE FOR TOWING TRASH BINS (eg.

WASTE -CADDY) WILL BE PART OF MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS OR VIA CONTRACTING WITH THE SERVICE PROVIDER.

TEMPORARY STAGING ROOM

TEMPORARY STAGING AWAITING ARRIVAL AND POSITIONING OF WASTE TRUCK.

STAGING AREA

THE STAGING AREA IS WHERE THE COLLECTION OF ALL BINS WILL TAKE

PLACE AND WHERE THE HAULER (TRASH TRUCK) WILL PICK-UP THE BINS.

MAINTENANCE OF TRASH ROOMS

THE MAINTENANCE OF THE TRASH ROOMS WILL BE MONITORED AND MANAGED BY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT.

ROLL OUT SERVICE AND PICK-UP

TRASH COLLECTION BINS WILL BE MOVED FROM THE ONE TRASH
ROOMS AT LEVEL 1 (PARKING STRUCTURE) WITH AN APPROPRIATE RETRIEVAL VEHICLE (eg. WASTE -CADDY). THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL

CONTRACT FOR THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO PROVIDE

ON -SITE TRASH MANAGEMENT TO ENSURE THAT FULL BINS ARE
REPLACED WITH EMPTY ONES. A SERVICE PROVIDER WILL BE

CONTRACTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO EMPTY THE BINS AS
NECESSARY PER SCHEDULE.

THE RENTAL / OWNERSHIP OF THE BINS AND THE TRASH SERVICE FOR THE TENANTS WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE BUILDING OWNER.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TRASH SUMMARY

SOLID WASTE CALCUALTIONS
UNITS
C.Y./UNIT
/WK
TOTAL C.Y.
(50%)

COMPACTION
RATIO

COMPACTED
TRASH {C.Y.J
No. of 2
C.Y. BINS
REQ'D
No. of
TRASH
ROOMS
No. of

PICK-UPS

PER WEEK
Na. of 2
C.Y. BINS
REQ'D
ROOM
248

0.29 71.92
3: 1
24 12
1 3
4 RECYCLING CALCULATIONS
UNITS
C.Y./UNITWK
TOTAL C.Y.
(5o%)
TOTAL UNCOMPACTED (C.Y.}
No. of 4
C.Y. BINS
REQ'D
No. of
TRASH
ROOMS
No. of

PICK-UPS

PER WEEK
Na. of 4
C.Y. BINS
REQ'D
/ROOM
248

0.12 29.76
30 8
1 3
3 ORGANICS CALCULATIONS
UNITS

GALLONS/
WEEK
TOTAL {GAL/
WEEK)
NUMBER OF 64 GALLON CARTS
No. of
TRASH
ROOMS
Na. of

PICK-UPS

PER WEEK
64 GAL.

CARTS
REQ'D
/ROOM
248

2.4 595.2
9 1
3 3

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Waste Management Plan
LEGEND
0 Ln
X15'-0"
I/
L
25-0"

TRASH TRUCK TURN -AROUND TRASH TRUCK TURNING

SANITATION TRUCK RADIUS
HAMMERHEAD TURN AREA 14'

MINIMUM VERTICAL

CLEARANCE
r 1r 1r 1r it

L -JL- -IL -JL -JL
-J

L-JL-JL-JL-JL-J
r-ir-ir-it-ir-�

L- -IL -JL - -IL - -IL -J

L JL JL JL JL J
✓ i
I
L

TRASH BINS

TRASH TRUCK WITH BIN

STRINGER TRUCK ROUTE

RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM(S)

GENERAL NOTES

1. TRASH ENCLOSURE AREAS ARE FULLY ROOFED AND CONTAINED WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE.

2. STAGING AREA AVAILABLE ON DAYS OF SERVICE FROM 7am to 1pm.

3. MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 25' AT STAGING AREA FOR BIN CLEARANCE.

4. ALL DRIVEWAYS & STAGING AREAS MUST BE ABLE TO CARRY MIN. 60,000 POUND GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT

VICINITY MAP
COLLEGE BLVD.

SITE
Q
?-lx
57 LP JO
Ps -c.

NORTH
N.T.S.
w
I-
cn
91 Q
w
U
J
a
0 1"=30'-0" .

NORTH
15' 30'
60'
90'
Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.

A1 .2
Scale 1" = 30'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

GENERAL NOTES
SB
_ I
130'
10'
SB
ri.00i.ar

GROUND LEVEL
cQOOH F� .

N6 s0.
29 PASSAG

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

UPPER LEVEL

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Egress Plans

1. EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE MEASURED FROM

THE MOST REMOTE POINT WITHIN EACH DWELLING UNIT TO EITHER

AN EXTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY OR EXIT DISCHARGE AS PER CBC
SECTION 1016.

2. THE MAXIMUM LENGTHS OF EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL PER OCCUPANCY ARE LISTED BELOW AS PER CBC TABLE 1016.1:

A: 250 FEET (WITH SPRINKLER SYSTEM)
B: 300 FEET (WITH SPRINKLER SYSTEM)
R: 250 FEET (WITH SPRINKLER SYSTEM)
S-2: 400 FEET (WITH SPRINKLER SYSTEM)

3. EGRESS THROUGH AN INTERVENING SPACE SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 1014.2

4. THE COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING DISTANCES PER SECTIONS 1014.3 AND 1028.8:

A: 75 FEET*
B: 100 FEET*
R-2: 125 FEET*
S-2: 100 FEET*
( * = PROVIDED THAT THE BUILDING IS PROTECTED THROUGHOUT

WITH AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.1 OR 903.3.1.2)

5. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS AND ARCHITECTURAL REFLECTED

CEILING PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING EXIT SIGNS.

6. EXIT ACCESS (SECTION 1002): THAT PORTION OF A MEANS OF

EGRESS SYSTEM THAT LEADS FROM ANY OCCUPIED PORTION OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE TO AN EXIT.

7. THE MEANS OF EGRESS, INCLUDING THE EXIT DISCHARGE, SHALL

BE ILLUMINATED TO A LEVEL OF NOT LESS THAN ONE FOOT-CANDLE

AT THE WALKING SURFACE AT ALL TIMES THE BUILDING SPACE
SERVED BY THE MEANS OF EGRESS IS OCCUPIED. SECTION 1006.2

8. THE MEAN OF EGRESS ILLUMINATION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE PREMISES' ELECTRICAL SUPPLY. IN THE EVENT OF A POWER

SUPPLY FAILURE, AN AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED PER SECTION 1006.3.

9. APPROVED EXIT SIGNS SHALL BE LOCATED AS NECESSARY TO

CLEARLY INDICATE THE DIRECTION OF EGRESS TRAVEL AS
REQUIRED BY BUILDING CODE 1011.1; AND SHALL BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 1011.3 IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS
1011.5 AND 1011.6. NOTE: ADDITIONAL EXIT SIGNS MAY BE
REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF FIELD INSPECTION.

10. IN THE EVENT OF POWER FAILURE AN EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL

SYSTEM SHALL ILLUMINATE EXIT SIGNS FOR A DURATION OF NOT LESS THAN 90 MINUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
SET FORTH IN SECTION 1011.6.3
LEGEND
7/
2 -HOUR VERTICAL EXIT ENCLOSURE
2 -HOUR EXIT PASSAGEWAY

EXIT PATH
NOTE: MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE FROM UNIT TO
EXIT TO PUBLIC WAY SHALL EXCEED 250 FEET.

VICINITY
MAP
COLLEGE BLVD.

SITE
Q
,P
57 I
Ps'
N.

LP 3o
NORTH
N.T.S.
w
I-
91 Q
Z
Q
a
NORTH
1 "=30'-0"
Architecture. Al .3
Design.

Relationships. Scale 1" = 30'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 08-29-2023
498

/
/
/
/
j•
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/®
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE III -A
5 STORY
11, 009 SQ. FT. PER STORY
55,045 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
(INCLUDES 2 SIDES FRONTAGE)

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE I I I -A
5 STORY
11,931 SQ. FT PER STORY
59,655 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
(INCLUDES 2 SIDES FRONTAGE)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
METER RM.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

PASSAGE
x _SIDE F. _ -�
A AG IN REASE•NT

NOT A PART
ADD'L
MENIT
30 SQ. F

PASSAGE
,ON)

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE III -A
5 STORY
9,184 SQ. FT PER STORY
45,920 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES
A
/

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA
• ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE III -A
5 STORY
2,284 SQ. FT PER STORY
11,420 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
MTER RM.

POOL EQUIP,

NOT A PART

PARKING

STRUCTURE
ni PASSAGE
30'-0"
_30'4)

SIDE FOR FR

PASSAGE
I

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE III -A
5 STORY
5,889 SQ. FT PER STORY
29,445 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
EL. +5.35'
i

NOT A PART

PARKING STRUCTURE
S-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE II -A
7 STORY
22,111 SQ. FT. PER STORY
151,900 SQ. FT. TOTAL
lllrliJJrTf/�/llll/J�

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE III -A
5 STORY
10,893 SQ. FT PER STORY
54,465 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
(INCLUDES 2 SIDES FRONTAGE)

NOT A PART
NORTH
0 15' 30' 60'
1"=30'-0"
90'

VICINITY MAP
COLLEGE BLVD.

SITE
Q,
o,kix
57 LPp
0,,s -c•
NORTH
N.T.S.
w
I-
�
91 Q
w
U
Q
LEGEND

FIRE AREA SEPARATION
2019 CBC - BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS - HEIGHT AND AREA - TYPE III -A CONSTRUCTION Building Use
Occup.

Group
Const.

Type
Sprinklers
(903.3.1.1)
Allowable
Ht / Stories
Height
Provided
Allowable Building Area
Max Bldg
Area per
Bldg
Section
Avg. Bldg
Area per
Story (5.5t)
Tab. 506.2
Nonsprinklered
(Sec. 51]6.2.3)
Frontage Increase
(sec. 506.3}
Sec 506.2.3
Parking Structure
5-2
I I -A
NFPA 13
UL
8 Tiers
117,000 - -
117,000
-
Leasing Office
B
I l l -A
NFPA 13
85' / 6 St.
1 St.
85,500 - -
-
-
Recreation/Fitness
A-3

I I I -A
NFPA 13
85 / 4 St.
1 St.
14,000 - -
14,000
-
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2
I l l -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0 ) ] x 2
48,000
9,600
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2

I I I -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0.25 ) ] x 2
60,000
12,000
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2
I l l -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60'1 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0.50 ) ] x 2
72,000
14,400
NOTES:
- Approved sprinklers (NFPA 13) used for Height and Story increase, NOT area increase - Frontage Increase If=iF/P-0.25/W/30; (0-1 side = 0 sf increase, 2 sides - 6,000 sf increase: 3 sides = 12.000 sf increase) - 2019 CBC Section 510.2 & 510.4 allows multiple stories below a horizontal assembly (podium) - Highest occupiable floor level is less than 75' above lowest level of fire department access and therefore building is not considered a High-rise per Section 202 - Building corridors shall comply with the requirements of CBC Section 1020 - Building Exit Passageways shall comply with the requirements of CBC Section 1024 - Where an exit enclosure is extended to an exit discharge or a public way by an exit passageway, the exit enclosure shall be separated from the exit passageway by a fire barrier constructed in accordance with CBC Section 707 or a horizontal assembly constructed in accordance with Section 711, or both. - 50' max. dead-end corridor where the building is equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13) per CBC Section 1020.4 Placentia Fire Department Access & Water Plan Notes
All of the notes listed in the INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS and GENERAL REQUIREMENTS sections shall be placed, verbatim, on the plan under the heading "FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER NOTES."

INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

1. Placentia site inspections are required for this project. Please schedule all field inspections at least 48 hours in advance. Inspections canceled after 1 p.m. on the day before the scheduled date will be subject to a re -inspection fee_ Call (714) 993-8135 OR email [email protected] to schedule inspections.

2. A lumber drop inspection shall be performed prior to bringing combustible materials (or combustible fixtures and finishes for structures of non-combustible construction). All-weather access roads capable of supporting 77,000 lbs.. lopped 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 required prior to a lumber drop inspection. Use the fuel modification plan service request number to schedule the vegetation clearance inspection.

4. Phased installation of fire access roads requires additional inspections not covered by the fees paid at plan submittal. Contact (714) 993-8135 to arrange for additional inspections that may be needed and any fees that may be due.

5. An original approved, signed. wet -stamped Placentia fire access &water plan shall be available an -site at time of inspection.

6. Access roads and hydrants shall be maintained and remain clear of obstructions at all times during and after construction. Areas where parking is not permitted shall be clearly identified at all times.

Obstruction of fire lanes and hydrants may result in cancellation or suspension of inspections.

7. Temporary fuel tanks of 60 or more gallons shall be reviewed, inspected, and permitted by the Placentia Fire Department, City of Placentia prior to use.

8. The project address shall be clearly posted and visible from the public road during construction.

9. All gates in construction fencing shall be equipped with either a Knox or breakaway padlock.

10. Buildings of four or more stories shall be provided with stairs and a standpipe before reaching 40 feet in height.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

11. Fire lane widths shall be measured from top face of the curb to top face of the curb for tire lanes with standard curbs and gutters and from flow -line to flow -line for fire lanes with modified curb designs (e.g.. rolled, ramped, etc.). The developer is responsible to verify that all approved public works or grading department street improvement plans or precise grading plans conform to the minimum street width measurements per the approved Placentia fire department access & water plan and standards identified in Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Guideline for all portions of the fire access roads.

12. Permanent, temporary, and phased emergency access roads shall be designed and maintained to support an imposed load of 77,000 lbs_ and surfaced to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 13- Fire lane signs and red curbs shall meet the specifications shown in Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Guideline and shall be installed as described therein. Additional fire lane markings may be required at the lime of inspection depending on field conditions.

14. All fire hydrants shall have a -Blue Reflective Pavement Marker" indicating their location per the Placentia standard. On private property markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner.
15_ Address numbers shall be located and be of a color and size so as to be plainly visible and legible from the roadway from which the building is addressed in accordance with Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Guideline.

16. Access gates shall be approved prior to installation and shall be in compliance with Chapter 5 of the CFC and Placentia Prevention Bureau Access & Water Guideline_ 17, Approved access walkways shall be provided to all required openings and all rescue windows.

18. Vegetation shall be selected and maintained in such a manner as to allow immediate access to all hydrants, valves, fire department connections. pull stations, extinguishers, sprinkler risers, alarm control panels, rescue windows, and other devices or areas used for firefighting purposes. Vegetation or building features shall not obstruct address numbers or inhibit the functioning of alarm bells, horns, or strobes.

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 or combustible roof cave lines unless protected by an approved sprinkler system.

20. Any future modification to the approved Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Plan or approved site plan, including but not limited to road width, grade, speed humps, turning radii, gates or other obstructions, shall require review, inspection, and approval by the Placentia Fire Department, City of Placentia.

21. Approval of this plan shall not be construed as approval of any information or project conditions other than those items and requirements identified in Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Guideline and related portions of the CFC and CBC. This project may be subject to additional requirements not stated herein upon examination of actual site and project conditions or disclosure of additional information.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING •
Fire Master Plan - Fire Area Plan & Notes •
Fire access roads shall be designed, constructed, and
maintained to support the imposed loads of Placentia fire apparatus with a total weight of 77,000 pounds. Apparatus weight is distributed as 50,000 pounds on tandem rear axels, and 27,000 pounds on the front axel. The surface shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to provide all-weather driving capabilities. A 20 -foot minimum road width is required.

Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.

A1.4
• Scale
• Job No.
• Date
1"=30'
2021-204
08-29-2023
499

LEGEND
2019
CBC
- BUILDING
CODE

ANALYSIS
- HEIGHT

AND AREA - TYPE III -A CONSTRUCTION
Building Use
Occup.

Group
Const.

Type
Sprinklers
(903.3.1.1)
Allowable
Ht / Stories
Height
Provided
Allowable Building Area
Max Bldg
Area per
Bldg
Section
Avg. Bldg
Area per
Story (5 -St)
Tab. 506.2
Nonsprinklered
(Sec. 506.2.3)
Frontage Increase
(Sec. 506.3)
Sec 506.2.3
Parking Structure
S-2
II -A
NFPA 13
8 Tiers
6 Tiers
117,000 - -
117,000
-
Leasing Office
B
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 6 St.
1 St.
85,500 - -
-
-
Recreation/Fitness
A-3
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 4 St.
1 St.
14,000 - -
14,000
-
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0 ) ] x 2
48,000
9,600
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0.25 ) ] x 2
60,000
12,000
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0.50 ) ] x 2
72,000
14,400
NOTES:
- Approved sprinklers (NFPA 13) used for Height and Story increase, NOT area increase - Frontage Increase If=[F/P-0.25]W/30; (0-1 side = 0 sf increase; 2 sides = 6,000 sf increase; 3 sides = 12,000 sf increase) - 2019 CBC Section 510.2 & 510.4 allows multiple stories below a horizontal assembly (podium) - Highest occupiable floor level is less than 75' above lowest level of fire department access and therefore building is not considered a High-rise per Section 202 - Building corridors shall comply with the requirements of CBC Section 1020 - Building Exit Passageways shall comply with the requirements of CBC Section 1024 - Where an exit enclosure is extended to an exit discharge or a public way by an exit passageway, the exit enclosure shall be separated from the exit passageway by a fire barrier constructed in accordance with CBC Section 707 or a horizontal assembly constructed in accordance with Section 711, or both. - 50' max. dead-end corridor where the building is equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13) per CBC Section 1020.4

BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A 248 UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A
5-STOR II -A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
SURROUNDINt 6 LEVELS OF TYPE II -A PARKING STRUCTURE

GROSS LAND AREA
RESIDENTIAL GROSS AREA:

PARKING STRUCTURE GROSS AREA
TOTAL UNITS:

Orangethorpe Mixed -Use
TABLE C105.1

NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF FIRE HYDRANTS

FIRE -FLOW REQUIREMENT
49Prril

MINIMUM NUMBER
OF IfYDAAN₹S
AYEf�AD11E SPACING
BETWEEN HYDRANTS.' b '
(f 1}

MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM ANY

POINT ON STREET OR ROAD

FRONTAGE TO A N Y GRAND'

1.750 or less
1 500
250

2.000-2.250
2 -
450
225
2,500
3 450
225
3,000
3 400
225

3.500.4.000
4 350
210
4,500-5,000
5 300
180
5,500
6 300
ISO
6,000
6 250
15+0

6.500.7.000
7 250
150

7.500 or inure
8 or more
200
120
For SI: 1 foot • 30IS mm. 1 gallon par minute • 3.755 tlm. a. Reduce Iry 100 feet for dead-end weds or roads.
b. Wh.PC streets use provided with median divider..... hicli cannot he cmissed by lire fighters pulling hoc lines. or where arterial streets are provided with four or MOW traffic lanes and have a traffic count of more than 30.000 ve=hicles per day, hydrant spacing shall average 500 feet on each side of the street and h. arranged on an alternating basis up to a lire -flow requirement of 7,000 gallons per minute and .100 feet for higher fire -flow requirements. c. Where new water mains arc extended along streets where hydrants arc not needed for protection of structures or similar fire problems, lire hydrants shall be provided at sp ing rot to exceed 1,0(10 feel to provide for transportation hazards. d_Reduce by 30 feet for dead-end streets or roads.
e. One hydrant for each 1.0000410N 110N per minute- or fra.yion thereof.

SITE PROVISION: 3 HYDRANTS ON SAME SIDE OF STREET @ 426' AVG. SPACING; 6 TOTAL HYDRANTS (INCLUDING 2 ACROSS STREET) @ 345' AVG. SPACING

AERIAL LADDERING
N.T.S.
18' 9'-6rr
Outrigger Setback
0 tit
a)
0 0
4-
(U
U
u
0 t!f
(l.)
-
On
9'-6" SETBACK a 70° LADDER - ROOF ACCESS
18' 20'
20' SETBACK $ 59° LADDER - ROOF ACCESS
/
118,541 SQ .FT.
± 2.72 ACRES
25 FT.

R2 -RESIDENTIAL
TYPE iI I -A
5-,fORY

SPRINKLERED
NFPA-13
/
/
/
//
/ /
/
/
/

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
/
/
/
0 /
/
/
*
*

NOT A PART
*
*
*
A
\oh
\ RgNT
//
O1�pE
G1H
O�PN

NOT A PART
NEW PAVEMENT CERTIFICATION:

Fire access roads shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to support the imposed loads of Placentia fire apparatus with a total weight of 77,000 pounds. Apparatus weight is distributed as 50,000 pounds on tandem rear axels, and 27,000 pounds on the front axel. The surface shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to provide all-weather driving capabilities. A 20 -foot minimum road width is required.

I
/

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Fire Master Plan - Site
N
N
5 Fire Lane Identification — Red Curbs

STANDARD CURB

ROLLED CURB

NO CURB/

FLARED CURB
O
GE

FIRE APPARATUS

BUILDING ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
LOCATIONS WITH MINIMUM OF 4" HIGH WITH
MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 1/2". FINAL

COUNT AND LOCATION SHALL BE FINALIZED

WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTION AND THE

FIRE CODE OFFICIAL
FIRE LANE ENTRANCE SIGN. SEE DETAIL

THIS PAGE

KNOX BOX / LOCKED KEY SWITCH

GURNEY SIZED ELEVATOR(S)

EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT

NEW WHARF HYDRANT WITHIN COURTYARD
(OR BUILDING FACE MOUNTED)
FIRELANE RED CURB. REFER TO DETAIL
150'-0" HOSE PULL

AERIAL TRUCK LADDER ACCESS TO

BUILDING (REFER TO DETAIL)

BUILDING FOOTPRINT - GROUND FLOOR

RETAIL OR LEASING/AMENITY (WITH

RESIDENTIAL ABOVE)

BUILDING FOOTPRINT - RESIDENTIAL
R2 OCCUPANCY, 5 STORIES TYPE III -A
CONST., SPRINKLERED THROUGHOUT
3 -HOUR CMU FIRE RATED EXIT CORRIDOR.

ANY DOORS WITHIN THIS SHALL BE RATED

COMMENSURATE WITH THIS RATING AND

CAN BE HELD OPEN WITH AN AUTOMATIC

RELEASE TIED TO THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

EXIT STAIR (ROOF ACCESS WHERE NOTED)
25'-0" WIDE PAVED FIRELANE
Mounting Specifications for
Fire Lane Entrance and No Parking Signs
Pedestrian areas: 7'
All other areas: 5'
r— in"
-
PedesNan areas: 7'
All other areas: 5'

STANDARD CURB ROLLED CURB
Signs shall be mounted facing the direction of vehicular travel.

Signs may be mounted on existing posts or buildings where the centerline of the sign is no more than 24' from the edge of the roadway.

Depth of bury shall be a minimum of 24" and rebar, a concrete footing, or another method to prevent removal of the sign is recommended. Footings for signs located in the public right-of-way shall be per the local jurisdiction's requirements.

Specifications for
Fire Lane Entrance Signs
To be used only at vehicle entry points
areas that contain "Fire Lana —No Parking" signs or red curbs

I NOTICE

NO PARKING IN

AREAS MARKED AS

FIRE LANE

1.3/8' bold red
lettering on white
enedive
- 2-3/P bad white
reflective lettering
on red background

VIOLATING VEHICLES

WILL BE CITED

OR TOWED AT

OWNER'S EXPENSE
PLACENTIA POLICE (714) 993-8164

TOWING COMPANY NAME & PHONE A
CVC 22658(a) CVC 22500.1 / -� 1' lad lettering an
J akin nnuecdve
background
rr

1.3/8' bold red
lettering on white
enedive
All sign and lettering dimensions shown are minimums. "Arial Narrow" font used is used in sample above though other legible sans -serif fonts may be acceptable.

This sign shall be posted at all vehicle entrances to areas marked with either red curbs or fire lane 'No Parking' signs. Signs shall be securely mounted facing the direction of travel and Beady visible to oncoming traffic entering the designated area. Signs shall be made of durable material and installed per Attachments 13 and 14.

Towing company contact Information Is required for all properties with a standing written agreement for services with a towing company per the California Vehicle Code.

1. Fire lane entrance sign(s) shall also be provided per Attachment 10 or 11.

2. Curbs shall be painted OSHA safety red.
"FIRE LANE — NO PARKING" shall be painted an top of curb In 3" white lettering at L3...._ t a spacing of 30' on center or portion thereof.

VICINITY
MAP
COLLEGE BLVD.

SITE
Q
OAP
57 LP
Psi

Iw
i‘
91 .c
w
U
J
NORTH
N.T.S.

PARCEL MAP:

A.P.N. 339-112-27
0 1"=301-0" .
15' 30'
60'
90'
Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.

A REVISION 08-23-2023
A REVISION 05-20-2024
FMP-1
Scale 1" = 30'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

75' HEIGHT LIMIT
S2 - PARKING

TYPE II -A
6 -LEVEL

STAIR TO

ROOF ACCESS
R2 ENTIAL
2019
CBC
- BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS
- HEIGHT

AND AREA - TYPE III -A CONSTRUCTION
Building Use
Occup.

Group
Const.

Type
Sprinklers
(903.3.1.1)
Allowable
Ht / Stories
Height
Provided
Allowable Building Area
Max Bldg
Area per
Bldg
Section
Avg. Bldg
Area per
Story (5 -St)
Tab. 506.2
Nonsprinklered
(Sec.506.2.3)
Frontage Increase
(Sec.506.3)
Sec 506.2.3
Parking Structure
S-2
II -A
NFPA 13
8 Tiers
6 Tiers
117,000 - -
117,000
-
Leasing Office
B
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 6 St.
1 St.
85,500 - -
-
-
Recreation/Fitness
A-3
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 4 St.
1 St.
14,000 - -
14,000
-
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0 ) ] x 2
48,000
9,600
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0.25 ) ] x 2
60,000
12,000
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2
III -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0.50 ) ] x 2
72,000
14,400
NOTES:
- Approved sprinklers (NFPA 13) used for Height and Story increase, NOT area increase - Frontage Increase If=fF/P-0.25]W/30; (0-1 side = 0 sf increase; 2 sides = 6,000 sf increase; 3 sides = 12,000 sf increase) - 2019 CBC Section 510.2 & 510.4 allows multiple stories below a horizontal assembly (podium) - Highest occupiable floor level is less than 75' above lowest level of fire department access and therefore building is not considered a High-rise per Section 202 9 P p 9
- Building corridors shall comply with the requirements of CBC Section 1020 - Building Exit Passageways shall comply with the requirements of CBC Section 1024 - Where an exit enclosure is extended to an exit discharge or a public way by an exit passageway, the exit enclosure shall be separated from the exit passageway by a fire barrier constructed in accordance with CBC Section 707 or a horizontal assembly constructed in accordance with Section 71 1, or both. - 50' max. dead-end corridor where the building is equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13) per CBC Section 1020.4 -----------------------

STAIR TO

ROOF ACCESS

CONTIGUOUS ROOF SURFACE
LVL 6
LVL 5
LVL 4 to
LVL 3
LVL 2
LVL 1

PLACENTIA AVE
INV \I

STAIR TOWER
p
p
1 _
p

PARKING
=111=111=111=111= I1=11 =111 111=111=111=111=111=111 111 111=111=111 111 1 1=1 I1=11 1 1=111 1 1=111=111 111 1 1=111 111= 11=111=111=111 111=111=111 11=111 1 I -1 I I I I 1 -1 I i 1 11 - 1-111-111=1 1-11 I=1 1=1 1-111=1 I=1 1-111=1 I=1 1-111=1 I=1 1-11 I-1 -1 1-11 I-1 -1 1-11 I-1 I- 1-11 I-1 -1 1-11 I-1 -1 1-111=1 I=1 1-111=1 I=1 1-111=1 I=1 1=1 I H I .. I 1 1 1 . . 11 1 1 . . 11 11 = 11=1 1=1 =1 111=111=111-111-11=11 =111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111-111=111= 11=111-111=1 I-111=111=111=111=111=111-11-111=111-111=111=111-111= 11=111-111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111-1 -L=1 1=1 1=11 =111 1 HE I I I -I -HEm- I -I I I -III- III- I I I -I I I I -I I I I I I -III I I -III I I -III I I I -III I -III- I -III -I -III I-III III-III-III-III-III-III-I I -III -I I -III -III -III -II -III I I III=1 =1 11=1 I - - - - - - II - � �- �iW�ii=iii - - i i i i �uiiwlYuiiu�u � i i i i i i �ru �ii�ui ii (ELEVATOR TOWER IN

FOREGROUND)

COURTYARD
(UNITS BEYOND)
L

MECHANICAL UNITS
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
RETAIL
Parking Enforcement Letter
July 12, 2023
Fire and Life Safety Department
City of Placentia
401. E. Chapman Ave
Placentia, CA. 92870
Re: Orangethorpe Mixed Use, 777 Orangethorpe Avenue
Parking Enforcement Plan
The fire lane parking enforcement plan for the above referenced project is stated as follows:

All fire lanes within 777 Orangethorpe Avenue shall be maintained and in no event shall parking be permitted along any portion of a street or drive that required fire lanes or any area designated as a fire lane for turn -around purposes either during construction or after occupancy.

Property Management shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding the parking of vehicles along the streets, roads and or drives within the project that are not in conflict with applicable law.

In furtherance thereof, Property Management, through its agents, will establish the "parking" and "no parking" areas within the property in accordance with Section 22658.2 of the California Vehicle Code and Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Guideline. 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.

Property Management 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 subsequent violations, the vehicle shall be subject to towing, The vehicle owner shall be responsible for all costs incurred in remedying such violation, including without limitation towing cost, citations and legal fees.

PropertyManagement Company
Authorized Agent Signature
N
Q)
J --J
X

AERIAL LADDERING
18' 9'-6"
Outrigger Setbaa
on
01)
1-
0 .1-J
X
LJ.I
r
5- Unit l
O
4- Unit I
r
3- Unit I
2- Unit
Q
1- Unit l
a)
§ ` u
� a
"E
V
O
9'-6" SETBACK & 70° LADDER - ROOF ACCESS 20' SETBACK & 59° LADDER - ROOF ACCESS LVL 6 / ROOF
LVL 5
LVL 4
LVL 3
LVL 2
LVL 1
- I - - - - - - - - „
k =111=I I I=III=III=III=111=I I I=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=111=111=I I I=111=111=I I I=111=11 =III=111=111=I I I=111=111=I I I=111=111-1 i 1 -111 -III -III -III -III -1 1=111=111=1 1=111=111=1 1=111=111=1 1=111=111=1 1=111=111=1 H I H 11-1 1-111=111-1 1-1 11-1 11-1 H11 -1I1=1 1=111=11 - I I =1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I =1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I =1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11= I I -III -I I- I I -III -I I- I I -III -I I- I I -III -I I ._. 11=1 11=1 I= 1 I -III -I I- I I -III -I - I I -III -I I- I I -III -I L=1 11=1 I I- = 1 1 1 1
I =III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=I I=I =III=I I I=I =11 =III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=I I I=I I I=I=I I I=I I I=I =III=1 1 =III=III =III=III=III=11 = = =1 =1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 I =1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 I =1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I=I 11= I 1=1 I 1=1 I = I 1=1 I 1=1 I = I 1=1 I 1=1 I -11-111=-111=111-=111-11 = I 1=1 I 1=1 I -11-111-1 -11-111-11=111=111=111=111=111E

BUILDING SECTION A -A

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Fire Master Plan - 3D Model & Sections

KEY MAP
o
ai
NORTH
N.T.S.

ORANGETHORPE AVE
0 15' 30' 60' 90'
_
n
1 —30 -0"
A REVISION 05-20-2024
Architecture. FMP-2
Design.

Relationships. Scale 0" = 00'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
�R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE III -A
� 5 STORY
11,009 SQ. FT. PER STORY
55,045 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
(INCLUDES 2 SIDES FRONTAGE)

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE I II -A
J 5 STORY
11,931 SQ. FT. PER STORY
59,655 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
(INCLUDES 2 SIDES FRONTAGE)
METER RM.

PASSAGE
_SIDE F
ADDVL
MENI T
30 SQ F

PASSAGE

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE III -A
5 STORY
9,184 SQ. FT. PER STORY
45,920 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE II I -A
5 STORY
2,284 SQ. FT. PER STORY
11,420 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
TER am.
ftPMP UP,
16°I°
11 COMPACT
EL. +0.p'

PASSAGE

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
R-2 OCCUPANCY TYPE III -A
l 5 STORY
5,889 SQ. FT. PER STORY
29,445 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
EL. +5.35'

PARKING STRUCTURE
S-2 OCC ► Y TYPE II -A
6 STOR
11 SQ. FT. PER
132,017 SQ. FT. TOTAL

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
10,893 SQ. FT. PER STORY
54,465 SQ. FT. TOTAL
(INCLUDES COVERED BALCONIES)
(INCLUDES 2 SIDES FRONTAGE)
NORTH
0 15' 30' 60'
1"=301-0"
90'

VICINITY MAP
COLLEGE BLVD.

SITE
Q,
,e,
57 LP JO
Ps -c.

NORTH
N.T.S.
w
F
Lo
91 Q
w
U
5 J
a
LEGEND

III III III III III I FIRE AREA SEPARATION
2019
CBC
- BUILDING
CODE

ANALYSIS
- HEIGHT

AND AREA - TYPE III -A CONSTRUCTION
Building Use
Occup.

Group
Const.

I I I -A
NFPA 13
85' / 6 St.
1 St.
85,500 - -
-
-
Recreation/Fitness
A-3

I I I -A
NFPA 13
85' / 4 St.
1 St.
14,000 - -
14,000
-
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2

I I I -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0 ) ] x 2
48,000
9,600
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2

I I I -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0.25 ) ] x 2
60,000
12,000
Residential Dwelling Units
R-2

I I I -A
NFPA 13
85' / 5 St.
60' / 5 St.
[ 24,000 + ( 24,000 x 0.50 ) ] x 2
72,000
14,400
NOTES:
- Approved sprinklers (NFPA 13) used for Height and Story increase, NOT area increase - Frontage Increase If=f F/P-0.25]W/30; (0-1 side = 0 sf increase; 2 sides = 6,000 sf increase; 3 sides = 12,000 sf increase) - 2019 CBC Section 510.2 & 510.4 allows multiple stories below a horizontal assembly (podium) - Highest occupiable floor level is less than 75' above lowest level of fire department access and therefore building is not considered a High-rise per Section 202 - Building corridors shall comply with the requirements of CBC Section 1020 - Building Exit Passageways shall comply with the requirements of CBC Section 1024 - Where an exit enclosure is extended to an exit discharge or a public way by an exit passageway, the exit enclosure shall be separated from the exit passageway by a fire barrier constructed in accordance with CBC Section 707 or a horizontal assembly constructed in accordance with Section 711, or both. - 50' max. dead-end corridor where the building is equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13) per CBC Section 1020.4 Placentia Fire Department Access & Water Plan Notes
All of the notes listed in the INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS and GENERAL REQUIREMENTS sections shall be placed, verbatim, on the plan under the heading "FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER NOTES."

INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

1. Placentia site Inspections are required for this project. Please schedule all field inspections at least 48 hours in advance. Inspections canceled after 1 p.m. on the day before the scheduled date will be subject to a re -inspection fee. Call (714) 993-8135 OR email [email protected] to schedule inspections.

2. A lumber drop inspection shall be performed prior to bringing combustible materials (or combustible fixtures and finishes for structures of non-combustible construction)_ All-weather access roads capable of supporting 77,000 lbs.. topped with asphalt, concrete, or equivalent shall be in place and hydrants operational at time of lumber drop inspection.

5. An original approved, signed, wet -stamped Placentia fire access & water plan shall be available on -site at time of inspection.

Obstruction of fire lanes and hydrants may result in cancellation or suspension of inspections.

7. Temporary fuel tanks of 60 or more gallons shall be reviewed, inspected, and permitted by the Placentia Fire Department, City of Placentia prior to use.

8. The project address shall be clearly posted and visible from the public road during construction.

9. All gates in construction fencing shall be equipped with either a Knox or breakaway padlock.

10. Buildings of four or more stories shall be provided with stairs and a standpipe before reaching 40 feet in height.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

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 flow -line to flow -line for fire lanes with modified curb designs (e.g., rolled: ramped, etc.). The developer is responsible to verify that all approved public works or grading department street improvement plans or precise grading plans conform to the minimum street width measurements per the approved Placentia fire department access & water plan and standards identified in Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Guideline for all portions of the fire access roads.

12. Permanent, temporary, and phased emergency access roads shall be designed and maintained to support an imposed load of 77,000 lbs. and surfaced to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 13_ Fire lane signs and red curbs shall meet the specifications shown in Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Guideline and shall be installed as described therein, Additional fire lane markings may be required at the time of inspection depending on field conditions_

14. All fire hydrants shall have a "Blue Reflective Pavement Marker" indicating their location per the Placentia standard. On private property markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner.
15_ Address numbers shall be located and be of a color and size so as to be plainly visible and legible from the roadway from which the building is addressed in accordance with Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Guideline.

16. Access gates shall be approved prior to installation and shall be in compliance with Chapter 5 of the CFC and Placentia Prevention Bureau Access & Water Guideline. 17, Approved access walkways shall be provided to all required openings and all rescue windows.

18. Vegetation shall be selected and maintained in such a manner as to allow immediate access to all hydrants, valves, fire department connections, pull stations, extinguishers, sprinkler risers, alarm control panels, rescue windows, and other devices or areas used for firefighting purposes. Vegetation or building features shall not obstruct address numbers or inhibit the functioning of alarm bells, horns, or strobes.

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 or combustible roof eave lines unless protected by an approved sprinkler system.

20. Any future modification to the approved Placentia Fire Community Risk Reduction Access & Water Plan or approved site plan, including but not limited to road width, grade, speed humps, turning radii. gates or other obstructions, shall require review, inspection, and approval by the Placentia Fire Department, City of Placentia.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Fire Master Plan - Fire Area Plan & Notes
Fire access roads shall be designed, constructed, and
maintained to support the imposed loads of Placentia fire apparatus with a total weight of 77,000 pounds. Apparatus weight is distributed as 50,000 pounds on tandem rear axels, and 27,000 pounds on the front axel. The surface shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to provide all-weather driving capabilities. A 20 -foot minimum road width is required.

Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.
2\ REVISION 05-20-2024
FMP-3
Scale 1" = 30'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

(9
N
CO
r
258'-11"
104'-5" 30'-2"
ADD'L
vMAIL /

AMENITY

LEASING
1048 SQ.I FT.

PARCEL
977 SQ. FT.
1081 SQ. FT.

PASSAGE -
METER RM.

CLUB
1441 SQ. FT.

POS. MEZ. @ 2nd
1085 FT.

DBL. VOL.
124'-5"
LEVEL 1
52 STALLS
BUILDING LEVEL 1
11 COMPACT

PARKING

STRUCTURE
- PASSAGE
RETAIL
2703 -8/Q. -FT; - - _
DBL. VOL.

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
EL. +5.35'
EL. +0.0'

PASSAGE -
RETAIL

PARKING
/ 25'
•
•
9 ti
co
104'-5"
258'-11"
30'-2" 124'-5"

MEZZANINE
486 SQ. FT.

BUILDING LEVEL 2
LEVEL 2-5
55 STALLS
11 COMPACT

PARKING

STRUCTURE
DBLX'OL.

EL. +15.33' @ 2nd
+25.42' @ 3rd
+35.50' @ 4th
+45.58' @ 5th
EL. +10.08' @ 2nd
+20.17' @ 3rd
+30.25' @ 4th
+40.33' @ 5th
/
N/1 \7E
DBL. VOL.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Building Floor Plans - 1 & 2
1"=30'-0"
NORTH
0 15' 30' 60' 90'
Architecture. A2.0
Design.

Relationships. Scale 1" = 30'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 08-29-2023
503

258'-11"
/
258'-11"
/
104'-5"
107'-1"
30'-2" 124'-5" _
291'-6"
LEVEL 2-5
55 STALLS it LEVELS4a
BUILDING LEVELS 3-5
11 COMPACT

PARKING

STRUCTURE
68'-5"

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
EL. +15.33' @ 2nd
+25.42' @ 3rd
+35.50' @ 4th
+45.58' @ 5th
.+10.08'@2nd
+20.17' @ 3rd
+30.25' @ 4th
+40.33' @ 5th
55'-0"
N
M
♦
♦
0 ti
co

TOP OF PARAPET
WALL @ APPROX. _
EL. +55.5'
B1
B1
104'-5"
30'-2"
B1
Al
S1
/
Al
A3
L444444444, 6-6-644
A3A
A3A
f
® S1A
A2
B1
ROOF DECK I \
@ APPROX.

EL. +51.42'
B1
B1
S1
B1A
A3A
/
\ S3
S3
57'-6"
A3A
0 _ 0 0 ILO 0- -16-10-1 -0-0-0 SP-OLO -
6-10-6 6- 070 Mil 0-0-0
AlA
B1A
A3
0 0
0 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
124'-5"
/
43 e0!
a
11 a
LEVEL 6
55 STALLS
11 COMPACT

PARKING

STRUCTURE
�1.

L. +50.42' @ 6th
18 v
1 114,
B1A
110'-7"
A2A
A2A
A2A
A3A
A3 f \ 0A,
\ r
A3
0 0-
A2
A4
B1
68'-5"
S1A IN A2
S1A � � S1
B1A B1
AF
S1
A3B
A2
L
0--0
6-
A2
(9
co
55'-0"
291'-6"
BUILDING LEVEL 6

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Building Floor Plans - 3-7
0 1"=301-0" .

NORTH
15' 30' 60'
90'
Architecture.

Design.

Relationships. Scale 1" = 30'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024
A2.1

MATERIAL LEGEND
FG 201.3
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 5
(+40'-4")
LEVEL 4
(+30'-3")
LEVEL 3
(+20'-2")
LEVEL 2
(+10'-1")
LEVEL 1
(+0'-0")
♦
0 (PARKING STRUCTURE

FAR BEYOND)

PARAPET
(+56'-5")

ROOF DECK
(+50'-5")
LEVEL 5
(+40'-4")
LEVEL 4
(+30'-3")
LEVEL 3
(+20'-2")
LEVEL 2
(+10'-1")
LEVEL 1
7D
5E
0 z
O
w
m
w
CyO
O
Q
w
J
w

THE LAUREL
4F
9 14D
10F
1"=20'-0"
0 1"=20'-0"
10' 20'
40'
60'

E LAUREL
1C
5E
5E
10' 20'
1A
40'
3 60'

NL (PARKING STRUCTURE

FAR BEYOND)
„1.-.0l, 06
LEVEL 6
(+50'-5")
LEVEL 5
(+40'-4")
LEVEL 4
(+30'-3")
LEVEL 3
(+20'-2") o
LEVEL 2
(+10'-1") 4
LEVEL 1
(+0'-0")
13 0
u�
2 0
0 0
0 PARAPET
(+56'-5")

ROOF DECK
(+56'-5")
LEVEL 5
(+40'-4")
LEVEL 4
(+30'-3")
LEVEL 3
(+20'-2")
LEVEL 2
(+10'-1")
LEVEL 1
(+0'-0")
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 PAINTED STUCCO - 20/30 FINISH
BRICK VENEER 1
BRICK VENEER 2

METAL RAILING WITH MESH GRID

FOAM TRIM

VINYL WINDOW/ DOOR

STOREFRONT WINDOW/ DOOR
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 DECORATIVE SIGNAGE

EXTERIOR METAL DOWNSPOUT

ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE

DECORATIVE MURAL

DECORATIVE MARQUEE

METAL CANOPY

METAL DECK
A
B
C
D

OFF-WHITE

ROSE -G RAY
GRAY 1
SLATE
E
F
G
GRAY 2

CHARCOAL

BRICK RED
Ln
FG 201.3
WEST ELEVATION 1
FG 201.3

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
SOUTH ELEVATION 2

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Conceptual West & South Building Elevation

KEY MAP
1 NORTH
N.T.S.

ORANGETHORPE AVE
Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.

A3.0
Scale 0" = 00'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

MATERIAL LEGEND
FG 201.

PARAPET
(+56'-5")

ROOF DECK
(+50'-5")
LEVEL 5
(+40'-4") o
LEVEL 4
(+30'-3") o
9 LEVEL 3
(+20'-2")
LEVEL 2
(+10'-1") o
LEVEL 1
(+0'-0") o
0 1"=20'-0" .
10' 20'
40'
60'
1A
_tea -
1?��_ �---. 111 ::: I i
I III °! I sm... 1111 _
11111
LihI1I_
9F
1G
0 1"=201-0"
10' 20'
40'
60'

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
5E
6D

ELEVATOR TOWER
14D
75' HEIGHT LIMIT
4F
III 11111
75' HEIGHT LIMIT
5E

PARAPET
(+56'-5")

ROOF DECK
J+50'-5
LEVEL 5
(+40'-4")
LEVEL 4
(+30'-3")
(+U _I. ) 1
NORTH ELEVATION 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 PAINTED STUCCO - 20/30 FINISH
BRICK VENEER 1
BRICK VENEER 2

METAL RAILING WITH MESH GRID

FOAM TRIM

VINYL WINDOW/ DOOR

STOREFRONT WINDOW/ DOOR
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 DECORATIVE SIGNAGE

EXTERIOR METAL DOWNSPOUT

ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE

DECORATIVE MURAL

DECORATIVE MARQUEE

METAL CANOPY

METAL DECK
A
B
C
D

OFF-WHITE

ROSE -G RAY
GRAY 1
SLATE
E
F
G
GRAY 2

CHARCOAL

BRICK RED

PARKING
(+55'-9")
FG 201.3
EAST ELEVATION 1

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Conceptual East & North Building Elevation

KEY MAP
N
NORTH
N.T.S.

ORANGETHORPE AVE
Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.

A3.1
Scale 0" = 00'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

MATERIAL LEGEND
I I 11 1 1
i
I II
I II
1 11 11 1 11
21'-9"
L _

THE LAURE
1 -WEST ELEVATION

THE LAUREL
II null -- -:1 ,ii
,1 11 I�I ll� it �I�1 i If m
11 Ili 11 III 11 Ni 11.
la it 111 Ih,i. ■ 11 ■I ■I
I11 [II ICI
-- III-!!.' II11 !! IIII. -
Ai el i ■ �I sl rri
r
T
I
5'-0"'
THE
LAUREL
tt,
S
a
a

L
_
.j
411_01.
1-1
I
I
II
II
IHI
.

I
1111.
�I _
I
illeili
Illiltiril

slum
•
I
II
1F
1 1111

4 1-
I
I
11111111
IlUlill
1 I
_
• 111111
- .�:

LINi
�MM
1 11
II
I
1 -1IJ11
I
ERRED i
ilOitli
-_
J1LL
- itcroa.ratwicE
RFAIL

SIGNAGE
fErm.rikalkIME
1 ,
1 1

�J
30'-0 1r
- 9r_0r1
r
i
D
4 1 r4
WI
El
■
■
■
•
. r!
III
L1
I°11
TT
1:1
�,1:111
�ullw
IRO II
I

IIIRIIII
° 11111
i1.1. _.
�1 ! AI =1 I!!
ICI II !IN I i1III1 i
III
III
III
III
II
iii
:_= IT
lllili ■■ ■■■■
1 THE LAUREL
III
III
III,.

I,.,
III
III
III
• �� II _ nil
2 -SOUTH ELEVATION

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
■t■■
:I
11 r.
0 2' 4'
8'
12'
1/4"=1'-0"
I II
I ■

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Building Signage
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 PAINTED STUCCO - 20/30 FINISH
BRICK VENEER 1
BRICK VENEER 2

METAL RAILING WITH MESH GRID

FOAM TRIM

VINYL WINDOW/ DOOR

STOREFRONT WINDOW/ DOOR
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 DECORATIVE SIGNAGE

EXTERIOR METAL DOWNSPOUT

ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE

DECORATIVE MURAL

DECORATIVE MARQUEE

METAL CANOPY

METAL DECK
A
B
C
D

OFF-WHITE

ROSE -GRAY
GRAY 1
SLATE
E
F
G
GRAY 2

CHARCOAL

BRICK RED

KEY MAP

ORANGETHORPE AVE
0 1/8"=I-0"
4'
8'
NORTH
N.T.S.
16'
24'
Architecture. A3.2
Design.

Relationships. Scale 0" = 00'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 08-29-2023
507

MATERIAL LEGEND
3 -EAST ELEVATION
4 -NORTH ELEVATION
IIIIII_1.11111.1_.,.-_1!!!!� I I�
1111.1.1111.1.L.- -II 1 • '
1111
III111_I.III11.I_.,..__I!! I:

III I IIi,III11.I_.,.__�1!!!i
H
J

THE LAUREL
i
Q
i

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
G
2' 4'
8'
12'
0 1/4"=1'-0"

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Building Signage
0 1 /8"=1'-0"
4'
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 PAINTED STUCCO - 20/30 FINISH
BRICK VENEER 1
BRICK VENEER 2

METAL RAILING WITH MESH GRID

FOAM TRIM

VINYL WINDOW/ DOOR

STOREFRONT WINDOW/ DOOR
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 DECORATIVE SIGNAGE

EXTERIOR METAL DOWNSPOUT

ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE

DECORATIVE MURAL

DECORATIVE MARQUEE

METAL CANOPY

METAL DECK
A
B
C
D

OFF-WHITE

ROSE -GRAY
GRAY 1
SLATE
E
F
G
GRAY 2

CHARCOAL

BRICK RED
8'

KEY MAP
z1
U
Q
a
NORTH
N.T.S.
16'
4 ORANGETHORPE AVE
24'
At)
Architecture. A3.3
Design.

Relationships. Scale 0" = 00'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 08-29-2023
508

9F
1G
10 rAttlp
Ar
Is ,, , I ' 1y.tnxt
I .4.), f id ---4,.
,4eEARTH=.
1,•firrEll.ipliqg

1. Painted Stucco
- 20/30 Finish

6. Vinyl Window / Door

IN M HMI AWE
AIM i IIMMA ■
intimn.I.M.IniWari
Mini IMP MIN MINIUMIIII III
MI ill= IIIIIIIIMI MEM Nimi MI
M MMINIEM imi =MEM 6
We =Me Mae
IF■ ii■■ la � i■�r %...
moriellaininklItZram I
EMI ME& =MINIMUM 1
■MI= II= MI mm NM OM=
=MI =MI= ■■IM■■ MI
a s
DIVICIPMI MIN Won MM. 1■i■■■■e

2. Brick Veneer 1

7. Storefront Window / Door
6D
5E
4F
ti
I
II

II MWMIIIMEMMIE EMI
NM iNIAWIIMOMMINMIIM
OMB MEM amtm• MI=
NM VMS MIlmiMalml M NI
�■�. � .-MOM IIIIROW
■■r
MIN ■■tt■ I
I
a
inn
I

MEM MIX MIS
■w■__
itelarlemi
MN
MI

IIIIIMIAMI MIIIIIIIMM
••
■■■r ��i.�`�° � _

3. Brick Veneer 2

8. Metal Scupper & Downspout

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
10A
7D
4F
8F
5E
1A
1C
THE
LAUREL;
I. _
IOW
C _
REV..- SCRAM

RETAIL SIGNAGE
ALIORiblAN

SOUTH ELEVATION

4. Metal Balcony with
Wire Mesh Railing

9. Accent Light Fixture
Ori
1 _

5. Foam Trim

10. Metal Canopy
A. Off -White
D. Slate
G. Brick Red
B. Rose -Gray C. Gray 1
E. Gray 2

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Color and Material Board
F. Charcoal
Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.

A3.4
Scale
Job No.

Date
NTS
2021-204
08-29-2023
509

75' HEIGHT LIMIT
LVL 6
LVL 5
LVL 4 ir,
7-0
LVL 3
LVL 2
LVL 1

STAIR TOWER
I
I
I
(ELEVATOR TOWER IN

FOREGROUND)

COURTYARD
(UNITS BEYOND)
e _
UNIT

MECHANICAL UNITS
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
C
C
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
STG.

UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
STG.

UNIT
0 u)
LVL 6 / ROOF
LVL 5
LVL 4
LVL 3
LVL 2
LVL 1
-111-111-111-111- 1-111-111-111-111 111= I-111-111 111=111=111-111=111-111-111- -111-111-1 -111-11-111-111-111-111- -111-111-111=111-111-111-111-111-111-111-11-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111=111-111-111-111-111-111=111-11=111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-11I-11I-11I-11I-11I-11I-11I-111=111-1 -111-111-111-111-111-11-11-111-111-111-111-111-11-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111-11I-11I-111-11I-11I-11I-11I-111-111-111-111-11-111-111-111-111-11I-11I-11I-111-111=111-111-111-111-11 11-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I- 11-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 11-1 I -1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 11-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 I- I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 hI 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I-1 1-1 I- =1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11= 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11= 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11= 11=1 11=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11= 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11= 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I =1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I =1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I 11=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 I F 11=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 11=1 -1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1= 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 a 11=1 11=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1 I qT I-1 11-11 I- 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I- 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I- 11-11 I-1 I I-1 -1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I- 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 I I1 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 I 11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 11-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 I-1 -1 11-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 1-11 I-1 I-1

PARKING STRUCTURE

COURTYARD

RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING SECTION A
P.L.

MECHANICAL UNITS
UNIT
C
UNIT
UNIT
75 HEIGHT LIMIT

COURTYARD
(UNITS BEYOND)

PRESIDENTIAL BEYOND

PARKING STRUCTURE ELEVATOR TOWER
(BEYOND)

STAIR TOWER
(BEYOND)
MECHANICAL UNITS P.L.

UNIT IC I UNIT
LVL 6 / ROOF
LVL 5
LVL 4
LVL 3
LVL 2
LVL 1
- - - - II ii - - ( - 'I -I I -I - -I - -I -
- - - - - - - - - - - - POOL 1-1 I I -I I 1 I=1 11 =111=1 -1 1-1 I F 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 1-1 I- 11-1 11=1 11 1=1 11=1 1-111-1 I I-1 11-1 I =11=1 1=1 11=11 I-1 1-1 I-1 i 1-1 1=1 l 11 1=1 1 -1 -111--1-=1=1-1 1= 1=1 1-1 11 1_i 1=1 1=1 1=1 =1 1=1 11 11 1_i 1_i 1_i 1_i 1_i 1 1i 1 1 1_i 1=1 1_i 1-1 1_i 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - - - - ---- ------ ------ -III-111-III-111-III 1 1 1 -III -111 -II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 II I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I 111= I I I I I I 1 1 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 I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - _- -__ _- -_- _-_- __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -11 I-1 1-1 I -I 11 I- 11=11=1 1=11 I-1 I-1 III 1 I -I 1=111= 11-11 I-1 1-111=1 I I -I I II 11 I-11 I-1 I=11 _ - - - - _ _ - - - -11-1 I I=111-1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 III=111=111=111=111 111-III-I 1 1 1 1 I -III -I I I_I I I-III III I I I -I 11_11 I -I 11_11 I_I I I -III -III I I I -I 11_11 I -III -I � I_I I I I � II � II � II � I- � I _I 11_i � 1i I 1-1 � 1_111 1 � 1i 11_ � 1i 11_i � 1_i 11_i � I_I 11_1 � 1_i I 1 I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - =1 I -I 11=1 I I -I 11=1 I-1 11-1 11-111 1 I -I 11=1 I_I 1=1 I-1 11-1 I-1 I -11-I 1 1 1 1 I -I 11=111=1 1=11 I I 11 1=11 I -I 11=111=1 1=11 I -I 11-11 I -I 1=111=1 1=111=1 I 1=111-1 I 11=1 I -I 11=1 1=111=1 11=111-1 I 11=1 I -I 1=1 1=111=1 1=111-1 I -I 1=1 I I -I 1=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11 I -I 1=1 I -I 1=1 1=1 11=1 1=1 11 I -I 11 I -I 11=1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 11

RESIDENTIAL

COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL

PRESIDENTIAL BEYOND

BUILDING SECTION B

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Building Sections

KEY MAP
NORTH
N.T.S.
0 1"=20'-0" .

ORANGETHORPE AVE
10' 20'
40'
60'
Architecture. A4.0
Design.

Relationships. Scale 0" = 00'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

23'-3"

ALTERNATE CONDITION

PER BUILDING PLAN
18'-0"
BA
C. Y
a.

GREAT ROOM

KITCHEN
WIC

WIRE SHELVES
BATH
1 CO
UNIT S1
STUDIO - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 575 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 26 SQ. FT.
18'-0"
CD
_1
UNIT S1A
STUDIO - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 534 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 41 SQ. FT.
34'-4"

ALTERNATE CONDITION

PER BUILDING PLAN
UNIT A1
JR. 1 BED - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 638 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 26 SQ. FT.
20'-0"

BALCONY
8'-0" X 5'-0"

LIVING/
DINING
11'-6" X 13'-4"

BEDROOM
11-0" X 11-3"
W.I.C.

L
WID
UNIT A1A
JR. 1 BED - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 591 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 44 SQ. FT.

CD
1 CO
_1
CO
UNIT B1
2 BDRM - 2 BATH
UNIT AREA: 1080 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 26 SQ. FT.
21'-4"
BA
C. Y

LIVING/ DINING
11'-4" X 18'-10"
itlIrmwd
ci b KITCHEN
010
//y

BEDROOM
10'-4" X 11'-3'
W.I.C.

W'D
BATH
UNIT A5*
JR. 1 BED - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 676 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 30 SQ. FT.
21'-4"

LIVING/
DINING
11'-6" X 13'-4"

KITCHEN
//
REF
ENTRY

BEDROOM
:10x
11'-3"
W.I.C.

WD
BATH
UNIT A5A*
JR. 1 BED - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 626 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 51 SQ. FT.

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
33'-0"
23'-2"
CD
1 M

LIVING/
DINING
11'-6" X 19'-4"

KITCHEN
RE
BA
7'-4"
C• Y

TECH SPACE
10'-8" X 7'-0"
ENTRY
A

BEDROOM
10'-9" X 11-5'
L LIN1T A2
1 BDRM - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 739 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 26 SQ. FT.
23'-2"
CD
_1
M
n

LIVING/
DINING
11-6"X 18'-11"
C
b
0 0
f J
alb

KITCHEI'
REF
BATH
ENTRY

BALCONY
10'-7" X 5'-2"
BEDROOM\
10'-9" X 10'-6'
UNIT A2A
1 BDRM - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 676 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 55 SQ. FT.

BAL
7'-4"
0 UNIT A6*
1 BDRM - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 708 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 26 SQ. FT.
22'-6"
CD
_1

LIVING/
DINING
11'-4" X 18'-11"
❑ r
'f

KITCHEN
©©\ /
X1801—
Ie:I REF
C
b
BATH
ENTRY

BALCONY
10'-7" X 5•-2"
BEDROO
10'-2" X 10'-6'
UNIT A6A*
1 BDRM - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 656 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 52 SQ. FT.
341-4"

PBEDROOM
10'-2" X 13'-6"
W.I.C.

BATH
C
c
0 0
o1

LIVING/
DINING
11'-4" X 19'-4"
f
g IFi
rn

KITCHEN,
/
REF
BATH
ENTRY

BEDROOM
10'-2" X 15'-6'
M
M. BEDROOM
11'-4" X 13'-6"
W.I.C.

BATH

LIVING/
f DINING
,6" X 18'-11"
LJ LJ
b
0 L
n
KITCHE
BATH
REF
ENTRY

BALCONY
10'-7" X 5-2"
BEDROOM\
10'-9" X 10'-6'
1111111�lIIIIIIII!!
W.I C.

UNIT B2 *
2 BDRM - 2 BATH
UNIT AREA: 1038 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 26 SQ. FT.

UNIT B1A
2 BDRM - 2 BATH
UNIT AREA: 1026 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 55 SQ. FT.

BALCONY
9'-10" X 7'-6"
UNIT A3
1 BDRM - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 715 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 28 SQ. FT.

LIVING/
DINING
11-2" X 18'-3"

KITCHEN
UNIT A3A
1 BDRM - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 715 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 65 SQ. FT.
33'-0"

BEDROOM
10'-2" X 13'-6"
W.I.C.

BATH

LIVING/
DINING
11-4" X 18'-11"
ci
0 b
0 I
KITCHE
/
REF
BATH
ENTRY

BALCONY
10'-7" X 5'-2"
BEDROOM\
10'-2" X 10'-6'
L
WIC
UNIT B2A*
2 BDRM - 2 BATH
UNIT AREA: 987 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 52 SQ. FT.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Conceptual Unit Plans
CO
1 CO
17'-2"

BALCONY
9'-10" X 7'-6"
UNIT A4
1 BDRM - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 759 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 26 SQ. FT.

LIVING/
DINING
11'-2" X 18'-3"

KITCHEN
UNIT A3B*
1 BDRM - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 701 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 65 SQ. FT.
36'-6"
1 CO
* NOTE: NEW UNIT VARIATION
B
7'-4
C
BEDROOM 2
11,4"X 11'-10"
BATH 2
DMA
REF
COA

KITCHEN
LILI1 c6
e

BALCONY
10'-4" X 6'-8"
LIVING
11'-4" X 11'-6'
M. BEDROOM
12'-0"X 11'-10"
UNIT B3
2 BDRM - 2 BATH
UNIT AREA: 1040 SQ. FT.

BALCONY: 70 SQ. FT. + 26 SQ. FT. + 26 SQ. FT.
0 1/8"=l'-0"
4'
8'
M
16'
24'
Architecture.

Design.

Relationships.

A5.0
Scale 0" = 00'
Job No. 2021-204
Date 05-20-2024

CO -WORK LOUNGE
• communal work tables
• festival lights

PROJECT ENTRY
• specimen tree
• enhanced planting

FIRESIDE CHAT
• see sheet L.2

THE HANGOUT
• see sheet L.2
i
r
f

I I ' I III II
1 Q,
1 Orarigethorpe Ave Mixed Use
• Placentia, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
O
1 \\
-
L
•

CO -WORK
PARCEL
EASING

CLUB I FITNESS
r -
uj
RETAIL
Ir
\\-\°
osPaG
L-
77/II/I//7///7-IIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIII//II///II/I//iI///I//I/////////////II/l/I/I/Illl - - i
15' 30' 60'
LANDSCAPE AREA SECURED with FENCING SEE
SHEET L.7

DOG PARK
• decomposed granite
• festival lights
• dog drinking fountain
• seating

POOL COURTYARD
• see sheet L.3
PASEO
• connection to retail

RETAIL PLAZA
• see sheet L.2

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
LANDSCAPE 08-29-2023

ARCH ITECTURE
512

FIRESIDE CHAT
• lounge chairs
• firepit
• synthetic turf
• festival lighting

THE HANGOUT
• dining tables
• specimen tree
• bamboo screen
Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use
Placentia, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
I
i
10'
i
20'
PASEO
• connection to retail
• tree allee

RETAIL PLAZA
• cafe tables
• shade trees
• pottery
• umbrellas
• low wall

RETAIL PLAZA ENLARGEMENT
Vij p� L.2

LANDSCAPE

ARCH ITECTURE
08-29-2023
513

LEASING

THE RETREAT
• firepit
• lounge seating
• pottery
• specimen tree wl enhanced
planting
• festival lighting
• outdoor kitchen wl sit up bar
• cafe tables
• umbrellas

THE GAME LAWN
• game table
• sofa
• synthetic turf
• specimen tree
Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use
Placentia. iCA
I
i
10'
i
20'

POOL LOUNGE
• spa -134 s.f.
• pool -1,083 s.f.
• chaise lounge chairs
• day beds
• synthetic turf
• pottery
• lounge seating
• cabanas

POOL COURTYARD ENLARGEMENT
.3

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

LANDSCAPE

ARCH ITECTURE
08-29-2023
514

PROPOSED TREE PALETTE:

ALL PLANTS ARE CAL -I PC NON-INVASIVE and WUCOLS MEDIUM/LOW WATER CONSUMPTIVE (REGION 3 - SOUTH COASTAL) VARIETIES FOR THEIR PROPOSED GROWING CONDITIONS.

THESE PLANTS ARE WATER CONSERVING and USED FOR THEIR DEEP ROOT SYSTEMS WHICH STABILIZES SOIL and MINIMIZES EROSION IMPACTS.

BOTANICAL NAME

COMMON NAME
SIZE
WUCOLS
TREES:

ACACIA PURPUREA

PURPLE ACACIA
Standard
24" BOX
LOW

AGONIS FLEXUOSA

PEPPERMINT WILLOW
Standard
36" BOX
LOW
ARBUTUS x MARINA

HYBRID STRAWBERRY
Multi -Trunk
24" BOX
MEDIUM

ARCHONTOPHOENIX CUNNINGHAMIANA

KING PALM
Multi -Trunk
36" BOX
MEDIUM

CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA

CAMPHOR TREE
Standard
36" BOX
MEDIUM

JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA

JACARANDA
36" BOX
MEDIUM
MAGNOLIA G. 'LITTLE GEM'

MAGNOLIA
Low Branch
24" BOX
MEDIUM

MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA

CAJEPUT TREE
Multi -Trunk
24" BOX
MEDIUM

METROSIDEROS EXCELSA

NZ CHRISTMAS TREE
Standard
24" BOX
MEDIUM

OLEA 'SWAN HILL'

FRUITLESS OLIVE
Multi Trunk
36" BOX
MEDIUM

PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA 'MEDJOOL'

DATE PALM
32' BTH
MEDIUM

PINUS CANARIENSIS

CANARY ISLAND PINE
24" BOX
LOW

PINUS ELDARICA

AFGHAN PINE
Low Branching
24" BOX
LOW

PINUS TORREYANA

TORREY PINE
Low Branching
24" BOX
LOW

PLATANUS MEXICANA

MEXICAN SYCAMORE
24" BOX
LOW

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA

COAST LIVE OAK
Standard
36" BOX
LOW

QUERCUS VIRGINIANA

SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
Standard
36" BOX
MEDIUM

RHUS LANCEA

AFRICAN SUMAC
Standard
24" BOX
LOW

TRISTANIA CONFERTA

BRISBANE BOX
Low Branching
24" BOX
MEDIUM

WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA 'HYBRID'

CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
18' BTH
LOW
ACCENT:

ALOE BAINSEII

TREE ALOW
24" BOX
LOW

BRAHEA ARMATA

MEXICAN BLUE PALM
24" BOX
LOW

CERCIDIUM X 'DESERT MUSEUM'

HYBRID PALO VERDE
24" BOX
LOW

DRACAENA DRACO

DRAGON TREE
36" BOX
LOW

CERCIS CANADENSIS 'FOREST PANSY'

RED BUD
Standard
36" BOX
MEDIUM

PODOCARPUS 'ICEE BLUE'

LONG -LEAFED

YELLOWOOD
24" BOX
MEDIUM
STREET TREES:

NO STREET TREES PROPOSED
Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use
• Placentia, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
PROPOSED SHRUB PALETTE:

BOTANICAL NAME

COMMON NAME
SIZE
WUCOLS
SHRUBS:

IRRIGATION HYDROZONE 1:

LOW WATER CONSERVING PLANTING AREA:

ECHEVERIA GLAUCA

ECHEVERIA PEACOCKII

AEONIUM ARBOREUM 'SCHWARZKOPF'

AGAVE AMERICANA

ALOE STRIATA

DASYLIRION WHEELERI

HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA

KALANCHOE BEHARENSIS

MUHLENBURGIA CAPILLARIS

SENECIO MANDRALISCAE

WESTRINGIA FLORIBUNDA

HENS & CHICKS

PEACOCK ECHEVERIA

AEONIUM

CENTURY PLANT

CORAL ALOE

DESERT SPOON

RED YUCCA
TOYON

FELT PLANT

PINK MUHLY

SENECIO

COAST ROSEMARY
1 GAL
5 GAL
5 GAL
15 GAL
5 GAL
15 GAL
5 GAL
15 GAL
15 GAL
5 GAL
1 GAL
5 GAL
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW

VERY LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
IRRIGATION HYDROZONE 2:

MEDIUM I LOW TRANSITION PLANTING AREAS:

AEONIUM 'URBICUM' 'SALAD BOWL'

ALOE BAINSII

ALOE STRIATA

ARBUTUS 'COMPACTA'

BOUGAINVILLEA ROSENKA

CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN'

CAREX DIVULSA

CHONDROPETALUYM 'ELEPHANTINUM'

DIANELLA REVOLUTA

DRACAENA DRACO

FESTUCA MAIREI

FESTUCA OVINA GLAUCA

LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'

ROSMARINUS PROSTRATUS

SALVIA CLEVELANDII

TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS

AEONIUM

TREE ALOE

CORAL ALOE

DWARF STRAWBERRY

SHRUB BOUGAINVILLEA

DWARF CALLISTEMON

BERKELEY SEDGE

LARGE CAPE RUSH

LITTLE REV

DRAGON TREE

ATLAS FESCUE

BLUE FESCUE

SPINY -HEADED

MAT RUSH

DWARF ROSEMARY

CA BLUE SAGE

GERMANDER
5 GAL
24" BOX
5 GAL
5 GAL
5 GAL.
5 GAL
5 GAL.
5 GAL.
5 GAL
24" BOX
1 GAL
5 GAL
5 GAL.
5 GAL.
5 GAL
5 GAL
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
IRRIGATION HYDROZONE 3:

MEDIUM I LOW ENHANCED SHRUBS:

AGAVE ATTENUATA 'NOVA'

ALYOGYNE HUEGELII

ASPARAGUS DENSIPLORUS 'MYERSII'

BOUGAINVILLEA 'LA JOLLA'
CARISSA M. 'HORIZONTALIS'

CRASSULA OVATA

FURCRACEA FOETIDA 'MEDIOPICTA'

PHORMIUM HYBRIDS
PITTOSPORUM C. 'COMPACTUM'
PITTOSPORUM T. 'GOLF BALL'
PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA SPP. LYONII

FOXTAIL AGAVE

BLUE HIBISCUS

MYER ASPARAGUS

BOUGAINVILLEA

NATAL PLUM

JADE PLANT

MAURITIUS HEMP

NEW ZEALAND FLAX

PITTOSPORUM
'GOLF BALL' KOHUHU

CATALINA CHERRY
15 GAL.
15 GAL
5 GAL.
5 GAL.
5 GAL.
15 GAL.
15 GAL.
5 GAL.
5 GAL.
5 GAL.
24" BOX
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM

VERY LOW
ORGANIC MULCHES:
3" THICK SHREDDED BARK MULCH
(SHRUB AREAS - ALL HYDROZONES)
LIMITED USE AREA (Line of Sight) NOTE:

ALL TREE BRANCHES TO BE TRIMMED TO 8' HIGH ABOVE FINISH GRADE.

ALL SHRUBS WITHIN LIMITED USE AREA TO BE MAINTAINED AT 24" HIGH MAXIMUM.

WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING NOTE:

THE FOLLOWING MEASURES WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT TO CONSERVE WATER:

1. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF PLACENTIA LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES FOR WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPES.

2. THE ESTIMATED APPLIED WATER USE ALLOWED FOR THE LANDSCAPE AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAWA CALCULATION.

LANDSCAPE NOTES and PLAN PALETTE
L.4
LANDSCAPE 08-29-2023

ARCH ITECTURE
515

1 ft
I
1 I I
-/ :

O0
7-7 _
I
i
\\
Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use
• Placentia, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
i
II II
L
f/ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff� x _
�x-
iffff/ffff/ff//fffffffffffffffffffffffffff/ffffffff�/f/fffffflfff/Iffllffllfff//fff I
11 7

IRRIGATION
HYD BOZO N ES:

HYDRO -ZONE 1 - NORTH/WEST FACING -10,031 S.F.

IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE

TREES - BUBBLERS

SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION
HYDRO -ZONE 2 - SOUTH/EAST FACING - 7,163 S.F.

IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE
.:9; a.-.-.-.-.... cc•-•-.
:+::4:44+:•:••..:444.�
❖:❖:❖:•:•.::❖:❖:•:•:❖:*
''''"'''---- -

TREES - BUBBLERS

SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION
HYDRO -ZONE 3 - COURTYARD NORTH/WEST -1,748 S.F.

IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE
:e

TREES - BUBBLERS

SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION
�
��__��
HYDRO -ZONE 4 - COURTYARD SOUTH/EAST -1,850 S.F.

IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE
,,

TREES - BUBBLERS

SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 20,747 S.F.

RA/NkBInn
California Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
Reference Evapotranspiration (ETO)

49.7 Project Type
Residential

0.55 Hydrozone # / Planting Description'
Plant Factor
(PF)
Irrigation
Methodb
Irrigation
Efficiency (IE)`
ETAF
(PF/IE)
Landscape Area
(Sq. Ft.)
ETAF x
Area
Estimated Total
Water Use (ETWU)d
Regular Landscape Areas
Hydrozone 1 - North/West Facing

0.4 Drip

0.81 0.49
10031
4954
152640
Hydrozone 2 - South/East Facing

0.4 Drip

0.81 0.49
7163
3537
108998
Hydrozone 3 - Courtyard North/West

0.3 Drip

0.81 0.37
1748
647
19949
Hydrozone 4 - Courtyard South/East

0.3 Drip

0.81 0.37
1850
685
21 1 13
Totals
20792
9823
302700
ETWU Total
302700
Maximum Allowed Water Allowance (MAWA)e
352377
ETAF Calculations
Regular Landscape Areas
Average ETAF for Regular Landscape
Areas must be 0.55 or below for
residential areas, and 0.45 or below for
non-residential areas.

Total ETAF x Area
9823
Total Area
20792
Average ETAF

0.47 All Landscape Areas
Total ETAF x Area
9823
Total Area
20792
Average ETAF

0.47 i
15' 30' 60'
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE:

IRRIGATION UTILITIES
WATER METER 1.5" DEDICATED LANDSCAPE WATER METER . SEE CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS.

FEBCO 825Y 1.5" BACKFLOW PREVENTION UNIT - TO BE LOCATED IN UTILITY ROOM. FINAL LOCATION TO BE COORDINATED WITH OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE.

WILKINS KING BROS. GATE VALVE - BLOCKED TRUE UNION PVC - 2" & SMALLER HUNTER HQ33-LRC 4" QUICK COUPLER VALVE with LOCKING RUBBER CAP. INSTALLED AT 75' o.c. MAX.

SPACING THROUGHOUT THE SITE.

HUNTER PGV-ASV SERIES - PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVE with ACCU-SYNC ADJUSTABLE PRESSURE REGULATING DIAL - SIZE AS SHOWN ON PLAN.

RAINBIRD 1" MASTER VALVE - PESB SERIES VALVE
DATA INDUSTRIAL 1" IR-100 SERIES FLOW SENSOR
LM
'41C
®
®
MV
FS

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER
/A\
RAINBIRD ESP-LXM/F WALL MOUNT CONTROLLER with FLOW SENSING and RAINBIRD WEATHER SMART ET MANAGER and NECESSARY ACCESSORIES. WEATHER REACH SIGNAL PROVIDER I-(877)-351-6588. ALLOW TWO EXTRA AVAILABLE STATIONS MIN. INCLUDING MASTER VALVE and FLOW STATION. INSTALL in POWDER COATED LOCKING METAL CABINET: LXMM.

RAINBIRD WR2-RC WIRELESS RAIN SENSOR. INSTALL per MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.

POWER for 120 VOLT ELECTRICAL PROVIDED BY ELECTRICIAN, FIELD VERIFY ACTUAL LOCATION.

CONTROLLER
NO
SYMBOL
E

SUB -SURFACE IRRIGATION
HUNTER ICZ-FS-101/151-AS-ADJ REMOTE CONTROL DRIP ZONE KIT with FILTER and ACCU-SENSE ADJUSTABLE PRESSURE REGULATOR. (INSTALL WITHOUT FLOW CONTROL AT LOW FLOW CONDITIONS.)
PLD-ESD-06-12 SUB -SURFACE DRIPLINE TUBING 0.6 GPH EMITTERS at 12" ON CENTER SPACING - ALL TUBING SHALL BE INSTALLED 4" MINIMUM BELOW FINISHED SOIL GRADE W/ 9" WIRE STAKES HUNTER FIVE (4) FEET ON CENTER; VERIFY THE LAYOUT AND 12" ON CENTER SPACING IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. INSTALL SUB -SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM per MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.

USE HUNTER FITTINGS FOR CONNECTION BETWEEN PVC LATERAL LINES AND DRIPPERLINE TUBING.

WITH 17MM INSERT FITTINGS, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT STAINLESS STEEL CLAMPS BE INSTALLED ON EACH FITTING.

HUNTER DRIPLINE AUTOMATIC LINE FLUSH VALVE. - PROVIDE SCH 40 OR SCH 80 SOLVENT -WELD BALL VALVE FOR FLUSH OFF OF PCV EXHAUST MANIFOLD PIPE(SIZE PER PLAN), INSTALL FLUSH VALVE INSIDE 6" ROUND VALVE BOX, ONE AT THE END OF ANY TECHLINE CV LATERAL or PVC EXHAUST HEADER.

INSTALL MINIMUM OF ONE FLUSH VALVE PER MAXIMUM OF 800' OF TUBING. MULTIPLE FLUSH VALVES MAY BE REQUIRED WITHIN TECHLINE-CV LAYOUT. ALWAYS INSTALL VALVES IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS OF THE PVC/DRIP CONNECTION MANIFOLD.

HUNTER PLD-ARV-100 AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE INSTALLED with COMBINATION TEE AND A 3/4" x 1/2" REDUCER BUSHING, INSTALL AIR RELIEF ASSEMBLY INSIDE A 6" ROUND VALVE BOX AT THE HIGH POINT OF EACH PLANTER, MIN. I ARV PER 500' OF DISTRIBUTION TUBING. USING AIR RELIEF LATERAL, CONNECT AIR RELIEF VALVE TO ALL DRIPPERLINE LATERALS WITHIN THE ELEVATED AREA.

AS APPROVED NON -PRESSURE LATERAL SCH. 40 SUPPLY LATERAL with NECESSARY FITTINGS. NOTE EXHAUST LATERALS NOT SHOWN.
* DRIPPERILINE LAYOUT NOTE: NOT ALL SUPPLY/EXHAUST LATERALS SHOWN ON PLAN for GRAPHIC CLARITY - INSTALL LATERALS per MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID LOW PRESSURE THROUGH DRIPPERLINE and CONNECTIONS.

HUNTER TREE DRIPPER RING: PLD-10-12 SUB -SURFACE DRIPLINE TUBING 1.0 GPH EMITTERS at 8" ON CENTER CONCENTRIC RING SPACING- ALL TUBING SHALL BE INSTALLED 4" MINIMUM BELOW FINISHED SOIL GRADE W/ 9" WIRE STAKES FIVE (5) FEET ON CENTER; VERIFY THE LAYOUT AND 12" ON CENTER SPACING IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. SEE DETAIL.

IRRIGATION PIPING
AS APPROVED NON -PRESSURE LATERAL SCH. 40 FOR SIZES 3/4" - 2" W/ PVC SCH. 40 FITTINGS - BURY MIN. 12" BELOW GRADE (SIZE AS NOTED ON PLAN).
- - - ' - AS APPROVED I z' PRESSURE MAINLINE SCH. 40 PVC, IN PLANTER AREA FOR SIZES 3/4" - I 1/2", - BURY MIN. 18" BELOW GRADE (SIZE AS NOTED ON PLAN).

AS APPROVED PVC PIPE SCH. 40 SLEEVING, TWICE THE DIAMETER OF PIPE OR WIRE BUNDLE CARRIED - EXTEND 12" BEYOND EDGE OF PAVING & PLACE BELOW ALL PAVING, HARDSCAPE, ETC., AND AS DIRECTED BY OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

IRRIGATION MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT
NO SYMBOL AS APPROVED IRRIGATION CONTROL WIRE # I4UF AWG DIRECT BURIAL (U.L. APPROVED) NO SYMBOL SPEARS DS -400 PRE -FILLED WIRE CONNECTORS FOR USE ON ALL WIRE CONNECTIONS NO SYMBOL 3M DBY DIRECT BURIAL WATER -PROOF WIRE CONNECTORS FOR USE ON ALL WIRE

CONNECTIONS

IRRIGATION PLAN

LANDSCAPE

ARCH ITECTURE
08-29-2023
516

II II
i
1 -
O0
7-7 _
Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use
• Placentia, CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
L
x _
x _
0 ti
x _
\\
ifJ
L -
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 OR METAL HALIDE.

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.

EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND
SYMBOL
TYPE/TECHNIQUE:

LOCATION:

SYMBOL
TYPE/TECHNIQUE:

LOCATION:
•
12' HT THEME POLE

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS/ENTRY DRIVE

FIXTURE WILL NOT PRODUCE OFF -SITE
GLARE
�� a�_

OVERHEAD FESTIVAL

LIGHTING
ATTACHED TO BUILDING.

MINIMUM 12' ABOVE FINISH SURFACE
12' HT POLE

COURTYARDS

BUILDING MOUNTED
SCONCE

TO BE SELECTED BY ARCHITECT

STREET LIGHT

STREETSCAPE

STREET LIGHTS PER CITY STANDARDS

AND APPROVED PLAN, AS NEEDED

PER THE CITY STANDARDS AND THE

APPROVED STREET IMPROVEMENT
PLANS
(❑J

CEILING LIGHT

METAL TRELLIS STRUCTURES /
ARCHITECTURE. FIXTURE WILL NOT

PRODUCE OFF -SITE GLARE
®

ARM LIGHT AT MURAL

GOOSE NECK LIGHT
•
42" HT LIGHT BOLLARD

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
i
15' 30' 60'

LIGHTING PLAN
L.6
LANDSCAPE 08-29-2023

ARCHITECTURE
517

•
•
•M 1
existing 6' h CMU wall
1 s
ti
•
in •
````````````
``````````
-
Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use
Placentia. CA
' •� •
�ii��iii��iiii�iii�iiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiii�iii��iiiiiii��iiii�iiii�iii��iii�iiiA — x _
existing 8' h CMU wall
existing buidling wall
existing buidling wall
I
i
15'
i
30'

ORCO WHEAT MW
COLOR: CHARCOAL
COLOR: CHARCOAL
i
6v0'
•
•
•
•
a

SPLIT FACED BLOCK ACCENT WALL
6' HIGH
8' MAX O.C.
■
■
TUBULAR STEEL VIEW FENCE •'
6' HIGH
u1

TUBULAR STEEL POOL ENCLOSURE
5' HIGH
WALL and FENCE PLAN

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

LANDSCAPE

ARCH ITECTURE
08-29-2023
518

/
19g
76 2
/
19929
•
2008n
20 k
O
O
202,4
X. FIR
'iYDA►
//
//
V
//
//

EXI ' OR

BOUNDARY
X42
- 1.

A\\\\\\\� ,EXIST NE
BOUNDA
c.oL
/

EXISTING RECORD

BOUNDARY
N74°01'52"E . 150.05'
202 /• *4
• 2
2 BUILDING
APN: 339-112-9
WNER: McDONALD, JAMES G TRUS
797 W. ORANGETHORPE AVE
N74°01'52"E
ER. POWER
POLE

NG RECORD

BOUNDARY
/
/

ORANGETHORPE & PLACENTIA

PLACENTIA, CA
201.16

GUTTER -
201,79

EXISTING RECORD

BOUNDARY
201,45
201,29
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\
2023
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
2 APN: 339-112-26
OWNER: INFINITE RISING INVESTMENTS LLC
774 PLACENTIA AVE

BUILDING
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
35' _
201,31
201,80
0 207,75
201, 75
-
202,
WALL
POLE
STAIRS
1,:2024e
\\

EXISTING RECORD

BOUNDARY
/
/
/
/ 20X36
/ / 207.24
/ k
0 11
30' 0' 10' 20' 30'
20 27
co h
O
207.65
60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
20,
// 207.8(

COMMONWEALTH AVE
COLLEGE BLVD.

PROJECT

LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF PLACENTIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 257, PAGES 15 AND 16 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
339-112-27
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

BEARINGS HEREON ARE IN TERMS OF THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS-83) ZONE VI, 2017.50 EPOCH, AS DERIVED LOCALLY BY GPS CONTINUALLY

OPERATING REFERENCE STATIONS BLSA AND CCCS AS PUBLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE CENTER.

GRID COORDINATES:

BLSA
N=2239164.3938
E=6021324.8174
CCCS
N=2261350.6705
E=6071417.8093
GRID INVERSE BLSA-CCCS:

N66 -06-40.90E 54786.3003 FEET

ALL DISTANCES WERE SCALED TO GROUND BY APPLYING THE COMPUTED COMBINATION FACTOR (CF) 0.9999921993

UTILITY AGENCY

CONTACTS

UTILITY COMPANY

TELEPHONE

AT&T DISTRIBUTION
(714)
575-8320

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
(909)
721-8502

GOLDEN STATE WATER
(714)
535-8010 EXT 320

METROPOLITAN WATER-OC

SUPERSTRUCTURE TEAM
(213)
217-6679

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
(714)
870-3149

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
(714)
634-7287
SPRINT
(800)
874-2389
LEGEND
CB_
SDMH
E _
G-
-T -
SD=
W
RW _
S
r �

L ----J

EXISTING

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

CURB AND GUTTER

RIGHT OF WAY

EDISON LINE

GAS LINE

TELEPHONE LINE

STORM DRAIN

WATER MAIN

RECYCLED WATER MAIN

SEWER MAIN

EASEMENT

CENTER LINE

PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING RECORD BOUNDARY

PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER

PROPOSED BUILDING FOOT PRINT

EXISTING CONDITION PLAN
--
liii!!

E N G I N E E R I N G
230-
O CB
O
CD
•

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING CATCH BASIN

EXISTING WATER METER

EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION PULL BOX

EXISTING ELECTRIC PULL BOX
EXISTING MANHOLE (SMH, SDMH or EMH)

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT

EXISTING WATER VALVE

EXISTING POWER POLE

EXISTING GUY ANCHOR

EXISTING SIGN

EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE

EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT

EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE

EXISTING WALL
!FUSCnr
C.1
Scale AS SHOWN
Job No. 1404-007
Date 08-29-2023
519

20 199.29
1g976
20080
�e
20 2o -
O
202.4
/
/
/
20 /O
20 0
/

ORANGETHORPE & PLACENTIA

PLACENTIA, CA
/
0 201.79
x X
201.87
2026
201.75
k —
202.33
202 3p
201.17
02,
c --2o,z
13(.&( LDQK

EXISTING RECORD

BOUNDARY

01.24 ci
30' 0' 10' 20' 30'
47 Nv
20,
2027
CCe
•
CO h
0 // 207.8c
201.85
PROP. BLDG

FF PER PLAN
60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
LEGEND
CB_
❑b_
SDMH
PROP. BLDG

FF PER PLAN
E _
G -
T-
SD=
W
RW _
S
r' I

L ----J
RIGHT
OF WAY

22.7'

EXISTING

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

CURB AND GUTTER

RIGHT OF WAY

EDISON LINE

GAS LINE

TELEPHONE LINE

STORM DRAIN

WATER MAIN

RECYCLED WATER MAIN

SEWER MAIN

EASEMENT

CENTER LINE

PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING RECORD BOUNDARY

PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER

PROPOSED BUILDING FOOT PRINT
8'
230 -
CB
0 )(
O--
•
ORANGETHORPE AVE.
62'

HARDSCAPE
2%
j/\i/i/i/\X/ X/ \\/ \/\
PLACENTIA AVE.

7.5'
EX. SIDEWALK

32.5'

CONC SIDEWALK
2%
8" CURB
& GUTTER
RIGHT
OF WAY
EX. 3'
ESMT.

DEMO EX. 8" CURB,
14' PROF
6' AC PVMT

REMOVAL
2%
>-\
VARIES
GUTTER, & SIDEWALK \ FIRE TU
PROP. AC

PAVEMENT
,2%;
SAWCUT

LINE LIMITS
11'±

HARDSCAPE
PROP. PERIMETER
WALL
2%
PROP. AREA
DRAIN
2%
' AC PVMT.

PROPOSED

V -GUTTER
EX.

SECTION
EXIST.

PARKING
LOT
NTS
2%
NQUT

7.5'
PROP.

I DEWAL
2%
PROP. AC

PAVEMENT
PROP. PARKING

STRUCTURE FF

PER PLAN

PROPOSED
8" CURB
16'±
PROP. AC

PAVEMENT
2%
SAWCUT

LINE LIMITS
PROP. BLDG

FF PER PLAN
EX.

PL
5%
PROP. ARLA. \�//
DRAIN

CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
PROP. SIDEWALK
EXIST. BLDG
2%
I
- -
-
ih ..

E N G I N E E R I N G

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING CATCH BASIN

EXISTING WATER METER

EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION PULL BOX

EXISTING ELECTRIC PULL BOX
EXISTING MANHOLE (SMH, SDMH or EMH)

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT

EXISTING WATER VALVE

EXISTING POWER POLE

EXISTING GUY ANCHOR

EXISTING SIGN

EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE

EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT

EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE

EXISTING WALL

ABBREVIATIONS
A.C., AC
AB
BW
CB
CF
C/L,
CIP, C.I.P.

CONC.

DW
EA, EA.

EG
EL, EL.

EX., EXIST., (E)
FH
FF
FG
FL
FS
FW
GB
HP
INV, INV.

L.F., LF
LP

LS, L/S
L.S.

MAX, MAX.

MIN, MIN.

MH
(N)
PRKG
P.C.C.

P/L,
PROP.

P.V.C., PVC
POC, P.O.C.

R.C.P., RCP
RW
R/W
SD
SS, SW

S/W, SDWK
ST., ST
STD.

TC
TG
TYP.

DW, W
- ASPHALT CONCRETE
- AGGREGATE BASE
- BACK OF WALK
- CATCH BASIN
- CURB FACE
- CENTER LINE
- CAST IRON PIPE
- CONCRETE
- DOMESTIC WATER
- EACH
- EXISTING GROUND
- ELEVATION
- EXISTING
- FIREHYDRANT
- FINISHED FLOOR
- FINISHED GRADE
- FLOW LINE
- FINISHED SURFACE
- FIRE WATER
- GRADE BREAK
- HIGH POINT
- INVERT OF PIPE
- LINEAL FEET
- LOW POINT
- LANDSCAPE
- LUMP SUM
- MAXIMUM
- MINIMUM
- MANHOLE
- NEW
- PARKING
- PORTLAND CEMENT

CONCRETE
- PROPERTY LINE
- PROPOSED
- POLYMERIZING VINYL

CHLORIDE
- POINT OF

CONNECTION
- REINFORCED

CONCRETE PIPE
- RECYCLE WATER
- RIGHT OF WAY
- STORM DRAIN
- SEWER
- SIDEWALK
- STREET
- STANDARD
- TOP OF CURB
- TOP OF GRATE
- TYPICAL
- WATER
NOTE:

1. DRIVEWAYS WILL BE DESIGNED PER O.C.P.W.

STD. 1210.

2. ADA RAMPS WILL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED.

A FUSCOE
C.2
Scale AS SHOWN
Job No. 1404-007
Date 08-29-2023
520

•
April 2024
777 W Orangethorpe Avenue
Development Impact Analysis
Prepared For: City of Placentia
Completed By: Jon Stover & Associates
JS&A
Economic
Development
Consulting
521

Table of Contents
03 05
10 13
16 18
21 Section 0
Executive Summary
Section 1
Project Background & Purpose
Section 2
Economic Impact
Section 3
Fiscal Impact
Section 4
Community Impact
Section 5
Summary of Findings & Implications
Section 6
Appendix
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
522

Executive Summary
The City of Placentia, California ("the City"), is assessing the impact of various possible development scenarios at 777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue/776 S. Placentia Avenue, currently a vacant car dealership. The City retained Jon Stover & Associates (JS&A) to quantify the economic and fiscal impacts of three potential redevelopment scenarios to guide the City in future decision -making. As part of this analysis, JS&A assessed the anticipated economic and net fiscal impacts generated by each scenario. Key findings, summarized below, reflect both the construction periods and stabilized operations of each scenario.

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
I-1 Economic Impact'
To what extent does the
development create local jobs,
wages, and business revenue?
Fiscal Impact2
To what extent does the
development increase
general fund reserves?
.. •
fpCommunity Impact3
II To what extent does the
development achieve stated
local planning objectives?
(1) Annually at stabilization; includes direct,
indirect, and induced; jobs located
within City of Placentia
(2) Includes unrestricted general fund
revenues (other revenues and expenses
generated onsite are assumed to be
roughly revenue neutral)
(3) Stated planning objectives according to
City of Placentia General Plan, current
Land Use Map, 2021-2029 Updated
Housing Element

RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT
248 Multifamily Rental Units with
2,703 SF of Ground -Floor Retail
Slight Positive Impact
Adds $10.4 million in annual
economic output, 49 annual jobs;
$3.5 million in annual wages to the
City once complete.

Neutral
Net loss of $58,000 annually; will take
approximately 22 years to offset
one-time construction fiscal impact.

Slight Negative Impact
Limited alignment with stated
planning objectives; conflicts with the
current land use map and zoning;
activates a vacant property; helps
achieve goal to grow housing supply.

Neutral
Slightly negative net fiscal impact
upon stabilized operations, relatively
minimal economic impact.

HOTEL

DEVELOPMENT
123 Hotel Rooms with
5,000 SF of Standalone Retail
Strong Positive Impact
Adds $17.4 million in annual
economic output, 130 annual jobs;
$7 million in annual wages to the City
once complete.

Strong Positive Impact
Generates $577,000 in net fiscal
revenue annually; $9.1 million net
fiscal impact over first 15 years.

Strong Positive Impact
Allowed by -right; aligns with current
land use map and zoning; achieves
stated economic development goals;
activates a vacant property.

Strong Positive Impact
Features strong annual fiscal returns
to City, with strong ongoing job
creation.

NEW

CAR DEALERSHIP
New On -Site Car Dealership
No On -Site Retail
Slight Positive Impact
Adds $11.8 million in annual
economic output, 56 annual jobs;
$5.2 million in annual wages to the
City once complete.

Strong Positive Impact
Generates $470,000 in net fiscal
revenue annually; $7.1 million net
fiscal impact over first 15 years.

Slight Positive Impact
Allowed by -right; aligns with current
land use map and zoning; activates a
vacant property; lacks on -site retail.

Slight Positive Impact
Features strong annual fiscal returns
to City; relatively minimal economic
impact; and slight alignment with
zoning and local planning objectives.

AHVIAIMIS 1OVdwi

OVERALL
IMPACT
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
523

Executive Summary (Continued)
Economic & Fiscal Impact Detail
The potential development scenarios are anticipated to generate the following economic and fiscal impacts(1):

1.714
Residential Development
248 multifamily rental units
2, 703 SF of ground -floor retail
Fiscal Impact
Net City General Fund Tax Revenue:

During Construction: $1,236,879
Annual Once Complete: -$58,338
15 -Year Cumulative(2) $361,808
Economic Impact
$10.4 Million
Annual Economic Output
49 Jobs(3)
Annually Upon Stabilized Operations
$3.5 Million
Annual Salaries and Wages
Hotel Development New Car Dealership Use
123 hotel rooms(4)
5, 000 SF of standalone retail
Fiscal Impact
Net City General Fund Tax Revenue:

During Construction: $414,771
Annual Once Complete: $577,361
15 -Year Cumulative(2): $9,075,188
Renovation of existing commercial building
with continued use as a new car dealershipl5)
Fiscal Impact
Net City General Fund Tax Revenue:

During Construction: $83,665
Annual Once Complete: $470,353
15 -Year Cumulative(2): $7,138,959
Economic Impact Economic Impact
$17.4 Million
Annual Economic Output
130 Jobs (3)
Annually Upon Stabilized Operations
$7 Million
Annual Salaries and Wages
$11.8 Million
Annual Economic Output
56 Jobs (3)
Annually Upon Stabilized Operations
$5.2 Million
Annual Salaries and Wages
(1) Development programs are conceptual and will likely vary from final building programs of future redevelopment. Conceptual development programs used for this study are based on conceptual proposals submitted by developers for the project. Actual impact will vary based on the final development program and design. (2) Fifteen -year cumulative fiscal impact includes construction period tax revenues and anticipated net fiscal revenues during first fifteen years of stabilized operations. (3) Employment figures include full-time and part-time jobs. (4) A larger hotel development with more rooms would have a larger economic and fiscal impact that would be approximately proportional to the increase in rooms. For a 150 -room hotel, the annual fiscal impact upon stabilized operations would be approximately $697,000, with a 15 -year cumulative net fiscal impact of $10.9 million. (5) Analysis assumes that an on -site car dealership has comparable sales and employment levels as the former tenant (a Chrysler Jeep dealership). Impacts will vary depending on the type of dealership. A used car dealership may or may not result in lower impact figures, as impact is depending on annual sales and on -site employment.

Note: Jon Stover & Associates (JS&A), an economic development consulting firm, conducted this analysis on behalf of the City of Placentia. All findings subject to change.

See full report for detail on impact analysis methodology and assumptions. 524
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024

01 Project Background & Purpose
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
525

Project Background
Background & Study Purpose
The City of Placentia, CA ("The City") is assessing the anticipated impacts of various possible development projects at 777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue/776 S. Placentia Avenue,
the current site of a vacant car dealership. The City selected Jon Stover & Associates to conduct an independent study to assess the economic impacts of three potential
developments, including the renovation of the existing on - site commercial building with the site continuing its former use as a car dealership. The study also assesses the
anticipated state and local tax revenue, or fiscal impact, generated by each potential development scenario.

About JS&A
Jon Stover & Associates (JS&A) is an Economic Development Consulting firm located in Washington, DC. JS&A specializes in economic and fiscal impact analysis, real estate analysis, market analysis, and economic development strategy.

Founded in 2009, JS&A has completed hundreds of projects around the country for town, city, and state agencies, placed - based nonprofit organizations, and private developers and business owners. JS&A has completed over 50 development impact analyses for a range of municipalities and developers across the country.

Analysis Components
This study includes the following assessments for three potential redevelopment scenarios:

Economic Impact. Estimation of the number of jobs, total salaries and wages, and business revenue the three scenarios will create and support during construction and sustained operations.

Fiscal Impact. Fiscal impact assessment to understand the direct state and local tax revenues generated from these three scenarios during construction and stabilized operations.

Community Impact. Summary of how the three scenarios will benefit the surrounding community and align with
established local neighborhood and citywide goals.

Analysis Methodology
r
Data Sources
For the purpose of this study, IMPLAN, a software
and data provider, was used to (a) provide needed
data multipliers and (b) generate a model that uses
inputs from a development program to estimate the
corresponding impact on job and wage growth and
industry revenue. The analysis also uses
development program assumptions and building
permit and plan check fee estimates provided by the
City of Placentia.

Construction Vs. Operations
Two main development phases affect job growth: (a)
the period during site construction and (b) the period
of time once the project is stabilized and
approaching full occupancy. Site construction
generates temporary construction jobs and
associated fees and taxes. Once the subject site
operations stabilize, the primary sources of municipal
revenues are property taxes, sales taxes, and
Transient Occupancy Taxes (for hotel uses).

As such, the employment assessment is presented in
separate tables for (1) the planning and construction
period of the development and (2) expected annual
impacts of stabilized on -site operations once the site is fully developed and leased to residents and/or
commercial tenants.

Impact On Local Employment And Tax Revenue
Leveraging IMPLAN, which uses data and multipliers
specific to Orange County, the total expected jobs
were estimated for each type of tenant expected to
locate on -site. Economic impact figures are broken
down by direct, indirect, and induced impacts.

JS&A conducted an independent analysis of the
applicable state, local, and city taxes and fees to
determine the expected tax revenue generated by
development scenarios during both the period of
construction and during stabilized operations. Tax
revenue sources include sales taxes, property taxes,
building permit fees, impact fees, and various
planning and development fees. A net fiscal impact
analysis was conducted for the City of Placentia.

Gross fiscal impact figures were calculated for
Orange County and the State of California.

Note: Throughout this report, figures may not sum to
total impact figures, due to rounding.

Definitions of Key Terms
Economic Impact The impact of spending in a
particular industry or industries on a given
region.

Direct Impact The revenue, jobs, wages, and
other economic activity generated from the
operations of businesses or industries.

Indirect Impact The supply chain of goods and
services from other industries that enable
activity in a particular business or industries
(i.e., business -to -business transactions).

Induced Impact The results, or spending,
from personal income (salary and wages) that
is recirculated in the economy caused by the
direct and indirect impacts.

Fiscal Impact The amount of tax revenue
generated as a result of economic activity,
including sales tax, property tax, development
impact fees, and transient occupancy tax.

Net Fiscal Impact The amount of tax revenue
generated as a result of a development or
economic activity minus the amount of fiscal
expenditures necessitated by such development
or economic activity.

IMPLAN The industry -leading input-output
economic impact assessment modeling system
that models impacts of economic changes on a
specific region.
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
527

Subject Site Overview
The site location is surrounded primarily by auto -oriented commercial and industrial uses, with several car dealerships and low -density commercial buildings adjacent to the site. The site abuts Orangethorpe Avenue to the south and S Placentia Avenue to the west, two highly trafficked thoroughfares. The site is located just a half -mile from Orange Freeway, one mile from Riverside Freeway, and 3.5 miles from the Anaheim Canyon train station.

The subject site was previously occupied by Don-A-Vee Premier Chrysler Jeep and has been vacant since the dealership left the site in May 2018.

In the interim, there have been multiple offers to purchase or lease the subject site, including proposals from car dealerships, hotel developers, and other project types. The 35,073 SF one-story building previously occupied by Don-A-Vee Premier Chrysler Jeep remains on -site.

The on -site commercial building previously used as a car dealership.

Source: LoopNet
ly Ave
eld Le
.,m,PAve s "�Feave
[Walnut Ave Santa Clara Ave �T
Fender Ave
U
" e
the1 py
., Wvol•
E Rosewood Ave
E Rornneya Or
KIIMerIy Ave
crr
C7
E 0rangethorpe Ave

0. Via Burton
Source: Google Maps
East°��'l
E Romneya Dr
E Boise Ave
Sacks Lill
Mc
EpsangethorPC Aye
z
4�`��" c�aPa[mapVr
Source: Rosemurgy Properties
�glu¢Stl
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
528

Conceptual Development Scenarios
The City of Placentia has identified three potential uses for the subject site to be assessed as part of this study. The City of Placentia selected these scenarios, which represent three potential development options, including two ground -up construction projects and a renovation of the existing on -site building, which would continue to be used as a car dealership. The impact analysis estimates the economic and fiscal impacts for each of these three scenarios. These scenarios vary in size and cost and their associated impact figures reflect these differences.

Residential Development © Hotel Development
• 5 -story residential building with 248
market -rate rental units
• 2,703 SF of ground -floor retail
• 7 -story parking garage with 248 parking
spaces
• Residential Gross Area: 250,681 SF
• Parking Gross Area: 151,900 SF
Note: Development scenario based on a conceptual
development program submitted to the City of
Placentia by Orangethorpe Investment Partners LLC in
August 2021. Final residential development program
will likely vary from this proposal.
• Upscale Hotel
• 123 Hotel Rooms
• 5,000 SF of retail
• Est. Hotel Gross Area: 86,015 SF
• No parking garages or other
parking structures
Note: Hotel development scenario based on submitted
development proposal for subject site from
established hotel operator. Estimated gross area
square footage based on 659 Gross Building Area SF
per hotel room average from set of comparable
hotels. The specific development program of a hotel at
the subject site may differ from this conceptual
scenario. A larger hotel concept would result in a
greater economic and fiscal impact approximately
proportional to the increase in on -site rooms.
eNew Car Development Use
• New car dealership tenant to operate within
existing 35,073 SF building.
• Renovation of existing on -site commercial
building. No new ground -up construction.

Note: This scenario assumes that the site will be used
by a new car dealership brand comparable to the
previous tenant (Chrysler Jeep). Impacts will vary
depending on the type of dealership. A used car
dealership may or may not result in lower impact
figures, as impact is dependent on annual sales and
on -site employment upon stabilized operations.
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
,529

Economic Impact
The following section quantifies the economic impacts anticipated through the construction period and during stabilized operations for the three development scenarios. © Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
530

Economic Impact During Construction
One -Time Economic Impact by Development Scenario
The impact of a development's construction will be
generally proportional to its size and design quality.

As such, the largest and most expensive of the three
development scenarios, the residential development,
has a greater potential economic impact than the
hotel development during the period of construction.

The planning and construction of a redevelopment will generate both direct economic impacts (from spending by the developer during the planning and construction of the project) and secondary impacts that generate revenue and employment in other supporting industries that indirectly benefit from construction -related activity.

In total, the construction of a new residential development is expected to generate approximately $150 million of revenue in construction and supporting industries, 924 jobs, and $74.5 million in wages over the course of construction. Construction of a new hotel and accompanying retail space will support
approximately $47.8 million in revenue, 293 jobs, and $23.3 million in wages over the course of construction.

A new car dealership use would likely require extensive build -out costs given the poor quality of the existing on -site building. This renovation would support approximately 36 jobs over the course of the renovation, supporting $2.9 million in total wages.

This impact would increase if a new car dealership tenant decided to construct a new building on -site.

Total One -Time Economic Impact of Construction by Scenario(1)(2) Conceptual Development Scenario
Estimated
Development Costs(3)
Anticipated Industry
Revenue)
Anticipated
Employment(5)
Anticipated Salary
and Wages(6)
Residential Development
Hotel Development
New Car Dealership Use
$92,704,235
$31,851,042
$6,000,000
$149,953,451
$47,774,688
$9,522,166
924 $74,525,728
293 $23,372,192
36 $2,873,720
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Figures reflect combined direct, indirect, and induced effects for each scenario. For detail of each scenario, see the Appendix.

Changes in the anticipated development program and market forces may impact the anticipated industry revenue, employment, and salary and wages of employees.

Residential costs based on "Construction Costs of Residential Buildings in U.S. Cities (Statista, 2024). Construction costs for "New Car Dealership Use" based on submitted estimate from comparable car dealership. Infrastructure, public realm and land acquisition costs are unknown at this time and therefore excluded from the analysis.

Industry revenue reflects "Industry Output," or annual revenues plus net inventory change.

Anticipated employment represents jobs defined as full-time equivalent jobs years during the duration of development and construction.

Anticipated salary and wages calculated using IMPLAN with the latest version of the regional -specific multipliers.

Source: IMPLAN, 2024
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
531

Economic Impact Upon Stabilized
Operations
Annual Economic Impact by Development Scenario
An on -site hotel use would support the
highest overall number of jobs and
wages among the three development
scenarios. This employment is
supported through a mix of on -site hotel
staff and spending by hotel guests.

An on -site hotel and its accompanying retail uses are
expected to directly support approximately 96 full-
time and part-time jobs on -site. This includes on -site hotel staff, retail staff, and jobs supported by local
spending from hotel guests. In total, these direct jobs will result in approximately $4.4 million in wages
annually.

The car dealership is expected to directly support
approximately 35 on -site jobs, $3.7 million in wages,
and $7.5 million in industry revenue annually. The
proposed residential development has the smallest
economic impact, supporting approximately 18 jobs
on -site. These 18 jobs include property management
staff, employees at the ground -floor retail space, and self-employed residents with home -based
businesses.

Stabilized Operations
Economic Impact Typ
Anticipated
Industry
Revenue)
Anticipated
Employment
(21
Anticipated
Wages(3)
Residential Development(4)(s)(6)(7)
$10,445,118
49 Jobs
$3,496,935
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced(7) (Spending of Wages)
$4,179,866
$1,994,399
$4,270,852
18 10
22 $1,223,475
$793,816
$1,479,644
Hotel Development
$17,435,910 130 Jobs $6,982,199
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
$10,354,562
$3,446,909
$3,634,439
96 16
19 $4,414,480
$1,302,062
$1,265,657
New Car Dealership Use
$11,808,631 56 Jobs $5,193,145
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
$7,503,111
$1,623,468
$2,682,051
35 7
14 $3,674,871
$584,344
$933,931
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Industry revenue reflects "Industry Output" as calculated by IMPLAN, defined as annual revenues plus net inventory change.

Employment figures reflect jobs as calculated by IMPLAN which includes full-time and part-time jobs.

Anticipated salary and wages calculated via IMPLAN with regional -specific multipliers.

Residential impact figures assume 6.4% vacancy rate, based on average of multifamily properties built from 2018-2022 within 3 -mile radius from project site. Properties built in 2023 are excluded, to avoid properties still in lease -up period.

Estimate of on -site property management employment on a per unit basis utilizing national averages from 2023 National Apartment Association survey.

Residential Development figures assume 2.5% of residents have work -from -home businesses as primary source of income and use residential address as primary business address.

Induced impact figures for Residential Development scenario assume that 15% of residents are moving from outside region.

Note: Figures in chart may not add up due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN, 2024
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
532

05 Fiscal Impact
The following section quantifies the tax revenue attributable to the three proposed development scenarios during construction and upon stabilized operations. © Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
533

Fiscal Impacts During
Construction
The residential development scenario is estimated to generate approximately $1.2 million in one-time tax revenue during its planning and construction — the highest fiscal impact of the three development scenarios.

This tax revenue is generated through
Building Permit fees, Plan Check fees, and
the Transfer Tax. New development will
generate a significant amount of
development impact fees, with fees for the
residential development scenario reaching
nearly $6.9 million. These development
impact fees include traffic impact fees,
sewer impact fees, and parks and
recreation impact fees that are incurred on
a per dwelling unit basis. These impact fees
are expected to be net -neutral revenues for
the City, as they would likely offset
associated increases in municipal services
costs.

Anticipated One -Time Tax Revenue to City of Placentia(1)(2 Revenue Source
Residential
Develo • ment
Hotel
Develo • ment
New Car Dealership
Use
Net -Neutral Revenues(3)
Development Impact Fees
Outside Agency Fees
Revenue Subtotal
General Fund Revenue
Building Permit Fee(4)
Plan Check Fee(4)
Transfer Tax Revenue
Revenue Subtotal
$5,004,915
$1,846,289
$6,851,203
$929,937
$242,906
$64,036
$1,236,879
$274,363
$441,776
$716,139
$321,406
$84,688
$8,677
$414,771
$127,205
$194,498
$320,703
$62,890
$17,475
$3,300
$83,665
Tax Revenue to City of
Placentia General Fund During
Construction(5)
$1,2 •,879
$414, $83,665
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Tax revenue figures represent fiscal impacts of the direct effects only. The fiscal impact of indirect and induced effects are excluded from this analysis.

Development impact fees and outside agency fees calculated using City of Placentia Development Impact Fee calculator.

Net tax revenue from "Net -Neutral Revenues" is estimated to be zero dollars, under assumption that development impact fees and outside agency fees are proportional to increased expenditures necessitated by development.

Building Permit and Plan Check Fees provided by City of Placentia based on anticipated construction costs for each scenario.

Figures represent gross fiscal revenue, and do not account for any fiscal expenditures necessitated by on -site construction.

Note: Figures may not sum to total figure due to rounding.

Source: JS&A, City of Placentia
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
534

Net Fiscal Impact of Stabilized
Operations for City of Placentia
The hotel development scenario would generate the
highest net fiscal return for the City of Placentia
among the three scenarios, generating
approximately $577,000 of additional annual General
Fund revenue upon reaching stabilized operations.

This strong fiscal return is largely driven by $575,733 in Transient Occupancy Tax revenue estimated to be generated annually. A hotel would also result in lower overall fiscal expenditures to accommodate on - site users, as hotel guests typically require fewer municipal services than full-time residents. In its first fifteen years of stabilized operations, it would generate a cumulative $9.1 million in General Fund revenue. A larger hotel development with more rooms would have a larger economic and fiscal impact that would be approximately proportional to the increase in rooms. For reference, a 150 -room hotel would have an annual fiscal impact of $697,000 upon stabilized operations, and cumulative net fiscal impact of $10.9 million in its first 15 years.

Conversely, the proposed residential development would have a negative net annual fiscal impact of $58,338 upon stabilized operations. This is due to the enhanced municipal services needed to serve the estimated 384 residents that would reside in the development. The residential scenario would generate a positive net return of approximately $361,808 over its first fifteen years (including one-time tax revenues during construction), significantly lower than the other two scenarios. It would take approximately 22 years for the negative annual fiscal losses to be offset by the $1.2 million in revenue generated during construction.

A new car dealership use would generate approximately $483,000 in annual tax revenue (predominantly generated through sales taxes), and require a very minimal increase in fiscal expenditures, resulting in an annual net fiscal impact of approximately $470,000.

Anticipated Annual Net Tax Revenue for City of Placentia General Fund (1) Tax Revenue/Expenditure Type
Residential Hotel New Car
Develo • ment Develo • ment(2) Dealershi • Use
Est. Annual Revenue to City of
Placentia General Fund
$188,097
$686,149
$483,207
Property Taxes(3)
Sales Tax (Bradley Burns)
Sales Tax (Transactions & Use)
Transient Occupancy Tax
$158,955
$13,957
$15,186
$0
$24,583
$43,770
$42,062
$575,733
$8,100
$237,554
$237,554
$0
Est. Annual Expenditures from City of
Placentia General Fund by User(4)
($246,435) ($108,788) ($12,855)
Residents
Workers
Hotel Guests
Annual Net Fiscal Impact to City
General Fund
Net Fiscal Impact to City
General Fund Over 15-Yr Period
(Construction + Annual)(s)
($242,267)
($4,168)
$0
($58,338)
$361,808
$0
($28,053)
($80,735)
$577,361
$9,075,188
$0
($12,855)
$0
$470,353
$7,138,959
(1) Estimated impacts are presented in current (2024) dollars. Tax revenue figures represent impacts of the direct effects only. Fiscal impact of indirect and induced effects are excluded from analysis. Actual impacts may vary. (2) Analysis assumes 75% of hotel guest spending occurs within City of Placentia. Analysis assumes the remaining 25% goes toward other local municipalities and is therefore excluded from this analysis. (3) Sales tax revenue estimates for residential development account for taxes collected on residents' online transactions and in -person spending at Placentia retailers. Spending estimates calculated by IMPLAN based on anticipated on -site household incomes. Analysis assumes 20% of in -person retail spending will occur at businesses in Placentia.
(4) Analysis assumes the following property valuations for each development scenario: Residential Development:
$117,744,296, Hotel Development: $18,209,927, New Car Dealership Use: $6,000,000. Residential Development and Hotel Development figures include property valuations of on -site retail spaces. Property valuations for Residential and Hotel Development based on local comparable projects. Car Dealership property valuation based on estimate from prospective new dealership at subject site. (5) Analysis assumes the following per -user fiscal expenditures: $631 per new resident, $363 per new worker, and $85 per new hotel guest. These estimates are based on FY2023-24 expenditures, divided by the current base of each user group. Figures are adjusted based on anticipated share of costs attributable to each user group. (6) Net fiscal impact to City General Fund Over 15 -Year Period includes tax revenue generated during construction period and net General Fund revenue in first fifteen years of stabilized operations. © Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
535

05 Community Impact
The following section assesses how the project will benefit the surrounding community and how these impacts align with established local planning goals. © Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
536

Community Impact
The community impacts of the three proposed development scenarios were assessed based on alignment with the City of Placentia's current zoning, proposed General Plan Land Use Map, and alignment with strategic housing and economic development objectives identified in the City's General Plan and 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Findings are summarized below, with evaluations ranging from "Does Not Align" to "Strong Alignment".

Planning Objectives
Residential Development
Hotel Development
ew Car Dealership Use
Current Zoning
Subject site is zoned for office and commercial
uses, with maximum allowable height of 75 feet.

Does Not Align
Residential not allowed by -right;
would require zoning variance.

Strong Alignment
Hotel and retail uses align with
current zoning and would add new
retail amenities for nearby residents.

Strong Alignment
Car dealership aligns with current
commercial use zoning, though it
lacks any retail amenities to serve
surrounding community.

Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Specific Plan 5: Office and commercial uses
"intended to provide a site for retailers and
businesses, which through the characteristics of
their [services], cater to the entire community."
Does Not Align
Residential not allowed by -right;
would require zoning variance.

Strong Alignment
Hotel and retail uses align with
current zoning and would add new
commercial amenities for nearby
residents.

Strong Alignment
Car dealership aligns with current
commercial use zoning, though it
lacks any retail amenities to serve
surrounding community.

General Plan Economic Development Goals
Relevant goals include but are not limited to a)
diversifying City revenue sources, b) creating new
jobs, c) attracting and expanding community - relatively serving retail businesses, and d) encouraging
densification along major corridors.

Moderate Alignment
Adds mixed -use project and 2,703 SF
of retail along major corridor; has
minimal impact on local
employment.

Strong Alignment
Boosts Transient Occupancy Tax
revenue, while adding 5,000 retail SF
along major arterial road; will
support approx. 96 jobs.

Moderate Alignment
Diversifies City revenue stream;
relatively minimal impact on local
employment. Does not add any
community -serving retail amenities
or mixed -use activity to subject site.
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Update establishes goal to add 2,374 new
housing units by 2029; add senior, affordable,
and single -housing occupancy units.

Neutral
Adds 248 units to help meet housing
supply targets. Does not include any
affordable or senior units; not within
walking distance of major transit
station.

Neutral
Does not include any residential
units.

Overall Community Impact Evaluation
Minimal Alignment
Conflicts with the current land use
map; conflicts with zoning. Moderate
alignment with economic
development priorities.

Strong Alignment
Allowed by -right; aligns with current
land use map and with zoning;
achieves stated economic
development goals.

Moderate Alignment
Allowed by -right; aligns with current
land use map and zoning; activates a
vacant property; directly support
approx. 35 jobs.
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
537

Summary of Impact Analysis Findings
JS&A assessed the anticipated economic, community, and net fiscal impacts generated by each site scenario. Key findings, summarized below, reflect both the construction periods and stabilized operations of each scenario.

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
kat
Economic Impact'
To what extent does the
development create local jobs,
wages, and business revenue?
Fiscal Impact2
To what extent does the
development increase City
general fund reserves?
.. •
I I Community Impact3
To what extent does the
development achieve stated
local planning objectives?

RESIDENTIAL

Neutral
Net loss of $58,000 annually; will take
approximately 22 years to offset
one-time construction fiscal impact.

Slight Negative Impact
Limited alignment with stated
planning objectives; conflicts with the
current land use map and zoning;
activates a vacant property; helps
achieve goal to grow housing supply.

Neutral
Slightly negative net fiscal impact
upon stabilized operations, relatively
minimal economic impact.

HOTEL

Strong Positive Impact
Generates $577,000 in net fiscal
revenue annually; $9.1 million net
fiscal impact over first 15 years.

Strong Positive Impact
Allowed by -right; aligns with current
land use map and zoning; achieves
stated economic development goals;
activates a vacant property.

Strong Positive Impact
Features strong annual fiscal returns
to City, with strong ongoing job
creation.
(1) Annually at stabilization; includes direct, indirect, and induced; jobs located within City of Placentia (2) Includes unrestricted general funds revenues (other revenues and expenses generated onsite are assumed to be roughly revenue neutral) (3) Stated planning objectives according to City of Placentia General Plan, Future Land Use Map, 2021-2029 Updated Housing Element NEW

Strong Positive Impact
Generates $470,000 in net fiscal
revenue annually; $7.1 million net
fiscal impact over first 15 years.

Slight Positive Impact
Allowed by -right; aligns with current
land use map and zoning; activates a
vacant property; lacks on -site retail.

Slight Positive Impact
Features strong annual fiscal returns
to City; relatively minimal economic
impact; and slight alignment with
zoning and local planning objectives.
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024
kHVAIV\IIIS 10Vdwi

OVERALL
IMPACT
539

Summary of Findings &
Implications for City of Placentia
The City of Placentia has conducted a significant amount of planning and research to assess the feasibility and impacts of various potential development scenarios at the subject site. This study leverages the prior due diligence conducted by the City, using submitted development proposals to inform assumptions and inputs for the economic, fiscal, and community impact analysis.

The impact analysis finds that a potential hotel development has the strongest overall economic, fiscal, and community impact on the City, compared to a residential development or new car dealership. A hotel use closely aligns with stated planning objectives to diversify revenue streams (by boosting Transient Occupancy Tax revenue), attract new retail businesses, create new job opportunities, and add mixed -use projects to major corridors. Furthermore, the hotel development scenario has the highest fiscal return to the City over a fifteen-yeartimeframe.

Conversely, the residential development is expected to produce a slight negative annual fiscal impact upon stabilized operations, given the increased municipal services required to serve new residents. The use also does not align with current Specific Plan 5 zoning. The City has designated other locations for this type of high -density residential use in areas that are more pedestrian -friendly, transit -accessible, and proximate to retail amenities. The retained use of a car dealership on -site would not align with stated planning objectives to densify along major corridors or add new community -serving retail. However, a new car dealership would still activate the now -vacant site and generate a positive fiscal impact for the City, due to the high volume of sales tax revenue generated on -site.

Considering the above factors, this study recommends prioritizing the redevelopment of the site as a hotel with on -site retail uses. It is important to note that this impact analysis is not a market analysis. The impact analysis assumes that each development scenario is financially viable and will be able to achieve a sufficient level of demand to sustain operations for at least fifteen years. The City has already received specific proposals to develop the site for each proposed use. Given this established interest from developers, a City -conducted market analysis is likely not necessary. However, the City may want to explore further market research if such demand weakens. 21540
© Jon Stover & Associates, 2024

A.1
Residential Development
One -Time Economic Impact During Construction
The residential development scenario would be expected to generate approximately $150 million of one-time revenue in construction and supporting industries.

Impact Type
Anticipated Industry
Revenue)
Anticipated
Employment(2)
Anticipated Salary and
Wages(3)
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
Total Anticipated Economic Impact(4)
$92,704,235
$17,573,714
$39,675,502
642
80 203
Note: Changes in the anticipated development program and market forces may impact the anticipated industry revenue, employment, and salary and wages of employees. (1) Industry revenue reflects 'Industry Output," or annual revenues plus net inventory change. (2) Anticipated employment represents jobs defined as full-time equivalent jobs years during the duration of development and construction. (3) Anticipated salary and wages calculated suing IMPLAN with the latest version of the regional -specific multipliers. (4) Figures represent impact of the full development program, including 248 -unit multifamily building and 2,703 SF ground floor retail space.

2.542

A.2
Hotel Development
One -Time Economic Impact During Construction
The hotel development scenario would be expected to generate approximately $47.8 million of one-time revenue in construction and supporting industries.

Impact Type
Anticipated Industry
Revenue)
Anticipated
Employment(2)
Anticipated Salary and
Wages(3)
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
Total Anticipated Economic Impact(4)
$29,410,543
$5,925,913
$12,438,233
202
27 63
Note: Changes in the anticipated development program and market forces may impact the anticipated industry revenue, employment, and salary and wages of employees. (1) Industry revenue reflects 'Industry Output," or annual revenues plus net inventory change. (2) Anticipated employment represents jobs defined as full-time equivalent jobs years during the duration of development and construction. (3) Anticipated salary and wages calculated suing IMPLAN with the latest version of the regional -specific multipliers. (4) Figures represent impact of the full development program, including 123 -room hotel and 5,000 SF of retail space.

A.3
New Car Dealership Use
One -Time Economic Impact During Construction
The anticipated build -out costs of a new car dealership would be expected to generate approximately $9.5 million of one-time revenue in construction and supporting industries.

Impact Type
Anticipated Industry
Revenue)
Anticipated
Employment(2)
Anticipated Salary and
Wages(3)
Direct (On -Site Uses)(4)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
$6,000,000
$1,995,789
$1,526,377
21 8
8 $1,696,526
$645,529
$531,665
Total Anticipated Economic Impact(5)
Note: Changes in the anticipated development program and market forces may impact the anticipated industry revenue, employment, and salary and wages of employees. (1) Industry revenue reflects 'Industry Output," or annual revenues plus net inventory change. (2) Anticipated employment represents jobs defined as full-time equivalent jobs years during the duration of development and construction. (3) Anticipated salary and wages calculated suing IMPLAN with the latest version of the regional -specific multipliers. (4) Construction costs for "New Car Dealership Use" based on submitted estimate from comparable car dealership. Infrastructure, public realm and land acquisition costs are unknown at this time and therefore excluded from the analysis.
(5) Figures represent impact of the full development program, with new car dealership tenant operating within renovated 35,073 SF building that exists on -site.

B.1
Residential Development
Annual Economic Impact During Stabilized Operations
Upon stabilized operations, the proposed residential development would be expected to generate approximately $3.5 million and 49 jobs annually in the local economy.

Impact Type
Anticipated Industry
Revenue)
Anticipated
Employment(�)
Anticipated Salary and
Wages(3)
Multifamily
Direct (On -Site Uses)(4)H5)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending ofWages)(6)
Subtotal
Retail
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
Subtotal
Total Development Program
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
$3,289,623
$1,722,984
$3,996,806
$9,009,412
$890,244
$271,415
$274,047
$1,435,706
$4,179,866
$1,994,399
$4,270,852
12 9
20 40
7 1
9 18
10 22
$900,128
$684,940
$1,384,238
$2,969,305
$323,347
$108,876
$95,407
$527,630
$1,223,475
$793,816
$1,479,644
Total Anticipated Economic Impact
$10,445,118
49 $3,496,935
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Industry revenue reflects "Industry Output," or annual revenues plus net inventory change.

Employment figures reflect jobs as calculated by IMPLAN which includes full-time and part-time jobs.

Anticipated salary and wages calculated via IMPLAN with regional -specific multipliers.

Direct impact includes impact from on -site retail uses, property management, at-home businesses, and resident spending on local Placentia retailers.

Residential Development figures assume 2.5% of residents at-home businesses as primary source of income and use residential address as primary business address.

Induced impact figures for Residential Development scenario assume that 15% of residents are moving from outside region.

B.2
Hotel Development
Annual Economic Impact During Stabilized Operations
Upon stabilized operations, the hotel development scenario would be expected to generate approximately $17.4 million and 130 jobs annually in the local economy.

Impact Type
Anticipated Industry
Revenue)
Anticipated
Employment(2)
Anticipated Salary and
Wages(3)
Hotel (Operations)
Direct (On -Site Uses)(4)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
Subtotal
Hotel (Guest Spending)
Direct (On -Site Uses)15
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
Subtotal
Retail
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
Subtotal
Total Development Program
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
$5,757,335
$1,678,408
$1,805,777
$9,241,520
$3,277,081
$1,241,952
$1,422,813
$5,941,846
$1,320,147
$526,549
$405,849
$2,252,545
$10,354,562
$3,446,909
$3,634,439
40 9
9 58
44 5
7 57
11 2
2 15
96 16
19 $2,216,698
$655,855
$628,819
$3,501,371
$1,758,340
$453,441
$495,500
$2,707,281
$439,442
$192,766
$141,339
$773,547
$4,414,480
$1,302,062
$1,265,657
Total Anticipated Economic Impact
$17,435,910
130
$6,982,199
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Industry revenue reflects 'Industry Output," or annual revenues plus net inventory change.

Employment figures reflect jobs as calculated by IMPLAN which includes full-time and part-time jobs.

Anticipated salary and wages calculated via IMPLAN with regional -specific multipliers.

Direct impact includes impact from on -site retail uses, hotel operations, and hotel guest spending.

Analysis estimates that on -site hotel guests will spend approximately $3.7 million at local Placentia retailers annually, based on Orange County tourism spending averages (Visit Anaheim, CIC Research, Inc.). Direct industry revenue impact is lower than this $3.7 million figure due to retail margin coefficients that factor in cost of transportation and the wholesale/retail services.

B.3
New Car Dealership Use
Annual Economic Impact During Stabilized Operations
Upon stabilized operations, a new car dealership operating in the existing on -site commercial building would be expected to generate approximately $11.8 million and 56 jobs annually in the local economy.

Impact Type
Anticipated Industry
Revenue)
Anticipated
Employment(2)
Anticipated Salary and
Wages(3)
Direct (On -Site Uses)
Indirect (Supply Chain Transactions)
Induced (Spending of Wages)
$7,503,111
$1,623,468
$2,682,051
35 7
14 $3,674,871
$584,344
$933,931
Total Anticipated Economic Impact(4)
(1) Industry revenue reflects "Industry Output," or annual revenues plus net inventory change. (2) Employment figures reflect jobs as calculated by IMPLAN which includes full-time and part-time jobs. (3) Anticipated salary and wages calculated via IMPLAN with regional -specific multipliers.

2.547

C.1
Residential Development
Gross Annual Fiscal Expenditures by On -Site User Type
The chart below details the estimated amount of additional City of Placentia General Fund expenditures required to serve the increase in on -site residents and employees from the residential development scenario. In total, the scenario would be expected to necessitate approximately $246,000 in additional General Fund expenses annually.

City of Placentia General Fund Expenditure Type Residents On -Site Employees Total Administrative Services
Finance
Development Services
Public Safety — Police
Fire & Life Safety
Public Works
Community Services
General Government
$35,581
$7,736
$8,731
$79,682
$26,364
$29,845
$20,748
$33,581
$718
$156
$235
$1,628
$539
$430
$88
$374
$36,299
$7,892
$8,966
$81,310
$26,902
$30,275
$20,836
$33,955
Total
$246,435
(1) On -site employment includes employees at on -site retail spaces and residential property management staff. (2) Figures based on estimated 384 new residents in residential development 6 on -site retail employees, and 6 on -site property management staff. (3) Estimated figures calculated based on average expenditure by current user type in FY2023-24 City of Placentia budget. Analysis assumes that legislative and City Administrator costs remain fixed and are not impact by incremental increase in population or workforce.

C.2
Hotel Development
Gross Annual Fiscal Expenditures by On -Site User Type
The chart below details the estimated amount of additional City of Placentia General Fund expenditures required to serve the increase in on -site hotel guests and employees from the hotel development scenario.

In total, the scenario would be expected to necessitate approximately $109,000 in additional General Fund expenses annually.

City of Placentia General Fund Expenditure Type Hotel Guests On -Site Employees Total
Administrative Services
Finance
Development Services
Public Safety — Police
Fire & Life Safety
Public Works
Community Services
General Government
$0
$0
$0
$39,082
$12,931
$13,767
$0
$14,956
$4,832
$1,051
$1,581
$10,959
$3,626
$2,895
$593
$2,516
$4,832
$1,051
$1,581
$50,040
$16,556
$16,662
$593
$17,472
Total
$108,788
(1) On -site employment includes employees at on -site retail spaces and hotel staff. (2) Figures based on estimated 34,749 annual guest nights, 66 on -site hotel staff, and 11 on -site retail employees. (3) Estimated figures calculated based on average expenditure by current user type in FY2023-24 City of Placentia budget. Analysis assumes that legislative and City Administrator costs remain fixed and are not impact by incremental increase in population or workforce.

C.3
New Car Dealership Development
Gross Annual Fiscal Expenditures by On -Site User Type
The chart below details the estimated amount of additional City of Placentia General Fund expenditures required to serve the increase in on -site employees from a new car dealership at the subject site. In total, a new car dealership would be expected to necessitate approximately $13,000 in additional General Fund expenses annually.

City of Placentia General Fund Expenditure Type
On -Site Employees Total
Administrative Services
Finance
Development Services
Public Safety — Police
Fire & Life Safety
Public Works
Community Services
General Government
$2,214
$481
$724
$5,021
$1,661
$1,327
$272
$1,153
$2,214
$481
$724
$5,021
$1,661
$1,327
$272
$1,153
Total
$12,855
(1) On -site employment includes employees at new car dealership. (2) Figures based on estimated 35 on -site car dealership employees. (3) Estimated figures calculated based on average expenditure by current user type in FY2023-24 City of Placentia budget. Analysis assumes that legislative and City Administrator costs remain fixed and are not impact by incremental increase in population or workforce.

D.1
Gross Fiscal Impact of Stabilized
Operations by Development Scenario
Annual Revenue Source by Jurisdiction(1)
Residential Hotel
Development Development(2)
New Car Dealership
City of Placentia General Fund
Property Tax(3)
Sales Tax (Bradley Burns)(4)
Sales Tax (Transactions & Use) (4)
Transient Occupancy Tax
Orange County
Property Tax
Retail Sales Tax
State of California
Retail Sales Tax
Other Local Taxing Districts
Property Tax: Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District Property Tax: North OC Community College
Property Tax: MWDOC
$158,955
$13,957
$15,186
$0
$1,018,488
$6,589
$52,709
$49,876
$20,193
$4,121
$24,583
$43,770
$42,062
$575,733
$157,516
$10,943
$262,621
$7,714
$3,123
$637
$8,100
$237,554
$237,554
$0
$51,900
$296,942
$1,425,322
$2,542
$1,029
$210
Subtotal of Annual Tax Revenue by Recipient
City of Placentia General Fund
Orange County
State of California
Other Local Taxing Districts
$188,097
$1,025,077
$52,709
$74,191
$686,149
$168,458
$262,621
$11A74
$483,207
$348,842
$1,425,322
$3,781
Total Direct Fiscal Impact(4)(5)
$1,340,074
$1,128,702
$2,261,152
(1) Tax revenue figures represent fiscal impacts of the direct effects only. The fiscal impact of indirect and induced effects are excluded from this analysis. Actual impacts may vary. (2) Analysis assumes 75% of hotel guest spending occurs within City of Placentia. Analysis assumes the remaining 25% goes toward other local municipalities and is therefore excluded from this analysis. (3) Analysis assumes the following property valuations for each development scenario: Residential Development: $117,744,296, Hotel Development: $18,209,927, New Car Dealership Use: $6,000,000.

Residential Development and Hotel Development figures include property valuations of on -site retail spaces. Property valuations for Residential and Hotel Development based on local comparable projects. Car Dealership property valuation based on estimate from prospective new dealership at subject site. (4) Sales tax revenue estimates for residential development account for taxes collected on residents' online transactions and in -person spending at Placentia retailers. Spending estimates calculated by IMPLAN based on anticipated on -site household incomes. Analysis assumes 20% of in -person retail spending will occur at businesses in Placentia.

ATTACHMENT NO. 7
Public Correspondence

1. Written letter of support from Barry Holmes, CEO with The Bruery, dated July 29, 2021

2. Written letter of opposition from Craig S. Green received January 25, 2024

3. Written correspondence of general inquiry from Vicki Braithwaite representing Interface Rehab, Inc., received June 26, 2024

4. Written letter of opposition from Craig S. Green received July 9, 2024

5. Written correspondence of concern from resident Lilia Queen (resident) received July 9, 2024

6. Written letter of opposition from Lozeau Drury, LLP, representing SAFER received July 8, 2024

7. Written letter of concern from James Thornbrough II, President of Patriot Environmental Laboratory Services, Inc., received August 11, 2024

8. Written letter of concern from Lacie Gammell, Office Manager with Air Filter Supply, received August 12, 2024

9. Written letter of concern from Dave Anderson, President of ShootSoCal, LLC, received August 20, 2024
553

July 29, 2021
City of Placentia
401 East Chapman Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
RE: The Laurel Mixed Use Project
Dear City Council,
We recently sat down with the developer of The Laurel mixed use project down the street from The Bruery and he has explained the project to us in detail. As you know, our business is growing and having a high quality project like this nearby will help us in the future. We are also exploring the possibility of being involved in the ground floor commercial space along Orangethorpe.

Being a member of the Placentia community is important to us and we think this project will help with that effort as well. We liked a lot about the project, especially the efforts to make the area more walkable and people friendly. Frankly we couldn't be more excited about what a project like this will mean for our business and the area as a whole. This project has our emphatic support.

Sincerely,
Barry Holmes
CEO
554

RECEIVED
JAN 25 202

PLANNING
777 ORANGETHORPE ISSUES
Comments by: Craig S. Green, Placentia Resident
Property is Zoned Commercial — has been for years
As a resident of Placentia, I prefer that the property remain a Commercial parcel and that it should continue to provide the City with income via sales taxes or TOT (Transiet Occupancy Tax) otherwise known as "bed tax", depending on what business comes to town. To rezone the parcel for residential, the revenues to the City would be limited and, at the same time, dramatically increase "calls for service" by our Police and Fire and Life Safety Departments and other services that increase costs to Placentia tax payers.

Previous City Council's failed this City by rejecting things like the Albertson's shopping center on Placentia Avenue, now in Fullerton, as well as the Home Depot over on Placentia Avenue, also in FULLERTON. Our City has missed out on millions of dollars of sales tax revenues over the decades as Fullerton as reaped them in. It's issues such as this that resulted in Placentia having such poor financial positions over the years. We know that there is great interest by hotel groups in this parcel and I certainly hope that is what takes place. I believe that the current owner of the parcel is tied up in escrow by this developer so he is limited, at the moment, with what he can do with this parcel. It appears that this developer may be counting on assistance from possible allies on the City Council to change things that may allow this development to proceed. I certainly hope that this is not the case. I'm sure that there will be some individuals pursuing Public Records Requests to ascertain whether donations may have been made by this developer to any political campaigns of individuals that he believes may try and help him get possible changes made to City Zoning, planning, etc. to help his project proceed. Again, I certainly hope not.

Apartments: not zoned for that; Apartments would increase problems with parking issues on Orangethorpe and Placentia Avenues, regardless of any

possible signage changes/additions; Are the parking plans for this proposed development consistent with current law? Does the parking plan for this development provide for "Sane parking" availability or "Insane parking" that would cause drastic problems in the area surrounding the parcel. This area is NOT a Transit Oriented Development that usually relies on limited parking requirements due to perceived use of things like trains and busses that, in a TOD, would be close to the parcel being developed, such as the parcels on Crowther with the planned Metro -Link station. What about increased sewer needs? What about increased traffic developments? What about increased water and power requirements? Take a drive down Chapman avenue from Bradford to Orangethorpe some evening after about 7pm. You'll see, first hand, a great reason to NOT put an apartment complex on 777 Orangethorpe.

People being people, I believe that parking on Orangethorpe in such a massive scale would create incredible safety problems, traffic accidents, pedestrian vs. vehicle incidents and street cleaning problems.

Thank You for the opportunity to provide some input on this item.

Andrew Gonzales
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Vicki Braithwaite
Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:36 PM
Andrew Gonzales
Proposed redevelopment of 777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue Former Premier Chrysler Auto Dealership
doc20240116142410.pdf

EMAIL FROM EXTERNAL SOURCE
Don't reply, click on a link or open an attachment unless you recognize the sender and know the content to be safe. If you believe this email to be unsafe, please use the Report Phish button in Outlook and notify the IT department.

Good day!
I was just curious if you know when the redevelopment will take place? My office window is at ground zero and I thought it would be sometime in the Spring 2024. interface rehab, inc.

G.eat,
Vicki Braithwaite
Executive Assistant
interface rehab, inc.

FreeSpeech, inc.

Direct: 714.646.8253
eFax: 714.646.8191
Email: [email protected]
774 S. Placentia Ave., Suite 200
Placentia, CA 92870-6832
www.interfacerehab.com
www.FreeSpeechinc.com
www.maXumtherapy.com
in

RECEIVED
JUN 26 2024

PLANNING
,u, Please support our environment and recycle all printed emails.

Confidential Note: This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential material and/or material protected by law. Any retransmission or use of this information may be a violation of the law. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 1 777 ORANGETHORPE ISSUES
Comments by: Craig S. Green, Placentia Resident
Planning Commission Meeting July 9, 2024
Good evening Chair Perez, Planning Commissioners and City Staff: My name is Craig Green and I'm here this evening to address this agenda item dealing with 777 Orangethorpe. For over 20 years I've tracked the fiscal health of Placentia and fought very hard to help make it better. I was on the Audit Oversight Committee, a member of this Planning Commission and was Chair as well. I went on to be the City Treasurer, City Councitmember and Mayor so I am very familiar with the past history of our City missing opportunities for developing sustainable revenue sources to help keep our City fiscally afloat and I hope that you vote to deny the application. That Property is Zoned Commercial— and as a resident of Placentia, I prefer that the property remain a Commercial parcel to be developed in such a way as to provide the City with ongoing revenue via sales taxes or Transient Occupancy Tax otherwise known as "bed tax", depending on what business comes to town. Some have said that the sight is blighted and looks terrible and I would have to agree with that BUT, that's only because the developer involved with this project has tied the parcel up in some kind of an escrow scheme with the owner and I'm sure they don't want to put any money into upkeep while, at the same time, the escrow arrangement seems to also dissuade other developers from pursuing other possibilities. I've been told that there is considerable interest in that parcel from many hotel groups. Rezoning and developing the parcel for residential use would result in some severe traffic and personnel safety issues as well as limited revenues to the City while, at the same time, dramatically increasing "calls for service" by our Police and Fire and Life Safety Departments and other services that would increase costs to Placentia taxpayers. Previous Planning Commissions and City Council's years ago failed this City by rejecting things like annexing the Albertson's shopping center on Placentia Avenue, now in Fullerton, as well as the Home Depot over on Placentia Avenue, also in FULLERTON. Our City has missed out on millions of dollars of

RECEIVED
JUL 09 2024

PLANNING

sales tax revenues over the decades as Fullerton has reaped them in. It's issues such as this that resulted in Placentia having such poor financial positions over the years. It wasn't that many years ago that we closed the City's fiscal year with only $49 in the bank,,,$49!!!! We know that there is great interest by hotel groups in this parcel and I certainly hope that is what takes place. I believe that the current owner of the parcel is tied up in escrow by this developer so he is limited, at the moment, with what he can do with this parcel
Apartments, REALLY?: not zoned for that; Apartments would increase parking issues on Orangethorpe and Placentia Avenues, regardless of any possible signage changes/additions. The presentation for this project shows the construction of 248 apartments and a parking structure that provides 342 parking spaces. If we calculate a VERY CONSERVATIVE number of 2 cars per apartment (more likely 3-4), this plan is starting out with a 158 parking space deficit. I'm sure the developer will try and sell the idea that parking is not necessary with bus and train transportation in close proximity to the site. The developer is also trying to sell the idea of using parts of the proposed parking structure to provide parking for the proposed 3,000 square feet of retail use.

Experience and reality itself, prove those thought processes to be pure folly.

This area is NOT a Transit Oriented Development PERIOD!! What about increased sewer needs? What about increased traffic developments? What about increased water and power requirements? Take a drive down Chapman avenue from Bradford to Orangethorpe some evening after about 7pm. You'll see, firsthand, a great reason to NOT put an apartment complex on 777 Orangethorpe, especially one with built in parking problems. People being people, I believe that parking spilling out onto Orangethorpe on such a massive scale would create incredible safety problems, traffic accidents, pedestrian vs. vehicle incidents and street cleaning problems. Please do NOT change the zoning of the parcel in question and do NOT approve this short- sighted project. This would NOT only increase costs to the city but would also create a very unsafe environment within our own City limits.

Thank You for the opportunity to provide some input on this item.

Andrew Gonzales
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Importance:

Good morning,
City Clerk
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 8:29 AM
Joseph Lambert; Andrew Gonzales
FW: 777 Orangethorpe Project
High
Please see attached Public Comment for 777 Orangethorpe Project.

Carole M. Wayman, CMC I Deputy City Clerk I Administration City of Placentia 1401 E. Chapman Ave. Placentia, CA 92870 Phone: 714-993-8244 I Fax: 714-961-0283 I Email: cwayman(p)placentia.orci p LA(I1 N 1 A
Download the iPlacentia Mobile App:

App Store
Gook Pby
From: Lilia Queen
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 9:57 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Rhonda Shader
Subject: 777 Orangethorpe Project

RECEIVED
JUL 0 9 2024

PLANNING

Dear Planning Comission,
My name is Lilia Queen and I'm a resident of Placentia. I've lived at 835 Iowa Place for the last 23 years. I haven't seen many improvements in our area during this time and I'm hoping that the construction of an apartment complex at the old Jeep Dealership will help kick start a renovation phase for the south side.

I've seen the beautification that the apartments at Crowther have brought to that neighborhood and I'm hopeful that the same will happen on Placentia and Orangethorp. However, I do hope the developer has a serious plan regarding the parking situation if stores at the street level are brought in. Our neighborhood has ran into issues when the brewery has hosted events that cause their patrons to park in our neighborhood and leaving trash behind.

I hope the city considers this development to help bring improvements to the south side instead of having an empty lot full of weeds, trash and graffiti.
1 Sincerely,
Lille
2 Andrew Gonzales
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Victoria Yundt
Monday, July 8, 2024 1:39 PM
Joseph Lambert; Andrew Gonzales
Rebecca Davis; Chase Preciado; Madeline Dawson; Layne Fajeau Re: Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility's Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project, July 9, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 2
2024.07.08 777 W. Orangethorpe Ave MND_ SAFER Comment - FINAL&Exs. A-B.pdf

Dear Chair Perez, Honorable Members of the City of Placentia Planning Commission, Director Lambert, and Mr. Gonzales:

On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") and its members living and working in and around Placentia, please find attached comments regarding the mitigated negative declaration ("MND") prepared for the Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project ("Project"), which is scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 2 at the Planning Commission's July 9, 2024 meeting.

If you could please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Victoria
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
P: 510.836.4200
C: 510.607.8242
F: 510.836.4205
[email protected]
(she/her)

RECEIVED
JUL 08 2024

PLANNING
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information. Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.
1 VIA EMAIL
T 510.836 4200
F 510 836 4205
July 8, 2024
Frank Perez, Chair
Nick Polichetti, Vice Chair
Brandon Evans, Commissioner
Thomas Ingalls, Commissioner
Juan Navarro, Commissioner
Matthew Rocke, Commissioner
Susan Silverstri, Commissioner
Placentia Planning Commission
c/o Joseph Lambert, Director of
Development Services
City of Placentia
401 E. Chapman Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
[email protected]
1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150
Oakland, CA 94612
www.lozeaudrury_com
vIC torlaLlozeaudru ry.Com
Andrew Gonzales, Planning Manager
City of Placentia
401 E. Chapman Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project
Dear Chair Perez, Honorable Members of the City of Placentia Planning Commission, Director Lambert, and Mr. Gonzales:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") and its members living and working in and around Placentia regarding the mitigated negative declaration ("MND") prepared for the Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project ("Project"), which proposes the development of 248 multi -family residential dwelling units, up to 3,000 square feet of commercial retail use, and a 7 -level parking structure, located at 776 S. Placentia Avenue & 777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, in the City of Placentia.

SAFER's review of the MND was assisted by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH, and air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Paul E.

Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE"). The written comments of Mr. Offermann and SWAPE are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. As discussed below, SAFER is concerned that several of the MND's conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence and that there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impact. As such, SAFER is requesting that the City prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
563

0rangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 2 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes the demolition of the existing car dealership structures and parking lot and the new construction and operation of a five -story mixed use project that would include 248 residential units, up to 3,000 square feet of commercial uses, and a 78 -foot high, 7 -level parking structure at the northeast corner of the Project site. The Project requires approval of General Plan Amendment 2022-01, Specific Plan Amendment 2021-01, and Development Review Plan 2021-02.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
As the California Supreme Court held, "[i]fno EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." (Communities for a Better Env't v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Ca1.4th 310, 319-20.) "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." (Pub. Res. Code ("PRC") § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 83.) "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Env't v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Ca1.App.4th 98, 109.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Ca1.App.4th 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Ca1.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Ca1.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." (Pocket Protectors, 124 Ca1.App.4th at 927.)
An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Ca1.App.4th at 927.) An MND instead of an EIR is proper only if project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and . . . there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Ca1.App.4th 322, 331 [quoting PRC §§ 21064.5, 564

Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 3 ends

21080(c)(2)].) In that context, "may" means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Ca1.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Ca1.App.4th 896, 904-05.)
An EIR must be prepared rather than an MND "whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact." (No Oil, Inc., 13 Ca1.3d at 75.) Under this "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect —even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Ca1.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Ca1.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Ca1.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Ca1.App.4th at 928.)
The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations.

Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.
(Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-74.) The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Pocket Protectors, 124 Ca1.App.4th at 928.)

DISCUSSION
I. An EIR is Required to Disclose and Mitigate the Project's Significant Air Quality Impacts from Emissions of VOCs.

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the MND's analysis of the Project's air quality impacts.

SWAPE's comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit B. As discussed below, SWAPE 565

Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 4 ends

concluded that the MND underestimated the Project's emissions and failed to identify a significant impact from emissions of volatile organic compounds ("VOCs"). An EIR is required to disclose and mitigate this impact.

A. The MND's analysis of the Project's air quality impacts is not supported by substantial evidence.

SWAPE found that the MND underestimated the Project's emissions and therefore cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project's air quality impacts. (Ex. B, pp. 1-4.) To estimate the Project's emissions, the MND utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model Version Ca1EEMod.2020.4.0 ("CaIEEMod"). (Ex. B, p. 1.) CaIEEMod relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors (Id.) CEQA requires that any changes to the default values must be justified by substantial evidence. (Ex. B, pp. 1-2.)
SWAPE reviewed the Project's CaIEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the MND. (Ex. B, p. 2.) This results in an underestimation of the Project's emissions. (Id.) Specifically, SWAPE found that the following values used in the MND's air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the MND or otherwise unjustified:

1. Unsubstantiated changes to individual construction phase lengths. (Ex. B, pp. 2-

3.)

2. Unsubstantiated reductions to acres of grading values. (Ex. B, pp. 3-4.) As a result of these errors, the MND underestimates the Project's construction and operational emissions and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project's air quality impacts.

B. The Project will result in a significant air quality impact from emissions of VOCs.

In an effort to accurately determine the proposed Project's construction and operational emissions, SWAPE prepared an updated CaIEEMod with the site -specific information provided in the MND. (Ex. B, pp. 4-5.) SWAPE's updated model corrected the MND's changes to the construction phase lengths and acres of grading values. (Id.) SWAPE's updated analysis found that the Project's construction -related VOC emissions exceed the 75 pounds per day ("lbs/day") significance threshold set by South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"). (Id.) 566

Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 5 ends

SWAPE Criteria Air Pobtant Emissions
Construction
ROG
(ii n{dav)
IS/MND 44.1
SWAPE 160.04
% increase
SCAQMD Threshold
Exceeds?
263%
75 Yes
SWAPE's expert analysis of the Project's air quality impacts establishes a fair argument that the Project may result in significant VOC impacts. SWAPE also provided a number of mitigation measures that could be applied to the Project to reduce air quality impacts. (Ex. B, pp. 15-17.) Under CEQA, SWAPE's fair argument requires the preparation of an EIR to disclose and mitigate this impact.

II. An EIR is Required to Disclose and Mitigate the Project's Significant Health Impacts from Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter.

SWAPE also reviewed the Project's impacts on human health due to emissions of diesel particulate matter ("DPM"). SWAPE concluded that the MND failed to identify a significant impact from emissions of DPM. An EIR is required to disclose and mitigate this impact.

A. The MND failed to adequately analyze the Project's health impacts from emissions of diesel particulate matter.

The MND's analysis of the cancer risk posed by emissions of DPM was inadequate. The MND failed to provide a quantitative analysis of the emissions resulting from construction or operation of the Project. (Ex. B, p. 4-5.) The MND's failure to conduct a quantified health risk assessment ("HRA") for the Project's construction and operational emissions resulted in an inadequate evaluation of the Project's impacts and calls into question the MND's less -than - significant conclusion.

As noted by SWAPE, CEQA requires that the MND "correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions." (Ex. B, p. 6.) However, such an analysis is not possible without a quantified HRA.

Furthermore, the failure of the MND to provide a quantified HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"). (Ex. B, pp. 6-7.) OEHHA 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"). (Id.) OEHHA additionally recommends that agencies evaluate the cumulative impact of construction and operation of the Project combined. (Id.) Thus, a quantified HRA for 567

Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 6 ends

construction and operation of the Project is necessary to ensure that the Project's health risks are disclosed, compared to the applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds, and properly mitigated.

B. The Project may result in significant increased cancer risks from emissions of diesel particulate matter.

SWAPE prepared a screening -level HRA to evaluate potential impacts to human health from DPM during construction and operation of the Project. (Ex. B, pp. 7-12.) SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening -level air quality dispersion model. (Ex. B, pp. 7-9.) SWAPE relied on estimates of diesel particulate emissions from the MND's air quality analysis, utilized a sensitive receptor distance of 75 meters, and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA guidance. (Ex. B, pp. 10-11.) SWAPE found that increased cancer risk to infants, children, and adults during construction and operation of the Project would be 101, 85.2, and 13.1 in one million, respectively. (Ex. B, p. 11.) The combined cancer risks of construction and operation of the Project would result in an excess cancer risk of approximately 204 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (i.e. 30 years). (Id.) Each of the above exceeds the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, SWAPE's expert analysis of the Project's significant cancer risks established a fair argument that the Project may result in significant impacts. SWAPE also provided a number of mitigation measures that could be applied to the Project to reduce air quality impacts. (Ex. B, pp. 15-17.) Under CEQA, SWAPE's fair argument requires that the City prepare an EIR to disclose and mitigate this impact.

III. An EIR is Required to Disclose and Mitigate the Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

SWAPE analyzed the Project's potential greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and found that the MND failed to adequately analyze the Project's GHG impacts, which SWAPE found to be potentially significant. (Ex. B pp. 12-14.)
The MND incorrectly concludes that the Project will have a less than significant GHG impact because it does not exceed 4.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year ("MT CO2e/SP/year"). However, as SWAPE explains, the MND relied on an outdated service population threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e/SP/year. (Ex. B, p. 13.) SWAPE explains that the MND's reliance on that threshold is incorrect because "the guidance that provided the 4.0 MT CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD's 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report," is outdated, as it "was developed when [AB 32] was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California," which required "reduc[ing] GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020." (Id.)1 Since it is currently July 1 See also, "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), Oct. 2016, p. 39, available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016 Final White Paper.pdf ["[F]or evaluating projects with a post -2020 horizon, 568

Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 7 ends

2024, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the Project. (Ex. B, p. 13.) Instead, the MND should have applied the SCAQMD 2035 service population threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year to the Project. (Id.)
The calculation to determine if the project would exceed the SCAQMD 2035 MT CO2e/SP/year threshold involves dividing the Project's net GHG emissions by the number of residents and jobs supported by the Project. (Id., p. 14.) The MND estimated that the Project would result in GHG emissions of 2,651.2 MT CO2e/year. (MND, p. 78.) The MND also estimated that the Project would accommodate a maximum of 744 residents and employ a maximum of 7 retail employees. (Id.) When dividing the Project's net GHG emissions by the service population of 751 people, SWAPE calculated that the Project exceeds SCAMQD's 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year threshold:

IS/MNO Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual [mksinns {MT COfe/year) 2,651
Service Populatron 751
Service Papulatian Efficiency .'T CO. efSR/year} 3S
SCAQMD 2O35 Threshold
Exceeds?

3.0 Yes
(Ex. B, p. 14.) This exceedance of the SCAMQD's 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year threshold indicates a significant GHG impact that must be disclosed and mitigated in an EIR. SWAPE also provided a number of mitigation measures that could be applied to the Project to reduce GHG impacts. (Ex.

B, pp. 15-17.)
IV. An EIR is Required Because there is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Impact on Human Health.

The MND fails to discuss, disclose, analyze, and mitigate the significant health risks posed by the Project from formaldehyde, a toxic air contaminant ("TAC"). Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH conducted a review of the Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Mr. Offermann is one of the world's leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. As discussed below and in Mr. Offermann's comments, the Project's emissions of formaldehyde will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents of the Project's residential units. Mr. Offerman's comments and CV is attached as Exhibit A.
the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone."].) 569

Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 8 ends

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State as a TAC. The SCAQMD has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in one million. (Ex. A, p. 2.) The MND fails to acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks, no analysis, and no identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde from the Project.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in home and apartment building construction contain formaldehyde -based glues which off -gas formaldehyde over a very long period. He states, "[t]he 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. A, pp. 2-3.)
Mr. Offermann found that future residents of the Project's residential units will be exposed to a cancer risk of 120 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's ("CARB") formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex.

A, pp. 3-4) This is more than 12 times SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million.

Mr. Offermann also found that there is a fair argument that future employees of the commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 17.7 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with CARB's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id., pp. 4-5.) This exceeds the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. (Id.)
Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts must be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. (Ex. A, pp. 5, 12-14.) He prescribes a methodology for estimating the Project's formaldehyde emissions in order to do a more project -specific health risk assessment. (Id., pp. 6-

10.) Mr. Offermann also suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no -added -formaldehyde composite wood products, which are readily available. (Id., pp. 12-

14.) Mr. Offermann also suggests requiring air ventilation systems which would reduce formaldehyde levels. (Id.) Since the MND does not analyze this impact at all, none of these or other mitigation measures have been considered.

When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project's air quality impacts. (See, e.g.

Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Ca1.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District's "published CEQA quantitative criteria" and "threshold level of cumulative significance"]; see 570

Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 9 ends

also Communities for a Better Env 't v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 ["A `threshold of significance' for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant"].) The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Env 't v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Ca1.4th 310, 327 ["As the District's established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact."].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an "unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]" exists. (See, Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Ca1.5th 937, 958 [emphasis added].)
The failure of the MND to address the Project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Ass 'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. ("CBIA") (2015) 62 Ca1.4th 369, 386. In that case, the Supreme Court expressly holds that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. 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 Ca1.4th at 800-01.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801.) 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 will be from the Project. People will be residing in the Project's buildings once built and emitting formaldehyde. Once built, the Project will begin to emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks. The Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of air emission and health impact by the project on the environment and a "project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process. The existing TAC sources near the Project site would have to be considered in evaluating the cumulative effect on future residents of both the Project's TAC emissions as well as those existing off -site emissions.

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 571

Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use MND
SAFER Comment
July 8, 2024

Page 10 ends

`environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ' (CBIA, 62 Ca1.4th at 800.) 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., PRC §§ 21000, 21001].) It goes without saying that the future residents of the Project are human beings and their health and safety must be subject to CEQA's safeguards.

The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts. (See, County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, (2005) 127 Ca1.App.4th 1544, 1597-98. ["[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts."].) The proposed buildings will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer -causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose future residents to cancer risks potentially in excess of SCAQMD's threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 in a million. Currently, outside of Mr. Offermann's comments, the City does not have any idea what risks will be posed by formaldehyde emissions from the Project. As a result, the City must include an analysis and discussion in an EIR which discloses and analyzes the health risks that the Project's formaldehyde emissions may have on future residents and identifies appropriate mitigation measures.

Mr. Offermann's comments are substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on human health, necessitating preparation of an EIR.

CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support several of its conclusions related to the Project's impacts to air quality, human health, and greenhouse gases. Furthermore, SAFER's experts have established a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts on air quality, human health, and greenhouse gases. For those reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that the City not rely on the MND but instead prepare and circulate an EIR prior to further consideration of the Project.

Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau Drury LLP
572

EXHIBIT A

_EE

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: December 11, 2023
To:

Victoria Yundt
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project, Placentia, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4768)
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, 574

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 Horne 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 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2021).

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
575

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 (CARB) 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 the Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project, Placentia, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces.
3of19
576

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.

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).

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 the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and 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)
4of19
577

Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces 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 ("EIR"), 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.

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Additionally, the SCAQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study ("MATES V") identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 443 per million due to the site's elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area's high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, 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.
5of19
578

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 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.
6of19
579

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality 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., m2 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, 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 (m2) 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 Depaitiuent 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.
7of19
580

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 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. 8 of 19
581

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 (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

Etotal
Cin = (Equation 1)
Qoa
where:

C;,, = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = 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 Formaldehyde Exposures 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 9of19
582

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 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 10 of 19
583

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.

The Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project, Placentia, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., East Orangethorpe Avenue, South Placentia Avenue, Orange Freeway -57 etc.), thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

According to the Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project, Placentia, CA (Harris & Associates, 2023), there has been no study of the current or future ambient noise levels at the Project location. In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on -site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a minimum of a one -week period and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be required. 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 Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project, Placentia, CA (Harris & Associates, 2023), 11 of 19
584

the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non - attainment area for PM2.5.

Additionally, the SCAQMD's MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 443 per million at the Project site due to the site's high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area's high levels of motor vehicle traffic.

An air quality analyses should 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.

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. at least MERV 13, or possibly MERV 14 or 15 depending on the results of the Project ambient PM2.5 concentrations) 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 Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish 12 of 19
585

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 insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. 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 13 of 19
586

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. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov > research > indoor > formaldg108-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.-xlf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/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. 14 of 19
587

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.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf .

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http :// www.ener . y.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 1.1.

California Depai .went of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.\
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.

Harris & Associates. 2023. Initial Study/Negative Declaration - Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project, Placentia, CA.

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.
15 of 19
588

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:
htt 3://www. oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8 -hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http ://oehha. 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.gov/research/apr/bast/04-310.1df
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th 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.

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.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16 of 19
589

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 ft2), 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 Department of Public Health, 17 of 19
590

Richmond, CA.

DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/V OC. aspx.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
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, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 18 of 19
591

cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

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
592

Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: [email protected]
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, 1 98 1 - 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.
593

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 Engineer: 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.
2 594

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)
3 595

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, 6th 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. 4 596

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.
5 597

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," ASHRAE Annual 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.
6 598

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," IAQ '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 , Vo1 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 , Vo1 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," IAQ'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, Vo1 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," IAQ'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. 7 599

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake -out," IAQ'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," IAQ '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," IAQ '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," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'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 8 600

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.
9 601

OTHER REPORTS:

W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.0ffermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.

F.J.0ffermann, 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.0ffermann, 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.0ffermann, 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.0ffermann, 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.0ffermann, 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.0ffermann, 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.0ffermann, 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.0ffermann, 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.0ffermann, 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.
10 602

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.
11 603

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. 12 604

"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. 13 605

"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, 14 606

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 ?" 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.
15 607

"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.
16 608

"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 10th 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. 17 609

"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 21St 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 23'1, 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. 18 610

"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. 19 611

"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.
20 612

"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.
21 613

EXHIBIT B

SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
January 4, 2024
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the 777 W. Orangethorpe Mixed Use Project Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the November 2023 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") for the 777 W. Orangethorpe Mixed Use ("Project") located in the City of Placentia ("City"). The Project proposes to demolish the existing 40,000 -square -feet ("SF") of industrial space and construct 248 residential units, 3,000 -SF of commercial space, and 342 parking spaces on the 2.72 -acre -site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's 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 may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod") Version 2020.4.0 (p. 50).1 CaIEEMod provides recommended default values based on site -specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project -specific values, but the California Environmental 1 "CaIEEMod Version 2020.4.0." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.acmd.gov/caleemod/download-model .
615

Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose which parameters are used in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions by identifying any changes to default values. Justifications are provided for each altered value.

When reviewing the Project's CaIEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and GHG Emissions Assessment ("AQ & GHG Assessment"), provided as Appendix A to the IS/MND, we found that several model inputs are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the Project's construction and operational emissions may be underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CaIEEMod output files demonstrates that the "OrangethorpePlacentia" model includes a change to the default construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 2, 38, 67):

Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
thiConstructionPhase NumDays

10.00 40.00
As a result, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 57, 118).

Phase
Number
Phase Name
• Deno lb'
F
:Ste Peparatio-
: r'g
E
Phase Tyne
Slam Dale
End Date
■Dena tcn
F
to F`epa-atcn
.3rad '9
• 6.ild'ngCc 1rucbon Build ^g Da-s1niction
F F
■ Pavng :Paw ng : En 012022 10.21'20MF I

10.Cx'2021 :11;252E'
1',21'2021 1..20;262'
1'3012021 2.'.1'202'
1261.2[i21 9r x'2722
--
▪ .'c'itedura Caatrg }4u-c"it>e].lral Ccat^g 0(24'2 D22 :11.18:2[E 20 5: 2:
51 4:
5: 270:
5I 1D:
5: zD
As demonstrated above, in the "OrangethorpePlacentia" model, the paving phase is increased by 300%, from the default value of 10 to 40 days.

As previously mentioned, the CaIEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is:
"Adjusted coating to 20% of building construction" (Appendix A, pp.2, 38, 67).

Regarding construction activities, the IS/MND states:
2 "CaIEEMod User's Guide Version 2020.4.0." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 1, 14. 2 616

"Construction was assumed to require approximately 14 months of construction. Construction phases include demolition (1 month), site preparation (1 week), grading (1 week), building construction (10 months), paving (2 weeks), and architectural coatings (2 months)" (p. 62).

However, the changes to the individual construction phase lengths remain unsubstantiated as the IS/MND fails to provide an adequate source for the individual construction phase lengths. While the IS/MND states the total duration of Project construction to equate to 14 months, the IS/MND fails to substantiate the individual construction phase lengths. As the IS/MND fails to provide an adequate source for the revised construction phase lengths, we cannot verify the changes. Until a proper source is provided, the model should have included proportionately altered individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction durations of 14 months.

The construction schedules included in the model present an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CaIEEMod User's Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).3
Demolition involves removing buildings or structures.

Site Preparation involves clearing vegetation (grubbing and tree/stump removal) and removing stones and other unwanted material or debris prior to grading.

Grading involves the cut and fill of land to ensure that the proper base and slope is created for the foundation.

Building Construction involves the construction of the foundation, structures and buildings.

Architectural Coating involves the application of coatings to both the interior and exterior of buildings or structures, the painting of parking lot or parking garage striping, associated signage and curbs, and the painting of the walls or other components such as stair railings inside parking structures.

Paving involves the laying of concrete or asphalt such as in parking lots, roads, driveways, or sidewalks.

By disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. Until we are able to verify the revised construction schedule, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Reductions to Acres of Grading Values
Review of the CaIEEMod output files demonstrates that "OrangethorpePlacentia" model includes reductions to the default acres of grading values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 3, 37, 69). 3 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 32.
3 617

Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tK,raing •
tt*Gradng •
f
1NGradng • • 'Valera'
Acres xacing
•
4 C
272
272
3,OODI
Aa-esOk3 3dng
•
•
' 53
nFarted
_ al
As previously mentioned, the CaIEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.4 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data" table, the justification provided for this change is:
"Adjusted to lot area" (Appendix A, pp. 2, 38, 67).

Furthermore, the IS/MND states (see excerpt below):
"The Proposed Project would be developed on a 2.72 -acre site" (p. 2) However, this change is incorrect. According to the CaIEEMod User's Guide:
"[T]he dimensions (e.g., length and width) of the grading site have no impact on the calculation, only the total area to be graded. In order to properly grade a piece of land multiple passes with equipment may be required. The acres is based on the equipment list and days in grading or site preparation phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8 -hour workday."5
The default acres of grading values are calculated based on construction equipment and the length of the grading and site preparation phases. Here, the model uses the acres of the Project site as the acres of grading. As the dimensions of the Project site have no impact on the acres of grading value, the revised value is unsubstantiated.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CaIEEMod uses the acres of grading values to estimate the dust emissions associated with grading.' By including incorrect reductions to the default acres of grading values, the model may underestimate the Project's construction -related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project's construction -related emissions, we prepared an updated CaIEEMod model, using the Project -specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our updated model, we proportionately altered the individual construction phase lengths to match the "CaIEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 1, 14.

S "Appendix A — Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: htta:// www.agmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 9. 6 "Appendix A — Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 9. 4 618

proposed construction duration of 14 months and omitted the unsubstantiated changes reductions to acres of grading values.'
Our updated analysis estimates that the volatile organic compound ("VOC") emissions associated with Project construction exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") threshold of 75 pounds per day ("Ibs/day"), as referenced by the IS/MND (p. 51) (see table below).8 SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction
ROG
(Ibs/day)
IS/MND 44.1
SWAPE 160.04
Increase
SCAQMD Threshold
Exceeds?
263%
75 Yes
As demonstrated above, construction -related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, increase by approximately 263% and exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. Our updated modeling demonstrates that the Project may result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the environment.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less -than -significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis ("HRA").Regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND states:
"Table 4 shows that the construction emission rates would not exceed the LSTs for the existing residences in the area surrounding the Proposed Project Site. Impacts would be less than significant" (p. 54).

Furthermore, regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project operations, the IS/MND states:
"As shown in Table 5, the operational emission rates would not exceed the LSTs for sensitive receptors in the Proposed Project area. Therefore, the proposed operational activity would not result in a locally significant air quality impact and impacts would be less than significant" (p. 54).
'See Appendix A for updated CaIEEMod model.
$ "South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds." SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.acmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf . 5 619

As demonstrated above, the IS/MND claims that because emissions associated with Project construction and operations would not exceed the Localized Significance Threshold ("LST"), the Project will result in a less -than -significant health risk impact. However, the IS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less -than -significant impact conclusion, is unreliable for four reasons.

First, the use of a LST analysis to determine the health risk impacts posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of the Project's operational toxic air contaminant ("TAC") emissions is incorrect.

While the LST method assesses the impact of pollutants at a local level, it only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), LST analyses are only applicable to NO„, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, which are collectively referred to as criteria air pollutants.9 Because LST methods can only be applied to criteria air pollutants, they cannot be used to determine whether emissions from TACs, specifically Diesel Particulate Matter ("DPM"), a known human carcinogen, would result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, health impacts during Project operation from exposure to TACs, such as DPM, were not analyzed, leaving a gap in the IS/MND's analysis.

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction HRA, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.10 This is incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project will produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a total construction duration of 14 months (p. 50). However, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the potential Project - generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's construction -related TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health.

Third, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, 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. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.11 Additionally, according to OEHHA:
9 "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology." South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Revised July 2008, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/final-Ist-methodology-document.pdf.
1° "Sierra Club v. County of Fresno." Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceca oortaI.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20CIub%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno. odf. 11 "Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.° df, p. 8-18. 6 620

"Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).'.12 As the Project's anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2 -month and 6 -month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 14 -month construction period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR").13 While the IS/MND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2 -month and 6 -month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30 -year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project -generated DPM emissions.

Fourth, by claiming a less -than -significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the Project's excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.14 In accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted.

Screening -Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening -level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.15 AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("CAPCOA") guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs").16.17 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 should be conducted prior to approval of the Project.
1z "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. 8-18. 13 "Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.3df , p. 2-4. 14 "South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds." SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
15 "Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models," U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air- cuality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models.
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.adf . 17 "Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects." CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf. 7 621

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project's construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND's CaIEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.18 The IS/MND's CaIEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 110 pounds of DPM over the 385 -day construction period.19 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 110.4 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour
Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.001505 g/s
second 385 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00151 grams per second ("g/s").

Subtracting the 385 -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 28.95 years. The IS/MND's operational CaIEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 83 net 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 83 lbs 453.6 grams 1 clay 1 hour
Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.001194 g/s
second 365 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.0011 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 2.72 -acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 148- by 74 -meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of 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 population of Placentia was obtained from U.S. 2021 Census data.20 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single -hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The U.S. EPA suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single -hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.21 According to the IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptor is located 120 feet, or 37 meters, from the Project site (p. 53). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual receptor ("MEIR") is located approximately 75 meters from the Project site. Thus, the 18 "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. 8-18. 'See Attachment A for health risk calculations.
2° "Placentia." U.S. Census Bureau, 2021, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geold/0657526 . 21 "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf. 8 622

single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 4.121 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.4121 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 3.269 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.3269 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the nearest sensitive receptor using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.22 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high -point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors ("ASF") in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early -in -life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates ("BR/BW"), exposure duration ("ED"), age sensitivity factors ("ASF"), fraction of time at home ("FAH"), and exposure frequency ("EF") utilized for the various age groups in our screening -level HRA are as follows:
22 "AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines." SCAQMD, October 2020, available at:
http://www.acmd.gov/docs/default-source/Manning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplemental- g uidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2.
9 623

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Breathing Age Exposure Fraction of Exposure Exposure
Age Group Rate Sensitivity Duration Time at Frequency Time (L/kg-day)23 Factor24 (years) Home25 (days/year)26 (hours/day) 3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1
350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10
2 1
350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3
14 1
350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1
14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. 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, we utilized the following dose algorithm:
where:

BR]Bt/VJ
DOSeAIR,per age group = Cair X EF X L X A X CF
DoseA,R = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (µg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, µg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

ED
Cancer RiskAIR = DOseAIR x CPF x ASF x FAH x AT
23 "Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act." SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.acmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also "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 . 24 "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. 8-5 Table 8.3. 25 "Risk Assessment Procedures." SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: htta:// www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.adf, p. 7. 26 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.adf , p. 5-24. 10 624

where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical -specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 385 -day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), and the first 0.80 years of the infantile (0 — 2) stage of life. The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30 -year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.20- years of the infantile stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 — 16), as well the entire adult (16 — 30 years) stage of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group
Emissions Source Duration (years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester
Construction 0.25

0.4121 1.76E-06
Construction 0.80

0.4121 4.63E-05
Operation 1.20

0.3269 4.45E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total
2 1.01E-04
Child (2 - 16)
Operation 14

0.3269 8.52E-05
Adult (16 - 30)
Operation 14

0.3269 1.31E-05
Lifetime
30 2.04E-04
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 1.76, 101, 85.2 and 13.1 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 204 in one million.

The infant, child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.

Our analysis represents a screening -level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening -level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project -generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
11 625

"EPA's Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to 'strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement' (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening -level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening - level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models." Screening -level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Our screening -level HRA demonstrates that since construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. If the refined analysis similarly concludes that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described below in the "Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions" section.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions of 2,65L2 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year ("MT CO2e/year") (p. 79, Table 9).

Table 9. Estimated Annual Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
Total 0O2e Emissions (MTC02e)
Electricity
355.0
Natural Gas
176.3
Solid Waste
6,9.2
Water Use

94.6 Area Sources

4.5 Mobile Sources
1,944.0
Total Operation

2.63'9.1
Arran &ed ConsthueGorr 5 i ssions

12.1 Total Project Emissions
2651.2
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that Project's GHG emissions which exceeds the Tier 3 screening threshold of 2,520 MT CO2e/year. As such, the proposed Project is compared to the Tier 4 efficient metric threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e/yr/SP (IS/MND, p. 78). The proposed Project does not exceed this threshold, as the Project's estimated emission efficiency is 3.5 MT CO2e/SP/yr. The IS/MND consequently concludes that the Project would result in a less -than -significant impact (IS/MND, p. 78). 12 626

However, the IS/MND's analysis, as well as the subsequent less -than -significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.
(1) The IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model; (2) The IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; and (3) The IS/MND's unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant impact. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,651.2 MT CO2e/year (p. 79, Table 9). However, the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, the IS/MND relies on CaIEEMod Version 2020.4.0 to estimate the Project's air quality emissions and fails to provide the complete output files required to adequately evaluate model's analysis. Furthermore, when reviewing the CaIEEMod output files included in the AQ & GHG Assessment, we were able to identify several model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the models may underestimate the Project's emissions, and the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the environment.
2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,651.2 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the Tier 4 efficient threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e/yr/SP (IS/MND, p. 78). However, the guidance that provided the 4.0 MT CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD's 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as "AB 32", was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.27 Furthermore, AEP guidance states:
"[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone."28
As it is currently January 2023, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright -line threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e/yr/SP is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS/MND's less -than -significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide 27 "Health & Safety Code 38550." California State Legislature, January 2007, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes disolaySection.xhtml?IawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 28 "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 PaDer.pdf, p. 39. 13 627

equivalents per service population per year ("MT CO2e/SP/year"), which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.29
3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the Project's GHG emissions, we compared the Project's GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, to the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year. When applying this threshold, the Project's air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,651.2 MT CO2e/year (p. 79, Table 9). According to CAPCOA's CEQA & Climate Change report, a service population ("SP") is defined as "the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project."30. Furthermore, according to the IS/MND, the Project's service population would be 751 (p. 78).31 When dividing the Project's net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, by an SP of 751 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately

3.5 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).32
IS/MND Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 2,651
Service Population 751
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 3.5
SCAQMD 2035 Threshold 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project's service population efficiency value, as estimated by the IS/MND's provided net annual GHG emission estimates and SP, exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, the IS/MND's less -than -significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated GHG analysis which incorporates additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project's GHG emissions to less -than -significant levels.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project's 29 "Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15." SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 3o CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/u aloads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf.
32 Calculated: (2,651 MT CO2e/year) / (751 service population) = (3.5 MT CO2e/SP/year). 14 628

emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project.

Therefore, to reduce the Project's emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR'sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-AQ-1") and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-GHG-1"), as described below: 33 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures — PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off -road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off -road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained.

I) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes —saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on -site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. 33 "4.0 Mitigation Measures." Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/faeir connectsocal addendum 4 mitigationmeasures.adf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2-4.0-10; 4.0-19-

4.0-23; See also: "Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report." Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir . 15 629

p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine -driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on -road and off -road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD "SOON" funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low -emission heavy- duty engines to achieve near -term reduction of NOx emissions from in -use off -road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- 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.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour -meter reading on installation date.

The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck -staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. 16 630

The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour -meter readings on arrival on -site, the first and last day of every month, and on off -site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title -24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers.

Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count -down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised intersections
vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini -circles
ix. On -street parking
Chicanes/chokers
x.

Create urban non -motorized zones
Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi -unit residential projects Dedicate land for bike trails
Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
Require residential area parking permit.

Provide ride -sharing programs
i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride -sharing vehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement.

Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures — PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off -site measures to mitigate a project's emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
17 631

i. Use energy and fuel -efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter -colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike -share and car -share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit -active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash -out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end -of -trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car -sharing, bike sharing, and ride -sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride - matching services;
iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single -occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on -site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
18 632

vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non -auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride -sharing vehicles or high -occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed -use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on -site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.

I) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement preferential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

As it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end -use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize that the energy mix that will charge the batteries and power electrical equipment must be 100% 19 633

renewable energy resources. Until the feasibility of charging the batteries with renewable energy resources only is evaluated, the Project should not be approved.

An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

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 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.
1 112A
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Updated Construction Schedule Calculations Attachment B: SWAPE's CaIEEMod Output Files
Attachment C: Updated Health Risk Calculations
Attachment D: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment E: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment F: Paul Rosenfeld CV
20 634

Attachment A
Construction Schedule Calculations
Default Phase Construction
Phase Length Duration
%
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Demolition
20 343

0.0583
385
22 Site Preparation
2 343

0.0058
385
2 Grading
4 343

0.0117
385
4 Construction
200
343

0.5831
385
224
Paving
10 343

0.0292
385
11 Architectural Coating
10 343

0.0292
385
11 Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date
End Date
Total Days
10/29/2021
10/7/2022
343
10/29/2021
11/18/2022
385
635

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/3/2024 4:22 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Annual
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied OrangethorpePlacentia -
Orange County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics
Attachment B

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Government Office Building • 6.42 a 1000sgft ; 0.15 6,416.00 i 0 Z T ' 1
Enclosed Parking Structure • 151.90 1000sgft ; 0.51 151,900.00 f 0 Recreational Swimming Pool • 1.22 T 1000sgft ; 0.03 1,217.00 i 0 Apartments Low Rise • 260.00 i Dwelling Unit 1.18 260,000.00 744 •F E
Strip Mall • 3.00 1000sgft 0.07 3,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban
Climate Zone 8
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2 Intensity 390.98
(Ib/MWhr)
Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2
CH4 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data

0.033
Precipitation Freq (Days) 30
Operational Year 2023
N2O Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Land Use - Consistent with IS/MND's model
Construction Phase - See comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Inidividual Construction Phase Lengths".

Off -road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

0.004
636

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 2 of 35 ends

Placentia City CouncilSeptember 3, 2024

Placentia City Council
September 3, 2024